Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior

History records many dying-and-rising saviors. Examples from the Ancient Near East that preceded the Jesus story include Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Attis, and Baal. Here is a brief introduction.

Tammuz was the Sumerian god of food and vegetation and dates from c. 2000 BCE. His death was celebrated every spring. One version of the story has him living in the underworld for six months each year, alternating with his sister.

Osirus was killed by his brother Set and cut into many pieces and scattered. His wife Isis gathered the pieces together, and he was reincarnated as the Egyptian god of the underworld and judge of the dead. He was worshipped well before 2000 BCE.

Dionysus (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology) was the Greek god of wine and dates to the 1200s BCE. The son of Zeus and a mortal woman, Dionysus was killed and then brought back to life.

Adonis (from 600 BCE) is a Greek god who was killed and then returned to life by Zeus.

Attis (from 1200 BCE) is a vegetation god from central Asia Minor, brought back to life by his lover Cybele.

In Canaanite religion, Baal (Baʿal) was part of a cycle of life and death. Baal and Mot are sons of the supreme god El (yes, one of the names of the Jewish god). When El favored the death god Mot over Baal, the heat of the summer took over and Baal died. He was resurrected when his sister-wife killed Mot.

All these gods:

  • came from regions that were close enough to the crossroads of Israel (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Asia Minor) for the ideas to have plausibly made it there,
  • were worshipped well before the time of Jesus, and
  • were of the dying-and-rising sort.

This is strong evidence either that the gospel writers knew of (and could have been influenced by) resurrecting god stories from other cultures or that these stories influenced the Jesus story when it was told from person to person.

Is it possible that Judea at this time was a backwater, and the people were unaware of the ideas from the wider world? That seems unlikely. The book of 2 Maccabees, written in c. 124 BCE, laments at how Hellenized the country was becoming. It says that the new high priest installed by Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes “at once shifted his countrymen over to the Greek way of life.” He “introduced new customs contrary to the Law” and “induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat.” The book complains about “an extreme of Hellenization and increase in the adoption of foreign ways” and the youth “putting the highest value upon Greek forms of prestige.”

In fact, the gospels themselves report that the idea of dying and rising again was a familiar concept. Jesus in the early days of his ministry was thought to be a risen prophet.

King Herod heard of [the ministry of Jesus], for His name had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen!” (Mark 6:14–16)

One Christian website does a thorough job attacking poorly evidenced parallels between Jesus and these prior gods. For example, was Dionysus really born to a virgin on December 25? Did Mithras really have 12 disciples? Was Krishna’s birth heralded by a star in the east? The author offers $1000 to anyone who can prove that any of these gods’ lists of parallels are actually true.

I’ll agree that there are strained parallels. One early work that has been criticized for too many claims and too little evidence is The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves (1875). The recent “Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ” by Acharya S also seems to be reaching, in my opinion.

I don’t have the expertise to weigh in on these many issues, so let’s grant the complaints and dismiss the many unsupportable specific parallels. What’s left is what really matters: that the Jesus story arose in a culture suffused with the idea of dying and rising saviors.

Apologists raise other objections.

Many of these gods actually came after Jesus. That’s why the list above only includes dying-and-rising gods who are well known to have preceded Jesus. There are many more such gods—Mithras, Horus, Krishna, Persephone, and others—that don’t seem to fit as well. In fact, Wikipedia lists life-death-rebirth deities from twenty religions worldwide, but I’ve tried to list above the six most relevant examples.

But Jesus really existed! He’s a figure from history, unlike those other gods. Strip away any supernatural claims from the story of Alexander the Great, and you’ve still got cities throughout Asia named Alexandria and coins with Alexander’s likeness. Strip away any supernatural claims from the Caesar Augustus story, and you’re still left with the Caesar Augustus from history (and a month in our calendar named after him). But strip away the supernatural claims from the Jesus story, and you’re left with a fairly ordinary rabbi. The Jesus story is nothing but the supernatural elements.

Most of those gods were used to explain the cycles of the seasons. Jesus isn’t like them. Yes, Christianity is different from all the other religions, but so is every other religion. If Christianity weren’t different from one of the earlier religions, it would just be that religion.

In another post I explore the Dionysus myth more fully to show the parallels with the Jesus story. That post also notes how Justin Martyr (100–165 CE) not only admitted to the similarities but argued that the devil put them in history to fool us.

Okay, they’re all myths, but the Jesus story is true myth. This was the approach of C.S. Lewis, who said, “The story of Christ is simply a true myth; a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference, that it really happened, and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s Myth where the others are men’s myths.”

So you admit that the Jesus story indeed has many characteristics of mythology but demand that I just trust you that it’s true? Sorry, I need more evidence than that.

And the throw-in-the-towel argument:

Just because Christianity developed in a culture that knew of other resurrecting gods doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t the real thing. Granted. But “you haven’t proven the gospel story false” isn’t much of an argument. Those who seek the truth know that proof is impossible and try instead to find where the evidence points.

And here’s where the evidence doesn’t point: that humans worldwide invent dying-and-rising saviors … except in the Jesus case, ’cause that one was real!

I found that God never began to hear
my prayer for liberty until I began to run.
Then you ought to have seen
the dust rise behind me

in answer to prayer.
— Frederick Douglass

(This is a modified version of a post originally published 4/15/12.)

Photo credit: Wikipedia

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Lycan

    There is one problem with all this. The first line says.

    “History records many dying-and-rising saviors.”

    However as fall as I can tell none of these tammuz, osiris, dionysus,adonis, attis, and baal are not Saviors. So the very premise of this argument is false.

    God bless everyone.

    • Pofarmer

      Pedantry, the sure sign of a strong argument.

      • Lycan

        That’s not a minor detail. It would be like me making a list of “great warriors” and then not naming any actual great warriors in the list.

        I mean the title of the article is called “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

        Yet he names no other saviors in the list. That would be like me making a list names “Ernie Davis one of many football players who died young.” and then not mentioning any other football players who died young but instead mentioning basketball players in the list.

        That’s not a minor issue it’s supposed to be the point of the article and somehow the actual list has nothing to do with the supposed point.

        • Pofarmer
        • Lycan

          Have you read some of these supposed comparisons? Some of them are a clear result of the author trying to make one appear like the other.

          “Hera tries to kill Heracles as an infant by sending two serpents after him, yet Heracles survives by strangling them. This parallels Herod’s slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:13-16).”

          No it doesn’t. Two serpents being sent at a boy does not even compare to the massive slaughter of every child 2 and under.

          I’m going borrow someone else’s comment since his or her answer I think is just as good or better than an answer I could have come up with.

          “SirThinkALot

          4 years ago

          #4

          Most of these alleged similarities are WAY too broad/vauge to be meaningful…

          And some are just plain made up. For example Horus and Romulous were NOT virgin born. Horus was the son of Isis and Osiris(some versions of the tale say Osiris was dead when he was concieved, but Isis still….yea). Romulous’ mother was raped by Mars.

          Also, in the case of Krishna and Zoroaster, while worship of them pre-dates Jesus, most of the legends identified in this article dont appear until after Christianity reached their respective areas….

          Oh and the December 25 date is meaningless in reference to Jesus, as the Bible never identifies this as his birthdate and in fact implies that it was in the spring.

          Read my blog: http://sirthinkalotsthoughts.blogspot.com/
          PSN name: SirThinkALot”

          So the list itself really doesn’t show anything and is filled with made up facts and comparisons that really don’t compare.

        • Greg G.

          But the theme of a powerful entity trying to kill a baby is still there. The theme is common. It would be either the exact same story or there will be variations. Even the Terminator movies follow the theme where the machines go back in time to prevent the birth of their future enemy.

          We see same theme in the story of Moses as a baby. I think Matthew used Josephus’ account of the Moses story to form the nativity story.

          In Matthew 1:18-25, there is a dream and a pregnant wife like the dream of Amram, Moses father, in Antiquities of the Jews 2.9.3. This dream is not told in the Exodus account.

          Matthew 2:1-18 follows AJ 2.9.2 with Jesus in place of Moses. The Exodus 2 account says the killing of the babies was fear of the number of the Jews while Josephus and Matthew give a fear induced by prophecy as the motivation for the killing. The wise men and foreknowledge likely come from AJ 17.2.4. Matthew 2:19-22, Joseph has another AJ 2.9.4 dream about Archelaus replacing Herod, which can be found in AJ 17.11.4.

          The Exodus author wrote on the theme of the powerful killing babies. Josephus altered it, perhaps he knew the story well enough and had some embellishments so that he didn’t need to read Exodus. Matthew altered the Josephus and added some OT quotes.

          It seems that there are a limited number of themes that interest humans and storytellers revisit them often.

        • Lycan

          “But the theme of a powerful entity trying to kill a baby is still there.”

          However that’s a terrible comparison it would be like saying that Martin Luther Kings killer borrowed the idea from JFK’s kill since both were shot with guns. It’s too broad of a comparison.

        • MNb

          No, it isn’t. It’s like saying that neither MLK’s killer nor JFK’s one is unique. Which seems entirely correct to me.

        • Lycan

          Wrong because it’s comparing two very different ways to kill someone and trying to pawn them off as similar. It would be like me writing a story where a prince avoids death by two great bears. Then 50 years later claiming that someone copied my story when they had a king avoid death during a slaughter by a fifty foot troll. Any judge would immediately throw that out because even though both situation involve someone of royalty avoiding death the situations are clearly not even remotely similar.

        • MNb

          Killing: one person deliberately causing the death of another. Exactly what happened to both MLK and JFK. So neither event is unique. The fact that two different methods were used (though there are similarities here as well; both were shot) doesn’t change that.

          I don’t know who borrowed the story from whom. I never made any such claim and am not interested. So this “50 years later claiming that someone copied my story” is irrelevant. What I maintain is that Jesus is not unique – not anymore than any other messias claimant nor any other dying and rising character. Your comment does nothing to contradict this.

          “Any judge would immediately throw that out”
          No judge will throw anything out because we’re not in courtroom and matters like these are not settled by legal trials. Judges don’t have any authority on the content of science, philosophy and religion. You’re not very good at straightforward thinking, are you? You are very fond of authorities.

          Plus I suspect that judges would be interested in the similarities of your two examples indeed, because precedent. But I’m not a lawyer.

        • Lycan

          “Plus I suspect that judges would be interested in the similarities of your two examples indeed, because precedent. But I’m not a lawyer.”

          Actually it still would be thrown out because the comparisons are too broad. It’s happened before with harry potter the chamber of secrets and despite many similarities and evidence that the author of harry potter the chamber of secrets had access to another book (Willy the Wizard) the court still threw it out.

          So if these cases were brought before a court (Which they have in the past, such as in the Monkey trial). The comparisons would most likely be considered too broad.

        • MNb

          Good job addressing the least relevant point and neglecting the rest.
          Jesus is not unique.

        • SansDeus

          I’ll just paste what I already replied to you with in another thread:

          Did you look any of them up?

          Tammuz
          Tammuz was mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14 (predates Jesus)
          http://www.britannica.com/topic/Tammuz-Mesopotamian-god

          the myth ends with Inanna decreeing that Tammuz and his sister may alternate in the netherworld, each spending half of the year among the living.

          His own name, Dumu-zid, and two variant designations for him, Ama-ga (Mother Milk) and U-lu-lu (Multiplier of Pasture), suggest that he actually was the power for everything that a shepherd might wish for: grass to come up in the desert, healthy lambs to be born, and milk to be plentiful in the mother animals.

          Sounds like a savior to me.
          http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tammuz.html
          Also claiming Tammuz dies for half the year and is resurrected for the other half.

          Osiris
          http://www.egyptianmyths.net/osiris.htm

          At this time the Egyptians were barbarous cannibals and uncivilized. Osiris saw this and was greatly disturbed. Therefore, he went out among the people and taught them what to eat, the art of agriculture, how to worship the gods, and gave them laws. Thoth helped him in many ways by inventing the arts and sciences and giving names to things. Osiris was Egypt’s greatest king who ruled through kindness and persuasion.

          She magically re-assembled Osiris and resurrected him long enough to be impregnated by him so that she could give birth to the new king Horus.

          Sounds like a resurrected savior to me.

          Dionysus
          http://www.greekmythology.com/Other_Gods/Dionysus/dionysus.html

          Hera, still jealous of Zeus’ infidelity and the fact that Dionysus was alive, arranged for the Titans to kill him. The Titans ripped him to pieces; however, Rhea brought him back to life

          Dionysus was also one of the very few characters able to bring a dead person back from the underworld.

          Maybe not a “savior”, but died and came back, reborn/resurrected whatever. The point being that the concept wasn’t new when the Jesus myth came around.

          Adonis
          http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Adonis

          The name Adonis derives from Semitic origin and is a variation of the Phoenician Adon meaning “Lord.” The theonym Adonis also bears striking resemblance to Adonai, one of the names used to refer to Yahweh, the singular God of the ancient Israelites.

          Despite his natural human mortality, it is said that Adonis was resurrected by Zeus following his earthly death. Thus, the concepts of death and resurrection are tied to the myth of Adonis, which foreshadowed the central role of resurrection in the religion of Christianity.

          Referred to as Lord and resurrected.

          Baal
          http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html

          The cult of Baal celebrated annually his death and resurrection as a part of the Canaanite fertility rituals.

          The ordinary people ardently worshipped this sun god too because their prosperity depended on the productivity of their crops and livestock.

          Wasn’t the nicest god when you read the entire thing and is also referenced in the bible several times (as also being Beelzebub). But the story still predates Jesus with resurrection. And if you provide food so people can survive, then maybe you can be counted as a savior.

        • Lycan

          Okay none of these even sound remotely close to being saviors. None of them focused on saving anyone in any of these stories.

          suggest that he actually was the power for everything that a shepherd might wish for: grass to come up in the desert, healthy lambs to be born, and milk to be plentiful in the mother animals.

          Sounds like a savior to me.”

          How does that sound like a savior? Where does it mention him saving anything?

          “She magically re-assembled Osiris and resurrected him long enough to be impregnated by him so that she could give birth to the new king Horus.

          Sounds like a resurrected savior to me.”

          She reassembles him so she can have sex with him and be impregnated? What does any part of that show him even remotely as a savior?

          “Rhea brought him back to life…
          Dionysus was also one of the very few characters able to bring a dead person back from the underworld.”

          Not even close.

          Also these stories are so different that saying that Christianity copied them is like saying that baseball copied football and then using reasons like “Oh they both involve running and balls.” These comparisons aren’t just being stretched their being bent over backwards then broken apart and reassembled and they still don’t remotely look similar to story of Jesus in the gospels.

          Also none of those for myths mention that the main character set out to save anything.

        • SansDeus

          1. a person who saves, rescues, or delivers: the savior of the country.
          2. (cap.) a title of God, esp. of Jesus.

          “Title of a god” – Since most of these figures are considered to be “gods” they meet that definition alone.

          If you have starving people who can’t provide for themselves and someone comes along to feed them. Yeah.. You can call them a savior. You’re saving the lives of people who would have otherwise died of starvation.

          She reassembles him so she can have sex with him and be impregnated? What does any part of that show him even remotely as a savior?

          That’s the resurrection part. You skipped the entire part of Osiris bringing agriculture and laws to a lawless civilization of cannibals. Actions worthy of being called savior.

          If Dionysus can bring someone back to life from the underworld. Yeah, that makes them a savior.

          Also these stories are so different that saying that Christianity copied them is like saying that baseball copied football and then using reasons like “Oh they both involve running and balls.” These comparisons aren’t just being stretched their being bent over backwards then broken apart and reassembled and they still don’t remotely look similar to story of Jesus in the gospels.

          I get it, you really, really want Christianity to be correct and unique and the first of it’s kind.

          The whole point is, it’s not the first story of someone being resurrected. The concept goes way further back, especially among god like figures. The comparison is more along the lines of Cricket and Baseball. They both have bats and balls but are played differently. Even in your example they both keep score, involve many players, and they’re still sports. It’s not comparing anything out of line.

          You’re looking for an exact match and are unwilling to even recognize that older religions contain similarities to your own.

          If you’re being picky about the term savior, I would consider Norman Borlaug more of a savior than any of the myths covered. His contributions to genetic research, specifically in the cultivation of high-yield, drought resistant plants have been estimated to have saved over a billion people, not in a spiritual intangible sense, but literally entire populations of people. Oh and unlike all of the other mythical figures, there’s evidence to his existence and contributions. Look him up. If you act quickly maybe you can become the first Normanite.

        • Greg G.

          It is not like the idea of resurrection of the dead would have been foreign to first century Jews:

          Elijah resurrected the son of the widow of Zarephath
          1 Kings 17:17-24

          Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman
          2 Kings 4:35

          Dead Elisha resurrects a dead man in a grave
          2 Kings 13:21

          Ezekiel resurrects a multitude from bones
          Ezekiel 37

        • Lycan

          “”Title of a god” – Since most of these figures are considered to be “gods” they meet that definition alone.”

          Actually the second definition doesn’t say it is a title of a god but a title of God. Referring to the one and only God. So none of the others meet the criteria based on that definition.

          “The whole point is, it’s not the first story of someone being resurrected. The concept goes way further back, especially among god like figures. The comparison is more along the lines of Cricket and Baseball. They both have bats and balls but are played differently. Even in your example they both keep score, involve many players, and they’re still sports. It’s not comparing anything out of line.”

          Yes but that doesn’t mean that in my example that one copied the other. Also baseball and cricket have a lot more similarities that most of the myths mentioned in the list have with Christ. You were just able to mention much more comparisons with baseball and football than Any of the myths listed have with Christ.

        • MNb

          “Actually the second definition doesn’t say it is a title of a god but a title of God.”
          Same difference.

          “Referring to the one and only God.”
          Many jews, christians and muslims worship a different one and only God. The God you believe in is just another abrahamistic god.

        • Lycan

          It’s actually our perception of God that varies however God Himself never changes.

        • MNb

          “God Himself never changes.”
          That’s nothing but your variable perception.
          Immanuel Kant won’t save you.

        • Lycan

          No it clearly says that in the Bible more than once. God never changes.

          So as I said it is our perception of who God is that differs among Christians sometimes. It’s like how two people may think differently on a event. The event itself didn’t change it is simply peoples’ perception on the event that differs.

        • MNb

          I don’t care what the Bible says. It doesn’t have any authority. “God Himself never changes” remains nothing but your variable perception, no matter how often you deny it. You perceive a never changing god – with your brains. It doesn’t follow that god never changes indeed.

          “The event itself didn’t change”
          That is and remains only your perception. Immanuel Kant won’t save you, no matter how often you repeat this.
          Plus it’s a false analogy. The event you’re talking about is material. Your god isn’t. Quite a crucial difference.

        • Lycan

          And you’re getting this information from where? If you aren’t getting it from the Bible then I’m curious as to where you are getting you’re information.

        • MNb

          Information about god? From you of course – and from all the other believers.
          Plus I do derive information from the Bible. What I reject is “the Bible says this hence it’s true”. Again: the Bible doesn’t have any authority.

        • Lycan

          “Again: the Bible doesn’t have any authority.”

          What are you basing this on?

        • MNb

          It’s a book written by ignorants, who had no idea what was beyond their small world and worse: were not interested in what was beyond their small world. So you get gems like Hebrews 1:10 ” the foundation of the earth”, which is a totally meaningless phrase. The contemporary Greeks had already known this for a few centuries.
          The morals are badly outdated. 1 Peter 1: “ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”. Many christians revel in the Sermon of the Mount, but that one als sucks.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/05/fisking-the-sermon-on-the-mount/

          The climax of course is Revelation. So many christians say it’s a difficult book to understand. It isn’t as soon as you realize that it’s the product of an overheated fantasy.
          That’s the long answer.

          The short answer: I’m not a christian and hence see no reason why the Bible is special.

        • Lycan

          “The morals are badly outdated. 1 Peter 1: “ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”. Many christians revel in the Sermon of the Mount, but that one als sucks.”

          1 Peter 3:1 “3 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;”

          Peter claims that the wives can win over their husbands if their husbands don’t believe the word. The ending actually shows that husbands listen to their wives which is strange at that time since the wife should have based on the culture at the time be seen and not heard.

          “The short answer: I’m not a christian and hence see no reason why the Bible is special.”

          So you admit that it is based on your perspective.

        • MNb

          “Peter claims that the wives can win over their husbands if their husbands don’t believe the word.”
          Yeah. Typically Petrus doesn’t claim that the husbands can do the same. Apparently he didn’t think it necessary to do so. That’s exactly why it’s badly outdated.

          “So you admit that it is based on your perspective.”
          Of course. Thanks to science and smart people writing about ethics my perspective is less unreliable that that of the authors of the Bible though. And I sincerely hope that in 4000 CE my views will be as badly outdated as the Bible is now.
          That’s called intellectual progress. Clinging to the Bible is called stagnation. It isn’t a coincidence that many christians rather long for an imaginary past iso trying to improve things here and now. Christians who do the latter (there are many of them as well; I know several personally) typically don’t cling to the Bible.

        • Lycan

          ” Christians who do the latter (there are many of them as well; I know several personally) typically don’t cling to the Bible.”

          There are many of us who do.

        • MNb

          Yes – christians like you cling to badly outdated morals.

        • Lycan

          Oh right because todays morals are so much better. That’s why there are more slaves now than there ever have been in human history, or why there are so many unwanted pregnancies, and so many families falling apart.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You could see this several ways. There are more Christians now than ever before … and yet there are more slaves, too. Looks like Yahweh doesn’t much care.

          Or you could take the opposite approach: per capita, there have never been fewer slaves.

          You don’t care about unwanted pregnancies. If you did, you’d be advocating for thorough sex education in public schools plus easy access to contraceptives to minimize unwanted pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          Actually the only real way to ensure you won’t get pregnant is abstinence. Condoms are only about 97% effective and no birth control method is completely safe. (I know about four women I believe that got pregnant while their tubes were tied. )

          Also if your going to go by capita then there are probably fewer Christians then their have been in the past since there are more people on earth than there probably ever have been. About 1 billion Christians out of 7 billion people means only about 14% of the worlds people are Christians. So if you want to by capita then that probably is a much lower percentage than there was when there were much fewer people on earth.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Right. Abstinence as a imagined condition works great. Abstinence as a policy works terrible. We know–we’ve tried.

          Christianity is at about 31% of the world population and holding steady. I suspect that’s way up from, say, 1000 years ago. Looks like lots of Christians doesn’t bring divine help. In fact, this all looks like a world with no god at all.

          http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/04/PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsOverview_projectedChange640px.png

        • Lycan

          What are they basign this prediction on.

          “Right. Abstinence as a imagined condition works great. Abstinence as a policy works terrible. We know–we’ve tried.”

          What are you basing that on? I’m 26 and I’ve been abstinent and I know of many other people who have claimed abstinence as well. Abstinence is the only guarantee. All other forms of birth control have flaws and a chance of not working.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re sitting at the adults table. Act like it.

          If one is actually not having sex, yes, I agree that there will be no pregnancies as a result. To actually walk the walk, on the other hand, is very difficult. If abstinence works for you, that’s fine. The problem is when you pretend that teaching that to teens will actually keep them from screwing.

          As I said before, we’ve tried it. You know the maps of red and blue states? The red states tend to be the ones that teach naive policies like abstinence only. And the red states tend to be the ones with far higher teen pregnancies.

          Any questions?

        • Lycan

          Also strangely enough statistics seem to show that the UK in 2002 had the highest use of contraceptives and yet they also have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates.

          “To actually walk the walk, on the other hand, is very difficult. If abstinence works for you, that’s fine. The problem is when you pretend that teaching that to teens will actually keep them from screwing.”

          Just because something is difficult is no excuse. Life’s not about doing just what’s easy. Anyway my school taught both contraceptives and abstinence. You can’t blame cake because people are fat.

          Also you should check out this chart.

          Source: http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Just because something is difficult is no excuse.

          Translation: Just because something doesn’t work is no reason to discard it.

          Uh, yes it is. We’ve tried abstinence-only education. It doesn’t work.

          Do you care about abortion or not? I doubt it.

          Here’s how you can cut U.S. abortions in half in 5 years: teach whatever sex education curriculum has been shown to work best and make contraceptives easy to get.

          I presume your problem is that you don’t like more teens fucking. That doesn’t bother me, but if it bothers you, console yourself that that would be the way to reduce abortions.

          If you truly can’t anticipate what I’ll say about that page’s claim, “The most effective way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence,” try to remember what I’ve already been over.

        • Lycan

          Did you completely ignore the chart that shows that 18 of 100 people are likely to get pregnant while using a male condom but only 8 out of 100 while practicing abstinence.

          Here’s the statistics on it:Uh, yes it is:http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

          Also in regards to abortion. If one get’s pregnant simply don’t abort the baby. There are many more options than that.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s not what the chart says. It says that abstinence is perfect. And, of course, it is–provided you actually use it. And therein lies the problem.

          Search with terms like, “red blue states teen pregnancy” and you’ll find charts like the one below.

          If one get’s pregnant simply don’t abort the baby. There are many more options than that.

          Homework: look up the stats for the percentage of births to unmarried U.S. women that end up in an adoption.

          http://sites.stedwards.edu/psyc230701-group3/files/2012/11/state-info-mapA_626px-1pqzra3.jpg

        • Lycan

          “Homework: look up the stats for the percentage of births to unmarried U.S. women that end up in an adoption.”

          2% but that’s the women’s fault. Don’t do the crime (5-10 minutes) if you can’t do the time (The rest of your life with a child).

          Also your map more so seems to show that southern cultured states tend to have more teen pregnancy.

          Yeah you were right about the chart with the abstinence. Sorry about that.

          However male condoms (Which I believe is the most commonly used form of contraceptives) seems to result in more unwanted pregnancies (18 out of 100) than many think. I mean 18 out of 100 people in the US would still most likely result in a high teen pregnancy rate. I never said in this conversation that we shouldn’t teach sex ed. I just think that people need to also be taught that abstinence can work. And as the chart shows it is the only completely effective way to avoid STD’s and unwanted pregnancies.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Don’t do the crime (5-10 minutes) if you can’t do the time (The rest of your life with a child).

          You’re so naïve, I’m wondering if you’re a Poe. Where’s the hidden camera?

          Apply that thinking to car accidents, and I’ll at least see you as not hypocritical.

          Also your map more so seems to show that southern cultured states tend to have more teen pregnancy.

          Conservative sex ed policies lead to bad results. Where’s the difficulty?

          However male condoms (Which I believe is the most commonly used form of contraceptives) seems to result in more unwanted pregnancies (18 out of 100) than many think.

          So you’re agitating for better sex ed and convenient access to the best contraceptives? Good for you!

          I never said in this conversation that we shouldn’t teach sex ed.

          Once again, not the topic. We’re talking about the best sex ed, regardless of any conservative or religious toes we step on. You want the best for America’s children, I hope.

          I just think that people need to also be taught that abstinence can work.

          Cuz that pleases you or because that is part of the best sex ed program?

          And as the chart shows it is the only completely effective way to avoid STD’s and unwanted pregnancies.

          Yeah, I get it. Not shooting guns makes them perfectly safe. Problem is, that advice doesn’t seem to actually be resulting in zero people getting shot. Can you believe it?

        • Lycan

          “car accidents”

          Um not the same thing. I think you meant driving. Because the accident itself relates more to the pregnancy itself, not the sex. So would you walk through a mine field if you didn’t have to?

          “Once again, not the topic. We’re talking about the best sex ed, regardless of any conservative or religious toes we step on. You want the best for America’s children, I hope.”

          The best sex ed would be to teach children that none of the contraceptives out there are 100% safe. (In fact many of them have a much higher rate of failing than I think most people know) and that abstinence is the only truly safe way. Like I said my school taught both. They also had multiple sex workshops.

          “Yeah, I get it. Not shooting guns makes them perfectly safe. Problem is, that advice doesn’t seem to actually be resulting in zero people getting shot. Can you believe it?”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So would you walk through a mine field if you didn’t have to?

          Nope. No upside.

          How about you? You thinking of driving again? There are accidents, y’know.

          The best sex ed would be to teach children that none of the contraceptives out there are 100% safe. (In fact many of them have a much higher rate of failing than I think most people know) and that abstinence is the only truly safe way.

          Here’s an idea: let’s leave the specifics to the experts, OK?

          There’s a black box called “the best sex ed,” vetted by the scientific consensus. Doesn’t much matter what’s in it—whatever it is, it’s the route to minimize unwanted pregnancy. Are you game? Do you want to apply this program to America’s public schools?

        • Lycan

          “Nope. No upside.”

          Doesn’t matter, the whole point was that just because there is a risk doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do something. The point I was making with the minefield was that there are certain risk in our lives that we admit we wouldn’t take. So the argument that it’s dumb not to have sex because there is a risk doesn’t make sense since there are many other risk in our lives that we purposely avoid because we deem them not worth the risk.

        • MNb

          “I’m 26 and I’ve been abstinent ”
          You are not representative for the rest of the world. The statistics I provided you don’t lie.
          You just don’t want to know – just like those christians who didn’t want to look through Galilei’s telescope.

        • Lycan

          You’re right but the statistics show that countries like Switzerland and Denmark which have really high percentage of people claiming to be Christians have some of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates.

        • Ron

          “Actually the only real way to ensure you won’t get pregnant is abstinence.”~Lycan

          Sure, and the only real way to ensure you won’t:

          – die in a car accident is to stop driving and avoid all roadways;
          – die in a plane crash is to stay out of airplanes;
          – slip in the bathtub is to avoid bathtubs;
          – fall from heights is to avoid heights.

          Or you can mitigate the risks while enjoying the benefits of engaging in these activities.

        • Lycan

          The chances of getting pregnant while using contraceptives is surprising higher than the any of those things.

          http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

          There’s a chart at the end of this link.

          http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          … which avoids the issue (I’m seeing a trend with you).

          Yes, we all agree that driving a car isn’t identical to having sex. We’re talking about the downsides of either. You accept the downsides of car driving (and are happy to have society help make accident victims whole) but have an unrealistic attitude toward the downsides of sex.

          If you must take this inconsistent approach to please your god, that’s fine, just don’t try to impose that on the rest of society.

        • Lycan

          Yet would you walk through a minefield if you didn’t think you had too? The whole point actually is that you measure what risk. Is 5-10 minutes of pleasure really worth the chances of having to take care of a child for the rest of your life?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Would you walk through a minefield if you didn’t have to? Then why get in that car, my friend?”

          Helpful logic, thanks.

          Is 5-10 minutes of pleasure really worth the chances of having to take care of a child for the rest of your life?

          What planet are you from? Most everybody, teenagers in particular, like to fuck. I mean, sometimes they’re really, really drawn to it. It’s programmed in them. Your “but it’s only 5-10 minutes of pleasure” is laughably naive.

        • Lycan

          Not really. Talk to almost any teen who’s gotten pregnant and they’ll tell you the amount of pleasure they got out of the sex wasn’t worth it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m sure that’s true. Doesn’t help illuminate the issue, however.

        • Lycan

          Actually it does, since the true issue is how sex is taken so casually nowadays that it hides the true risk and possible consequences behind the act itself. I mean the media in a large part shows sex as being no big deal but fails to mention most of the time the consequences that could result from 5-10 minutes of sex.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Sex is fun; people are drawn to sex. To say, “Hey, this isn’t a big deal! Just don’t have sex!” is like saying, “Don’t complain to me that you got in a car accident–you knew the risks. Next time, avoid cars!”

          In hindsight, the pregnant girl might indeed think that the results were hardly outweighed by the benefits. As would the person in the car accident.

        • Lycan

          “Nearly two-thirds of teens that have had sexual intercourse say they regret it and wish they had waited, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. ”

          Source: http://connectwithkids.com/boy/

          Seems more like social pressures draw teenagers to sex as opposed to the actual sex itself.

        • Ron

          Indeed! But I think it still supports my point regarding the mitigation of risks. The reduction in traffic fatalities, for example, is attributable to advanced safety features (seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc.) and improved driver training. Flight safety has improved for similar reasons. And the evidence shows that the risks of pregnancy can also be mitigated through better education regarding the use of contraceptives.

          It should also be noted that the efficacy of an abstinence only policy drops precipitously once the will power to remain celibate erodes; which occurs rather frequently, according to this report.

        • Greg G.

          The more one thinks about not having sex, the more one thinks about having sex.

        • Lycan

          Actually with abstinence according to statistics, condoms result in more pregnancies than people failing when deciding to be celibate.

          Source:http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html#

        • Lycan

          By the way welcome to the conversation.

        • MNb

          Ah, christian apologists and hard facts never go together well.

          “That’s why there are more slaves now than there ever have been in human history.”
          I’m pretty sure even the christians in the country where I live, Suriname, will think you silly.

          “why there are so many unwanted pregnancies”
          The amount of unwanted pregnancies in secular countries like Denmark and The Netherlands are significantly lower than in highly religious states like Louisiana, ie those that cling to your badly outdated morals.

          http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2012/2012-3663-wm.htm

          In case you can’t read diagrams either: about 5 per 1000.

          http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/05/report_teen_pregnancy_down_in.html

          That’s 30 per 1000 – ie 6 times as high. Most important factor: religiosity. Your religiosity.

        • Lycan

          “The amount of unwanted pregnancies in secular countries like Denmark and The Netherlands are significantly lower than in highly religious states like Louisiana, ie those that cling to your badly outdated morals.”

          Technically you can’t compare countries to states in that sense. Also we were talking about morals not what people do.

          Morals or principles are different what people. You can’t blame good morals because people that should be following them don’t. If no sex was had before marraige there would be much fewer unwanted pregnancies.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          We’re comparing two societies. What’s wrong with comparing Denmark with Louisiana?

          As for morals, Christianity correlates with far worse unwanted pregnancies. Do you draw no conclusions from that?

        • Lycan

          “As for morals, Christianity correlates with far worse unwanted pregnancies. Do you draw no conclusions from that?”

          I’m not sure what you mean by that. With the comparison I was talking about numbers. The comparison is done more fairly if you’re comparing the rate based on capita and not simply numbers alone.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, obviously you compare per capita numbers so that the different population sizes aren’t a problem.

          And … ?

        • Lycan

          That’s the point you can’t compare based on just numbers (Which the article you linked to me seems to have.) Because per capita I don’t believe the United States is the #1 in God believing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Here’s the chart. It’s low tech–notice the U in the top-left corner. The US is the most religious of the countries in the study. Find the full study here.

        • Lycan

          Yeah but the US is also pretty high up there on sexual education in schools.

          Also I actually never said I was against sexual education in schools. I’ve known where babies come from since I was 5.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m talking about best-practices, most-effective sex education plus easy access to contraceptives. Is that what you want, too?

        • Lycan

          The US has all those. Condoms are pretty cheap in the US. Also I believe most if not all the public schools teach sex education. Yet the US and the UK (another country where contraceptives are used a lot) have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world. All I am saying is that the statistics don’t seem to support the argument that knowledge and access to contraceptives results in lower teen pregnancy rates.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Stay on the fucking topic. I’ll try one more time: do you want the best-practices, most-effective sex education taught in U.S. public schools? Do you want easy access to contraceptives nationwide?

          If no, then don’t tell me you have any interest in lowering abortion rates.

        • Lycan

          You stay on topic. The US has all those things you said (sex ed taught in most schools, easy access to many contraceptives) and yet they have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates. So explain how a country that in general is pushing all you just said has one of the highest rates and I’ll answer your question.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I guess those questions are too uncomfortable to answer so you’ve got to advance different questions.

          They seemed pretty straightforward to me, but OK.

        • Lycan

          If you have noticed I have answered your question. You seem to keep ignoring the statement. All the things you have asked in the question in general US has and yet their teen pregnancy rates are still one of the highest out of all the other countries.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You answered the questions? Then it’s my bad for being too stupid to understand them. So (for my benefit), let’s try again: Do you want the best-practices, most-effective sex education taught in U.S. public schools? Do you want easy access to contraceptives nationwide?

          No essays, please, just yes or no.

        • Lycan

          Yes. However as I have said the US already has easy access to contraceptives, and sex education taught in most public schools (twelve times as much). This doesn’t seem to be leading to a lower teen pregnancy rate.

          Also research shows that some abistence only programs have positive short term and long term effects.

          “Denny and Young (2006) recently analyzed “Sex Can Wait,” an abstinence-only sex education program. The 5-week program contains upper elementary, middle school, and high school components. Compared to controls, students showed many positive short-term and long-term benefits. An increase in sexual knowledge was displayed by all elementary and high schoolers, both elementary and middle school students reported less participation in sexual intercourse during the previous month, and high schoolers showed a greater intent to remain abstinent than the control group.”

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And yet the elephant in the room remains the fact that high teen pregnancy correlates with abstinence-only education in public schools.

        • Lycan

          Actually the state with the least teen pregnancies has.

          “New Hampshire, on the other hand, requires comprehensive sex education in schools that includes abstinence and information about condoms and contraception.”

          Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/04/10/461402/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And that is relevant to your boner for abstinence-only sex ed how? Or are you just changing the subject?

        • Lycan

          When did I ever say I supported abstinent only sex ed programs?

          Also it shows that the best sex ed programs teach that abstinent is the only truly safe way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That your position is squishy should alert you that your position needs to be made solid and consistent.

          For this conversation, I’m assuming (based on what you’ve said) that you and I care about nothing but the health of America’s children. I don’t care about abstinence. If an abstinence-only program is shown to be the best, great! Apply that everywhere it’s been shown to work the best. And if abstinence is never used, great! And if (as I suspect, but this is irrelevant) abstinence is a part of the best program, great!

          That you keep bringing up the a-word makes clear that you have an agenda and your goal is not to provide an environment that reduces unwanted teen pregnancies to their minimum.

          That kinda makes me the one who’s eager to take practical steps to reduce abortions. .

        • MNb

          “I’m assuming (based on what you’ve said) that you and I care about nothing but the health of America’s children.”
          Your assumption is refuted by Lycan him/herself. He/she gives priority to christian prudishness – he/she wasn’t even willing to watch the entire Norwegian video, ‘cuz – gasp! – nudity. Also he/she is concerned that European sex ed programs encourage teens to have sex. That’s a decisive reason not to apply them.

        • Lycan

          “That your position is squishy should alert you that your position needs to be made solid and consistent.”

          I think it’s more the assumption that because I am a Christian I support abstinence only programs. I wasn’t even the first to mention those programs in this conversation.

          “That kinda makes me the one who’s eager to take practical steps to reduce abortions. .”

          The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.

          “That you keep bringing up the a-word makes clear that you have an agenda and your goal is not to provide an environment that reduces unwanted teen pregnancies to their minimum.”

          actually the biggest way to prevent teenage pregnancy seems to be to change the attitude about sex itself. When 33% of teenagers in the USA admit that they only had sex because they felt pressure to do so and two thirds out of all teenagers in a study (I showed you before) admit that they wish they had waited to have sex. One of the biggest problems isn’t the use of contraceptives (since about 89% of teens are currently using them) it’s the attitude about sex itself that needs to change. Especially in teens.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I think it’s more the assumption that because I am a Christian I support abstinence only programs. I wasn’t even the first to mention those programs in this conversation.

          I won’t bring up abstinence if you won’t.

          The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.

          Aren’t you cute! Or maybe naïve. You think making abortion illegal will mean that there are no abortions? Get a clue.

          Cut abortions in half in 10 years. Roll out the most effective sex education programs to all students across the country (effective = fewest unwanted pregnancies). Make contraceptives available.

          America is far from the country with the lowest unwanted pregnancy rate; we have much room for improvement.

        • Lycan

          “Aren’t you cute! Or maybe naïve. You think making abortion illegal will mean that there are no abortions? Get a clue.”

          Never said all but I think it would cut about maybe even as high as 80% of abortions. Furthermore if life begins at conception this technically doesn’t matter. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t advocate killing thousands of kids because the population was high or because many women and men didn’t want to deal with the consequences of their actions, but if life begins at conception this has been happening for years. Have you ever watched an abortion from the inside?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ll accept that life begins at conception. So what? Slugs and mosquitoes are also alive.

          I’ve seen abortion stills, but I don’t think I’ve seen a video. You say it’s gross? I’ll bet. Lots of medical procedures are, and yet we endure them for the benefit they provide.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.

          Are ya serious? Because we all know that prohibition works, right?

        • Pofarmer

          I’m constantly reminded how oblivious to reality these numbnuts are. Wish it was easier on my phone to link go Libby Annes post on “How I lost faith in the pro-life movement.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Pofarmer

          Thank you.

        • Lycan

          Oh so we should make murder legal because a country has a high murder rate? Or we should make theft legal because a city has a high carjacking rate? Or we should make rape legal because making it illegal hasn’t stopped thousands of people from being raped in the past?

          Welcome to the conversation.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Murder is wrong; abortion isn’t. Murder kills a person; abortion doesn’t.

          If abortion is to happen, let’s take a harm-reduction approach and make it safe. Remember Kermit Gosnell–that’s what you’re going for if abortion becomes illegal.

        • Lycan

          “Murder is wrong; abortion isn’t. Murder kills a person; abortion doesn’t.”

          Based on what? How do you really know when life begins? How do you know each abortion isn’t a murder? Because the law says it isn’t? Abortion came about more as an act of convenience not scientific knowledge. I mean some abortions have been legalized as early as 1939. They definitely didn’t have the genetic expertise back then to show that life began at birth. We still don’t have that today and yet people are fine with simply accepting that life begins at birth, without any actually hard evidence to show this.

          Actually the Kermit Gosnell incident really shows the hippocracy with this issue.

          quote “Mayor Michael Nutter (D-PA) said, “I think it’s quite clear that, if these allegations are true, we’ve had a monster living in our midst”

          So the doctor kills the baby perhaps a few seconds after he or she is born and he’s a monster. Yet a doctor kills the same baby before he or she is born and it’s acceptable. It doesn’t make sense. What difference is there from an infant in the mother’s womb to a few seconds later that would cause life to suddenly enter the infant. What the Gosnell case showed is how the law itself doesn’t make sense. Basically people are trying to say that life begins at birth with almost no evidence to show this.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ Bob Seidensticker

          How do you really know when life begins?

          How do you know each abortion isn’t a murder? Because the law says it isn’t? Abortion came about more as an act of convenience not scientific knowledge. I mean some abortions have been legalized as early as 1939. They definitely didn’t have the genetic expertise back then to show that life began at birth. We still don’t have that today and yet people are fine with simply accepting that life begins at birth, without any actually ha rd evidence to show this.
          Actually the Kermit Gosnell incident really shows the hippocracy with this issue.
          quote “Mayor Michael Nutter (D-PA) said, “I think it’s quite clear that, if these allegations are true, we’ve had a monster living in our midst”
          So the doctor kills the baby perhaps a few seconds after he or she is born and he’s a monster. Yet a doctor kills the same baby before he or she is born and it’s acceptable. It doesn’t make sense. What difference is there from an infant in the mother’s womb to a few seconds later that would cause life to suddenly enter the infant. What the Gosnell case showed is how the law itself doesn’t make sense. Basically people are trying to say that life begins at birth with almost no evidence to show this.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How do you really know when life begins?

          How is this relevant?

          Anyway, I assumed we were on the same page on when life begins.

          How do you know each abortion isn’t a murder?

          I don’t. A single cell could indeed be equivalent to you on every relevant metric … but it sure doesn’t look like it.

          They definitely didn’t have the genetic expertise back then to show that life began at birth.

          Life begins at birth. So what? Slugs are alive, too.

          Actually the Kermit Gosnell incident really shows the hippocracy with this issue.

          Amen to that, brother. The filthy, underground Kermit Gosnell world is precisely what the anti-abortion crowd is pushing us toward.

          So the doctor kills the baby perhaps a few seconds after he or she is born and he’s a monster.

          Why talk about third-trimester abortions? Aren’t first-term abortions far, far more common? Sounds like your focus is misplaced.

          Say … you don’t suppose that, like me, you see a spectrum of personhood, with a single cell not being a person, a 2-month-old fetus kinda being one, and an 8.5-month fetus pretty much 100% being one?

        • Lycan

          “Amen to that, brother. The filthy, underground Kermit Gosnell world is precisely what the anti-abortion crowd is pushing us toward.”

          Actually it shows the hippocracy involved with pro choice.

          “How is this relevant?”

          That is the only true issue. If life begins at conception than every abortion is a murder. If we claim it’s okay than that would make a mother killing her baby after birth okay.

          ” 2-month-old fetus kinda being one”

          A 2 month old fetus has survived outside the womb before.

          “Why talk about third-trimester abortions? Aren’t first-term abortions far, far more common? Sounds like your focus is misplaced.”

          I wasn’t talking about third trimester abortions, babies born due to a complication in the abortion have survived outside the womb earlier than third trimester and if a doctor were to kill that baby when it comes out he would go to jail for murder.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Actually it shows the hippocracy involved with pro choice.

          I don’t see that. Show me.

          That is the only true issue. If life begins at conception than every abortion is a murder.

          A human zygote is alive, so killing it is murder. A rat is alive, so killing it is murder.

          Do I have that right?

          If we claim it’s okay than that would make a mother killing her baby after birth okay.

          Not in my mind. I see a spectrum of personhood—0% as a cell and 100% as a newborn.

          I wasn’t talking about third trimester abortions, babies born due to a complication in the abortion have survived outside the womb earlier than third trimester and if a doctor were to kill that baby when it comes out he would go to jail for murder.

          How new are you to this discussion?

          Sit down and let me share a few basics. You see, learning they’re pregnant for some women is one of the most wonderful bits of news in their entire lives. And for other women, it’s one of the worst. It’s rarely in the middle. Your killing the zygote or fetus in the first case would be murder. In the second case, it could be a desperately wanted abortion.

          See the difference?

        • Lycan

          “Not in my mind. I see a spectrum of personhood—0% as a cell and 100% as a newborn.”

          What are you basing that on?

          “Your killing the zygote or fetus in the first case would be murder. In the second case, it could be a desperately wanted abortion.”

          No. What does the babies mother wanting the baby have to do with when life begins?

          “I don’t see that. Show me.”

          My point was after a botched abortion even though the baby is still the same amount of months developed as he/she was a few minutes earlier before exiting the womb, if the doctor kills it after exiting he is charged with murder, but if he/she kills the baby just a few minutes earlier before even though the baby is still at the same point in development it’s not considered murder.

        • MNb

          And how serious are you?

          “The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.”
          Nope. That’s purely theoretical. In practice it works the other way round, as all but one (Sweded) European countries show. Legalizing abortion tends to reduce abortions.
          But we already know that concerning such issues your christian morals always preval.

        • Lycan

          You do realize you basically said nothing relevant to the actual the argument there right?

        • MNb

          How is “in practice it works the other way round” irrelevant to your argument, which is not practical but theoretical?
          I’m curious what kind of goofery you will pull off this time.

        • Lycan

          The statement you replied to was

          “Oh so we should make murder legal because a country has a high murder rate? Or we should make theft legal because a city has a high carjacking rate? Or we should make rape legal because making it illegal hasn’t stopped thousands of people from being raped in the past?”

          You didn’t answer any of the questions in the statement. I admit that your point does have to do with legalizing abortion. However you made a statement without linking any evidence in it.

        • adam

          “The practical way to reduce abortions would be to make the procedure illegal.”

          And yet we have REAL numbers on REAL countries about what would REALLY DOES reduce abortions.

        • Lycan

          Explain to me how making abortion illegal woulnd’t lower abortion rates. Also The Creator has the right to destroy the creation. Humans seem to be okay with this unless it’s them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The Creator has the right to destroy the creation.

          Bullshit. If I build a sand castle, I get to destroy it because I’m the creator … and because it’s just sand. I don’t get to destroy a person. Ditto for God.

          If it’s wrong for people to do, it’s wrong for God.

        • Lycan

          “Bullshit. If I build a sand castle, I get to destroy it because I’m the creator … andbecause it’s just sand. I don’t get to destroy a person. Ditto for God.

          If it’s wrong for people to do, it’s wrong for God.”

          Somehow your logic at the beginning proved my point, and then at the end you pulled a 180 with some the most backward logic I’ve ever seen.

          That’s like saying if man built robots it’s wrong for man to destroy the robots because humans made a law that humans can’t destroy robots. Doesn’t make sense. You putting humans at the same level of their Creator which really doesn’t a bit a sense.

          That ending statement really was probably the most backward statement I’ve ever seen.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Somehow your logic at the beginning proved my point, and then at the end you pulled a 180 with some the most backward logic I’ve ever seen.

          It troubles you when I say that living things should be protected from harm more than sand castles? You might want to double check that.

          That’s like saying if man built robots it’s wrong for man to destroy the robots because humans made a law that humans can’t destroy robots. Doesn’t make sense.

          Gibberish. The only part I recognized was the “doesn’t make sense” part, and I agree with you there.

          You putting humans at the same level of their Creator which really doesn’t a bit a sense.

          Fuck the Creator. God makes moral laws that are binding on people … but not on him? What’s his excuse?

          Here again, if your religion gives your god a pass, what does that say about your religion? Satan would create the same religion—how do you know you’re not worshipping him?

          That ending statement really was probably the most backward statement I’ve ever seen.

          Yeah, that was a bit crazy on my part. To expect that the omniscient, omni-benevolent creator of the whole fucking universe to act morally. My bad.

        • Lycan

          “Fuck the Creator. God makes moral laws that are binding on people … but not on him? What’s his excuse?”

          I don’t even get how you come to this conclusion. You’re trying to bring the creator of the universe down to our level.

          He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple. We as humans create many things and we believe we have the right to destroy them because we created them. We believe we have the right to destroy life we didn’t even create, such as plants, and animals.

          Yet you somehow don’t seem to understand that the Creator of the universe has a right to destroy creation?

          Basically what you’ve just said is that humans have no right to destroy any kind of life, including plants, and animals, or germs for that matter.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t even get how you come to this conclusion. You’re trying to bring the creator of the universe down to our level.

          You’re the one who believes in objective morality, right? Take an objectively correct moral command. That would be binding on all humans. But you’re saying that it’s not on God? What sense does that make?

          And I need to understand more here. If God isn’t bound by the moral laws that bind us, which laws do bind God?

          He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple.

          Yes, very simple. Also barbaric. “God can destroy any human, just for laughs. The creator can do whatever the fuck he wants.” Is this one of the moral rules that apply to God?

          When you scratch your head sometime and wonder how atheists could possibly have any quibble with the stuff Christians believe, think back on this statement of yours.

          We as humans create many things and we believe we have the right to destroy them because we created them.

          Yes, good point. Except for people. Weird that it doesn’t work that way for God, isn’t it? I guess he’s just an asshole.

          Yet you somehow don’t seem to understand that the Creator of the universe has a right to destroy creation?

          My moral sense says that a god who does whatever the fuck he wants isn’t moral.

        • Lycan

          “Yes, very simple. Also barbaric. “God can destroy any human, just for laughs. The creator can do whatever the fuck he wants.” Is this one of the moral rules that apply to God?”

          When has the bible ever shown God destroying humans’ just for laughs?

          Also you seemed to have ignored my statement that humans believe they have the right to destory life that they didn’t create. Why do we have that right?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          When has the bible ever shown God destroying humans’ just for laughs?

          Do you say that God can kill humans for any reason? Said another way, that if God kills someone, he by definition has moral justification?

          Also you seemed to have ignored my statement that humans believe they have the right to destory life that they didn’t create. Why do we have that right?

          I assume you’re talking about raising livestock and poultry to kill and eat. Yes, that’s an unpleasant aspect of society. I have no easy solution.

        • Ignorant Amos

          When has the bible ever shown God destroying humans’ just for laughs?

          Job’s family, slaves and animals?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Excellent! I’d forgotten that one.

          And remember that God gave Job new children to replace the dead ones. So no problem, since children are interchangeable.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Only right and proper since Job provided all the entertainment and also got God the win over his sidekick the devil.

          Besides, they were all just extra’s to the yarn anyway. a.k.a. crewman No. 6 and thus expendable.

        • Greg G.

          If Job’s family didn’t want to die in the story, they shouldn’t have worn red shirts.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Dang! You beat me to it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Didn’t ya ever see “The Robe”…dodgy colour shirt to wear…always was…

          http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Posters/R/Poster%20-%20Robe,%20The_03.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Indeed. Once yer part of the away team ya know yer fucked.

        • Greg G.

          Mr. Spock, Mr. Sulu, Ensign Monsterbait, meet me in the Transporter Room.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Crewman 3rd Class Cannon-Fodder didn’t make it to the transporter room in time.

        • Greg G.

          He was supposed to bring an old tricorder.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Children as redshirts–ouch.

        • Ignorant Amos

          They were Job’s children, but were they children?

        • Greg G.

          At some time they were.

        • MNb

          In the time Job was written they probably were, and women as well, given the mortality rates and large families back then. The mother of my ex-wife had 17 children; two died prematurely and two were adopted by other families. The oldest few quit young, even before my ex-wife (the last one) was born. It was never a big deal. And that’s mid 20th Century.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple. We as humans create many things and we believe we have the right to destroy them because we created them. We believe we have the right to destroy life we didn’t even create, such as plants, and animals.

          The logic is fucked.

          One creator has the right to destroy whatever it created.

          A different creator doesn’t have the right to destroy what it created.

          It isn’t that simple at all.

          Evidence of the first of the creator’s you posit is non-existent.

          http://nicktumminello.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/quote-forgotten-were-the-elementary-rules-of-logic-that-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-christopher-hitchens-237619.jpg

        • Lycan

          “One creator has the right to destroy whatever it created.

          A different creator doesn’t have the right to destroy what it created.”

          What? What different creator?

        • MNb

          The creators of a new building by no means have the right to destroy that building. The creators of your car haven’t the right to destroy your car either. Indeed, the logic is that simple.

          Oh – and ususally the two parents have created the zygote, you know, by having sex. According to you they hence have the right to destroy it, for instance by means of an abortion. Your arguments aren’t even coherent.

        • Lycan

          The creation is different. The owners of a car have the right to destroy it. The owners of a building also have the right to destroy it. When the creators pass on something to someone else (the new owners) they give up that right, but until they do they have the right to destroy what they created.

          The fetus question I answered earlier.

        • Ron

          In my city, property owners must obtain a demolition permit prior to razing a building. And owners of heritage buildings are legally obligated to leave them standing and maintained.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Exactly. Even a car must be disposed of within proper regulatory authority…heck, nowadays just about everything I can think of has regulation applied in how it’s destruction takes place, at least that is the case in the more responsible parts of the world.

          So, like with abortion. A double standard applies. God the creator can destroy what it likes when it likes, a position that even humans know is not conducive to the real world and our place in it.

        • MNb

          “The fetus question I answered earlier.”
          And in my previous comment I showed that it is incoherent with your “right to destroy” argument.

        • adam

          “He created us He has the right to destroy us. The logic is that simple.”

          Since it is OBVIOUS that parents create fetuses, they have a right to destroy them, and they create children, so they should have the right to destroy them as well, even when they are full grown adults…

          at least by your TWISTED logic…

        • Lycan

          Actually parents didn’t create everything from nothing. They also don’t create fetuses in that sense, they had sex and the result is a baby. God created the universe. If a man create’s a.i. he has the right to destroy a.i.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve entered the realm of SciFi.

          Suppose there were an AI that was indistinguishable from a human (maybe it’s just a voice interface to software in a computer). I suppose you do have to say that man can destroy that AI without any moral consequences. Your hands are tied, and you’ve got to come up with some handwavey justification for why God can drown millions of people.

          But how far does this extend? Is there nothing that man can create/build that it would be immoral to destroy?

          If “don’t kill” isn’t part of God’s moral code, what is? Give me the moral rules God follows.

        • adam

          ” They also don’t create fetuses in that sense, they had sex and the result is a baby.”

          Yes, parents create babies, unless you can demonstrate that they come from somewhere else.

          “God created the universe.”

          Imaginary beings from human STORIES dont create ANYTHING, except in the IMAGINATION of gullible people.

          ” If a man create’s a.i. he has the right to destroy a.i.”

          Man creates real intelligent children…

          But it takes belief in imaginary gods to create such cruelty as you talk about. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f7c5d688b7138d8ab4e0b2272ecaaa85a6ff869bbd13511df46d34b550dd2720.png

        • adam

          ” Also The Creator has the right to destroy the creation. ”

          Abortion is just bible ‘god’s’ ‘will’ so why be concerned?

          IF you REALLY want to reduce abortions, why not do what has been done in countries where abortion HAS been reduced?

        • adam

          “Explain to me how making abortion illegal woulnd’t lower abortion rates. ”

          Explain to me how making drugs illegal didnt lower drug use rates.

        • Lycan

          They have. Make a drug legal (like marijuana) and you will see and have seen the rate increase. Therefore making something illegal would decrease the rates.

        • adam

          “They have. Make a drug legal (like marijuana) and you will see and have seen the rate increase.”

          NO, like with alcohol, making them illegal increased their use and ABUSE.

          Marijuana was used for thousands off years without significant problems to users and society UNTIL AFTER illegalization, alcohol abuse spread during prohibition.

        • Lycan

          Did it increase it’s use?

          There’s no way to actually prove that alcohol consumption increased during prohibition.

          “In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough — people like Al Capone didn’t pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government. Licensed saloons became illegal speakeasies, and many common citizens took advantage of the high sales price of illegal booze by secretly manufacturing booze in their own bathtubs. That’s one of the major problems with all drug prohibitions — they greatly reduce the ability to make accurate judgments about the problem. There is no good way to count the number of illegal dealers, or the people who are secretly making gin in their own bathroom. Therefore, to make such a judgment, we have to rely on a number of indirect indicators.”

          Source: http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

        • adam

          You really should have read your own sources, it makes you look deceptive when you post deceptive posts.

          “The Short Answer:

          Alcohol consumption rose to record levels during alcohol prohibition.

          National alcohol prohibition began in 1920. Apparent alcohol use fell from 1914 to 1922. It rose thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar
          alcohol-related offenses were already above the pre-prohibition records.Consumption by women and children increased dramatically.”

          http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

        • Lycan

          The long answer.

          “In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough — people like Al Capone didn’t pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government. Licensed saloons became illegal speakeasies, and many common citizens took advantage of the high sales price of illegal booze by secretly manufacturing booze in their own bathtubs. That’s one of the major problems with all drug prohibitions — they greatly reduce the ability to make accurate judgments about the problem. There is no good way to count the number of illegal dealers, or the people who are secretly making gin in their own bathroom. Therefore, to make such a judgment, we have to rely on a number of indirect indicators.”

        • adam

          “The Short Answer:

          Alcohol consumption rose to record levels during alcohol prohibition.

          National alcohol prohibition began in 1920. Apparent alcohol use fell from 1914 to 1922. It rose thereafter. By 1925, arrests for public drunkenness and similar
          alcohol-related offenses were already above the pre-prohibition records.Consumption by women and children increased dramatically.”

          http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm

        • adam

          Besides, your ‘god’ doesnt care about abortion, if YOU believe that YOUR ‘god’ controls the universe, IT triggers MOST abortions

        • Lycan

          Triggers? God gave man free will. What we decide to do with it is our own fault.

        • adam

          Triggers, YES, almost all abortions are natural, or the will of ‘god’ as you would say.

          So, you dont even understand what free will means?

          Where is the free will of the rape victim?
          Where is the free will of all those people the character ‘god’ mass murdered?

          You are equating totalitarianism as free will…..and it’s not.

        • Lycan

          You seem to not know what free will is.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Wrong again. Marijuana has been semi legal in The Netherlands since a few decades; usage stabilized. The big problem is marijuana tourists from neighbouring countries, where it is illegal indeed.
          But of course you don’t let the facts get in the way of your christian morals.

        • Lycan

          Actually I was talking about when it was made legal in certain states. Not semi legal.

        • MNb

          Ah sorry, my bad, I forgot that christians like you are only capable of binary thinking.

        • Lycan

          Seriously semi legal and legal cannot be compared. Marijuana being made legal for conventional use makes a big difference than it being made legal only for medical use.

        • Ron

          Where’s the harm in smoking cannabis purely for pleasure?

        • Pofarmer

          You need to search and research a little bit about what actually reduces abortion rates. There was a recent study done in St. Louis about it. You can Google it. I agree attitudes about sex need to change, but declaring sex an abomination won’t do it. Maybe we could take some cues from Europe where they have lower teen Pregnancy rates, lower abortion rates, and generally better attitudes about sex?

        • Lycan

          “declaring sex an abomination won’t do it.” Not sure if anyone ever really declared sex an abomination. Well making abortion illegal would obviously lower abortion rates.

          Welcome back by the way.

        • Pofarmer

          If you actually read the link that Bob kindly provided from Libbey Annes blog, you would find out that countries where abortion is illegal, say Argentina, have very nearly the same abortion rates as countries where it is not. That’s the problem with just declaring something “obvious” pesky numbers and stuff get in the way.

        • Lycan

          Let me ask you this.

          If a country has a high murder should they make murder legal?

          If a country has a high theft rate should they make stealing legal?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why are we on this tangent? The point is that your Pollyanna idea that illegal abortion means no abortion is flawed.

        • Pofarmer

          Thats an interstingly loaded question. Because you know what reduced murder and theft in the U.S.? RoevWade. But, frankly, of you have an issue,myou do what is effective to address those issues. Making abortion illegal does not effectively address it, and the statistics from countries where abortion is illegal bear this out, if you would bother yourself to look at them.

        • Lycan

          Actually I did look it up.

          However i can’t find any actual rates. The studies seem to just keep saying that making abortion illegal doesn’t lower the rates but then where are the rates. I looked at four different articles and none of them seem to show the actual rates. If you have something since you did bring the topic up perhaps you can link it and I’ll look into it.

        • Pofarmer

          “Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. -” See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html#sthash.e9hdrHxt.dpuf

          http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

        • Lycan

          First off thank you for finding some data on this.

          Secondly, it’s an unfair comparison. The article even seems to point this out without knowing it.

          “• Both the lowest and highest sub regional abortion rates are in Europe, where abortion is generally legal under broad grounds. In Western Europe, the rate is 12 per 1,000 women, while in Eastern Europe it is 43. [1] The discrepancy in rates between the two regions reflects relatively low contraceptive use in Eastern Europe, as well as a high degree of reliance on methods with relatively high user failure rates, such as the condom, withdrawal and the rhythm method”

          So basically the article points out that the abortion rate will be much higher where there are more unwanted pregnancies, and uses this as a sort of excuse for Eastern Europe (which has the highest rate of all the mentioned places in the article). So it seems that illegal abortion doesn’t increase the rates. If there are a lot more pregnancies there will most likely be a lot more abortion

          What we really need to do is compare two countries with similar access to contraception and where one abortion is legal and the other isn’t.

        • Pofarmer

          “What we really need to do is compare two countries with similar access to contraception and where one abortion is legal and the other isn’t.”

          You more than likely aren’t going to find that, for fairly obvious reasons.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What we really need to do is compare two countries with similar access to contraception and where one abortion is legal and the other isn’t.

          How could that even be done reliably, given that in the country that abortion is illegal the stat’s will be unavailable or skewed?

          We could look at abortion rates between Northern Ireland, where it is illegal, and the rest of the U.K., where it is not. But the problem again is reliable data. Women leaving Northern Ireland to facilitate abortions, or procuring illegal procedures, are not advertising the fact.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom#Statistics

          http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-irelands-record-abortion-figures-shock-28478137.html

          http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/10/08/recent-statistics-on-abortion-uk/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I thought the point was that you said that making abortion illegal will eliminate (or almost eliminate) abortions. Then someone pointed out that places where it’s illegal sometimes have a quite high abortion rate.

          Are we on the same page that making abortion illegal doesn’t eliminate it?

        • adam

          “However i can’t find any actual rates. ”

          So like with YOUR ‘god’, you have no actually data that you make YOUR wild-assed CLAIMS about.

          You just MAKE UP your claims out of IGNORANCE, and seem proud of it….

        • Lycan

          I’m sorry adam, do you have any data to support the other side of this claim?

        • adam

          What ‘other’ side?

          That leprechans and Invisible Pink Flying Unicorns dont exist?

        • Charleigh Kimber

          The practical way to cause thousands of women to die and thousands more to be maimed, resulting in future health complications and/or sterility, while simultaneously ensuring that many thousands more women and children would be forced into poverty and suffer and die from situations arising from said poverty, would be to make the procedure illegal.

          FIFY

        • Lycan

          Wrong abortions illegal in my country and this doesn’t happen. Also if life begins at conception should this really matter? I mean you would kill thousands of kid just because a lot of them are in poverty. If life begins at conception then that’s what people are doing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I agree that life begins at conception. And the zygote still starts out as a single cell. So what? You can’t even see it without a microscope.

          If you think that’s precious, great. Don’t impose your views on everyone else.

        • Lycan

          I’m not imposing my view I’m expressing it. If I’m imposing my view than in all your blogs so are you.

          “I agree that life begins at conception.”

          Not sure if that was sarcasm but if it wasn’t then wouldn’t you technically be condoning murder?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m talking about imposing as when you impose your views by law. Do you want to reduce the number of clinics that do abortions? Do you want to overturn Roe?

        • Lycan

          Welcome to the conversation by the way.

        • MNb

          Technically we totally can compare countries to states in that sense. American states have legislation, cultures, political systems, just like countries.

          “not what people do.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Here is what you wrote:

          “many unwanted pregnancies,”
          Pregnancies are totally the result of what people do.

          “You can’t blame good morals because people that should be following them don’t.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          So you don’t care how people put your morals in practice. You don’t care about the amount of teen pregnancies as long as the morals are good.
          Hey, my standard is simple. I don’t like teen pregnancies. So I prefer morals that actually result in a lower amount of teen pregnancies. You don’t – as long as the morals are good. And good morals mean your morals.
          You have no idea how bad this looks on you. “Screw pregnant teens” is all you say. You’re not interested in helping other people. Imposing your badly outdated morals on them is more important to you.
          That’s one of the several things I dislike about christianity so much.

        • Lycan

          “So you don’t care how people put your morals in practice. You don’t care about the amount of teen pregnancies as long as the morals are good.”

          I was just pointing out you can’t blame good morals when people don’t follow them.

          “You don’t – as long as the morals are good. And good morals mean your morals.”

          Actually good morals mean good morals in general. Teen pregnancy wouldn’t happen if no one had sex before marraige.

          “You’re not interested in helping other people. Imposing your badly outdated morals on them is more important to you.”

          You still haven’t shown how the morals are badly outdated. You want less teen pregnancies. If no one had sex before marraige there would most likely be know teen pregnancies.

          Besides the countries with the lowest teenage pregnacy rates both have a high percentage of people claiming to be Christians. The people of Switzerland predominantly claim Christianity.

          Source: http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/05/blank/key/religionen.html

          The Netherlands have about 47% people claiming Christianity.

          Source:http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Religion/Religions

          While Denmark which is a country you mentioned as being secular has a whopping 98% of it’s people claiming Christianity.

          Source:http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Religion/Religions

          So technically that explains why countries like Denmark and Switzerland and even the Netherlands may have such a low teenage pregnancy rate.

          “Technically we totally can compare countries to states in that sense. American states have legislation, cultures, political systems, just like countries.”

          Actually the reason why the rates shouldn’t really be comparable is not because of politics or legislation it’s because of numbers.

          Lousiana only has about 4.65 million people. While Denmark has about 5.614 million, while the Netherlands has about 16.8 million people. That’s why even when comparing countries rates are usually shown per capita so that it’s more fair because a country that has 300 million people would more than likely have a higher crime rate than a country with only 300,000 people if capita were not included in the rate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So technically that explains why countries like Denmark and Switzerland and even the Netherlands may have such a low teenage pregnancy rate.

          Teen pregnancy is correlated with religiosity–the more Christian, the more teen pregnancies. I’ve written more here.

        • Lycan

          Then how come Denmark a country where 98% of the population claims Christianity has such a low teen pregnancy rate. Same thing with Switzerland. High percentage of the population claiming Christianity and low teenage pregnancy rate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Seriously? You think “Christianity” to the typical Dane means the same thing in practice as it does to the typical resident of Louisiana or Mississippi?

          The Americans are the ones who put “I’m a Christian” in their top 3 personal attributes, and you see what that does to social metrics like teen pregnancy.

          Praise the Lord.

        • Lycan

          Actually the point doesn’t make sense. I mean Denmark has more people claiming Christianity per capita than Louisiana does. So you can’t really compare the two and then say something like “See this shows that teen pregnancy happens in areas where there are more Christians.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Just ignore what I said and double down on your original position? Not a great way to make friends.

          I’d repeat my original comment, but why bother? You’d just ignore it again.

        • Lycan

          The original point of Mnb still doesn’t make sense. You don’t compare two places that contain a high amount of people proclaiming Christianity and then claim the morals themselves are outdated.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You want a monologue. When you want to engage in an adult dialogue, read the thread and, y’know, engage with it.

        • Lycan

          You can try to avoid it all you want. Technically all he did was show that having a nation where the majority of people may be more dedicated to their Christian faith and following the principles within will lead to lower teen pregnancy rate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are you too stupid to understand the issue? Or are you trying to slide away from an uncomfortable issue?

          When you say, “Are you a Christian?” in different societies, the Yes and No answers can’t be compared. The Danish “I’m a Christian” doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing as the Louisiana “I’m a Christian.”

          Making sure two things are comparable is kinda rule #1 before comparing them.

        • Lycan

          Hey you agreed with the basketball analogy. All I’m saying is that it didn’t make sense to compare those two countries and then say “See following Christian morals leads to more unwanted pregnancies”.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I have no idea where you’re coming from if you don’t respond to my questions or statements.

          it didn’t make sense to compare those two countries and then say “See following Christian morals leads to more unwanted pregnancies”.

          I’d express it: following Christian wishful thinking rather than the approaches shown to be most effective leads to more unwanted pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          “I’d express it: following Christian wishful thinking rather than the approaches shown to be most effective leads to more unwanted pregnancies.”

          You keep seemingly putting words in my mouth. I was just trying to point out that the comparison and the ending statement didn’t make sense.

        • Susan

          having a nation where the majority of people may be more dedicated to their Christian faith and following the principles within will lead to lower teen pregnancy rate.

          Or you could compare their policies on sex education and the availability and affordability of contraception with the policies of countries that lack those things.

          If you’re suggesting that they’re just having less sex because they’re good christians, provide the data to back it up.

        • Lycan

          In the US contraception is both available and affordable and that doesn’t seem to stop the rate of teen pregnancies going up. Also sex education seems to be taught in most schools there.

          “If you’re suggesting that they’re just having less sex because they’re good christians, provide the data to back it up.”

          Never said that. I was simply saying it didn’t make sense to compare an area that has a higher amount of people claiming to be Christians which has a low teen pregnancy rate than another area that has a lower amount of people proclaiming Christianity with a higher teen pregnancy rate and then saying. “See following Christian morals leads to a higher pregnancy rate”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Also
          sex education seems to be taught in most schools there.

          You’re just willfully ignorant now. Sex ed isn’t a commodity like water, where it’s all the same. Many conservative states have sub-par sex ed, deliberately, because it pleases their religious beliefs. They care more about that than having the most effective programs.

        • Lycan

          Comprehensive sex educational programs receive twelve times as much federal funding as abstinent only programs. So given that evidence most schools in the US teach comprehensive sexual education. The major attribution to the difference in Denmark’s teen pregnancy and the Us is the attitude toward sex itself.

          Susan Rose did a study on the differences of how sex is treated in Denmark and the US.

          The whole study can be seen here: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          What she found was that ”
          In interviews, Rose discovered Danish teens talked about sex in terms of mutual pleasure, while their American counterparts spoke in terms of achievement and adequacy.”

          So one of differences is that in the US sex seems to be looked at as some kind of achievement. In fact 33% of teens in the US are said to have been pressured into having sex. While 24% are said to being pressured into doing things they don’t want to do.

          “In a recent study of teen dating, the Kaiser Family Foundation polled more than 1,800 teens and young adults. One-third of adolescent boys said they feel “a lot” or “some” pressure to have sex, whereas less than one-quarter of girls said they feel that way.”

          Source: http://connectwithkids.com/boy/.

          In fact the study also showed that

          “Nearly two-thirds of teens that have had sexual intercourse say they regret it and wish they had waited, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.”

          So it seems that the major differences between Denmark and the US that is affecting the teen pregnancy rate, is the attitude toward sex

          Since both countries have easy access to contraceptives and sex education being taught in most schools that cannot be a major reason for the difference in teen pregnancy rates.

        • Lycan

          Welcome to the conversation by the way.

        • MNb

          Technically all I did was assuming that you are smarter and more honest than you actually are.
          Denmark has excellent sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legal abortion.

          http://denmark.angloinfo.com/family/teenagers/teens-sexual-health/
          https://www.reddit.com/r/Denmark/comments/19rej5/birth_control_while_living_in_denmark/
          http://copenhagen.angloinfo.com/information/healthcare/pregnancy-birth/termination-abortion/

          Very, very much unlike Louisiana with its dedication to christian faith.

          “following the principles”
          I’m not going to judge whether obligatory sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legalized abortion are principles within the christian faith or not. These three measures are not withing your christian principles, which, I’m happy to repeat, are badly outdated.

          So to cheer you up a bit:

          http://www.condomking.eu/worlds-best-ril-form

        • Lycan

          Denmark has excellent sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legal abortion. The United States in general have all these and yet have one of the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rates in the world. The UK also has all these (In fact on the chart I showed you UK had the highest use of contraception among women and yet they still have one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates.)

          Also in what comment did I ever say that I was against sex ed in schools?

          Also what does legal abortion have to do with the pregnancy rate. We are talking about pregnancy, not birth rate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Denmark has excellent sex education, easily accessible contraceptives and legal abortion. The United States in general have all these and yet have one of the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rates in the world.

          Sounds like we’re not comparing apples to apples.

          Also in what comment did I ever say that I was against sex ed in schools?

          Do I understand you to be saying that you’re eager for all U.S. public schools to adopt the best (based on results) sex ed program, regardless of where abstinence fits in?

        • Lycan

          Abstinence fits into the best sex ed programs. If there is no mention of abstinence in the program then it’s not the best sex ed program as failing to warn students that the only method of true protection is abstinence shows a failure in the program.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Good job not answering BobS’ question.
          Also excellent circular logic. “Abstinence fits into the best sex ed programs; if it isn’t part of it the program is a failure; hence abstinence fits into the best sex ed programs.”

          But you’re right – abstinence is part of Dutch sex ed. It takes about two minutes to say “hey kids, not having sex guarantees you not getting pregnant.”

          However that’s not the point. All the other subjects are extensively explained. How do you put a condom on? How does an intrauterine device work? What are the pros and cons? What is the chance you’ll still get pregnant? I all learned it when I was a young teen. Public libraries had entire shelves devoted to books on these and related subjects. I read many of them. So when as a stupid teen I had sex with my girlfriend we knew exactly what to do: not bragging, not feeling ashamed, but visiting my doctor and ask for emergency contraception (in Dutch called Morning After Pill). We both felt free to tell our parents. They were annoyed, not because we had had sex, but because we had been stupid.

          Now tell me that it works that way in Louisiana (repeat repeat: I’m not talking the USA in general! I’m not talking the USA in general!) and I’ll call you a liar.

          So let me rephrase BobS’ question. Do you support introducing a sex ed programm similar to the Swiss, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian ones in Louisiana?
          It seems you’re reluctant to answer that question. I guess that’s what you’re a dishonest christian for.

        • Lycan

          I already answered his question.

          New Hamsphire includes abistenence in their sex education and they have the lowest teen pregnancy in the US.

          “Now tell me that it works that way in Louisiana (repeat repeat: I’m not talking the USA in general! I’m not talking the USA in general!) and I’ll call you a liar.”

          Of course you’re not talking about the USA as a whole, that would go against your point, since the USA is considered secular and yet has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world.

          Also I keep telling you it’s not only the sex education (as I showed you in the source I linked). The attitude of sex itself differs in the two countries.

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

        • MNb

          “I already answered his question.”
          Then I missed it. Now you can either be so kind to repeat it or be so unkind not to do so, which will also make you look dishonest. My bet is the latter, but make me happy and show that I’m wrong. Again:

          Do you support introducing a sex ed programm similar to the Swiss, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian ones in Louisiana?

          “New Hamsphire includes abistenence in their sex education.”
          I already wrote that I don’t mind including abstinence. I mind exclusive abstinence in sex ed. You’re slow to understand.

          “since the USA is considered secular and yet has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the world.”
          Yup – slow to understand. That’s because of states like Louisiana, who let your christian views inspire their sex ed programs.
          New Hampshire also educates using contraceptives etc. – not dissimilar to Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland. If all American states had sex ed like New Hampshire teen pregnancy (and also abortion) rates would not deviate very much from the ones in those three countries.

          “The attitude of sex itself differs in the two countries.”
          Yeah, but that only reinforces my point, silly. Thanks to your particular brand of christianity (a bigot one) Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake caused nipplegate. Nudity in Danish and to a lesser extent in Dutch media (I don’t know about Swiss ones) is no big deal. Have you watched that Norwegian video already? Can you imagine such a video in Louisiana?
          It’s typical that you don’t answer this question either, raising the suspicion that you’re dishonest a bit more.

        • Lycan

          “Yup – slow to understand. That’s because of states like Louisiana, who let your christian views inspire their sex ed programs.”

          Actually even New Hampshire has a poor teen pregnancy rate. Compare it to Denmark and it looks terrible. Sure compare it to the rest of the US and it looks good but if you were right and these sex ed programs lead to a much lower teen pregnancy rate then New Hampshire’s would be at least close to Denmark’s and it’s not. There are actually a lot of other factors that lead to a low teen pregnancy rate.

          I think I answered the other questions in the other comment.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I have little interest in your evaluation of what’s efficacious. Let’s leave that to the statisticians. I don’t care what the actual program contains; I just want the most effective (as shown by prior experience) programs taught.

        • Lycan

          I showed the statistics. Technically the biggest thing seems to be the parents. Both Denmark and US teens wished their parents talked to them more about sex.

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          My dad was pretty open about that with me (which I’m thankful for).

        • Dys

          However, a sex-ed program that does little but promote abstinence as the only viable method of protection (while casting aspersions on the other options available) is dishonest and worthless.

        • Lycan

          Actually “Denny and Young (2006) recently analyzed “Sex Can Wait,” an abstinence-only sex education program. The 5-week program contains upper elementary, middle school, and high school components. Compared to controls, students showed many positive short-term and long-term benefits. An increase in sexual knowledge was displayed by all elementary and high schoolers, both elementary and middle school students reported less participation in sexual intercourse during the previous month, and high schoolers showed a greater intent to remain abstinent than the control group.”

          Source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          Welcome to the conversation.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What?? Who cares about abstinence-only programs?

          Didn’t you already admit that you want American public school students to get the best program (based on evidence of performance) possible, regardless of what it teaches?

          I sense some backpedaling.

        • Lycan

          Just making a point that not all abstinence only programs have negative results. Also as shown in the same study not all comprehensive sex programs produce positive results in every area.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You and I, who put the health of America’s children ahead of dogma and agenda, don’t much care about the specifics of the most effective program; we just want it implemented, remember?

        • Lycan

          I care about effectiveness. You’d want to see how effective a program is before implementing it I hope.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re not qualified to evaluate effectiveness. You simply want a qualified authority to tell you that, of the many approaches, the one proven most effective will be rolled out in America’s public schools. Would you want anything less?

        • Lycan

          Not really. I tend to look into things myself. I’m not one to really just trust the “qualified” authority. If I care about an issue I’ll usually check out the facts for myself.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If you like to learn about this stuff, that’s great. My point is that the bottom line is what the statisticians conclude about the effectiveness.

        • Lycan

          And if that bottom line were to say that abstinent only teachings are the most effective would you be fine with that?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Obviously! How many times must we go over this? The point is effectiveness!

          Now–how about you? Do you say the same thing?

        • Lycan

          Yes, So again if the bottom line showed that abstinent only programs were the most effective would you be for or against them?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ?? You just asked that stupid question. And I just answered it.

          Pay attention.

        • Lycan

          Sorry about that, I must have missed the answer there.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My question from a prior comment remains: “Now–how about you? Do you say the same thing?”

        • Dys

          A single study on a single program does not refute what I said.

          And if you read the conclusion of the link you provided, you’ll see that the source you quoted agrees with me.

          While some of the studies found positive effects of abstinence-only education, the overwhelming data support the teaching of comprehensive sex education.

        • Lycan

          No but it does prove it can be done and that it is not foolishness. Even if something only works once, it still shows it can work. Also the study concluded that comprehensive sex education receives twelve times as much federal funding as abstinent only programs which obviously would result in comprehensive having overwhelming data to support the teaching of comprehensive sex education.

        • MNb

          “The United States in general …..”
          I was talking Louisiana in particular, so shrug.

          “Also in what comment did I ever say that I was against sex ed in schools?”
          Make me happy and say you support it. You’ll get a thumb up. But I seem to remember that you advocated abstinence propaganda and abstinence propagandists usually oppose sex ed in schools.

          I brought up legal abortion to show you that the morals of Danish, Dutch and Swiss christians are not the same as yours. If they are – and you support easily accessible contraceptives, sex ed and legal abortion you’ll get three thumbs up from me.

          I mean stuff like this:

          http://www.frontaalnaakt.nl/archives/noorse-dokter-corrie-knijpt-in-piemels-en-betast-vaginas-op-tv.html

          Enjoy the video! I understand the language (it’s Norwegian) as little as you do. It’s school television.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The game Lycan is playing is that he’s happy to support sex ed. The problem is, that’s an ambiguous term. It varies widely throughout the U.S. In some places, it’s evidence based (we’ll use the techniques that have proven themselves, through studies, to be the most effective). In other places (curiously, all strongly conservative and Christian), it teaches an abstinence only approach and thinks that teaching safe sex will only encourage teens to screw.

          Point is, nail Lycan down on what specifically he’s willing to support. When he says, “I totally support sex ed,” as he’s done many times, it may not be what you think it is.

        • MNb

          That’s why I gave that link to the Norwegian video. Have you watched it? It’s funny.

        • Lycan

          Um the United States also has legal abortion so I still don’t get your point on morals.

          “If they are – and you support easily accessible contraceptives, sex ed and legal abortion you’ll get three thumbs up from me.”

          If these lead to lower teen pregnancies than the US should technically be on the top of the list. Since about 82% of teens in the US are currently using contraceptives.

          Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

          So let’s look at the differences between the countries since sex ed (comprehensive sex education programs recieve twelve times as much federal funding as abstinence programs. So in other words most public schools in the US seem to be teaching comprehensive sex education) and ease of access to contraceptives doesn’t seem to lower the teen pregnancy rate.

          Susan Rose did a study on the differences of how sex is treated in Denmark and the US.

          The whole study can be seen here: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education

          What she found was that ”
          In interviews, Rose discovered Danish teens talked about sex in terms of mutual pleasure, while their American counterparts spoke in terms of achievement and adequacy.”

          So one of differences is that in the US sex seems to be looked at as some kind of achievement. In fact 33% of teens in the US are said to have been pressured into having sex. While 24% are said to being pressured into doing things they don’t want to do.

          “In a recent study of teen dating, the Kaiser Family Foundation polled more than 1,800 teens and young adults. One-third of adolescent boys said they feel “a lot” or “some” pressure to have sex, whereas less than one-quarter of girls said they feel that way.”

          Source: http://connectwithkids.com/boy/.

          In fact the study also showed that

          “Nearly two-thirds of teens that have had sexual intercourse say they regret it and wish they had waited, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.”

          So it seems that the major differences between Denmark and the US that is affecting the teen pregnancy rate, is the attitude toward sex.

          Since both countries have easy access to contraceptives and sex education being taught in most schools that cannot be a major reason for the difference in teen pregnancy rates.

        • MNb

          “Um the United States also has legal abortion”
          I’m still talking Louisiana in particular and not the USA in general, so shrug.

          http://statelaws.findlaw.com/louisiana-law/louisiana-abortion-laws.html

          “so I still don’t get your point on morals.”
          Then you either don’t want to or are stupid. I wrote it explicitely:

          I brought up legal abortion to show you that the morals of Danish, Dutch and Swiss christians are not the same as yours.

          “the US should technically be on the top of the list”
          I’m still not talking the USA in general but Louisiana in particular. There are huge differences within the USA. As BobS has pointed out the states in the North-East, which have legislation similar to Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland, also have much lower rates of teen pregnancies and abortion.

          “Since both countries have easy access to contraceptives and sex education being taught in most schools.”
          I am still not talking the USA in general but Louisiana in particular. And Louisiana does not have easy accessible contraceptives. Sex education is not part of the curriculum in most Louisiana schools.

          Plus non of your links support abstinence only policy like you did.
          You’re dishonest or you’re stupid – or both.

        • Lycan

          When did I ever say I supported abstinence only policy?

          So I’m going to assume you didn’t read any of links. Since this one http://sitemaker.umich.edu/isaacson.356/sex_education clearly showed that certain abistenant only programs like

          ” Denny and Young (2006) recently analyzed “Sex Can Wait,” an abstinence-only sex education program. The 5-week program contains upper elementary, middle school, and high school components. Compared to controls, students showed many positive short-term and long-term benefits. An increase in sexual knowledge was displayed by all elementary and high schoolers, both elementary and middle school students reported less participation in sexual intercourse during the previous month, and high schoolers showed a greater intent to remain abstinent than the control group.”

          “I’m still not talking the USA in general but Louisiana in particular. There are huge differences within the USA. As BobS has pointed out the states in the North-East, which have legislation similar to Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland, also have much lower rates of teen pregnancies and abortion.”

          Actually the states in the North East which have legislations similar to Denmark don’t even come close to comparing to Denmark’s low teen pregnancy rate. New Hamshire comes the closest and even it has a teen pregnancy rate that is more than 5 times higher than Denmark’s. If you’re right about Denmark then technically these states should have the same or a much close teen pregnancy rate.

          Source: http://www.livescience.com/45355-teen-pregnancy-rates-by-state.html

        • MNb

          “When did I ever say I supported abstinence only policy?”
          Oh, it’s totally possible that I misunderstand you. That happens all the time on internet. Exactly that is the reason why I keep on asking you two questions:

          1. Can you imagine that Norwegian video being broadcasted in Louisiana?
          2. Do you support a sex ed program in Louisiana similar to the Swiss, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian ones?

          The only reason for not answering those questions is that you dishonestly want to maintain your point – whatever that point is. Make me happy and show me wrong.

          Indeed I didn’t even read the rest of your comment. Why would I, if you don’t even answer those two simple questions or are too unkind to repeat your answers?

        • Lycan

          “1. Can you imagine that Norwegian video being broadcasted in Louisiana?2. Do you support a sex ed program in Louisiana similar to the Swiss, Danish, Dutch and Norwegian ones?”

          I don’t remember you asking me these specific questions before. (Also I stopped watching that video once the nudity was shown. I don’t need to see that.)

          1. I can’t imagine that video (at least the parts I watched) being shown to kids in the United States at all.

          2. Could you go a little further into details about the sex ed programs in those countries? Is abstinent a must in the teaching or are they encouraging teenagers to have sex? Things like that I need to know before answering that second question.

        • Susan

          Is abstinent a must in the teaching or are they encouraging teenagers to have sex?

          False dichotomy.

        • Lycan

          Not really if you don’t have abstinence as a part of the teaching you are in a sense encouraging sex. Like if I don’t have a healthy alternative at a party I am in a sense encouraging people to eat unhealthy at the party.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Encouraging sex? Who cares? Your goal is minimizing abortions, right? If teens screw like rabbits but the net result is significantly fewer abortions, you’re happy.

        • Susan

          our goal is minimizing abortions, right?

          No. If it were, they would approach things differently.

          I know.

          It was a rhetorical question.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I agree with you, but I thought that Lycan had claimed that minimizing abortions was his primary goal. I’m trying to hold him to that–or get him to admit that teens sexing is just as bad a problem in his mind.

        • Susan

          I agree with you, but I thought that Lycan had claimed that minimizing abortions was his primary goal.

          Understood. I just didn’t think Lycan would answer the question directly so I answered it for him.

          I have yet to encounter a theist who claims minimizing abortions is their primary goal advocate for strategies that would most effectively accomplish that goal.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve also experienced this problem. If abortion is the holocaust that they imagine, they should be eager for just about any solution, including teens screwing in the streets, that will significantly reduce abortions. That they also want to control premarital sex reveals their agenda.

          Lycan’s dancing around the abstinence issue tips his hand.

        • Lycan

          Not really. Like I said when two thirds of teens in the study I mentioned earlier admit that they wish they had waited to have sex and 33% of American teens admit that they only had sex because they felt pressured to do so. We have a real problem on the attitude of sex as a whole.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So after all that, we’re not on the same page. I want whatever sex ed + contraceptive availability will minimize abortion, and you don’t.

          It’s clear which one of us is focused on reducing abortions.

        • Lycan

          You seem to be ignoring the studies done. I was simply pointing out the attitude towards sex and how the US really has a messed up general attitude toward it and that your theory that everyone enjoys/wants sex is flawed based on the studies done.

        • Susan

          if you don’t have abstinence as a part of the teaching

          Apologies. I took “Is abstinence a must?” as meaning “Must one be abstinent?”

          I don’t know of any comprehensive sex education program that doesn’t include abstinence as a choice.

          Is that what you meant?

        • MNb

          No. He/she is worried about encouraging teen sex, because the idea of young people having a good time in bed offends his/her particular version of christianity. Then rather higher rates of teen pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          Exactly. Abstinence is a big part of any sex ed program. The students have to know that the only guaranteed way to minimize unwanted pregnancies and STDs is to avoid having sex at all until marriage. Thank you for the apology.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Students have to know that the only guaranteed way to minimize unwanted pregnancies and STDs is to avoid having sex at all until marriage

          Thank you! And the only way to avoid car accidents is to never get in a car!

          Why do you get this but so many other people don’t?! I mean, how hard a concept is this?

        • Lycan

          Actually not the same comparison since a car can hit you while you are walking even though you’ve never been in a car. While if you’ve never had sex it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD’s or unwanted pregnancies.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Don’t want to get hit as a pedestrian? Then don’t be a pedestrian.

          Yep, that is indeed analogous to your “Don’t want to get pregnant? Then don’t have sex.”

        • Lycan

          “Don’t want to get hit as a pedestrian? Then don’t be a pedestrian.

          Yep, that is indeed analogous to your “Don’t want to get pregnant? Then don’t have sex.””

          Actually no since you can even get hit by a car while in your house. (Car’s have rammed into buildings before). So even if you’re not a pedestrian you can still get hit by a car.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And women can get pregnant without having sex, but that would be silly pants and milking the analogy completely to death don’t ya think?

        • Lycan

          Amos you may have joined in late, but earlier I tried to point out the level of risk of getting into car accidents while driving is a lot lower (and I mean a lot) than the risk of getting pregnant after having sex. I was basically told the level doesn’t matter just that it could happen. So I’m basically trying to use that logic against them/him.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re changing the subject because this comparison undercuts your position.

          The point was that we patch up someone who was in a car wreck even though they willingly got into the car, knowing the risks.

          I suggest we also patch up someone who has an accidental pregnancy even though they willingly had sex, knowing the risks.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Actually not the same comparison since a car can hit you while you are walking even though you’ve never been in a car.

          WTF has that got to do with what Bob said?

          “And the only way to avoid car accidents is to never get in a car!”

          While if you’ve never had sex it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD’s or unwanted pregnancies.

          Going back to your first sentence about being hit by a car even though you’ve never been in one, You can be an abstinent, virtuous, no sex until marriage kinda gal and still end up pregnant. Or has no one ever become pregnant or contract an STD through rape either…right?

          Would you listen to yerself with all this nonsense?

        • Lycan

          “WTF has that got to do with what Bob said?”

          He said “”And the only way to avoid car accidents is to never get in a car!”

          That’s wrong since you can get into a car accident without ever getting in a car.

          “Going back to your first sentence about being hit by a car even though you’ve never been in one, You can be an abstinent, virtuous, no sex until marriage kinda gal and still end up pregnant. Or has no one ever become pregnant or contract an STD through rape either…right?”

          Notice what I said.

          “While if you’ve never had sex it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD’s or unwanted pregnancies.”

          Then you would still have had sex if raped. I never said consensual sex I said if you’ve never had sex then it is very unlikely that you are to contract any STD or unwanted pregnancies.

          Getting raped is still having sex it’s just not consensual.

          Welcome to the conversation.

        • MNb

          Ah – now it’s suddenly a big part. How big? 90%? More? And how? Making the teens write down “Thou shall not have sex before marriage” a thousand times?

        • Lycan

          By simply mentioning that abstinence is the only safe way makes it a big part. Because it basically sets abstinence against every form of birth control and puts it into a category all by itself.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Abstinence-only programs don’t work. If not for that small flaw, they’d be great.

        • Lycan

          You keep saying that and yet the evidence points in a different direction. Because by making a statement that blatant it would mean that even if it does work only once in one area your statement is wrong and I’ve already shown you one case where an abstinent course did provide positive results.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You keep saying that and yet the evidence points in a different direction.

          You’ve seen the map of red/blue states, with the red states (y’know–the ones with abstinence only sex ed programs) having far worse stats on unwanted pregnancy. What’s this new evidence?

          even if it does work only once in one area your statement is wrong

          Your focus on abstinence-only programs reveals your bias. You say you want the best programs … but you really want abstinence-only programs regardless of whether they’re the best or not.

          Don’t lie–baby Jesus is listening.

        • Lycan

          You seem to have missed my point. When did I ever say I wanted abstinent only programs. I’m focusing on your statement that they never work to show you how making a blatant statement like that only requires one abstinent program in one place to work for the statement itself to be wrong. That’s all I’m pointing out. Saying they hardly ever work, or something like that may be more accurate. That’s all I’m saying.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m focusing on your statement that [abstinence-only programs] never work

          You’re confused. I never said that.

          And I’m telling you this for the second time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Can you point to a successful abstinence only program that has been successful?

          The vast majority of Americans support abstinence from sexual activity for school-age children, especially younger adolescents. Yet, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, currently being taught in many schools, are at odds with what most Americans want schools to teach. The public supports a broad sex education curriculum that stresses abstinence as the best way to avoid unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) but that also conveys complete and medically accurate information about contraception and condoms.

          Despite these strong public preferences, the federal government has invested more than $1.5 billion in state and federal dollars since 1997 into prescriptive abstinence-only and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that are, at best, ineffective and wasteful and, at worst, misleading and dangerous to America’s youth.

          http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/publications-a-z/597-abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs-ineffective-unethical-and-poor-public-health

        • MNb

          See what I mean? You think your christian morals more important than minimizing rates of teen pregnancies.

        • Lycan

          Well New Hamsphire and Denmark both have abstinent teachings in their sex ed so it shows that it is necessary in any successful sex education.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not the issue. Your only plausible position is that America’s children be taught the most effective sex ed (effective = minimizes unwanted pregnancies).

          That program might have no abstinence, nothing but abstinence, or something in between–it doesn’t matter. We’re going for most effective, so stop using the a-word.

        • Lycan

          Actually it is the issue since it does show that the most effective programs do contain abstinence teachings.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve never said otherwise.

        • MNb

          Irrelevant for the fact that you think your christian morals more important than minimizing rates of teen pregnancies. It referred to “encouraging sex”, an idea that disgusts you. Same with the nudity in that Norwegian video.
          Nobody objects including abstinence in sex ed.

        • Lycan

          “Same with the nudity in that Norwegian video.”

          So are you saying that all comprehensive sex programs in the United States are inadequate? Because if you recall I said I couldn’t see that video being shown in any United States school.

        • Lycan

          Also MNb when two thirds of the teens in a study admit that they wish they had waited to have sex and when 33% of teenagers in the US admit that they only had sex do to the pressure to do so, then yes sex is not something that should be encouraged among teens. Especially teens who more than likely cannot handle the consequences that may arise from such actions.

        • MNb

          Thanks.
          Your answer to 1 admits that sex ed in Louisiana, where teen pregnancy rates are higher than in those four European countries, is substantially different. And your refusal to watch nudity tells us that you think christian prudishness more important than effective sex ed.
          2. Your counterquestions confirm that you give christian prudishness priority to reducing teen pregnancy rates, despite all your previous attempts to weasle out of this.
          That’s all I wanted to know.

          You prefer extra teen pregnancies to effective sex ed.
          So thanks again and bye.

        • Lycan

          Denial is strong in you it appears.

          “Your answer to 1 admits that sex ed in Louisiana, where teen pregnancy rates are higher than in those four European countries, is substantially different. And your refusal to watch nudity tells us that you think christian prudishness more important than effective sex ed.”

          So you admit that all of the US sex ed is worse than Norwegians?

          2. Yet you refused to answer my questions.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you admit that all of the US sex ed is worse than Norwegians?

          I assume that it is, but the stats should help us out here. What do they say?

        • Lycan

          I was just trying to point out that he seemed to have twisted my answer that I didn’t think that that tape would be allowed in any US school to be only referring to Louisiana. So basically he was saying that the whole US had worse sex educational courses than Norway since my answer was something like I couldn’t see that tape being shown in any US school. Norway is pretty low on the teen pregnancy scale though.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Right–Norway has great teen pregnancy stats. They’re not prudish about sex, and if showing adult genitals will help kids understand the sexually mature bodies they now have, they’ll do it.

          I don’t have much respect for American prudishness (violence is OK on TV but bare boobs are not), but that’s a tangent.

        • Lycan

          I don’t have much respect for American prudishness (violence is OK on TV but bare boobs are not), but that’s a tangent.

          So are you saying that boxing and every other physical sport should be taken off television? Or are you saying that pornography should be allowed on basic cable?

        • MNb

          So for you it’s either no nudity at all or full blown pornography?
          Pathetic fale dilemma, that says a lot about your poor christian morals.

        • Lycan

          The point is that the two aren’t comparable in that regard.

        • MNb

          Shrug. You have told me what I wanted to know. You prefer extra teen pregnancies to effective sex ed.

        • Lycan

          ” You have told me what I wanted to know. ”

          Translation: You heard what you wanted to hear and ignored the rest.

        • Lycan

          Well thank you for the conversation.

          God bless you.

        • Ron

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-kANR1vJkM

          (Note: except for the narration the documentary is in English.)

        • MNb

          “You still haven’t shown how the morals are badly outdated.”
          I have. Your christian morals lead to higher rates of teen pregnancies than mine when put in practice.

          “You want less teen pregnancies. If no one ….”
          If.
          If my father had been king I would have been his successor.

          “The people of Switzerland predominantly claim Christianity.”
          Irrelevant. Christians totally can be secular; the vast majority of European christians is. But let me give you an example of secularity from your own history:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/09/the-kim-davis-discussion-must-include-jfk/

          “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”
          JFK.
          And until this day that’s the attitude of almost all believing European politicians, in stark contrast to yours. Yup – almost all believing European politicians and teachers are more or less OK with sex education at schools and easily available contraceptives.

          “That’s why even when comparing countries rates are usually shown per capita”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I gave the rates per 1000. Scroll upward and check for yourself. Divide those rates by 1000 and they are per capita. Perhaps you can’t do it? Or perhaps you don’t understand that when you divide those rates by 1000 the Louisiana ones just remain 6 times as high as Dutch ones?
          Thanks, I hadn’t met this blooper yet. OK, I’ll spell it out for you.

          Netherlands: 5 per 1000. That’s 0,005 per capita.
          Louisiana: 30 per 1000. That’s 0,03 per capita.
          Still 6 times as high.

          The conclusion is simple. Your morals, when put in practice, result in more teen pregancies than mine. Hence my conclusions above are correct, no matter how often you deny them.
          My bet is that you’re not honest enough to face the facts and admit it. ‘Cuz god.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Netherlands: 5 per 1000. That’s 0,005 per capita.

          Louisiana: 30 per 1000. That’s 0,03 per capita.

          Still 6 times as high.

          After you divide them both by 1000, it’s still 6 times higher? Wow–who’d’ve guessed?

          Ain’t math marvelous!

        • Lycan

          Why are you comparing Louisiana instead of the United States itself.

          “”The people of Switzerland predominantly claim Christianity.”Irrelevant. Christians totally can be secular; the vast majority of European christians is. But let me give you an example of secularity from your own history:”

          No it does make a difference. Because with a high Christian population would lead hopefully to Christian morals in the society.

          In any case the statistics show that countries like Switzerland and Denmark have a low teen pregnancy rate and a high percent of the population claiming Christianity.

          “I have. Your christian morals lead to higher rates of teen pregnancies than mine when put in practice.”

          No you haven’t shown that yet. See that’s like saying a law that says murder is illegal is responsible for the high murder rate in a country. Basically your blaming the morals when people obviously don’t follow them. If the law of the country says don’t steal and the country has a high theft rate you can’t blame the law for that. You keep saying what people do but you have yet to show that Christian morals are to blame.

          Also you seemed to have ignored the Denmark comment.

          “And until this day that’s the attitude of almost all believing European politicians, in stark contrast to yours. Yup – almost all believing European politicians and teachers are more or less OK with sex education at schools and easily available contraceptives.”

          Yet the country in Europe which in 2002 had the most percentage of contraception use has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates.

          Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193123.html

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          a
          high Christian population would lead hopefully to Christian morals in the
          society.

          Right. And when you look at the US or (for higher Christian numbers) just a particularly Christian state, you find that the social metrics suck when compared to less religious societies. Ouch–so much for Christian morals.

        • Lycan

          Denmark and Switzerland still have a high population claiming Christianity and they extremely low pregnancy rates per capita.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “I’m a Christian” means something different in Denmark than in Louisiana.

          Really, this isn’t that hard a concept.

        • Lycan

          Your missing the point. Mnb said the morals themselves were outdated and basically wrong. Yet he provided a country where about 98% of the population claims Christianity and then compared it to Louisiana which actually contains less people per capita proclaiming to be Christian then Denmark does. That definitely doesn’t show how the morals themselves are wrong.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Having a real hard time sticking with the facts, I see.

          You need to avoid picking and choosing the facts you want to believe are relevant. No, your mischaracterization isn’t helpful.

        • Lycan

          Seriously man if someone comes up to you and says “the countries with more basketball players commit more crimes) and then shows you one country with a high crime rate and a high amount of basketball players and then another that has an even higher amount of basketball players but one of the lowest crime rates. I’m pretty sure you would agree that the comparison doesn’t assert the argument at all.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Agreed. But not an analogy to what we’re talking about.

        • MNb

          Uh oh, I missed this one. It’s a beauty.
          Whether 98% of the Danish are christians remains to be seen, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re right. The point is that those Danish christians are as secular as President Kennedy, BobS and me. Denmark has legalized abortion (also gay marriage btw) and has excellent sex education. It also has low rates of abortion and teen pregnancy – much, much lower than Louisiana.
          Christians totally can be modern and secular. Heck, abortion in The Netherlands was legalized with the active cooperation of a christian party:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Appeal

          The party doesn’t object sex education either.
          Christian politicians in Louisiana however do. Because of their christian morals, which are not the same as the christian morals of most Danish and Dutch folks. The Bible based morals (and I’m not saying the morals of CDA aren’t) of those Louisiana politicians are badly outdated. They are the same as yours and hence, because you refuse to follow the examples of Dutch and Danish christians, you are co-responsible for the high abortion and teen pregnancy rates in Louisiana.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I heard on a podcast that 51% of French people declare themselves Catholic, but half of those don’t believe in God.

          Seems to me that the meaning of “I’m a Christian” varies based on the culture. Lycan doesn’t want to hear that.

          EDIT: Here’s the source on the 51%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_France

        • Lycan

          “The point is that those Danish christians are as secular as President Kennedy, BobS and me. ”

          You’re basing this on what? You have no idea whether they are that secular. Also once again in what comment did I say I was against sexual education? I’ve known where babies come from and how they get there since I was 5. I never once said I was against sex education in this comment chain.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve read articles written by ex-Christians who say that they’d read the Bible a dozen times as a believer but only without their God goggles did they see what the Bible was really saying.

          I’ve written more:

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/02/polytheism-in-the-bible/

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/10/combat-myth-the-curious-story-of-yahweh-and-the-gods-who-preceded-him/

        • Lycan

          “8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

          9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.”

          “In a recent post, we’ve recently seen where Yahweh loses a fight with the Moabite god Chemosh (2 Kings 3:27).”

          2 Kings 3:27King James Version (KJV)

          27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.”

          Where does any of that seem to happen in that verse?

          Also in regards to the Isrealites being polytheist

          Psalm 96:4-5King James Version (KJV)

          4 For the Lord is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above all gods.

          5 For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the Lord made the heavens.”

          So when they talk about other gods what the really mean are the idols that the other nations worship.

        • MNb

          From you and other believers of course. You write “god himself never changes”. Hence it’s the way you look at god – which is exactly the definition of perception.

          As for “It’s like how two people may think differently on a event.” being material: those people observed that event, ie used their senses and afterwards their brains. Senses and brains are material. The things they observed were material. Your god is defined (again confirming that your god is nothing but the product of your perception) as an immaterial entity, beyond time and space and such.

        • Lycan

          “Your god is defined…
          …as an immaterial entity, beyond time and space and such.”

          All the more reason why it would be difficult to try and understand God and why people would have such different perceptions of Him.

        • MNb

          All the more reason not to believe.Thanks for confirming that “god himself never changes” is just your perception.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The traits of God change through the Bible. Say that that’s fallible people misunderstanding if you want, but then you’ve got the unenviable task of winnowing out the true parts.

        • Lycan

          Actually His traits don’t. If you look at the Bible from beginning to the end you would realize that people change but God remains the same.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          God walks in the Garden. God drops by for a beer with Abraham.

          Then Moses can only get a peek at him.

          In the NT, we’re told that no one has seen him (wrong, of course, if the OT is to be believed).

          And so on. The Old Testament documents the change in beliefs from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism. I’ve written more on this, if you want to look up that post.

        • Lycan

          “Then Moses can only get a peek at him.”

          Actually Moses did not see God’s face. He saw God’s back.

          “God drops by for a beer with Abraham”

          What verse are you getting this from?

          “In the NT, we’re told that no one has seen him (wrong, of course, if the OT is to be believed).”

          Can you link the verse that says that please.

        • MNb

          “Actually Moses did not see God’s face. He saw God’s back.”
          So Moses did get a peek. You’re contradicting BobS by confirming what he wrote. Good job.

          “What verse are you getting this from?”
          And we have yet another christian who lacks the imagination to recognize a metaphor when it’s not from the Bible.

          Gen 17:1 “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.”
          Gen 17:1a “And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.”
          Gen 17:1b “And now thou will fetch Me a chalice of mead, so that we can have a drink to my covenant. Because formulating covenants makes Me thirsty, hence My covenant needs to be sealed by enjoying a well brewed mead.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I gotta do your homework?

          Actually Moses did not see God’s face. He saw God’s back.

          “the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.” (Ex. 33:11)

          “God drops by for a beer with Abraham”

          What verse are you getting this from?

          Gen. 18:1: “Now the LORD appeared to him [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre”

          “In the NT, we’re told that no one has seen him (wrong, of course, if the OT is to be believed).”

          Can you link the verse that says that please.

          “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son” (John 1:18). See also 1 Tim. 6:16.

          It’s frustrating when you’ve got to ask the atheist for help with the Bible, I’m sure.

        • Rudy R

          It doesn’t get any better with the person I’m debating with right now, who, as a Catholic, believes the Church condones contraception.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Let sleeping dogs lie?

        • adam

        • SansDeus

          Actually the second definition doesn’t say it is a title of a god but a title of God. Referring to the one and only God. So none of the others meet the criteria based on that definition.

          “Referring to the one and only God.” Which one? The one of your religion or one of the others that proclaims to have the one and only god?

          Regardless, they meet the other definition. I suggest you like to take up the “one and only god” argument with a polytheist.

          You were just able to mention much more comparisons with baseball and football than Any of the myths listed have with Christ.

          I’m not convinced that you read up on any of the examples. Or you’re looking for something that contains all of the attributes of christianity, instead of noticing the bits and pieces were taken from others that are older.

        • Lycan

          “I’m not convinced that you read up on any of the examples. Or you’re looking for something that contains all of the attributes of Christianity, instead of noticing the bits and pieces were taken from others that are older.”

          I know some of osiris and attis.

          “I’m not convinced that you read up on any of the examples. Or you’re looking for something that contains all of the attributes of Christianity, instead of noticing the bits and pieces were taken from others that are older.”

          Also I simply said you’ve mentioned more comparisons with baseball and football than any of the myths listed have with Christ. Which is the truth.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The other dying-and-rising gods didn’t just do it for laughs. It had consequences that benefited people.

          But if you’d rather read “dying and rising gods” instead of “saviors,” perhaps that would address your concern.

        • Lycan

          I was more pointing out that you named it that and that is your first sentence and then you mention no other saviors. I’m just saying technically the title should be changed because that alone shows a massive difference between Jesus Christ and these myths. Also technically attis rising again doesn’t seem to have been added to the legend until about the 4th century which would have been after Christ rose again.

        • MNb

          Let me be charitable. OK, so Jesus is a unique combination of a dying-and-rising god and a messias claimant. It’s the combination that makes him unique. So what? Look a bit closer and you’ll find unique features attributed to the other dying-and-rising gods and also unique features regarding the other messias claimants as well.
          My answer: the Ancients were totally capable of inventing some new stuff now and then. If anything you only have shown that BobS is a bit sloppy, not that he’s wrong. Intolerable for a scientific analysis, but this is just another blog.

        • Lycan

          I was actually just pointing out that the title itself is misleading. Also Attis rebirth doesn’t seem to be added to the legend until after Jesus rose again so it makes me wonder how accurate the list really is.

          God bless you.

        • MNb

          The title is not misleading. BobS writes about what Jesus doesn’t make unique.

          “God bless you.”
          Thanks, but no thanks.

        • Lycan

          It is misleading since none of the idols mentioned are Saviors.

        • MNb

          OK. Then it should have been “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Idol.”
          That’s what christians do with him – turning him into an idol.

        • Lycan

          Actually what the title does is try to limit the wonder of Christ story. Saying Jesus is just one more dying savior attempts to avoid the obvious difference between what Christ did and what these myths claim to be. The fact that He died for our sins makes Him a Savior. Which is an obvious difference between him and the myths since none of the idols mentioned in the myths are saviors. I think perhaps the author may not have wanted to show that argument because that would be a clear difference between Jesus Christ and the myths listed on the list.

        • MNb

          There is no wonder in the christ story, so there is nothing to limit.

          “attempts to avoid the obvious difference”
          Of course. Because the article is about the similarities. Do you enjoy kicking in open doors?
          So yes, the christ story is special. Like I already wrote: take a closer look and you’ll notice that every single dying and rising divine character story is special.

          “The fact that He died for our sins”
          Sin is a meaningless concept. Jesus did not die for our sins. Jesus – or rather his fans, like you – claim(ed) that he died for our sins. That’s not the same at all.

          “none of the idols mentioned in the myths are saviors”
          I already granted you that. Yup, you enjoy kicking in open doors. So I happily repeat:

          OK. Then it should have been “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Idol.”
          That’s what christians do with him – turning him into an idol. With your comment you confirmed that, so thanks.

        • Lycan

          “Of course. Because the article is about the similarities. Do you enjoy kicking in open doors?”

          So are you saying the article is supposed to mislead people then?

          Also I was referring more to the end of the article where “Apologists raise other objections.”

          “Sin is a meaningless concept”

          Based on what?

        • MNb

          How is pointing out similarities misleading?

          Sin is a meaningless concept because there is no god. Hence he/she/it can’t be displeased.

          Of course you will contradict this: “There is a god! The Bible says so! And the Bible is divinely inspired!”. That’s a combination of a circular argument and an argument from authority. I already pointed out that the Bible doesn’t have any authority. Why would I accept the superstition of ignorant people who lived 2000+ years ago?

        • Lycan

          ” I already pointed out that the Bible doesn’t have any authority. Why would I accept the superstition of ignorant people who lived 2000+ years ago?”

          Technically you just stated that first part without really backing it up.

          Also are you saying that everyone in the past was ignorant? Are you saying that Confucius, Aristotle, Galileo were all ignorant?

          “How is pointing out similarities misleading?”

          The same way a prosecutor may try to mislead the jury by only pointing out the similarities between two different cases. It can make the jury believe that the two cases are almost identical.

          Back to the argument when there are more differences than similarities focusing only on the similarities may make people think the stories are identical.

          Also when you have a section called “Apologists raise other objections.” Then seemingly only mention the objections that the author can argue against.

        • MNb

          “Are you saying that Confucius, Aristotle, Galileo were all ignorant?”
          Yes. What’s more – you and I are ignorant as well. Still we know a bit more that those three.
          Confucius and Aristoteles didn’t know about the Americas for instance. Neither of them knew how to keep an airplane in the air.
          I am saying even a bit more. Exactly because of this reason we should not accept anything from them (and the Bible) at face value. Unlike the Bible at least two of them (Aristoteles and Galilei) did the right thing: enabling us to check their claims. We can repeat the experiments done by Galilei. As for Aristoteles:

          http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-aristotle-maintained-that-women-have-fewer-teeth-than-men-although-he-was-twice-married-it-never-bertrand-russell-160328.jpg

          “The same way a prosecutor may try to mislead the jury by only pointing out the similarities between two different cases. It can make the jury believe that the two cases are almost identical.”
          False analogy.
          1. This is not a courtroom. There is no jury.
          2. BobS makes clear that he’s talking about the similarities and doesn’t hide that there are differences.

          So your argument is wrong.

          “Then seemingly only mention the objections that the author can argue against.”
          This is plain ill will. You’re showing your own evil character here; apparently this is what you would (want to) do.
          It’s of course the other way round. BobS made a list of objections and answered them, which is a common and decent thing to do. As he’s not perfect the list might be incomplete, which is why there is a comment section giving for instance you the opportunity to raise objections.

        • Lycan

          “2. BobS makes clear that he’s talking about the similarities and doesn’t hide that there are differences.”

          I have raised objections but he seems to only be answering the ones he’s comfortable with. I wrote several lines explaining how he seems to have gotten some of the myths wrong and he still hasn’t addressed them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m listening. Show me what concerns are unanswered.

        • Lycan

          “”To repeat from my previous comment, which you ignored: If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?”

          First off as I’ve stated before it seems that attis’ rebirth wasn’t added to the legend until after Christ rose again. So it would seem that the attis cult copied Christians in that regard.

          adonis seems to have the same story. It seems that there was no mention of his rebirth until at least the second century.

          with baal it still seems debatable whether he died in the first place.

          with osiris

          “Jonathan Z. Smith in the article “Dying and Rising Gods” for the Encyclopedia of Religion (1987) relates the myth like this: Osiris is murdered, his body is dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body are recovered and rejoined, and the god is rejuvenated. However, he doesn’t return to his former mode of existence but rather journeys to the underworld where he becomes the powerful “lord of the dead.” “In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern; most certainly it was never conceived as an annual event.”

          Source:http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

          Also there is a list of the sources the guy used at the bottom and there are a lot.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What source says that the Attis legend came after Christianity?

          My favorite is Dionysus. Take a look at that one.

          And is your point that there were zero myths of dying and rising gods before 1CE?

        • Lycan

          My point is that four out of the five myths you mentioned seem wrong.

          Oh the Attis source I linked earlier and also I think the article mentions it.

        • Spectrum

          So by your reasoning, we shouldn’t trust anything that historians say either, as they can’t be trusted. They ( historians ) weren’t present when events took place, so the events are of little credible value.

          Really ? So we should throw out all the books on the history of – everything ?

        • MNb

          I wasn’t aware that Confucius, Aristoteles and Galilei were historians of the 20th and/or 21st Century.
          Neither am I aware that they ever appeared in a courtroom say last 300 years.
          In fact I’m not aware of writing anything about historians at all in my previous two comments. So pardon me – but what the heck are you talking about?!

        • Spectrum

          I wasn’t saying THEY were historians, I was speaking generally about the reliability or otherwise of past events and personalities.

        • MNb

          Then your comment is totally irrelevant, because I wasn’t.

        • Spectrum

          Not “totally irrelevant”. You don’t get the analogy I was making.

        • Spectrum

          “….I already pointed out that the Bible doesn’t have any authority….”.

          What uninformed garbage. You don’t have the authority to declare that. Not when there are more knowledgeable people in the subject who can show otherwise….

          Take your pick ; https://www.google.com/search?q=does+the+bible+have+authority&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

        • Dys

          It’s authoritative to Christians, because they already buy into the premise. Non-believers and non-Christians don’t, so it doesn’t. It doesn’t really matter how many Christian theologians you pick – they can’t demonstrate the bible is authoritative either, because it eventually leads back to trying to prove God exists, which no one’s ever been able to do.

        • Spectrum

          Prophecy alone, is a powerful persuader of the bible’s authority.

          ( quote ) “….Many religious books claim to be divinely inspired, but only the
          Bible has evidence of supernatural confirmation. We have seen that
          Jesus, being God incarnate, affirms the inspiration of the Bible.
          Another evidence of supernatural confirmation is the testimony of
          prophecy. The biblical authors made hundreds of specific prophecies of
          future events that have come to pass in the manner they were predicted.
          No book in history can compare to the Bible when it comes to the
          fulfillment of prophecy.

          Here are some examples. Ezekiel 26, which was written in 587 B.C.,
          predicted the destruction of Tyre, a city made up of two parts: a
          mainland port city, and an island city half a mile off shore. Ezekiel
          prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city, many nations
          would fight against her, the debris of the city would be thrown into the
          ocean, the city would never be found again, and fishermen would come
          there to lay their nets.

          In 573 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre. Many
          of the refugees of the city sailed to the island, and the island city
          of Tyre remained a powerful city. In 333 B.C., however, Alexander the
          Great laid siege to Tyre. Using the rubble of mainland Tyre, he built a
          causeway to the island city of Tyre. He then captured and completely
          destroyed the city.

          Today, Tyre is a small fishing town where fishing boats come to rest
          and fisherman spread their nets. The great ancient city of Tyre to this
          day lies buried in ruins exactly as prophesied. If we were to calculate
          the odds of this event happening by chance, the figures would be
          astronomical. No, it was not by coincidence.{2}

          Here’s another example. There are nearly one hundred prophecies made
          about Jesus in the Old Testament, prophecies such as His place of birth,
          how he would die, His rejection by the nation of Israel, and so on. All
          these prophecies were made hundreds of years before Jesus ever came to
          earth. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies, many skeptics have
          believed that they must have been written after A.D. 70—after the birth
          and death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. They have thereby
          tried to deny that they are even prophecies.

          However, in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These scrolls
          contained the book of Isaiah and other prophetic books. When dated, they
          were found to be written from 120 to 100 B.C.,{3}
          well before Jesus was born. It would have been an incredible
          accomplishment for Jesus to have fulfilled the numerous prophecies. Some
          say these prophecies were fulfilled by chance, but the odds against
          this would be exceptionally large. It would take more a greater leap of
          faith to believe in that chance happening than in the fact that Jesus is
          God and these prophecies are divinely inspired.

          The record of prophecy is thus evidence for the unique and supernatural origin of the Bible….”. ( end quote )

          More reasons why the bible is authoritative ; https://www.probe.org/authority-of-the-bible-a-strong-argument-for-christianity/

        • Dys

          The supposedly fulfilled prophecies are a rather weak evidence. Most of them have to be creatively interpreted in order to even come close, including the one for Tyre.

          In other words, a person’s likelihood in accepting them as fulfilled is tied more to whether they already believe in biblical inerrancy and the authority of the bible than the actual accuracy of the prophecies.

          The prophecy for Jesus’s birthplace is particularly bad, considering the events that were supposed to place his family in Bethlehem didn’t occur. Which gives the impression that the birth narrative is an invention rather than history.

          So presuppositionalism has far more to do with accepting the prophecies as fulfilled rather than their real accuracy.

        • Spectrum

          Prophecy is but one proof of the bible’s authority. Please read the rest of them.

        • Dys

          Except it’s not proof. And the situation is as I’ve already described it – you can’t demonstrate that the bible has any authority other than what people put into it.

          It’s essentially circular reasoning – you already believe it’s the inspired, perfect word of God, so that’s how you judge it. Step outside of that presupposition, and the cracks start becoming incredibly apparent.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          MNb is an idiot for arguing that the Bible has no authority, but you’re empowered to say that it does? If MNb isn’t anointed with clairvoyance, why should we imagine that you are?

        • Spectrum

          Of course I’m empowered. As Christians we are given authority to preach the gospel “to all the nations”. The authority is God’s Truth via the scriptures. We are exhorted to share His Truth with all the non believers, to lead them to salvation and eternal life. That is fundamental Christianity in action.

          MNb is not qualified to say the bible has no authority because he / she is an atheist and does not know the Truth of God, nor the knowledge and understanding that comes from the study of scripture. He is arguing from a position of ignorance, as so many unbelievers do. Hence why we are ridiculed and mocked by them.

          As far as the credibility of the bible itself as an authoritative source is concerned, prophecy alone, is a powerful persuader of it. Here was my response to Dys….

          ( quote ) “….Many religious books claim to be divinely inspired, but only the
          Bible has evidence of supernatural confirmation. We have seen that
          Jesus, being God incarnate, affirms the inspiration of the Bible.
          Another evidence of supernatural confirmation is the testimony of
          prophecy. The biblical authors made hundreds of specific prophecies of
          future events that have come to pass in the manner they were predicted.
          No book in history can compare to the Bible when it comes to the
          fulfillment of prophecy.

          Here are some examples. Ezekiel 26, which was written in 587 B.C.,
          predicted the destruction of Tyre, a city made up of two parts: a
          mainland port city, and an island city half a mile off shore. Ezekiel
          prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy the city, many nations
          would fight against her, the debris of the city would be thrown into the
          ocean, the city would never be found again, and fishermen would come
          there to lay their nets.

          In 573 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre. Many
          of the refugees of the city sailed to the island, and the island city
          of Tyre remained a powerful city. In 333 B.C., however, Alexander the
          Great laid siege to Tyre. Using the rubble of mainland Tyre, he built a
          causeway to the island city of Tyre. He then captured and completely
          destroyed the city.

          Today, Tyre is a small fishing town where fishing boats come to rest
          and fisherman spread their nets. The great ancient city of Tyre to this
          day lies buried in ruins exactly as prophesied. If we were to calculate
          the odds of this event happening by chance, the figures would be
          astronomical. No, it was not by coincidence.{2}

          Here’s another example. There are nearly one hundred prophecies made
          about Jesus in the Old Testament, prophecies such as His place of birth,
          how he would die, His rejection by the nation of Israel, and so on. All
          these prophecies were made hundreds of years before Jesus ever came to
          earth. Because of the accuracy of the prophecies, many skeptics have
          believed that they must have been written after A.D. 70—after the birth
          and death of Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem. They have thereby
          tried to deny that they are even prophecies.

          However, in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These scrolls
          contained the book of Isaiah and other prophetic books. When dated, they
          were found to be written from 120 to 100 B.C.,{3}
          well before Jesus was born. It would have been an incredible
          accomplishment for Jesus to have fulfilled the numerous prophecies. Some
          say these prophecies were fulfilled by chance, but the odds against
          this would be exceptionally large. It would take more a greater leap of
          faith to believe in that chance happening than in the fact that Jesus is
          God and these prophecies are divinely inspired.

          The record of prophecy is thus evidence for the unique and supernatural origin of the Bible….”. ( end quote )

          More reasons why the bible is authoritative ; https://www.probe.org/authorit

        • Aram

          If you’re going to copy/paste your nonsense over and over, you really should sort out the Disqus formatting before you walk away. Not that it’s worth reading, but would be easier to read if someone felt inclined.
          You’re welcome.

        • Spectrum

          It’s not “nonsense”. But yes, thankyou, that would be helpful. I do find it annoying too. Where do I find out how to format it so that it reads properly, then ? I’ve just checked under “Get Help”, but didn’t see anything relevant.

        • Aram

          It’s nonsense because you forget the most important point of all. The New Testament was written after the Old.
          Think about it.
          As for formatting, just paste and then edit/re-line your post. Takes a bit longer but makes less people hate you 😉

        • Spectrum

          But why does it do that ? No other sites change the formatting other than Disqus. I have re-lined other posts of mine, but it becomes too much of a hassle after a while.

          Disqus – if you’re reading this – get your act together !

        • Aram

          Probably it does that to encourage original thought and interaction.

        • Spectrum

          So it has happened when you have copied and pasted too ? I thought it might be a fault with my browser or something. It’s a relief to know that I’m not the only one having this frustration.

        • Aram

          It’s only frustrating if you copy/paste ALL the time.

        • Aram

          As for your Ezekiel prophecy copy/paste, I’d say this site did a thorough debunking. Enjoy.

          http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.de/2012/04/ezekiels-prophecy-of-tyre-failed.html

        • Spectrum

          Ah, you’re copying and pasting too ! Double standard ?

        • Aram

          It’s a link. Calm yourself.

        • MNb

          “The authority is God’s Truth via the scriptures.”
          Exactly! As there is no god it follows logically and directly that that authority is exactly zero.
          Thanks.

          “He is arguing from a position of ignorance …”
          In the previous quote you told me all I need to know to reach my conclusion. That’s why I thanked you.
          The authority of the Bible depends on god’s truth.
          There is no god hence there is no such thing as god’s truth.
          Hence the Bible doesn’t have any authority.
          Very nice of you that you confirm my conclusion.

        • Spectrum

          According to you there is no God. You can’t KNOW this. It’s merely your belief, just like mine which believes there is. You base your counter argument on this ? Actually there IS NO argument present in that at all. Just your opinion. Which has no more worth than my own.

          Then you have the audacity to smugly congratulate yourself for this outstanding victory of logic. You’re deluded.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          According to you, there are no unicorns. You can’t know this. It’s merely your belief, just like mine which is that they do exist.

          Our positions are symmetric.

        • MNb

          Hard to understand how logic, works, no?

          “congratulate yourself …”
          I didn’t. I just showed you where “the Bible doesn’t have any authority” comes from – ie on what assumption it was based.

          “Just your opinion.”
          I never claimed it was more. You claimed with that long list of links of yours that the authority of the Bible was established by scholars. You blamed me for not putting enough effort in truth seeking. Now you say it’s just about opinions. But unsurprisingly you are as dishonest as almost every single apologist so now you prefer to forget that little issue – which you were bleating around with your very first comments on this blog.
          Hence now you find out that it doesn’t work you are blaming me for what you did. Quite the asshole are you, aren’t you?

          “just like mine which believes there is.
          And hence that long list of links of yours is based on the same quicksand as mine, according to you. That remark of yours about “truth seeker” has become even more hypocritical. You wanted to send me on a quest for truth based on “just like yours which believes there is” – what you call merely an opinion.
          Quite the asshole are you, aren’t you?

          “You can’t KNOW this.”
          Depends on what you mean with “to know”.
          But that has nothing to do anymore with the authority of the Bible. If we can’t know whether there is a god or not the Bible doesn’t have any authority either – the very postulation you wanted to dispute and which you scorned me for, but now implicitely accept.
          Quite the asshole are you, aren’t you?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who died to leave you one of the Twelve?

          Read the Great Commission bit in Matthew—the disciples were given superpowers for their mission. If you weren’t, then I think you’re not a recipient of the Great Commission.

          As for Christians given authority and boneheaded atheists not, keep in mind that Christianity is insanely fractioned. There are 42,000 denominations. Take just about any opinion you have—either theological or moral—and you can find another Christian who disagrees with you.

        • MNb

          “You don’t have the authority to declare that.”
          Yup, I have. See, I’m not even baptized. Hence the links you provided are irrelevant to me.
          Take the first link.

          “The strongest argument for the divine inspiration of the Bible is the testimony of Jesus.”
          Jesus was a human being like you and me, so if this is the strongest argument there is no argument at all. It’s that simple.

        • Spectrum

          So you stopped after the first link ? You’re a real seeker of the truth, aren’t you ?

        • MNb

          Have you read Koerbagh, Baron d’Holbach, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham, Michael Bakunin, Piotr Kropotkin, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, Bertrand Russell, Anton Constandse, Richard Feynman, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Graham Oppy, Herman Philipse, Hector Avalos and Maarten Boudry?
          No?
          Then your belief system is not the result of a quest for truth either and your comment only shows your hypocrisy.
          If you think one link of that long list relevant to me, explain me in one or two sentence why and provide it. Then I’ll read it. Until then I am going to dismiss it as the cheap rhetorical trick it is.

          But there is more. See, I have read several more of your comments as well. Your line of thinking is nothing but

          1. There is a god;
          2. That god provides Truth (whatever that means);
          3. That Truth is reflected in the Bible;
          4. Hence the Bible is authoritative.

          Even when neglecting the plain errors here my point is very simple and hasn’t changed since you entered this blog:

          There is no god.
          Hence the Bible (understood as reflecting “God’s Truth”) does not have any authority.

          That’s sound logic and no amount of theist scholars can change that. That quest you want to send me on is a waste of time unless one of those links provides me with a good reason (evidence or argument) to accept that there is a god.
          The Bible is not a good reason.

        • Ron

          Ok. From Bible.org we read:

          Christianity is based on the Bible which Christians accept as their final authority because they believe it to be inspired by God. Thus, our first topic for study is the basis for this belief. Why do Christians believe the Bible to be a Book inspired by God? Our answer is found in the Bible itself.

          This graphic illustrates the circular logic:

          http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/7/78/Bible_cycle.jpg/780px-Bible_cycle.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Very adept! You’ve caught them in their lie (or bullshit).

        • adam

          Sin?

        • Lycan

          What’s the basis for that.

        • adam

          The ‘bible’

        • Lycan

          By the way Jesus is not an idol. He is our Lord and Savior.

        • MNb

          Special pleading. You only write that because you worship him. BobS doesn’t and neither do I. When looking from the outside Jesus is nothing special.
          Exactly by writing “He is our Lord and Savior” you turn that person into an idol, whether he was called Jesus or Kim Il Sung.

        • adam

          Of course your Jesus is an idol.

          idol Merriam Webster
          noun ˈī-dəl
          : a greatly loved or admired person

          : a picture or object that is worshipped as a god

        • Spectrum

          Jesus explicitly CONDEMNED idolatry. So how could He be one Himself ? Think before you type.Or better still, read the bible and at least make a pretense of understanding it.

        • adam

          ” So how could He be one Himself ?”

          Because people like YOU create it in your own mind.

          I HAVE red the bible, you should too.

        • Spectrum

          You may have read the bible, anyone can do that. But you evidently haven’t ABSORBED much of it. Or you wouldn’t be claiming Jesus to be an idol in the biblical sense of the meaning.

          The definition of idol that you provided in your previous post applies to FALSE idols – false Gods – of which there were a number – that seduced the Jews of ancient Israel into adopting pagan practices that led them away from their God and consequently to be cursed by Him.

        • Dys

          Considering the prophecies in the OT and the difficulties in making Jesus fit them, it’s certainly plausible that Jews could consider him a false idol.

        • Spectrum

          The ancient Israelites knew what they were doing when they started following pagan practices and worship. They had been warned by God not to do so as He declares that He is a “jealous God”, and that if they did, they would be alienated from Him and be punished.

          If you are interested in understanding the great sin of idolatry see this ; http://commontruth.com/Idolatry.html

        • Dys

          None of which deals with what I said. Good job missing the point.

        • Spectrum

          That was an information statement pertaining to the topic at hand, not a reply to the question. I HAVE replied to that, as you will notice.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You may have read the Old Testament, but I wonder if you’ve absorbed some of the outrageous stories of Yahweh’s excesses. What do you do with all that? Does this not point to mythology instead of a loving god worthy of worship?

        • MNb

          Jesus was a true human and a false god. All gods are false.

        • Spectrum

          Thanks for confirming what I said.

        • adam

          “But you evidently haven’t ABSORBED much of it.”

          I understand the purpose of its mythology and propaganda.

          Revealed ReligionTM leaves no other option that everyone that ‘believes’ that they get ‘revealed’ creates that ‘revelation’ from their own experiences and DESIRES, hence ‘faith’ REQUIRES wishful thinking and the creation of each individual ‘god’ in each individual mind. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8c090313104e9af06fc68663a303baee3a51ab2423404403d69f77cf4c77a368.jpg

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          avoid the obvious difference between what Christ did and what these myths claim to be.

          Yes, the Christ story is different. In fact, they’re all different.

          That Palestine was suffused with dying-and-rising god stories makes that element of the Jesus story look borrowed. If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?

        • Lycan

          I was actually talking about how none of the myths mentioned are Saviors. Which is a pretty big difference.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not really. That they’re dying and rising is the enormous common trait.

          To repeat from my previous comment, which you ignored: If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?

        • Lycan

          “Not really. That they’re dying and rising is the enormous common trait.”

          Then why label the article “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

          Then mention no other Saviors?

          “To repeat from my previous comment, which you ignored: If all the other dying-and-rising stories are false, why imagine that Jesus is the exception?”

          First off as I’ve stated before it seems that attis’ rebirth wasn’t added to the legend until after Christ rose again. So it would seem that the attis cult copied Christians in that regard.

          adonis seems to have the same story. It seems that there was no mention of his rebirth until at least the second century.

          with baal it still seems debatable whether he died in the first place.

          with osiris

          “Jonathan Z. Smith in the article “Dying and Rising Gods” for the Encyclopedia of Religion (1987) relates the myth like this: Osiris is murdered, his body is dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body are recovered and rejoined, and the god is rejuvenated. However, he doesn’t return to his former mode of existence but rather journeys to the underworld where he becomes the powerful “lord of the dead.” “In no sense can Osiris be said to have ‘risen’ in the sense required by the dying and rising pattern; most certainly it was never conceived as an annual event.”

          http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm#Dionysos

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Then why label the article “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

          Then mention no other Saviors?

          And we’re back to square one. If you want to use the title, “Just one more dying and rising god,” then do so. And then refute the argument.

          Are you saying that every one of these gods’ cults copied the Jesus story? If not, then I presume you agree with the main point that the Jesus story did arise in a culture suffused with the idea of dying-and-rising gods.

        • Lycan

          “And we’re back to square one. If you want to use the title, “Just one more dying and rising god,” then do so. And then refute the argument.”

          You seemed to have evaded the question. My question still remains why did you call your title that and then name no other Saviors?

          “Are you saying that every one of these gods’ cults copied the Jesus story? If not, then I presume you agree with the main point that the Jesus story did arise in a culture suffused with the idea of dying-and-rising gods.”

          I’m sorry but did you really just ignore the rest of the comment where I show how some of the myths didn’t rise again and how at least two don’t seem to be added to the myth until after Christ rose again?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You seemed to have evaded the question. My question still remains why did you call your title that and then name no other Saviors?

          I’ve addressed the question, you didn’t like it for some reason, and now I’m bored by the question.

          It’s off topic. If you want to address the actual subject of the post, that would be fine.

          I’m sorry but did you really just ignore the rest of the comment where I show how some of the myths didn’t rise again and how at least two don’t seem to be added to the myth until after Christ rose again?

          I don’t have time to go back to re-research the facts of each of those gods, so let me see if there’s anything interesting here. I’m saying (again) that the Jesus story arose in a culture in which the idea of a dying-and-rising god was already present. Do you agree?

        • wtfwjtd

          Did you miss this?

          “Most of those gods were used to explain the cycles of the seasons. Jesus isn’t like them. Yes, Christianity is different from all the other religions, but so is every other religion. If Christianity weren’t different from one of the earlier religions, it would just be that religion.”

          If you could be bothered to read everything that Bob wrote, instead of just picking out bits here and there, you would see that your point was adequately addressed.

          “…technically attis rising again doesn’t seem to have been added to the legend until about the 4th century which would have been after Christ rose again.”

          So you are saying that this one religion is copying from Christianity instead of the other way ’round? Good point, if it’s valid. But it still not nearly enough to refute the basic premise and title of Bob’s post:
          “Jesus: Just One More Dying and Rising Savior”

          You’e going to have to do better than that.

        • Lycan

          “If you could be bothered to read everything that Bob wrote, instead of just picking out bits here and there, you would see that your point was adequately addressed.”

          Technically didn’t you just do the same thing?

          I didn’t pick out in a sense it’s the title for crying out loud. It’s not like I went into the article and picked out minor things from it. It’s the title and the first sentence. All I was trying to point out was that the beginning of the article seems very misleading.

          God bless you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          If Lycan had bothered to check a dictionary.

          saviour:- 1.A person who saves someone or something (especially a country or cause) from danger, and who is regarded with the veneration of a religious figure.

          The word is also synonymous with “hero”.

          http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/savior

          So technically, there is nothing wrong with the title, ergo Po is right that the complaint is pedantic bullshit.

  • Spectrum

    The movie “Zeitgeist” also presented similar claims to these, and has since been discredited.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Unhelpful. What I need is for you to clearly point out the error in the post above and then clearly give me the correct interpretation. References would be nice.

      • Spectrum

        How about you address the “Zeitgeist” movie ? You mean you haven’t seen it yet ? If you had, you’d realise that it raised many of the same questions – that have been refuted – regarding “other Christs” e.t.c. And you wouldn’t be needing to waste people’s time with articles like this.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, I’ve seen it years ago. No, I’m not going to follow up on your homework assignment.

          How about you do the heavy lifting here? I write a post, and then if you find errors, that’s great–but I need you to make the errors clear. Simply saying, “Oh, that’s been dealt with” doesn’t help us much here.

        • Spectrum

          I mentioned “Zeitgeist” because it covered most of what you and others are raising here. As that was found to have errors and untruths that were dealt with accordingly, why should it be necessary to point out YOUR errors e.t.c. ? It would merely be repetition.

          Must we list each and every false deity from history, to see if they pass the “Jesus test” ? None do. This subject is therefore irrelevant. Unless you’re an atheist who who likes to mischievously waste peoples’ time pursuing dead end subjects such as this.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves has been (rightly, I assume) attacked for sloppy scholarship. If Zeitgeist has problems, that’s fine.

          This post is not Zeitgeist.

          Unless you’re an atheist who who likes to mischievously waste peoples’ time pursuing dead end subjects such as this.

          Tragically, you’re the time waster in this example. You want to handwave that there are no valid arguments without actually doing the heavy lifting.

          Compose an argument and I’ll read it. Handwaving that it’s already been done earns you no points.

        • Spectrum

          “Zeitgeist” has problems and it’s fine.”

          No, it’s NOT fine. Because the producer of that documentary is knowingly deceiving people who could be potential Christian converts, by presenting erroneous “information” that is presented in a manner that is likely to mislead them. And also to possibly persuade CURRENT Christians to doubt their faith and thus lose their salvation. That is SERIOUS. And with articles like yours, you are perpetrating the same thing.

          THIS is what I mean by “it’s already been done”. Not only done – but dusted, too ; http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/pagangods.shtm
          – also check out the numerous links at the bottom of that page.

          Atheist leaning blog writers like you, seek to discredit Christianity by regurgitating these falsehoods – all excused in the name of “exploring”….

          ( from your description at top of this page ) ;
          “….Bob explores
          intellectual arguments in favor of Christianity (Christian apologetics)
          from an atheist perspective and critiques Christianity’s actions in
          society…”.

          Now it’s fair enough to critique something, but do it without using arguments that have been proven false.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I think you need to find a blog about Zeitgeist and blow off steam there. This isn’t that.

          And also to possibly persuade CURRENT Christians to doubt their faith and thus lose their salvation. That is SERIOUS. And with articles like yours, you are perpetrating the same thing.

          Charged, tried, and convicted! Wow—that was fast.

          In my neck of the woods, someone who disagrees with an argument is obliged to point out the error and then show the correct information. Your mama didn’t teach you manners?

          Thanks for the nonworking link. Instead of assigning me homework because you’re too busy or lazy to help us out here, I’d rather you make clear the problems here.

          do it without using arguments that have been proven false.

          This is a drive-by. You tell me that my arguments suck. That of course informs me not at all and kinda makes it look like you don’t have an argument.

          I want you to show me, but then I’ve asked you that before. I’m getting impatient.

        • Spectrum

          No, the link wasn’t broken, I linked to the wrong page. Sorry. Try this ; http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/pagangods.shtml

          If that should not work either ( unlikely ) then type in ; Is there a God ( in the search bar of that page ).

          After reading the article and the links at the bottom of it, you should see how your article has been made redundant. Which is why I chastised you.

          You keep insisting on me “showing you”. Read the article and links, and I will have done that. O.k. ?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I read the article. It’s the same old thing. “Of your 3 points of comparison, god X doesn’t match up with #1, so therefore that one is irrelevant” and so on.

          My point is really simple: the Jesus story came from a world full of stories of dying and rising gods. Yes, I realize that these gods had different names than Jesus or looked different or came from different cultures or rose repeatedly instead of once and so on and so on. My point remains.

          You disagree? Then carefully tell us yourself.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Christian converts, by presenting erroneous “information” that is presented in a manner that is likely to mislead them. And also to possibly persuade CURRENT Christians to doubt their faith and thus lose their salvation. That is SERIOUS.

          And yet, you have no problem with young children without the reasoning tools in place to check for themselves that the Buybull is an erroneous crock of shit….

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/42/c3/b6/42c3b6dc5e40de6b3c98da07174501f0.jpg

          …talk about hypocrisy. Atheists know and realise there are errors in Zeitgeist, that’s why there are plans afoot to correct them.

          Mythicist Milwaukee & King’s Tower Productions are going to produce a well-researched film about the Jesus myth theory that deliberately eliminates the flaws of past films (like that awful Zeitgeist thing) and pays attention to the best scholarship on the issue, while also introducing a lot of entertaining features as well as educational ones.

          http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/8540

          Any such plans for the Buybull have you heard about? No? Hypocrite.

          Now it’s fair enough to critique something, but do it without using arguments that have been proven false.

          YOU have yet to show an argument of Bob’s to be wrong…come back when YOU can present that argument.

  • 778878

    its all true however theres one other one you forgot to mention ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ whose got 616 directly in this name