Egyptians, and the Origins of Christianity?

[Sun Tzu]

So...first I'd like to state that I am in no way trying to start some flame war...I'm hoping that we can all have an intelligent conversation/debate on the subject of religion without people going fanatical. Now I don't practice any particular religion, though I am Jewish by blood. I'm not saying one thing is fact, and another is fiction. I'm just hoping to get some unbiased information here.

I've done a little reading, and though I'm nowhere near an authority on the subject, it looks to me like the Egyptians had some sort of organized religion in place about 4,000 years before Christianity that was...well...damn near identical in almost every single way. Since I don't know much about all of this stuff, I'm wondering if anyone here has looked into the same thing, and if you wouldn't mind shedding some light on the subject.

Thanks in advance.

[Izulde]

If you're referring to what I think you are, I believe that was a one-off pharoh and his wife (the smoking hot Nerfertiti (sp) ) who lost their rule because of it

[RainMaker]

I've researched it a lot and I still don't think the Egyptians were that close to what Christianity ended up being. A lot of the stuff out there that does compare the two are missing a lot of facts. I think there are better parallels between Greek Mythology and Dionysus to Jesus than Egyptians and Horus/Osiris.

[JediKooter]

A lot of christianity's stories can be found in religions that pre-dated it. The virgin birth story of jesus is similiar to these virgin birth stories: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, and Dionysus.

What RainMaker said...

[Noop]

I have read a few things that suggest it, especially about the Pharaoh who had 13 I guess slaves or something. Then the thing about the three Egyptian gods which relates to the Holy Trinity. I never dug deeper because I don't believe in that kind of stuff and really don't care enough to ever engage in a convo with someone about proving their belief wrong or whatever.

[I. J. Reilly]

I would like to hear more about the smoking hot queen named Nerftitty.

[Surtt]

When I was in collage I took a class on Western Religion.
Almost all modern religious beliefs can be traced back to earlier mid-eastern myths.

The exception was the teachings of Christ, which had a much more eastern flavor.
("Love thy neighbor" vs. "An eye for an eye")
The teacher speculated that as a young man, Christ may have visited India or China.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Surtt

When I was in collage I took a class on Western Religion.
Almost all modern religious beliefs can be traced back to earlier mid-eastern myths.

The exception was the teachings of Christ, which had a much more eastern flavor.
("Love thy neighbor" vs. "An eye for an eye")
The teacher speculated that as a young man, Christ may have visited India or China.

Yeah, most religions have similar stories and vibes. They all kind of evolved from one another. I remember reading a great piece about how Christianity got singled out because it was one of the few that had a resurrection story to it which people were drawn to.

[JediKooter]

The story of Gilgamesh is a good example as well. Written a couple of thousand years before jesus' time.

[King of New York]

As I recall, there was a brief period where a pharaoh named Akhenaton decreed that he and the imperial family would pray to a single god. It wasn't quite monotheism, though, because I think that all the other Egyptians were still supposed to worship him. Plus, I don't think that the nature of Egyptian belief and practice changed all that much during that brief experiment.

Of course, it's still true that Judaism and by extension Christianity were very influenced by the Near Eastern religious environment.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by King of New York

As I recall, there was a brief period where a pharaoh named Akhenaton decreed that he and the imperial family would pray to a single god. It wasn't quite monotheism, though, because I think that all the other Egyptians were still supposed to worship him. Plus, I don't think that the nature of Egyptian belief and practice changed all that much during that brief experiment.

Of course, it's still true that Judaism and by extension Christianity were very influenced by the Near Eastern religious environment.

Aten was the god he wanted his people to worship. After Akhenaten's reign, Epyptians pretty much tried to erase him (Akhenaten) from the 'history books'.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

A lot of christianity's stories can be found in religions that pre-dated it. The virgin birth story of jesus is similiar to these virgin birth stories: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, and Dionysus.

What RainMaker said...

If nothing else, I'm impressed that you can just roll names off the top of your head like that.

[DaddyTorgo]

yep! i remember doing a paper on him in 7th grade...lol

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Surtt

When I was in collage I took a class on Western Religion.
Almost all modern religious beliefs can be traced back to earlier mid-eastern myths.

The exception was the teachings of Christ, which had a much more eastern flavor.
("Love thy neighbor" vs. "An eye for an eye")
The teacher speculated that as a young man, Christ may have visited India or China.

I think it's far more likely that Jesus would have been exposed to the work of Greek philosophers through local rabbis than taking a trip to India or China.

"Eye for an Eye" actually was more Eastern (Code of Hammurabi) than "love thy neighbor", which was a pretty common concept in Greek philosophy. Even Thales, who lived about 500 years before Jesus was born said "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If nothing else, I'm impressed that you can just roll names off the top of your head like that.

A couple, yes. The rest I had to look up because I couldn't remember them exactly.

Oh and Gilgamesh has a devestating flood story in it too if I remember correctly.

[Sun Tzu]

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

[finketr]

sun tzu,

well the original Gospel/sources were written around 60-100 AD, iirc...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

Did they not keep good records in Israel in 16 AD? Surely archeologists have dug up something...a casier's check signed by Jesus or something.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

I think the best evidence one could use, to proove there was the jesus that people refer to in the bible actually existed, would be contemporary sources of the time that mentioned him. Kinda like if there was a Nazareth Gazette or something like that in the birth section announcing that "Mary gives birth to a son that she named Jesus, still looking for the father" or "Jesus turns water into wine, the meek sing", you get the idea.

Guesstamates are that it was 100 to 200 years after he was dead that the first writings started showing up, and indeed, you can not discount the telephone game. Also take into consideration that around the 4th century AD is when the christian church started gaining some steam. So you have that gap in time to contend with too.

As far as christianity borrowing from earlier creation stories and virgin birth stories, etc...my take on it is this: It's no different than what Lucas did with Kurosawas Hidden Fortress and came up with Star Wars. Lucas took Kurosawas movie, changed the names, places and certain events, gave it a space theme and viola! Star Wars.

[Sun Tzu]

I'm starting to like this JediKooter fellow.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I'm starting to like this JediKooter fellow.

Well, I am a nice person and I like Star Wars, what's not to like?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, I am a nice person and I like Star Wars, what's not to like?

Where's the kooter part come in?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Where's the kooter part come in?

Whenever I can get it...from my wife.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Is it not true that there is more evidence to show that Jesus never actually existed as a man, than that he did exist? I've read that from the date of his supposed birth to the date of his death, there are zero actual documents/writings that he was a real person. I've also read that the first writings showing about him didn't come until at least 4 generations after Jesus would have supposedely died, or been killed. Is this not like DeToxRox's great-great grandson writing my entire life story via a 4 generation game of "telephone"?

I'm just saying...

Saying that "Jesus this" or "Jesus that" to explain why christianity is the way that is, is like saying that "Ra must have spent some time in Bethlehem" is it not?

There is some mention of Jesus, son of Joseph by old historians during his time. However, the mentions are rather light and he wasn't a particularly signifigant person of the time.

I've read both sides of the coin and I sort of lean toward the fact that a man by that name existed during the time.

[Shkspr]

You can argue all you want about whether he actually existed or not. All I know is I'm not changing my name to Jss.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

You can argue all you want about whether he actually existed or not. All I know is I'm not changing my name to Jss.

Ok, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I've read both sides of the coin and I sort of lean toward the fact that a man by that name existed during the time.

I would bet heavily that a man named Jesus exists during the present time as well.

I'm not 100% sure, but if I went South of the border, I'd find at least one guy named Jesus.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I would bet heavily that a man named Jesus exists during the present time as well.

I'm not 100% sure, but if I went South of the border, I'd find at least one guy named Jesus.

You don't have to go south of the border at all.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

You can argue all you want about whether he actually existed or not. All I know is I'm not changing my name to Jss.

What about Sr Wltr Rlgh?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is some mention of Jesus, son of Joseph by old historians during his time. However, the mentions are rather light and he wasn't a particularly signifigant person of the time.

I've read both sides of the coin and I sort of lean toward the fact that a man by that name existed during the time.

This is an interesting read: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

[Mac Howard]

I saw a documentary recently that pointed out the similarities between Krishna and Jesus - he too was born of a virgin, a jealous ruler hearing of the birth of a messiah had new-borns killed, he walked on water, fed a multitude from virtually nothing (only 500 in Krishna's case) and so on. Note also the similarity between the names Krishna and Christ.

Judea was directly on the trade route between Egypt and the far east and traders would have carried and told stories of religious characters from both which it's believed have significantly influenced developments in Judaism (of which Christianity is one). Krishna had much the same "love your enemies" etc message as Jesus and, even without Jesus visiting the far east he would have been aware of Krishna's teachings. Religious historians argue there is a significant Buddhist influence on Christianity.

There are claims that Jesus fled to the far east and died there. I believe there is still a tomb there that claims to be that of Jesus.

There is very little evidence outside of Christian writings for the existence of Jesus. Josephus, a very well respected Roman/Jewish historian of the 1st century who wrote extensively on the times of Jesus, mentions him only twice in the very briefest of terms. However it's thought that these mentions, which are clearly not consistent with continuity in the text and refer to Jesus as "the Christ" which Josephus an orthodox Jew would never say, have been introduced by enthusiastic Christian authors in the first centuries (we don't have originals of Josephus' writings, only copies and almost all copies in subsequent centuries were made by Christian clerics).

But there are extensive Christian writings - far too many to suggest there is no reality behind them - not only accepted biblical writings but many others and also those of the the Egyptian Gnostics. That these have been declared heresy by western Christianity doesn't detract from their value as evidence of the reality of Jesus. Despite the differences of interpretation of the significance of the stories they are essentially the same (whether Judas was acting or not on Jesus' advice in giving him to the authorities doesn't alter the truth of the story itself).

There's no doubt, even in the mind of this incorrigible agnostic, that there is a reality behind the story even if the story itself has been somewhat embellished.

The Christianity we have today, certainly in the Catholic church, is the Jesus story worked over by Greek philosophers - essentially neo-Platonists. Protestantism is not only a reaction against the behaviour of the Catholic church but also against the theology up to the 16th century largely defined by the ideas of Plato and Aristotle (who both declared what we know today as 'empirical evidence" was worthless and that intellectual/spiritual investigation was the only worthwhile human activity - if it hadn't been for these two Jesus may well have been using a laptop and the internet now 2000 years old ).

[revrew]

Mac Howard's points about the historical evidence for an actual Jesus and the followers of him launching the Christian movement are pretty well said.

And if Christianity were merely an ancient religion with no basis in historical fact, then the pre-existence of its major themes would have significant relevance in discounting its validity as a unique faith. As a Christian, I fully admit that if Jesus were not an actual man of historical significance, I would quickly abandon the faith as just another myth in the long line of human religious baloney.

But if Jesus actually existed, actually died and was raised again to life, the pre-existence of such themes in other religions is irrelevant. Unless you'd like to argue that bodily resurrection from death is a common occurence in human history. Likewise with other themes: preexistence does not prove an event to be false or even "borrowed". Genocide, for example, existed long before the Holocaust, but the Holocaust is a historical fact denied only by people with their fingers in their ears. If the the details of Jesus' life are historical facts, then their precursors don't change that.

Now, we can get into a long debate on the subject of whether everything written of Jesus is true or not, whether embelished or "legendized", but Mac Howard is accurate to insist that the bulk of historical evidence through the writings from within the Christian tradition, as well as their insistence that eye witnesses could verify or debunk their claims, gives solid evidence that a Jewish man named Jesus existed and was believed by some to be the Messiah. Even academically, to deny the existence of an actual Jesus is bad scholarship and easily debunked. Some have tried, tried even desperately, and a careful examination of their methods shows clearly that desperation has overcome reason - that their fingers are in their ears.

For my part, I have looked at the history and come to believe the best and msot reasonable conclusion is that the details are also accurate, but that's a discussion for another time.

[Sun Tzu]

Ok...interesting opinions here.

revrew - Does this mean that the billions of people in the world who don't believe any of this or aren't of the christian faith are wrong?

My only strong opinion in any of this, is that I don't claim to know anything. I wasn't there, so who am I to say who has their fingers in their ears and who doesn't. When your day does eventually come, I think everybody is going to be equally unprepared for what happens after...if anything does happen at all. From the most "spiritually enlightened" person, to the homeless guy on the corner of Market and 5th.

[Fonzie]

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Fonzie

All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again.

Well, duh. It's the Internet. I figure we've got a spirited abortion debate coming in June, August is booked for mocking the Creation Museum, and in September we'll go off the reservation for a look at whether the Holocaust really happened, with a little 9/11 inside job paranoia for flavor. We DO have a week and a half in July that's open, what with the Vermont and Iowa gay marriage news throwing off that timetable a bit, but right now there's a sweet gun control/Second Amendment defense flamewar that I think can slip into that slot nicely.

...or by "all of this" did you mean something other than endlessly cycling debates on controversial topics that inevitably degenerate after four pages into namecalling and hurt feelings?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

This is an interesting read: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Yeah, that is a nice summary of a lot of the stuff I've read. I think it's a coin flip to be honest. There are some accounts that could be talking about Jesus as the article mentions. Those also could mean completely different things. We aren't able to unravel all the historians accounts from that era so it's tough to say.

I was swayed toward believing that there was a guy named Jesus who had a father named Joseph and went around telling stories while high on opiates. There are a lot of independent, non-believer historians who believe this is true (in fact I'd say the majority).

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now because I don't really think it's a major issue. Even if there was a Jesus, it's fairly clear that he was rather unremarkable considering how few early documents spoke of him. I believe all the stories that people recite today is nothing more than fairy tales, so it doesn't matter if a regular guy named Jesus existed or not. I'm more interested in how the stories came to be and what their influences are.

For anyone really interested in religion and the mind, I recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. He's a fairly well known author who focuses on religion, evolution, and why it came to be. Kind of like a more cerebral look at the Selfish Gene.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Well, duh. It's the Internet. I figure we've got a spirited abortion debate coming in June, August is booked for mocking the Creation Museum, and in September we'll go off the reservation for a look at whether the Holocaust really happened, with a little 9/11 inside job paranoia for flavor. We DO have a week and a half in July that's open, what with the Vermont and Iowa gay marriage news throwing off that timetable a bit, but right now there's a sweet gun control/Second Amendment defense flamewar that I think can slip into that slot nicely.

...or by "all of this" did you mean something other than endlessly cycling debates on controversial topics that inevitably degenerate after four pages into namecalling and hurt feelings?

Say Hello to one of the most quoted quotes on the internets!

Battlestar Galactica anyone? Peter Pan? Matrix?

[molson]

The Bible is not a history book.

Religion isn't as simple as whether something is factually true or not. I think there's segments on both sides that don't quite understand that. There's obviously those who think that the bible is some kind of unquestionable factual and litteral truth. And then there's those who thing that religion or spirtuality has no redeeming value because you can't prove litteral words of a text created by man. Both sides are WAY off, IMO.

We don't know. Disproving the facts of a man-made bible isn't making a case for atheism, or even that Christanity is invalid.

There's a billion ideas other than the two that are usually debated (god v. no god).

[Noop]

I remember hearing that the man in the portrait of Jesus is Cesare Borgia the son of Pope Alexander VI. I know people like to say it's the message that matters but I thought that was interesting.

[miked]

Sportsdigs wrote about Jesus 2000 years ago.

[JediKooter]

You would think that there would be some reports from the Roman commanders of the day saying that they finally took care of that jesus person who was causing so many problems. It's just not there. All written accounts of jesus of the bible were made long after his supposed time period. The evidence may exist and just has not been found yet or is sitting in some basement of some university.

So based on actual emperical evidence that is currently available, it's not looking good that the jesus of the bible existed. Was there some dude named jesus, probably, just not the one everyone reads about in the bible.

And molson is absolutely correct about religion being factually true or not because religion is based on faith, not facts. However, he is wrong about the atheism statement. Atheism is nothing but the disbelief in a god or gods, nothing more than that and it isn't about disproving religion or whether they are valid or not.

Getting back to Sun Tzu's original question...I think christianity is an amalgam of older stories and fables that had been around for centuries before it was founded. Some stories borrowed from the Egyptians, Greeks, Mesopotamians, etc...

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

And molson is absolutely correct about religion being factually true or not because religion is based on faith, not facts. However, he is wrong about the atheism statement. Atheism is nothing but the disbelief in a god or gods, nothing more than that and it isn't about disproving religion or whether they are valid or not.

Religion is based on faith, but not faith of facts being accurate. I think that part's misunderstood, by both believers and non-believers. If someone conclusively proves that say, Jesus didn't exisit, the countering faith isn't "well, I believe Jesus existed anyway".

I'm not really responding to anyone here that said anything to the contrary, just shooting the breeze....

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

Religion is based on faith, but not faith of facts being accurate. I think that part's misunderstood, by both believers and non-believers. If someone conclusively proves that say, Jesus didn't exisit, the countering faith isn't "well, I believe Jesus existed anyway".

I'm not really responding to anyone here that said anything to the contrary, just shooting the breeze....

I totally understand what you are saying. I just think, in my opinion, letting go of one's faith/beliefs/bias/etc... is probably one of the hardest things for a person to do, even when presented with evidence that goes against their faith/beliefs/bias/etc...

I wish more people would shoot the breeze about this stuff.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

You would think that there would be some reports from the Roman commanders of the day saying that they finally took care of that jesus person who was causing so many problems. It's just not there. All written accounts of jesus of the bible were made long after his supposed time period. The evidence may exist and just has not been found yet or is sitting in some basement of some university.

So based on actual emperical evidence that is currently available, it's not looking good that the jesus of the bible existed. Was there some dude named jesus, probably, just not the one everyone reads about in the bible.

There are missing records for lots of people from that era, especially records scribed in distant colonies about events that Caeser would care less about. I think the lack of evidence proves very little, since the significance of the actual Jesus was not realized for hundreds of years after his death.

The other side of it is that religion requires faith. You can't see God, so you need faith to believe in him. The same would hold true for his earthly son, especially for those religions that believe they are the same person.

An interesting take on the similarities of Jesus' story would be if God intentionally made his son's life and stories similar to old myths to make him easier to accept for the masses. We do know that God changes from vengeful to loving after the Jews were taken as slaves...maybe he hired a good marketing director during this period as well!

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think it's far more likely that Jesus would have been exposed to the work of Greek philosophers through local rabbis than taking a trip to India or China.

"Eye for an Eye" actually was more Eastern (Code of Hammurabi) than "love thy neighbor", which was a pretty common concept in Greek philosophy. Even Thales, who lived about 500 years before Jesus was born said "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."

It has been 20+ years, so I don't remember most of it.
The actual lecture was about what happened to Jesus in his early adult life.
In the bible, after his early childhood, he disappears until he is 30ish.
One of the possibilities the teacher threw out, using his teaching as evidence, was he traveled to the far east.

Originally Posted by molson

The Bible is not a history book.

Religion isn't as simple as whether something is factually true or not. I think there's segments on both sides that don't quite understand that. There's obviously those who think that the bible is some kind of unquestionable factual and litteral truth. And then there's those who thing that religion or spirtuality has no redeeming value because you can't prove litteral words of a text created by man. Both sides are WAY off, IMO.

I agree.
I think a lot of the problem with Christianity today comes from trying to interpret the Bible as the literal truth. It is meant to teach a philosophy, not facts.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

There are missing records for lots of people from that era, especially records scribed in distant colonies about events that Caeser would care less about. I think the lack of evidence proves very little, since the significance of the actual Jesus was not realized for hundreds of years after his death.

The other side of it is that religion requires faith. You can't see God, so you need faith to believe in him. The same would hold true for his earthly son, especially for those religions that believe they are the same person.

An interesting take on the similarities of Jesus' story would be if God intentionally made his son's life and stories similar to old myths to make him easier to accept for the masses. We do know that God changes from vengeful to loving after the Jews were taken as slaves...maybe he hired a good marketing director during this period as well!

I agree that lack of evidence doesn't prove or disprove anything, but, when the evidence that does exist points to a different picture/story, logic would dictate that you have to make your conclusions based on the available data/evidence.

So, taking the available data we have:
Jesus of the bible = No
Some guy named Jesus = Yes
Some guy named Jesus morphed into the Jesus of the bible a few hundred years later = Possibly

Yes, the Old Testament was full of vengence and destruction. Definitely some great marketing like you said.

[Surtt]

Well if you consider even Santa Claus is based on an actual person, I find it hard to believe there wasn't a Christ behind the stories. Maybe there were several and the stories eventually ended up being attributed to one person.

How closely Christ the person resembles Christ son of God, I can't guess.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Well if you consider even Santa Claus is based on an actual person, I find it hard to believe there wasn't a Christ behind the stories. Maybe there were several and the stories eventually ended up being attributed to one person.

How closely Christ the person resembles Christ son of God, I can't guess.

Santa Claus is a good example. He could possibly be based on an actual living person, however, do we really believe in flying reindeer or elves that work in the North Pole making toys or him being able to get to every house in time before the day is over? I can't speak for everyone, but, I think it would be safe to say, No.

After enough years or decades, he went from Santa the philanthropist to Santa the magic elf, thanks to the imaginative minds of people.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Well, duh. It's the Internet. I figure we've got a spirited abortion debate coming in June, August is booked for mocking the Creation Museum, and in September we'll go off the reservation for a look at whether the Holocaust really happened, with a little 9/11 inside job paranoia for flavor. We DO have a week and a half in July that's open, what with the Vermont and Iowa gay marriage news throwing off that timetable a bit, but right now there's a sweet gun control/Second Amendment defense flamewar that I think can slip into that slot nicely.

...or by "all of this" did you mean something other than endlessly cycling debates on controversial topics that inevitably degenerate after four pages into namecalling and hurt feelings?

I was actually making a Battlestar Galactica reference, but I'm quite taken with your interpretation.

[AENeuman]

First of all, North African Early Christianity rocks, i spent most of grad school learning and writing about those guys and gals

As far as the similarities I would tend to go with a Jung/Campbell explanation. I think our collective unconscious organically evolves as our societies evolve. In other words, "how you understand the nature of the world shapes how you go about knowing it."

I love Karl Rahner. He argues that man has a notion of the Mystery before learning our cultures "special revelation" ie knowledge of the Christ event. I think that "notion" creates the framework of our collective unconscious. Because it is outside of experience, and thus language, how it manifests itself can only be within our own cultural context and thus highly relative