Friday, January 31, 2014

Utilitarianism and its consequences


Danger of Utilitarianism 
On ideas that screwed up the world Brings me to another writer of the 18th century 
John Stuart Mill 1806-1873 Book "Utilitarianism" 


We begin at his childhood. John Mill reported that his father didn't treat him like a son, but an *Experiment* pushing him far beyond his young mind should have been pushed. He hadEpicureanism shoved down his young throat.     

Fast forward: since John Mill grew up an Atheist rejecting the idea of original sin; he most likely never could have imagined how damaging the ideas from his book would be on a world: 

Nutshell: Utilitarianism can be broken down into a very overly simplistic
 *Double Equation*..

Good = Pleasure 
Evil = Pain 

Besides the very obviously flawed view. E.G sleeping with my Neighbor's wife might bring  her and I pleasure but the effects of adultery on her family and mine will be damaging.

 Or. Suppose I want to kill someone because they happen to be in the lives of people I care about. But They are blocking my goals of having the types of friendships with them that I want. So I decide to murder them. It may bring me pleasure knowing this person is erased from my life. But I still committed murder. And even though I don't "feel" pain doesn't mean that what I did wasn't evil! 

In conclusion: To bad John Stuart Mill never followed is ideas to their logical conclusion. And to bad henever bothered to ask "What is a moral pleasure" and "what makes pleasures moral?"

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Ideas That Have Screwed Up The World


Ideas That Screwed Up the world 


My take on "Ideas that Screwed Up the World!" 

Today I'm spotlighting *Jean Rousseau* who lived 1712-1778 
Who has done an Immeasurable amount of damage on our world. In one book. "Discourse on the Origin and foundation of inequality among men"

Nutshell: Rousseau reasoned with that words like God, Love, & Beauty were meaningless words for the salves of society! 

Rousseau Believed Man was primarily a caveman and in order to be fulfilled needed to live and run wild in the forest...under this view man only needs to "eat, sleep, and have sex whenever and with whomever without all of the duties and responsibility of Love! 

Rousseau also believed Father-hood was for salves, therefore the mother can raise the offspring besides (according to Rousseau) The woman is convinced she needs to love her offspring. As if a father couldn't care less about his children. 

Sounds strangely firmilure today! Where some men in our society make babies, and leave all the responsibility to their mothers. I'm really not sure if I really need to explain why this is a bad idea! If one happens to think that this philosophy is a good one to adopt,  than you have more problems than simply trying to understand this blog. I recommend you read and try to understand Paul's writings in the book of Romans.

Which by the way could have really helped Rousseau get a grasp of the reality that shirking one's responsibility doesn't make one free. It just puts more responsibility on the shoulders of those that are Noble! I wish Rousseau was alive today to see the bounced checks of this idea on society. I'm pretty confident that this idea is at the heart of needed Well fair programs in the world. Ideas have consequences. HERE


And this is why Rousseau gets one of the top places of Ideas that helped damage our world!

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Arguments For Universalists



Great Arguments For Universalists?


Do Universalists have well thought arguments?
Let's discuss it.   

"Christian Universalism" is the position that all of mankind will ultimately be saved through Jesus whether or not faith is professed in him in this life.
Christian Universalism teaches that God's qualities of love, sovereignty, justice, etc., require that all people be saved and that eternal punishment is a false doctrine. Salvation is not from hell under this view http://i.word.com/idictionary/universalism

Moreover, Those who teach that the unrepentant will be punished in a future state, and that their punishment will be proportional to the degree of sin committed in the mortal state. They generally hold that the punishment is moral and not physical. There is no hell. They do not maintain that salvation is merited through these sufferings.
Those who teach that all the punishment for sin occurs in this life and that God's discipline in our lives is for the purpose of purifying us, though this purification is not our merit for salvation. In eternity, there will be a loss of reward for those who did not trust in Christ in this lifetime.

Christian Universalists claim to hold many of the tenets of historic Christianity: Trinity, deity of Christ, deity of the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace, etc. As always, it is necessary to inquire and ask what is meant by the terms they use because the diversity that exists in universalist beliefs warrants further examination. Nevertheless, the Christian universalists claim to affirm:
The inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Which of course creates problems for coherence with regard to scripture when rejecting other major Christian doctrines.

Universalists do not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity, but lean more towards either Arianism (God is one person, Jesus is created) to modalism (God takes different forms in history). This is, of course, heretical.

"Jesus is the Son of the Living God
Many cult groups say the same thing. What they mean by the phrase is what is important."

The Christian Universalists tend to say the Son is a manifestation, an image, a representation of God's essence, yet he is not equal to the Father. Therefore, they are denying His true deity.
But, not all who claim to be Christian Universalists deny this.
Some hold that Jesus is not God but that He is divine. This is perplexing since divinity is a quality of God, not angels or men.
Jesus' Resurrection

Most Christian Universalists affirm the physical resurrection of Jesus. But, some still claim he did not rise from the dead physically, but was assumed into heaven to dwell with God. Which also adds to massive confusion.

If, by what is written above here is their view -the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, as it seems it is, then anyone who holds to that position is indeed a non-Christian since it denies one of the essential doctrines of Christianity.

The Holy Spirit is God's presence
There is a surprisingly common denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. (Personhood is self-awareness, a will, the ability to speak, etc.). This is a serious error on the part of those who hold to it. But to be fair, many universalists affirm the Holy Spirit as the third person in the Godhead.


There is no salvation without trusting Jesus as Savior. This is basic Christianity 101
Since, to many universalists, Jesus is not truly God by nature, they have an improper object of faith (denying the Trinitarian nature of God and the deity of Christ). Please see: Daniel Mann's World

Their faith, then, is useless since they have violated the command to worship no other God (Exodus 20) and are worshiping a false god. The Jesus they believe in, is not the real one. This means they are definitely not Christian.
There is a second chance theology at work here
 where people who have rejected Jesus in this life can come to faith in the next life, even though he has flatly rejected Jesus' sacrificial atonement.
Some Universalists believe...
in consciousness after death, others do not.
in limited punishment of sinners in a type of hell that is not of fire, but of some moral chastising.
that punishment in the afterlife was for a limited period during which the soul was purified and prepared for eternity in the presence of God.
In conclusion: Universalism is at best, a cult smoothly blended up with about five competing world views in it. And, at worse, it's more contradicting than former governor of Florida Charley Crist's switching political party's at every run!

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

How Atheist Market Their Theories and The Public buys.


How do they sell it? 

The analogy below is helpful to put this in context. 

Lets suppose you owned a exotic jewelry store and for years you had the publics trust through cultivated relationships, Trust and fine craftsmanship. Now let's say another knock off jewelry store moves in next door to yours. They have copied everything you sell in yours, but everything in their store is fake imitation. 

To make matters worse 
For you,  the man who owns the knock off jewelry store is telling everyone in town that you have been ripping people off for years and they should quit doing business with you. 

But it gets worse, because, in this analogy, months have gone by and now this man owns 10 stores and there are bill boards all over the city, and the news media is covering his store and helping to spread the deception that your authentic jewelry is somehow the inferior one.

Well this is like what's been happening in colleges around the world in the like, for the last 80 years+ Many people have been working hard to get us to believe marketing slogans and the slogans are..?

"Reason over dogma"

"Religion poisons everything"

"To question science is tantamount to rejecting truth all-together!"

But wait a minute. Aren't there hundreds of scientific fields of inquiry? I mean take the word "Inquiry" its defined as.. "To investigate" To examine" "to dig" to find out"

Find out what? 

Ah yes, if a theory passes tests. Find out if it Is it true? Now certainly in many scientific fields questioning is good. But not all. Take The Evolution debate: If you question evolution today watch the powers that be come after you with fury! 

If you don't believe me ask Dr. Behe and see if he agrees with me. Or try to go into a "civil chat room" where evolutionist are. And see how they treat you for challenging the belief.

There are problems with Darwinism. Many problems. For one the heavily contested fossil record.
In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. 

As Denton puts it,
"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."

But wait! Isn't one of the atheist marketing slogans they use all the time, "Where's the evidence"?

Scientist that argue for Darwinism, will say things like.., "Close enough to be fact"  but the fact is in the words of Dr. David Berlinski "Darwinian evolution: We aren't even close, to being close to calling this a theory"

But just like the analogy above the pubic has bought right into the Marketing slogan!

Now I don't for a second agree that science is inferior to religion. I believe the two are compatible. And friends of each other. Religion is a friend of science. And vice versa. It has always been a false dichotomy to pin one over the other.

For further reading Book "Who made God" by Edgar Andrews 

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

POST-EVERYTHINGS



POST EVERYTHINGS 


How do we, as a denomination, do renewal and outreach in the emerging post-everything United States culture? “Post-everything” people are those who are now in their teens and twenties – and they are our future.
These persons are increasingly post-secular. They are much more open to the supernatural, to spirituality, and to religion but not necessarily to Christianity. They are also post-ideological. On the one hand, they are perhaps too concerned about issues of social justice to be labeled “conservative.” On the other hand, they are also post-liberal.


 Not only is the old Liberalism too self-righteous for contemporary tastes, it is also cracking up due to 9/11, the demise of socialism, and war. The emerging culture is also post-modern. Our society increasingly is opposed to purely rationalistic explanations for experience, and does not accept the hard-nosed, scientific secularism of the past.
In general the PCA knows how to thrive in the shrinking enclaves of traditional people, but does not know how to thrive in this increasing post-everything culture.


Michael Wolfe, in New York Magazine said we are
fundamentally two nations. “There is the quicker-growing, economically vibrant, morally relativist, urban-oriented, culturally adventurous, sexually polymorphist and ethnically diverse nation. Then there is also the smaller-town, suburban, nuclear-family, religiously oriented, traditional values, white-centric other America with its diminished political and economic force.”


America still has enough places dominated by this latter “nation” that the Reformed Christian Church can continue to grow among already-conservative and people. However, our usual methods of ministry do not work effectively in the parts of the country and the sectors of society that have the greatest power in our culture. Our ineffectiveness as a denomination in working with post-everything America is a failure across party lines. Whether we identify ourselves as “Evangelically Reformed,” “Confessionally Reformed” or “Old-school” we face similar failures. All our parties tend to limit their evangelism and discipleship to people who are basically traditional in their mindset.


For instance, our typical evangelistic presentations are effective with persons who assume they should be good. Then the gospel-presenter tries to show them than they are not good enough – they fall short of God’s perfect standards – and therefore they need Jesus to forgive sin and help them do the right thing. This presentation was quite appropriate for almost everyone in my parents’ generation. My parents, who are evangelical Christians, and my in-laws, who are not at all, had basically the same social and moral values. If you asked them the questions such as, “What do you think about pre-marital sex, or homosexuality, or pornography?” both sets of parents would have answered the same. They were part of a world in which Christianity was the folk-religion even if it was not the heart-religion of most people. They believed that the purpose of life was to be a good person. This world no longer exists everywhere.


On the other hand, if you say to those in my kids’ generation, “You know you have to be good,” they will say, “Who’s to say what good is?” So what are we to do with these post-everything persons who are increasingly dominating our society? The traditional gospel presentations will not make much sense to many of them.
I think that a) if we have the humility to admit that we are not doing the job, but b) at the same time (in a non-triumphalistic way) advance the answers Reformed theology especially provides, then there is great hope for our church.


We must first give high priority to finding ways to minister in three areas: universities, big cities and ethnically diverse situations. University towns are incubators where we can learn how to address the ideas of the rising culture. The new world usually emerges in the big cities and if we learn to face it and engage it there, we will be able to do the same in the rest of the country. In short, we must go to the ‘leading edges’ of our society and learn how to preach, model, and sing the gospel in ways that both challenge and attract (rather than merely confusing) people.


People may respond, “Well I’m not in a university town or a big city. I’m in a suburban or rural community, so such persons are not my concern.” The fact is there are already many kinds of post everythings in your town. Because of technology, mobility, and myriad other influences, post-everything people are everywhere. We may not see them in our churches because we minister in ways that exclude post-everythings – they are either offended or confused immediately after walking in the door.
Further, we are not presently forced to think about the post-everythings because there are so many traditional people that our churches can still grow and, thus, we feel that we are doing a fine job. Still, we must go to the university towns, big cities, and the ethnically diverse places because there we will learn to understand and reach America’s future. The next thing we must do is use the Reformed resources that God has especially granted this church to minister to the emerging culture in the following ways:



First, remember that post-everything people like narrative and story. They tend not to like the older kind of preaching that simply enunciated doctrinal principles. Neither are they excited about the newer user-friendly sermons of seeker-churches on “How to Handle Fear,” “How to Balance Your Life,” etc. So, do we throw overboard everything we have done? Absolutely not. We turn to Geerhardus Vos who says that every single part of the Bible is really about Jesus. If you know how to do Christ-centered preaching, then you turn every single sermon into a kind of story. The plot of the human dilemma thickens, and the hero that comes to the rescue is Jesus. Christ-centered preaching converts doctrinal lectures or little how-to talks into true sermons. Post-everythings who are interested in narrative are reached by such preaching that is deeply Reformed.


Second, remember that post-everythings are experientially oriented. They do not just want intellectual propositions. For them life’s meaning is grounded in what they experience. Of course, as Reformed Christians we are very word-centered, and we know that eternal truth is not based on our subjective experience of it. But Reformed preachers have a tremendous resource for an experience-oriented generation in Jonathan Edwards. Edwards taught that a sermon should not only make truth clear, but also should make truth real. In Edwards we find ways to preach that are Reformed, committed to objective truth and, at the same time, deeply experiential.


Third, remember that post-everythings are very much against moralism and self-righteousness. But Reformed preachers have Martin Luther to help with this concern. Traditional gospel presentations assume that the people want to be “good.” But our kids’ generation wants to be “free.” Luther said, “Look, you want to be free? Good. It’s good to be free. But you’re not. You are living for something and, whatever that something is, it enslaves you.” If a person lives for reputation, then he is a slave to what people think. If a person lives for achievement, then he will be a workaholic. As did Luther, we should tell such people, “You want to be free? Fine. But you’re not going to be free unless Jesus is your salvation.” When post-everythings rejected Christianity they thought moralism and Christianity were the same thing. But we can show post-everythings that the two are not the same, and that freedom really is in Jesus.


Fourth, take note of post-everythings’ concern for social justice. They innately sense that the church is not credible without care for mercy and justice. We can address these concerns with the wisdom of Hermann Ridderbos and other Reformed theologians who stress the coming of and the presence of the Kingdom. The Reformed understanding of salvation is not simply that God is rescuing individual souls out of the material world, but rather he is also redeeming all of creation. God is going to bring complete healing and shalom to the material world eventually. This makes Christianity (as C.S. Lewis says) “a fighting religion” against poverty, hunger, and illiteracy. We must bring this Kingdom message of Reformed theology to post-everythings.


Fifth, recognize that post-everythings love art because they love the material world. Abraham Kuyper’s understanding of Reformed theology enables us to say to post-everythings, “Christianity is not just a way for you as an individual to get peace, love and groovy vibes in Heaven. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview. You can be a Christian artist, dancer, manager, or minister and these are all ways of living out the gospel.” When post-everythings hear that, they get extremely excited. They have never considered that Christianity embraces the whole of life.


Finally, remember that post-everythings are not strongly swayed by evidences and proofs. If you start to present evidence for the deity of Christ or the proofs of God, post-everything eyes will glaze over. But the
presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til can work with post-everythings. I think Reformed theology provides us with tools for our culture that Josh McDowell’s kind of evidential apologetics does not.
I see people who are desperately trying to reach the post-everythings who in their desperation are trying to throw out essential elements such as the substitutionary atonement, forensic justification, imputed righteousness, the Sovereignty of God, or the inerrancy of Scripture. Many of them are probably over-adapting to the post-everything situation. But while they do not have our theological resources, often we do not have their level of engagement with the people of the emerging society. To correct this, let us confess that we really have failure across all our parties to reach the coming society, and let us resolve to use the premier resources of Reformed theology.

If we can make these changes, then we may really start to see renewal and outreach, and we might actually be a resource for the broader body of Christ in this culture.

Tim Keller

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Chick Fil A: Record sales!!

Chick fil a CEO Don Cathy came out recently and spoke openly about his view and support of Traditional Marriage. That is between one man and one woman. Mike Huckabee former presidential runner has voiced his support of the fast-food giant in light of some back-lash from some anti-Christian groups and other homosexual and lesbian supporters. Huckabee said quote "It's not about fried chicken; it's about free speech." 

One thing is sure: You can't buy media coverage like this! And my guess is, seeing all of the lines today at the Fast food giant around the country today, we will be seeing record sales and profits! The Chick fil A near my house took thirty minutes to drive threw the drive-threw. Whatever your view you take on the issue of same sex marriage people in this country will fight tooth and nail over free speech even if un-popular. Censorship will not be tolerated in this country! Some might label Chick Fil A as bigots and narrow minded and so on....But Chick Fil A franchises are most likely going to go from tens of thousands of dollars on a busy day today, to possibly millions of dollars over night. If you support free speech in this country go get yourself a chicken sandwich and enjoy supporting the first amendment. But if you don't like free speech, you don't have to eat there or live in the United States.       

Thursday, July 26, 2012

The Titanic: reality, legend, and the use of parallels.

The Titanic: reality, legend, and the use of parallels.


It is a dark, cold April night in the icy waters of the North Atlantic. The world’s largest luxury liner is on a voyage between the New York and England. Because it is thought to be ‘unsinkable’ (due to its watertight compartments) it is travailing at a speed in excess of 22 knots and is only carrying lifeboats for less than half its capacity of 3000 (as few as regulations would allow). It is a behemoth vessel, nearly as long as three football fields, end to end, weighing in at over 45,000 tons. Suddenly, terror sets in as the three giant props push it into an iceberg on the starboard side about 400 miles from Newfoundland. This fatal blow causes the ship to sink, killing the majority of the passengers and crew.
April 14th (Saturday) & 15th (Sunday) of 2012, mark the 100th anniversary of the awful collision (11:40 pm) of the Titanic in the North Atlantic and her subsequent sinking (2:20 am). Of the 2229 aboard, only 713 survived.1

However, I probably tricked you slightly with the title of this article and the above picture of the HMS Titanic. In the above details I’m actually referring the Titan from a fiction novel written over a decade before the Titanic’s voyage, by Morgan Andrew Robertson, published in 1898. The similarities are uncanny, leading some to question whether Robertson was prescient. In fact, the design of the Titanic wasn’t even discussed until mid-1907.2 This fiction book was called “Futility” or “The Wreck of the Titan” and followed the story of a person aboard a British luxury liner. Even the choice of names is eerily close.


But, one might also take another approach. What if I were skeptical about the story of the HMS Titanic? What if I told you that these stories were so similar that it is obvious that the story of the Titanic was copied (and therefore fabricated), based on the story of the Titan? In light of having direct, eye-witness testimony until recently, and some incredible submarine technology which has sent back video and photos of the wreckage on the ocean floor, you would call me crazy. But, what if we jump forward a couple thousand years in time, or push the events back in time a couple thousand years? In other words, we put some historical distance between the events and our investigation. Let’s say we only find some fragments of paper from one of Robertson’s books which can be dated to around 1898 from which we reconstruct the story of the Titan.

We have some other fragments of paper, maybe newspaper clippings, which date from 1912 from which we reconstruct some witness testimony of what happened at the Titanic scene? The situation seems a bit different now; this concept of copying takes on a bit more power.
This use of parallels to question historic events is the type of reasoning Christian apologists sometimes face concerning the life of Jesus. You might have come across people making the claim that other gods of the Mystery Cults, such as Horus or Mithras, were born of a virgin, on December 25th, died and were resurrected. Does this argument sound familiar?


The story of the Titan and Titanic isn’t really a good analogy, especially given the small historical time separation, however it does drive home an important point. Just because we have something earlier that appears to be a parallel DOES NOT indicate the latter was copied from the former! It doesn’t shed much light on an account being true or false either. Take another look at the Titanic story. Would anyone seriously claim it was just a legend or a copy-cat reenactment? Yet, it is seriously claimed by some, that the Biblical account of Jesus is just that.

In comparison to the Mystery Cult parallels brought against Christianity, the story of the Titan is a much closer parallel. Even so, taking a look at the flaws in my attempt at making the parallel above should help us think about the types of flaws we will find in the comparison of Jesus to the Mystery Cults.
First, the similarities are cherry-picked while the differences are ignored.
  • For the Titanic, over 700 are rescued, while only 13 are rescued for the Titan.
  • The Titan is 800 feet long, while the Titanic is 882 feet long, they differer in number of watertight compartments, lifeboats, weight, power, speed, etc.
  • While both ships sank, exactly what they hit and how they sank varied. (The Titanic hit an iceberg, causing holes, the ship broke and sank; the Titan ran onto an ice-sheet which tipped it on its side, taking on water, it sank.)
  • While the trip was in April for both, the Titan doesn’t list a date. It was also traveling in the opposite direction, though sank in roughly the same area.
Second, generalities are often used.
  • I was purposely vague in how many survivors there were, saying the majority were killed.
  • I was able to be a bit vague in the physical description of the ship to make them seem the same.
  • By avoiding the details of exactly what happened, how the ships sank isn’t an issue.
  • Picking the vague date of the month of April, and not listing the departure and destination keeps the discrepancy from being readily seen.
Third, due to the subject matter, some things will naturally match, but indicate no ‘genetic’ parallel.
  • Wouldn’t a shipwreck at that time in history in the middle of the ocean generally have a minority of survivors? They didn’t have helicopters or as good of communication.
  • The ships are actually fairly close in physical characteristics, yet if one were to conceive of a ‘biggest of some class’ one is likely going to be similar if at all being realistic, given the technology of the time period.
  • If a ship hits some large object in the ocean, it will probably sink. It doesn’t have to be ice, but ice was a fear of the time (they simply thought these ships were going to be impervious to it). The routes where well enough established to be less afraid of rocks, which plagued previous generations of sea travel.
  • These are two common destinations. Ships would take a similar path. In this time of year (spring), ice would be a big concern as it broke from ice shelves and flows.
Some of the bigger differences:
  • The Titan was on the third voyage, while the Titanic was on the first.
  • The Titan had 92 watertight doors, while the Titanic had only 12.
  • The Titan was full, while the Titanic, fortunately, was not at capacity.
  • The Titan hit the ice in foggy conditions, while the Titanic on a clear night with no moon.
  • Traveling in opposite directions.
  • Huge difference in number and percentage of passengers surviving.
All this considered, in the case of the Titan story and Titanic account, there is enough detailed similarity to make one a bit uneasy about simply writing the parallels completely  off. Yet, without some kind of prophecy or prescience, one will have to conclude the similarities are coincidence. We certainly know the Titanic story is true. With the Mystery Cults and Jesus, however, the parallels can, I believe, safely be written off.
Consider the idea that Mithras was a parallel to Jesus. First, we don’t even have any text concerning Mithras to give us details. What we know about Mithras comes from interpretation of wall murals. I guess they say a picture is worth a thousand words, but depending on who is looking at the picture and what presuppositions or intentions they bring, those thousand words might be quite different. Second the supposed similarities are huge stretches and everything else is ignored. For example, it is said that Mithras also had 12 disciples and was born of a virgin. The 12 disciples idea is drawn from the images where the zodiac signs surround Mithras. It is quite a stretch to link this with Jesus disciples. Mithras was born out of a rock. I suppose rocks are generally considered virgins!? Mithras was a saviour who sacrificed himself to save the world? Well, he slayed a dangerous bull, if that counts
Other things about Mithras are crude generalities or things we would simply expect to find when talking about a deity. For example, he is said to have celebrated a ‘Eucharist’ such as Jesus’ Last Supper (and consequent Communion or Eucharist of Christians). There is a bit of truth to this, as Mithras followers did celebrate a fellowship meal, however so did just about every religious group in this time and place. In other words, the assumption that Christianity is unique in the generalities of a fellowship meal is the mistake in thinking here. Or, take the concepts that Mithras was a great teacher or performed miracles. These are simply things we’d expect to find within just about any religion involving a deity. These kind of claims may be unique to Christianity in being true, but they aren’t unique claims of religions in general.
One could look at any of the other Mystery Cult figures and offer a similar analysis. This is only scratching the surface. If you do a bit more research, the absurdity of this kind of parallel claim will become even more obvious. Bruce Metzger, renowned New Testament scholar, gave the following advice when looking at supposed parallels.
“Some of the supposed parallels are the result of the modern scholar’s amalgamation of quite heterogeneous elements drawn from various sources.” “Even when the parallels are actual and not imaginary, their significance for purposes of comparison will depend upon whether they are genealogical and not merely analogical parallels.” “Even when parallels are genealogical, it must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases the influence moved in the opposite direction.”3
On Metzger’s last point, for example, consider that it is said Mithras followers celebrated on Sunday. While this may be true, it is true in Rome, from post-Christian times. In other words, it certainly looks like Mithras followers copied this from the Christians, not the other way around.
For more great information on these Mystery Cult claims and the problems with them, put forth in an easy-to-read, but well-researched manner, see Jim Wallace’s excellent set of articles at PleaseConvinceMe.com. On the left side, look for the pages on Mithras, Horus, and Osiris, as well as pages on the historical evidence for Jesus4
Also, while I have only looked in a cursory manner so far5, I have noticed similar assumptions and sometimes problems when considering the (quite popular) view in Old Testament studies about parallels between Ancient Near East (ANE) worldview and religious ideas, and the Book of Genesis. While there are certainly valid parallels present (with Genesis often acting as a polemic), they are often overdrawn and imposed to indicated a genetic link in the ‘development’ of Genesis and other texts of the Old Testament. We (and everyone else) need to be much more careful when we make such parallels.
Marilynne Robinson issues just such a warning with a modern day context when she speaks of scholars analyzing our culture from the distant future. She says, “They will ponder our holding great civic elections on Tuesday, and our expressing ritual gratitude for Friday, confident that Norse polytheism flourished among us.” 6

This artical and the original author of this post is from http://www.tilledsoil.org/2012/04/15/the-titanic-reality-legend-and-the-use-of-parallels/