[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

No, maybe I'll have to read that book. While it is true that similarities between Christianity and other religions does not prove Christianity to be a rip off of other religions, the fact that so many similarities exist provoke questions of the historical accuracy of supposed Christian history.

Well, it's not a supposed history, it's historically verifiable, and often from non-Christian sources. Just because they may have their root somewhere else, does not negate that they are Christian at this point.

Sorry my point was lost, it's a good one, if you can get your arms around it.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Unless I am misunderstanding you, that seems to be an argument in my favor. Morals and religious belief went through a metamorphosis over time. Belief was wandering down a path that culminated in what became Christian belief. That means it is a human invention (as is cubism), not a divine product.

Unless you believe that Cubism is rooted in the nature and reality of the universe. Get that? For example, the idea that a virgin birth shows up in other religions does not mean that Christianity borrowed from them. It could very well be that culture from the beginning has realized in order for a redemptive process to take place, an epiphany would be needed. Is this getting clearer? Just because a perfect (or near perfect) person is put to death in other religions might mean Christianity borrowed from it, but it could also mean other religions realized a redemption was needed to come close to God. Am I getting the point across?

(P.S- You'd also have a hard time showing how morals have metomorphasized over time.)

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Many religions (Islam for example) are rooted in history as well. Islam is rooted in the very same history. The problem is that history is questionable.

Islam and Christianity contradict each other, as a science man you know this means they cannot both be true. If the Koran says Christ was not executed, but the Bible and other non-biblical sources say he was, one is wrong, the others are right.

Christianity is quite authoratatively rooted in history. The Bible itself is dated by Christian and non-Christian scholars as being within the scope of historical accuracy. It's locations and dates line up with what archeology finds with it's spade.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

The Romans did not invent the cross, though they may have invented crusifiction. The fact that previous religions used the cross as a symbol gives Christianity a convenient method to weave the cross into their own beliefs.

Missing the point here, I think. Ingersoll seemed to be saying that the cross was a symbol of peace and life, that's why Christians use it. To Christ it was a symbol of pain and suffering and humiliation. Like I noted, according to Ingersoll, it would be like me wearing a tiny electic chair or miniature hangman's noose around my neck as a symbol of peace and life. That doesn't make sense. I think he misunderstood the cross based on what we think of it as now-a-days.