Students Protest Rejection of Christian Books on Homosexuality

[Vicious]

So, let me make sure I have this correct.....

It is your belief that the teaching of Morals and Values has no place in the Public School System.

Am I correct in that?

You're an amoral **** if you want to say some 17 year old kid that is homosexual is going to hell because of his sexuality. So you can go burn in the fire yourself.

[Vicious]

i hereby double dog dare vicious to go head up w/ techboy here. :munchout:

With pleasure.

[Slateman]

How is there a whole booksworth on the Christian view on being gay? Seriously, WTF

[Vicious]

How is there a whole booksworth on the Christian view on being gay? Seriously, WTF

I would say "A" Christian's view on being gay. Not "The" Christian view. I have a feeling that is why there is an entire book on it.

[techboy]

Why should I read the bible when I've already read Sargon and Gilgamesh.

Right... Why should you actually read the text you're misusing for cheap rhetorical points?

P.S. You're several decades behind current cholarship, which has abandoned "parallelism" as a valid theory when it comes to the Bible texts. I'd suggest if you want to discuss these issues that you read something more current than Freud and more scholarly than the West Wing.

P.P.S. Even ignoring the bankruptcy of the "stole it from Gilgamesh" argument, the parts I am referring to that the old saw ignores are in the New Testament. Sorry.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Why do I feel like Vicious and Desioreo are digging their own graves? Regardless, here's my take on all of this...

I have little doubt that the books that were rejected by the librarians had a religious slant to them. I also strongly question the assertion that there is a lot of genuinely pro-gay content in the current library catalog. In fact, it would seem to me that any material with homosexuality as a theme is often automatically dubbed pro-gay (unless, of course, someone is being crucified) when this may not necessarily be the case. The same can be said about books with biblical themes as well.

If these folks had a genuine interest in their viewpoint being represented in the school library they could probably work something out. For example, you could try and find a book that takes a neutral standpoint on the history and/or controversy surrounding homosexuality, presenting multiple viewpoints without selecting any one of them as canon. I'm inclined to believe, however, that this was just protest for the sake of protest particularly on the part of Focus on the Family.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

It would be nice if society and schools could lend a hand towards teaching our kids morals and values. I think a big problem is that everyone has different morals and values. You (as a teacher, general sense) could do a lot towards teaching kids proper morals and values. The problem comes in when the students go home and tell their parents how their teachers instructed them.

Actually the problem you're referring to comes from the fact that we have given up on the idea that some things are Wrong on a Universal level. Regardless of what an individual may believe these things are not appropriate under any circumstance.

Example:

Little johnny asks his teacher about homosexuality. His teacher says that homosexuality is wrong and those that practice this will go to hell. Little johnny goes home and tells his parents that and his parents become irate because that is not what they believe. Little Johnny's parents then go to the school and complain to the teacher and the teacher runs the risk of being fired.

See in my world there's a different ending to that scenario. It has to do with the child and their siblings being removed from the custody of those parents and placed with a family better prepared to raise children on a permanent basis, or at least until their natural parents get their heads on straight.

I was actually having a discussion last night with a friend of mine who has been teaching for 30 years. She mentioned how some of her students just love her, sometimes to the point of being annoying. It dawned on me that she (and all teachers for that matter) could make a huge impact on certain students lives. They could leave with them lasting impressions that stick with them for the rest of their lives. I suppose that is obvious and that's the major draw of becoming a teacher in the first place.

The problem is... What if you try and leave a lasting impression or teach kids morals and values that conflict with their parents morals and values? I know parents can be very touchy when it comes to these kinds of things.

See, in my mind the concept of Universal Morals and Values comes into play. I truly believe (it's been discussed before) that there are Morals and Values that go well beyond any particular religion or society. People believe in them (or should) simply because basic common sense and reason says they are right.

It would be nice if society could come together and help our kids learning what is right and wrong. It's a dicey situation if you ask me though because their are so many shades of gray.

That's where we'll disagree. I don't believe in gray. I believe it's been introduced into our society in the last fifty years as a way to allow people to continue with activities and beliefs which are known to be wrong.

You're an amoral **** if you want to say some 17 year old kid that is homosexual is going to hell because of his sexuality.

In your world I'm an immoral **** for many reasons, and this one isn't even in the top ten. Trust me on that.

[Zguy28]

Does anybody know if there are copies of the Bible, Torah, Koran, Veda's etc. in the school libraries?

[Zguy28]

You're an amoral **** if you want to say some 17 year old kid that is homosexual is going to hell because of his sexuality. So you can go burn in the fire yourself.

Mass ain't even a Christian.

[desioreo87]

The christian view on homosexuality is hate speech, no matter how much you wanna dress it up with nice words.

The fact is, no correct me if im wrong Techboy or whoever else, the Christian view says if you are a homosexual....you are going to hell.

That is about the worst thing you could tell someone.

It doesn't belong in a place with extremely fragile and developing psyches.

I do not care that Christians ahve their beliefs, i care that they are worried so much with projecting and imposing their beliefs on others.

People need to keep to themselves with their beliefs. I do not need someone telling me how to live my life. I learned that through my own family.

[techboy]

The fact is, no correct me if im wrong Techboy or whoever else, the Christian view says if you are a homosexual....you are going to hell.

Okay... You're wrong.

The Christian view of homosexual behavior is that it is a sin, no better or worse than any other sexual sin (like pre-marital sex). Like any sin, it is enough to seperate a person from God, but also like any sin, it can be forgiven through Jesus' sacrifice.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV)

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And(H) such were some of you. But(I) you were washed,(J) you were sanctified,(K) you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

[Destino]

The christian view on homosexuality is hate speech, no matter how much you wanna dress it up with nice words.

The fact is, no correct me if im wrong Techboy or whoever else, the Christian view says if you are a homosexual....you are going to hell.

That is about the worst thing you could tell someone.

Christianity isn't as simple as "you're going to hell" and homosexuality is but one of the pitfalls that could result in damnation. I find it incredibly annoying that christianity has allowed itself to be so hopelessly warped by modern political stances on homosexuality and abortion.

Not helping those in need will send you straight to hell. Should we stop preaching that because it makes rugged individuals feel insulted? No. The homosexual lifestyle conflicts with the viewpoint that sex unrestrained leads to suffering the wages of sin. That's the problem and frankly we aren't even touching that question and I won't support the destruction of that valid argument because people get their feelings hurt.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass ain't even a Christian.

You're correct, I'm not. That's part of why I reject the idea of Morality as a solely religious concept.

[Larry]

You're correct, I'm not. That's part of why I reject the idea of Morality as a solely religious concept.

Actually, as near as I can tell from the folks in Tailgate who are the most frequent trumpeters of "Morality", it seems that:

"Morality" equals "my opinion" plus "I'm better than you".

(Sometimes there's a dose of "and my side has more people in it", too.)

But, that's just my opinion.

[Springfield]

You're correct, I'm not. That's part of why I reject the idea of Morality as a solely religious concept.

That is somewhere that we agree.

(Although I'm sure we could argue all day about what is moral and what is immoral.)

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Actually, as near as I can tell from the folks in Tailgate who are the most frequent trumpeters of "Morality", it seems that:

"Morality" equals "my opinion" plus "I'm better than you".

(Sometimes there's a dose of "and my side has more people in it", too.)

But, that's just my opinion.

Actually I'd suggest that at least in my case you've got the Cause and the Effect reversed. I can stand fast in my beliefe BECAUSE I know that I'm Right and therefore better than those who choose not to agree with me.

That is somewhere that we agree.

That's nice to see. All too often people assume that morality is directly tied to religion.

[Springfield]

Actually the problem you're referring to comes from the fact that we have given up on the idea that some things are Wrong on a Universal level. Regardless of what an individual may believe these things are not appropriate under any circumstance.

I haven't given up personally on things that I believe to be wrong on a universal level. I can't include homosexuality in that though. I may think it's gross. It may not be my prerogative. But if a man (or woman) does not find an interest in women (or men) then I won't damn them to a life of celibacy just because their sexual views aren't the same as mine.

See in my world there's a different ending to that scenario. It has to do with the child and their siblings being removed from the custody of those parents and placed with a family better prepared to raise children on a permanent basis, or at least until their natural parents get their heads on straight.

Personally, I think that we as a society are way to quick to jump to the conclusion that parents are unfit. I think that you will find that you are not alone in your assessment though. Not that children shouldn't be removed from their parents under any circumstances but it should come as a last resort.

See, in my mind the concept of Universal Morals and Values comes into play. I truly believe (it's been discussed before) that there are Morals and Values that go well beyond any particular religion or society. People believe in them (or should) simply because basic common sense and reason says they are right.

I agree with you completely here.

That's where we'll disagree. I don't believe in gray. I believe it's been introduced into our society in the last fifty years as a way to allow people to continue with activities and beliefs which are known to be wrong.

I see where you are going here. I would submit though that in the last 50 years we have had some very tough topics to come to terms with as a society. Particularly when it comes to government (lawmaking especially), there has been a big shift to push "moral" laws. Laws that people introduce because they think something is wrong.

The problem that I see with that though, is that unless you get your morals and values from a higher power (which neither of us do) than there can be no ultimate right. Man is naturally fallible, and I think that neither you nor I would suggest theocratic law.

[Vicious]

Right... Why should you actually read the text you're misusing for cheap rhetorical points?

You mean like most people that use the bible to shun something, right?

P.S. You're several decades behind current cholarship, which has abandoned "parallelism" as a valid theory when it comes to the Bible texts. I'd suggest if you want to discuss these issues that you read something more current than Freud and more scholarly than the West Wing.

Gilgamesh and Sargon predate the old testament.

Yeah, no parallels with the weighing of the heart in front of Osiris. :doh:

Yahweh did not become a god for all people until after the Babylonian captivity.

Ahriman and the Daevas?

It's just not new ideas. There's nothing wrong with religion but to start hammering someone for being gay in the year 2008 because of what the Bible says is ridiculous.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I haven't given up personally on things that I believe to be wrong on a universal level. I can't include homosexuality in that though. I may think it's gross. It may not be my prerogative. But if a man (or woman) does not find an interest in women (or men) then I won't damn them to a life of celibacy just because their sexual views aren't the same as mine.

See, I do include homosexuality in that. Then again I'm not totally in favor of ANY sexual act that cannot produce a child, so there's a lot of stuff going on between men and women that I'm not totally comfortable with either, so I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to what sexual acts I believe to be appropriate.

Personally, I think that we as a society are way to quick to jump to the conclusion that parents are unfit. I think that you will find that you are not alone in your assessment though. Not that children shouldn't be removed from their parents under any circumstances but it should come as a last resort.

I think it's just the other way around. I think that we allow way too many people who are totally unfit to be parents to have kids willy-nilly. I truly believe that there should be a licensing process for people to prove they have the mental, emotional, moral, and financial resources to properly raise a child before they're allowed to have one.

Think about it this way..... I HATE little kids. I would be a terrible father on so many levels it isn't funny. Yet, other than not being able to find a woman interested in marrying me, there's nothing stopping me from having a half dozen kids. THAT should scare everyone who reads it.

I see where you are going here. I would submit though that in the last 50 years we have had some very tough topics to come to terms with as a society. Particularly when it comes to government (lawmaking especially), there has been a big shift to push "moral" laws. Laws that people introduce because they think something is wrong.

Yes we have had some very tough choices to make. Sometimes we've made the right choices (the minority rights movements) and in others (sexual relativism and gender issues) we've gone in totally the wrong direction.

The problem that I see with that though, is that unless you get your morals and values from a higher power (which neither of us do) than there can be no ultimate right. Man is naturally fallible, and I think that neither you nor I would suggest theocratic law.

I will disagree. I see the concept of Universal Morality as we discussed earlier as being a the Ultimate Right and Wrong. Man is naturally fallible. I just think he needs to be punished much more when he does so. I agree that the concept of laws based SOLELY on theology is a bad idea, but I do believe there are a number of things we could use to take from Sharia law and introduce into the American system.

[Springfield]

See, I do include homosexuality in that. Then again I'm not totally in favor of ANY sexual act that cannot produce a child, so there's a lot of stuff going on between men and women that I'm not totally comfortable with either, so I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to what sexual acts I believe to be appropriate.

Well we do indeed differ there. Not much else to argue other than we have differing opinions. That could go on all night and my compassion towards homosexuals is not strong enough to make a giant argument out of it.

I think it's just the other way around. I think that we allow way too many people who are totally unfit to be parents to have kids willy-nilly. I truly believe that there should be a licensing process for people to prove they have the mental, emotional, moral, and financial resources to properly raise a child before they're allowed to have one.

Think about it this way..... I HATE little kids. I would be a terrible father on so many levels it isn't funny. Yet, other than not being able to find a woman interested in marrying me, there's nothing stopping me from having a half dozen kids. THAT should scare everyone who reads it.

Honestly, from your posts through the months that I've read. You have a good head on your shoulders and you'd probably make a good father. Other than your natural hatred of kids of course. You could make a good role model for a youngster though.

I do agree that their are too many couples becoming unfit parents. That is one of the reasons I am for abortion, although my view is a bit hesitant. I am admittedly a pessimist, and I don't think that their are enough eligible couples out there to parent all of the children who would otherwise be aborted if we banned abortion.

That said. I think I'd make a great father and if my girlfriend got pregnant I think we would both choose to keep the kid. It wouldn't be the best situation (for us), but we would love this child and raise it with dignity. You might say I'd live with my mistake but I don't think I would consider something like that a mistake at all.

Yes we have had some very tough choices to make. Sometimes we've made the right choices (the minority rights movements) and in others (sexual relativism and gender issues) we've gone in totally the wrong direction.

Well I think that quote right there illustrates the "shades of gray" that I refer to.

I will disagree. I see the concept of Universal Morality as we discussed earlier as being a the Ultimate Right and Wrong. Man is naturally fallible. I just think he needs to be punished much more when he does so. I agree that the concept of laws based SOLELY on theology is a bad idea, but I do believe there are a number of things we could use to take from Sharia law and introduce into the American system.

Now in that statement you do say "Man is naturally fallible". I take that to mean that man's thoughts and ideas are certainly fallible. This means that you could certainly be wrong, I could certainly be wrong. Neither of us believe in god which means our views as far as morals and values are shaped by our lifetime experiences. I don't see how either of us could know the "ultimate morality".

Lastly, I don't know what Sharia law is. Perhaps I'll wikipedia that now.

[techboy]

You mean like most people that use the bible to shun something, right?

So now you have lowered yourself to the level of fundamentalist whackos like Fred Phelps... Okay, but I'd personally prefer to maintain a higher standard.

Gilgamesh and Sargon predate the old testament.

Well, maybe. The Sargon legend, for instance, is notoriously difficult to date, and I've seen it put at anywhere from around 2000 B.C. to around 600 B.C., while Exodus is either 1400 B.C. or 600 B.C., depending on whether one accepts an early or late date.

Thus, it is at least possible for Exodus to have predated the Sargon legend.

Still, it's actually irrelevant to my point, as I will expand upon below.

Yeah, no parallels with the weighing of the heart in front of Osiris. :doh:

Yahweh did not become a god for all people until after the Babylonian captivity.

Ahriman and the Daevas?

It's just not new ideas.

Look, the theory that Genesis is a rip-off of Mesopotamian sources is a common one in the dark depths of the internet, and addressed in detail here with carefully detailed source citation. I'd just like to quote this:

This allegation -- that the the bible authors appropriated large (or 'controlling') amounts of material from Mesopotamian sources -- comes up with surprising frequency in the popular exchanges of the chat-argument rooms, apparently. This is surprising, since this position hasn't been the 'consensus' position of mainstream Assyriologist scholars in the field--regardless of 'confessional stance!--for over thirty years.

Emphasis mine. Anyway, it turns out that the one area that most scholars do agree that borrowing took place is, in fact, the stories of the floods in the Bible and the Epic of Gilgamesh (and you didn't even bring up the floods ) This is dealt with in detail here.

However, what is often implied by this is that this borrowing is literary. It turns out that this is not what the scholars in the field mean at all. If I might quote one of my source's quotes:

“The derivative nature of the Biblical Flood narrative or rather the existence of an antecedent Mesopotamian tradition for the early forms of the Biblical story is undeniable. However, the extent to which the later narrative is derived from the earlier tradition remains uncertain. A direct form of literary influence cannot be asserted, as the distinctive features of the respective narratives are too plentiful to allow such an affirmation. All one can say is that the Biblical accounts must have been influenced by the Mesopotamian oral tradition or by a pre-existing series of such orally transmitted traditions.” [HI:IF, 4]

Emphasis mine.

If I might quote Miller (my source), since I'm basically just piggybacking his work:

Now, what is interesting about this assumption of dependence is that it is never asserted to be literary dependence—all scholars agree that the differences in detail and content between Genesis and Mesopotamian precursors are just way too determinative against it. Even while assuming/asserting dependence, authors are quick to point out that this is NOT literary dependence

and

In other words, the further apart the details in two accounts are, the less likely there is ANY literary dependence. And, since we only know about 'traditions' from actual 'texts' ('traditions' being the 'shared elements' or sometimes, 'family resemblances', between a multiplicity of disparate, but commonly-themed, texts), the further apart the details the specific text (the 'alleged borrower') are from the 'shared elements' of divergent-but-shared-theme texts, the less likely there is ANY tradition dependence. This only leaves two options: independent tradition about the same event(s); or independent events altogether.

The article I linked then goes on to demonstrate how the Genesis story could not have borrowed from the Sumerian story, leaving us with the reasonable conclusion that we have two independent accounts of the same event. The Flood. It's far too much to link, but I'll cite a sort of summary (found, oddly enough, in the middle):

The bottom 'borrowing' line is this:

The most probable 'entry point' into Hebrew thought life is via the 3rd millennium interactions between the Patriarchs and Babylonian culture, but there are (a) no flood traditions in OB GE at this point; and ( there is no evidence of non-flood influence of OB GE on ANYTHING in Hebrew literature.

The next most probable entry point into the Hebrews is through Moses in the libraries of Egypt, but there is no evidence GE was known there, the timeframe is STILL in that 'no flood story version' period, and there is STILL no evidence of it in Moses' lit. [Note: we do know that cuneiform was known by the Egyptian scribes, from the Amarna archives of the 14th century. This archive was mostly letters between nations and city-states of the day, but there is a small cache of Akkadian literary texts, most notably the stories of Adapa and of Nergal and Ereskigal. But there are no flood stories in these either.]

The next possibility is when Israel enters the land and starts interacting with the locals, but by this time cuneiform is not a live force there. It is too late for the newly-created-in-Babylonia “Standard Version” of GE to impact the Land. The original language is 'dead' and the newly created 'classical version' is essentially confined to legacy scholars in Assyria/Babylonia.

The final possibility is during the interaction exchanges under Solomon. His alliances with all the nations around him COULD have opened the door to access (via a translator, though) to the cuneiform SB version, but the kingdoms of Assyria/Babylonia at that time had essentially no contacts southward (they were fighting major challenges form nomadic tribes at the time): “Both kingdoms were in decline for most of the [10th] century, Assyria beginning to recover from about 925, and neither had contacts so far to the west and south because they were harassed by Aramean tribes moving east from the Euphrates.” [OT:AS, 47]. Solomon had explicit links with Egypt and theoretically could have gotten a copy from Egypt, I suppose, but once again, we have no evidence whatsoever that Egypt had a copy [the previous copy in Megiddo did not have a flood tradition], nor that they had translated it from cuneiform to hieroglyphic, nor that the relationship between Egypt and Assyria/Babylonia at the time was conducive to such a thing. Of course, no OTHER aspects of any GE document shows up in Solomonic area literature either.

So, there are decidedly difficult challenges to believing that the SB GE version (with the flood) could have influenced Hebrew literature to begin with.

I think that the Sumerian story is actually a point in favor for the Bible, an external verification, if you will.

And then, I see that you have decided to bring the New Testament into this, by mentioning Osiris, implying that the judgement of the New Testament is ripped off.

Jesus is also a popular target for "parallelism" on Mr. Internet, and here you're really on shaky ground. The ones I hear most commonly are Mithras and Horus, so let's look at those. Then we'll cover Osiris and others, and then parallelism in general.

And now we're to the internet myths about Mithras. Just a preface here... most of this stuff floating around the internet is based on work by Francis Cumont (or nobody at all), and has been since discarded by more modern research, which has determined that most of the parallels are bogus, and where they do exist, generally they would have to be the other way around (Mithraism borrowing from Christianity) due to the dating. The following quotes are from an interview Lee Strobel does with Dr. Edwin Yamuachi, a foremost expert in this field, who among his extensive qualifications, was a participant at the Second Mythraic Mysteries Congress in Tehran in 1975. Quotes are from Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus. All quote Dr. Yamauchi directly.

Here's what happened at the Congress:

The Congress produced two volumes of papers. A scholar named Richard Gordon from England and others concluded that Cumont's theory was not supported by the evidence and, in fact, Cumont's interpretations have now been analyzed and rejected on all major points. Contrary to what Cumont believed. even though Mithras was a Persian god who was attested to as early as the fourteenth century B.C., we have almost no evidence of Mithraism in the sense of a mystery religion in the West until very late-too late to have influenced the beginnings of Christianity. (page 168)

More quotes from Dr. Yamauchi on the problems with the idea that Mithraism influenced Christianity:

The first public recognition of Mithras in Rome was the state visit of Tiridates, the king of Armenia, in AD 66.. It's said that he addressed Nero by saying, 'And I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras.' There is also a reference earlier to some pirates in Cilicia who were worshipers of Mithras, but, this is NOT the same as Mithraism as a mystery religion. (page 169)

Mithraism as a mystery religion cannot be attested before anout AD 90, which is about the time we seee a Mithraic motif in a poem by Statius. No mithraea [or Mithraic temples] have been found at Pompeii, which was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. The earliest Mithraic inscription in the West is a statue of a prefect under the emperor Trajan in AD 101. It's now in the British Museum. (page 169)

The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated to AD 140. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. That's basically what's wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity (page 169)

Gordon dates the estanblishment of the Mithraic mysteries to the reign of Hadrian, which was AD 117-138, or Antoninus Pius, which would be from 138 to 161. (page 169)

Specifically, Gordon said, 'It is therefore reasonable to argue that Western Mithraism did not exist until the mid-second century, at least in a developed sense (page 169)

Editor's note: Dr. Gordon is a senior fellow at the University of East Anglia.

Further, most of the parallels aren't even true! For example, Mithras was not born of a virgin. He sprang out of solid rock! Dr. Yamauchi again:

He [Mithras] was born out of a rock. Yes, the rock birth is commonly depicted in Mithraic beliefs. Mithras emerges fully grown and naked except for a Phrygian cap, and he's holding a dagger and torch. In some variations, flames shoot out from the rock, or he's holding a globe in his hands. (page 171)

Also, Mithras wasn't ressurected (more on the uniqueness of this story later, by the way, and not just about Mithras). Actually, there's no record of Mithras dying at all!

We don't know anything about the death of Mithras. We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no supposed references to a death and resurrection. Indeed, Richard Gordon declared in his book "Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World" that there is "no death of Mithras"-and thus, there cannot be a resurrection. (page 172)

The December 25 parallel is often claimed, but the Christian church didn't adopt that date until the 4th century, so that's not a parallel with the Bible either.

I'll stop the detail here, because I have a lot to still cover, but I think that's sufficient to demonstrate that there is absolutely no evidence that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, and if anything, Mithraism may well have borrowed from Christianity!

Now, though, I'd like to bump up a level, and talk about how and why scholars have rejected the notion that there is any pagan mythological "copycat" influence on the Christian story (hopefully, this will also put to rest whatever "parallels" I skipped).

The following is from T.N.D. Mettinger's book, The Riddle of Ressurection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East.

First, Mettinger's assessment of the current state of scholarship, from Chapter 1.2.1: Where Do We Stand? The Task of the Present Work (This quote is from page 40):

As a result of the many decades of research since de Vaux (1933), "it has become commonplace to assume that the category of Mediterranean 'dying and rising' gods has been exploded... (I)t is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or ressurection." These words of J.Z. Smith aptly summarise the present state of research. (56)

Mettinger spends a lot of time in this chapter discussing this: the current consensus of scholars is that there are no "dying and rising" gods that predate Christ, and that, in fact, many of the references came after Christ, and are in fact more likely either cases of pagans borrowing from Christians, and not the other way around, or, as in the case of the Church moving Jesus' birthday to Dec. 25, an attempt by early Christians to attract followers of various pagan beliefs.

Now, I want to be totally fair here: although Mettinger shows the current state of scholarship, he then goes on to say that he is one of the few that disagree, and the book is an attempt to make his case that there are in fact a few "dying and rising" gods that pre-date Christianity. He makes a fairly good argument, too, for the gods Melqart, Adonis, Osiris, and Dumuzi. Most scholars disagree with him, but it's a fair argument. Note please, that nowhere in this list is Mithras, by the way.

Before the "Christ mythers" declare victory, though, along with the fact that he is in the extreme minority on this issue, there is also this quote from page 221, in the Epilogue (the bold emphasis is mine, the italics are his):

(1)The figures we have studied are deities. In the case of Jesus, we are confronted with a human (for whom divinity was claimed by himself and by his followers). For the disciples and for Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time, historical event that took place at one specific point in the earth's topography. The empty tomb was seen as a historical datum. (4)

(2) The dying and rising gods were closely related to the seasonal cycle. Their death and return were seen as reflected in the changes of plant life. The death and ressurection of Jesus is a one-time event, not repeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes.

(3) The death of Jesus is presented in the sources as vicarious suffering, as an act of atonement for sins. The myth of Dumuzi has an arrangement with bilocation and substitution, but there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins.

There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.

So, to sum up:

1) The vast majority of scholars reject the idea of pre-Christian "dying and rising gods" at all.

2) Mettinger, who while in the minority, makes a pretty good case that there are a few, also firmly concludes that there is no evidence that the Jewish Jesus was a myth based on other stories. Jesus is unique.

The point about Jesus' essential Judaism is key to the current scholarly rejection of the myth hypothesis. As Dr. William Lane Craig writes in Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus:

Now from D. F. Strauss through Rudolf Bultmann the role of myth in the shaping of the gospels was a question of lively debate in New Testament scholarship. But with the advent of the so–called "Third Quest" of the historical Jesus and what one author has called "the Jewish reclamation of Jesus,"{1} that is, the rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus, scholars have come to appreciate that the proper context for understanding Jesus and the gospels is first–century Palestinian Judaism, not pagan mythology. A most informative article on the demise of myth as a useful interpretive category for the gospels is Craig Evans's "Life–of–Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," in which he chronicles and accounts for the "major shift" away from mythology as a relevant factor in gospel interpretation.{2}

Given that Jesus and the gospels find their natural home in first century, Palestinian Judaism, recourse to pagan mythology to explain them has become otiose. Hence, we find James Dunn, called upon to write the article on "Myth" for the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, questioning even the need for such an entry in the dictionary: "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels…The fact that 'myth' even appears here as a subject related to the study of Jesus and the Gospels can be attributed almost entirely to the use of the term by two NT scholars"–Strauss and Bultmann.{3} In lamenting that most commentators have no "knowledge of–or at least, they certainly ignore–the tools that modern anthropology has provided for the analysis of myths and myth construction," Fales tacitly recognizes that his views in gospel interpretation would be rejected by the vast majority of NT critics (and not, therefore, simply by "fundamentalists!"). What he does not appreciate is that the construal of the gospels in terms of myth has been tried and found wanting by NT scholarship.

(Editor's note: I had to look it up. "Otiose" means useless. )

Further, there just isn't enough time between the events and the writings for the kind of legendary development necessary for a myth-based story.

From Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Dr. William Lane Craig:

First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.

Ultimately, though, I think the biggest stumbling block to the idea that the stories of Jesus were "borrowed" from anywhere is that it is a historical fact that the disciples and early Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus.

Consider this passage from Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying, by Dr. Gary Habermas. Keep in mind that this is a survey of critical scholars.

I like to quote this section:

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

Please keep in mind that Dr. Ehrman is not a Christian. He is a skeptic.

Not only is it an historical certainty (insofar that we can be certain of anything, historically) that Jesus existed, it is also an historical fact that the earliest Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus, which makes the myth theory ridiculous on its face.

It doesn't matter how many apparent parallels there are, if the early Christians were reporting what they thought actualy happened.

There was a thread a while back talking about all the "eerie similarities" between Kennedy and Lincoln. Did anyone come away with the conclusion that Kennedy must have been a myth, based on the stories of Lincoln?

No? That's why the community of scholars has roundly rejected parallelism. No "wholesale cribbing" here.

There's nothing wrong with religion but to start hammering someone for being gay in the year 2008 because of what the Bible says is ridiculous.

Well, I agree that one should not hammer people for being gay (or for anything, really), but I'm going to have to disagree with you that trusting the Bible is ridiculous.

If anything is ridiculous, it's ignoring what the Bible has to say because of washed-up, discredited, 19th century theories.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Honestly, from your posts through the months that I've read. You have a good head on your shoulders and you'd probably make a good father. Other than your natural hatred of kids of course. You could make a good role model for a youngster though.

I have no patience, a serious temper problem, and a willingness to resort to violence as a first option. Not a good trio of personality traits for a parent. I am hoping to make a decent uncle (first nephew born a couple months ago) but as a father I'd stink to high hell.

I do agree that their are too many couples becoming unfit parents. That is one of the reasons I am for abortion, although my view is a bit hesitant. I am admittedly a pessimist, and I don't think that their are enough eligible couples out there to parent all of the children who would otherwise be aborted if we banned abortion.

See, that's where I believe we need to start reinforcing the immorality of casual, pre-marital sex. THAT's the answer to the problem, not abortion, in my mind.

Well I think that quote right there illustrates the "shades of gray" that I refer to.

I can understand why you would say that. You look at humanity as a single population. I don't and never have. Men are different than women; Americans are different than foreigners; heterosexuals are different than homosexuals; etc..... There is not one homagenious group in my mind. Therefore the idea of treating each group differently is not a shade of gray. It's a matter of the Black v. White of each group.

Now in that statement you do say "Man is naturally fallible". I take that to mean that man's thoughts and ideas are certainly fallible. This means that you could certainly be wrong, I could certainly be wrong. Neither of us believe in god which means our views as far as morals and values are shaped by our lifetime experiences. I don't see how either of us could know the "ultimate morality".

Individuals are fallible. The concepts of Universal Morality are not so far as I'm concerned.

Lastly, I don't know what Sharia law is. Perhaps I'll wikipedia that now.

Islamic Law, as practiced many places in the Middle East.

[Springfield]

I have no patience, a serious temper problem, and a willingness to resort to violence as a first option. Not a good trio of personality traits for a parent. I am hoping to make a decent uncle (first nephew born a couple months ago) but as a father I'd stink to high hell.

Well, at least you admit your potential poor parenting traits. That is a lot better than many fathers in the world. However, as a father, somebody who had those traits would probably be a very good disciplinarian. I would also point out that you have some good personality traits for a parent as well. You're somebody who feels strongly about what you believe in, is incredibly knowledgeable and believes in a high moral standard.

All that said, I wouldn't try and talk somebody into becoming a parent if they do not want it.

See, that's where I believe we need to start reinforcing the immorality of casual, pre-marital sex. THAT's the answer to the problem, not abortion, in my mind.

Well you are right. I can't give up my pre-marital sex though. Sorry.

I can understand why you would say that. You look at humanity as a single population. I don't and never have. Men are different than women; Americans are different than foreigners; heterosexuals are different than homosexuals; etc..... There is not one homagenious group in my mind. Therefore the idea of treating each group differently is not a shade of gray. It's a matter of the Black v. White of each group.

Well I don't necessarily believe that humanity is all equal. We should be and that would be nice, but we live in the real world. Americans, no matter what color are blessed/lucky when compared to other countries citizens. It goes beyond that though... Whites in America are usually better off than blacks. Rich in America are usually better off than poor.

It would be nice if everyone were equal. The plain and simple truth is that equality will never happen. I would like equality myself, but I am not hopeful.

So In a sense, you are right. I do hope that we could all be equal. But I do realize that we are all very, very different and that will probably never ever change.

Individuals are fallible. The concepts of Universal Morality are not so far as I'm concerned.

Seeing as how neither of us believe in god, who created the concepts of Universal Morality?

Islamic Law, as practiced many places in the Middle East.

Indeed. As I'm learning, there are a few qualities that are very similar to common law and the American system. It does have differences though.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Well you are right. I can't give up my pre-marital sex though. Sorry.

I wouldn't expect that you could. Mostly because you, like me and most of the others around these days grew up in a society where pre-marital sex was an accepted activity. It may have been frowned upon but there were no legal or societal punishments for those who chose to engage in the activity.

These ideals will not change overnight. It will take time to put the societal roadblocks back in place; but I believe it needs to be done if this society is ever going to get back on track.

It would be nice if everyone were equal. The plain and simple truth is that equality will never happen. I would like equality myself, but I am not hopeful.

So In a sense, you are right. I do hope that we could all be equal. But I do realize that we are all very, very different and that will probably never ever change.

The thing is, people never really are equal, Springfield. We like to pretend that people are, but in reality it's not true; nor do I believe that we were ever really intended to be. I don't believe that men and women were intended to be equals of each other. I don't believe that individuals who are willing to put the effort in to improve their lives are intended to be the equal of those who simply look for handouts. I don't believe that those who were chosen to be born into proper societies (like the US could and should be) are intended to be the equals of those who were not. Just my :2cents:

Seeing as how neither of us believe in god, who created the concepts of Universal Morality?

Never said I don't believe in God(s). I just said that I'm not Christian. Big difference there.

As for the Universal concepts, I believe they've always existed and are beyond the ability of humanity to change, no matter how much we choose to ignore them.

Indeed. As I'm learning, there are a few qualities that are very similar to common law and the American system. It does have differences though.

It has significant differences, and I believe we need to embrace SOME of those differences and use them to help turn our society around.

[Vicious]

So now you have lowered yourself to the level of fundamentalist whackos like Fred Phelps... Okay, but I'd personally prefer to maintain a higher standard.

How you get that from

You mean like most people that use the bible to shun something, right?

Is nonsense. I'm right.

Well, maybe. The Sargon legend, for instance, is notoriously difficult to date, and I've seen it put at anywhere from around 2000 B.C. to around 600 B.C., while Exodus is either 1400 B.C. or 600 B.C., depending on whether one accepts an early or late date.

Thus, it is at least possible for Exodus to have predated the Sargon legend.

Moses was Egyptian and you know it. The legend of Sargon was used to explain him into being jewish. Argue it all you want, influences of the past and surrounding and preexisting cultures are prevalent in the Bible. As they are with many other religions.

Look, the theory that Genesis is a rip-off of Mesopotamian sources is a common one in the dark depths of the internet

Yeah dude.. It comes from the internet..

I know you've read both the bible and the epic of Gilgamesh. If you don't want to see the similarities that even what you cite say are there, that is your problem.

You claim I learned what I've learned from the internet, I haven't. You on the other hand seem to be all too pleased to find sources that protect your text as something original. Influence of the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Zoroastrianism.. All of these things exist in the Bible. It's only a debate to people that don't want to accept the way humans in that time created religions and religious texts. It is as plain as day, you are only fooling yourself. To me it does not take away from Christianity, to you it seems to me that you're willing to sacrifice logic with faith. That's not new either when it comes to religion.

edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7651231.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27023066/

The faithful.