Ask the member of the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church AKA Interrogate the Catholic ;) — Page 15

1. Verify they are male

2. ???

3. Profit

I was going to jokingly use that number one in my reply. ;)

Actually the real reason women can't be priests is that, being women, they could only be priestesses, not priests.

I'll respond to you after supper, Warb.

Roman Catholic Priestesses would be an awesome name for a band.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Well, in the Catholic interpretation of things, priests are called by God. If God doesn't call any women to be priests, we can't very well ordain any. That's obviously a very simplistic explanation, but if there is really a God, I think he's got that kind of authority.

 So how does the Catholic Church determine if somone is called by God to be a Priest?

 Well, it comes down to interpreting the signs of a vocation. Usually, such a vocation develops over time. First, a guy might start thinking about the priesthood, which grows into a feeling that he is being called to become a priest, which becomes stronger, until he is sure that it is the path he should take.

Additionally, in order to become a priest one should have a desire to serve others--and for the right reasons. If his motivation to become a priest has to do with the approval it would win him in the eyes of certain people, or it is at all fueled by a desire for status or power, then those are signs that that person may not make a good priest. Or, a person might want to become a priest to escape the responsibilities of family life or life in the "real world," which is also a faulty motive.

A candidate for the priesthood must further be fit for the priesthood itself. That is, they must be able to meet the demands of celibacy, or whatever other sacrifices that are demanded of the priesthood. They must have the ability to be in charge of a parish without being overwhelmed by it. They must have sufficient strength of faith and knowledge of theology and Church teaching to be able to pass it on to others. They must be comfortable helping people and able to aid people in spiritual growth, but also be able to handle living alone.

Affirmation by others that one would make a good priest, or suggestion that one should consider becoming one are also good indicators of a call to the priesthood. If it seems that everyone is commenting on what a good priest you'd make, it may be something to consider.

None of the above, taken on their own, are good signs of a priestly vocation. Usually they all come together, sometimes in a short period of time, sometimes over years or even decades.

As you'll note, the above list is quite subjective. That can result in bad priests. Usually, in those cases, not everything in the above list is met. There isn't a "vocation checklist" which must have every box checked off in order to be ordained, so some people get ordained when they have imperfection motivations, or are doing it to escape life.

However, it does give you a fairly good idea of what the Church looks for in priests, and how a vocation can be recognized. Nearly all, if not all, good priests live up to the above in terms of motivation and suitability for the priesthood as described.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Well, in the Catholic interpretation of things, priests are called by God. If God doesn't call any women to be priests, we can't very well ordain any. That's obviously a very simplistic explanation, but if there is really a God, I think he's got that kind of authority.

 So how does the Catholic Church determine if somone is called by God to be a Priest?

 Well, it comes down to interpreting the signs of a vocation. Usually, such a vocation develops over time. First, a guy might start thinking about the priesthood, which grows into a feeling that he is being called to become a priest, which becomes stronger, until he is sure that it is the path he should take.

Additionally, in order to become a priest one should have a desire to serve others--and for the right reasons. If his motivation to become a priest has to do with the approval it would win him in the eyes of certain people, or it is at all fueled by a desire for status or power, then those are signs that that person may not make a good priest. Or, a person might want to become a priest to escape the responsibilities of family life or life in the "real world," which is also a faulty motive.

A candidate for the priesthood must further be fit for the priesthood itself. That is, they must be able to meet the demands of celibacy, or whatever other sacrifices that are demanded of the priesthood. They must have the ability to be in charge of a parish without being overwhelmed by it. They must have sufficient strength of faith and knowledge of theology and Church teaching to be able to pass it on to others. They must be comfortable helping people and able to aid people in spiritual growth, but also be able to handle living alone.

Affirmation by others that one would make a good priest, or suggestion that one should consider becoming one are also good indicators of a call to the priesthood. If it seems that everyone is commenting on what a good priest you'd make, it may be something to consider.

None of the above, taken on their own, are good signs of a priestly vocation. Usually they all come together, sometimes in a short period of time, sometimes over years or even decades.

As you'll note, the above list is quite subjective. That can result in bad priests. Usually, in those cases, not everything in the above list is met. There isn't a "vocation checklist" which must have every box checked off in order to be ordained, so some people get ordained when they have imperfection motivations, or are doing it to escape life.

However, it does give you a fairly good idea of what the Church looks for in priests, and how a vocation can be recognized. Nearly all, if not all, good priests live up to the above in terms of motivation and suitability for the priesthood as described.

 I don't see anything here that would exclude women.

Ok, so why can't a woman be a Priest?   I see nothing in the above that could not be true for a woman. 

Well, I'll give you some practical reasons for that for starters. I'll hopefully be able to give you more satisfactory ones tomorrow, but no promises. This is in the order I think of them, not of importance or relevance:

1. Priests very often live with other priests. It would be very complicated to have to have separate dwelling-places for priests for a single parish. There is a reason that people who struggle keeping their sexual tendencies under control aren't usually allowed to become priests.

2. Because men tend to have a harder time connecting with their Faith, it helps to have an important and special role for them that doesn't make them feel that religion is for women. This sounds silly when summed up like this, but it comes down to the way men and women differ.

3. You may note that men are almost always the leaders in history. This isn't in and of itself a reason, but an indicator that men may be better suited for public leadership, with women being better suited to direct things "behind the scenes" and taking care of people on a more personal level, rather than caring for large groups in a less personal way. Note that this is a different type of leadership than a government position, which is a job, unlike the priesthood which is properly a complete dedication and surrender to the will of the God and the Church. Monarchy is comparable in some ways, but one isn't chosen for monarchy based on leadership qualities but on birth, so it isn't a double standard to support woman monarchy but oppose woman priesthood.

I'll try to add more later, as I said, but later might end up being several days for now--it takes a while to answer these questions, which are asked with such ease.

To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?

This way of thinking is so alien to me, I can't even begin to formulate a proper response.

Well, the exact same goes for the way I see the way you think. I just can't imagine believing some of the things you do. Some things I understand, but others I just can't. It has a lot to do with some basic assumptions each of us has made about the world, which are presupposed in something like this explanation. If certain things about my religion are true, than things like this can also be true without a problem. I do my best to make it make sense from your point of view, but it's difficult when there are such fundamental differences in the way we view the world.

What do you think of this article, more specifically the subject matter of it than the article itself?  Not trying to be challenging or mocking, I'm just really curious as to how you would explain it?  This isn't very detailed, but it was the best article I could find quickly enough.  It didn't mention that Horus was also resurrected and ascended to the heavens after three days of being dead, but I have seen other places that indicated this.  Not saying the story of Jesus was plagiarized from an egyptian tale that predates it by thousands of years, because I don't have to.

On a similar note, the story of Noah and the ark (even down to the detail of a dove signifying dry land) also appears thousands of years before Judaism, and the story of Moses, with the same basic idea of the same story with different names (although the story of moses the earlier versions had somewhat similar names)

There's a lot there, so I'll only address it in brief, and take more specific questions one at a time if you have any.

When you look at most of these stories as a whole (i.e. not picking out details to make a comparison look convincing) or more closely, most of these theories fall apart. Looking for similarities and parallels and making a big deal out of them is known as parallelomania, and is a frequent phenomenon among those eager to disprove something like Christianity. For instance, a certain title might have been used in that general time period to honour its holder. If the title was given to Jesus, but also possessed by someone before him, that's a weak similarity, especially when there are hundreds of titles given to Jesus, many, if not most of which are not original. By conveniently forgetting details, and giving unmerited importance to others, two stories can easily be made to look like they are significantly similar when they really aren't. I'll try to illustrate this with a simple example:

John J. Smith went to the store to get an apple one fine August morning. When he got there, he discovered that there were no apples available, so he decided to get a banana instead. When he got to the checkout counter, he realized he didn't have enough money to buy the banana--he had brought only enough for the apples, which happened to be cheaper. Finally, he chose to get an orange, and left with his purchase. Walking by a fruit stand on his way home, he saw that there were oranges for sale that were far cheaper than his orange, which he hadn't even wanted. He angrily went back to the grocery store to demand his money back, but was refused and stormed off, leaving his uneaten orange behind.

One hot summer afternoon, J. J. J. Schmidt felt like some ice cream, as he had been working outside all day. So he found an ice cream stand and asked to buy an ice cream sandwich. The ice cream man procured one for him and demanded $5.99 plus tax. Mr. Schmidt discovered that he had only $4.56. With a furrow on his brow, he looked to see if there were more affordable treats, and saw that dilly bars only costed $3.99 plus tax. So he bought one of those instead. After eating his dilly bar, he happened across another ice cream stand. This one had ice cream sandwiches for $4.50, including tax. Dismayed that he had wasted his money on a less desirable treat than an ice cream sandwich, he tried to bargain with the ice cream vendor, promising that he would pay for an ice cream sandwich the next day, plus 20% interest if he could only have one now. He even promised to make a down payment of 36 cents, but was refused. He threw his loose change at the startled vendor, saying that he could "keep the change," and stormed off.

Let's see how many similarities I can find:

1. They both have the initials J. J. S.
2. They both hoped to buy something specific but were unable to.
3. They both chose something else instead.
4. They both payed for it.
5. They both found another place with cheaper prices.
6. They both tried to bargain for something.
7. They both hoped to save money through their bargaining.
8. They were both refused what they wanted.
9. They both stormed off.
10. They both left something behind.
11. Both the stories happened during the summer.

Admittedly, in this case, the stories were based off of each other. However, the differences are significant. It is easy to imagine that they could have been written independently of each other. The list of similarities seems persuasive without reading the stories, but one can see that the stories, while they have their striking similarities, are not really that similar.

This is much like the Sumerian flood myths and creation stories, which are actually quite different, although the Biblical story is likely based off of it, or at least has a common origin with it. The Biblical story has a very different focus and is based on a very different theology than the Sumerian one.

With most comparisons of Jesus and another person, the similarities are even more far-fetched. Sometimes he is compared with people who lived after him, or his story is compared with stories that have a later origin, and we are expected to think that this shows the lack of originality in the Jesus story. For instance, it looks like that list of other "Jesus Christs" includes Mohammad! He lived in the seventh century, and his story is based on Jesus' if anything--not the reverse! Not to mention how vague the description is which determines what goes in the list. Laying the foundation for the salvation of the world and then ascending into heaven is quite vague. Lets take a look at Mohammad, for example. He supposedly received a new religion that "corrected" the Jewish and Christian religions. Supposedly he ascended to heaven for some of his visions. Note that he did not ascend into heaven, like Jesus did, at the end of his life, but only in his visions. Also note that he was only a mouthpiece of God, according to Islam and himself, whereas Jesus claimed to be God himself and spoke authoritatively, not just as a prophet, which is all Mohammad claimed to be.

I can't recall ever hearing the story of Horus resurrecting after three days and ascending to the heavens. According to Wikipedia, he triumphed over Set, and wasn't killed at any point in the story (unless I missed something--I did read it fairly quickly). It isn't unknown for things like that to be wholly fabricated, or for the story to have its origin after Jesus, with the Jesus story seeming to copy it because the characters in the later story are older.

All that is typical of parallelomania, as are long-winded lists of similarities that fall apart upon closer examination.

So those are my, um...brief thoughts about that.

RicOlie_2 said:

Well, the exact same goes for the way I see the way you think. I just can't imagine believing some of the things you do. Some things I understand, but others I just can't.

Like hating David Lynch while liking The Room.

RicOlie_2 said:

1. Priests very often live with other priests. It would be very complicated to have to have separate dwelling-places for priests for a single parish. There is a reason that people who struggle keeping their sexual tendencies under control aren't usually allowed to become priests.

2. Because men tend to have a harder time connecting with their Faith, it helps to have an important and special role for them that doesn't make them feel that religion is for women. This sounds silly when summed up like this, but it comes down to the way men and women differ.

3. You may note that men are almost always the leaders in history. This isn't in and of itself a reason, but an indicator that men may be better suited for public leadership, with women being better suited to direct things "behind the scenes" and taking care of people on a more personal level, rather than caring for large groups in a less personal way. Note that this is a different type of leadership than a government position, which is a job, unlike the priesthood which is properly a complete dedication and surrender to the will of the God and the Church. Monarchy is comparable in some ways, but one isn't chosen for monarchy based on leadership qualities but on birth, so it isn't a double standard to support woman monarchy but oppose woman priesthood.

1. There are different living quarters for university students.  If they can make it work, why can't people of a holy nature?  From a more secular point of view, people of opposite gender manage to live together as roommates without incident.

2. Yes, it does sound silly.  Letting women be priests does not diminish men.  That's like saying "we should only let men be on the board of our company, because they aren't as good at raising children and if we don't let them be the only ones on the board, they won't have any self-worth."

3. Men were always the leaders in history...so they should continue to be the leaders?  Should there be no black leaders in America because they used to be slaves?

To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?

 Because they can do anything a man can do that would need to be done?

RicOlie_2 said:

To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?

One may as well ask

"could you give me your reasons for thinking men should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Black people  should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Asians should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Hispanics should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Native Americans should be allowed to become priests?"

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

1. Priests very often live with other priests. It would be very complicated to have to have separate dwelling-places for priests for a single parish. There is a reason that people who struggle keeping their sexual tendencies under control aren't usually allowed to become priests.

2. Because men tend to have a harder time connecting with their Faith, it helps to have an important and special role for them that doesn't make them feel that religion is for women. This sounds silly when summed up like this, but it comes down to the way men and women differ.

3. You may note that men are almost always the leaders in history. This isn't in and of itself a reason, but an indicator that men may be better suited for public leadership, with women being better suited to direct things "behind the scenes" and taking care of people on a more personal level, rather than caring for large groups in a less personal way. Note that this is a different type of leadership than a government position, which is a job, unlike the priesthood which is properly a complete dedication and surrender to the will of the God and the Church. Monarchy is comparable in some ways, but one isn't chosen for monarchy based on leadership qualities but on birth, so it isn't a double standard to support woman monarchy but oppose woman priesthood.

1. There are different living quarters for university students.  If they can make it work, why can't people of a holy nature?  From a more secular point of view, people of opposite gender manage to live together as roommates without incident.

2. Yes, it does sound silly.  Letting women be priests does not diminish men.  That's like saying "we should only let men be on the board of our company, because they aren't as good at raising children and if we don't let them be the only ones on the board, they won't have any self-worth."

3. Men were always the leaders in history...so they should continue to be the leaders?  Should there be no black leaders in America because they used to be slaves?

To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?

 Because they can do anything a man can do that would need to be done?

 1. It's a weak point, for sure.

2. That's partly true. However (here I am not really trying to defend the point I made), your misunderstanding is that you have the idea that the priesthood is a job, which it isn't. Women could accomplish the same things as men, so it's less about what women are capable of as it was priests are. I know that no explanation I give you will satisfy you, because you see things completely differently. But I will try to explain.

3. My point was more that men are obviously better equipped to be leaders in general, since it is the male sex that very predominantly holds positions of leadership.

One reason women can't be priests is that priests act in the person of Christ. This includes representing Christ himself, in the sacrifice of the Mass, in confession, etc. God is masculine in nature, especially in the form of Jesus. Priests representing him must therefore be male in order to properly stand in for him. There are further reasons along this line which without proper context and background would sound very silly to you, so I'll leave them out for now.

Ideally, the Church's hierarchy should be a hierarchy of service. Priests serve their parish, bishops serve their diocese, the pope serves the whole Church. Any people who think the Church ought to allow women priests because it's unfair that men get all the power have their priorities completely backwards. If that's really why women want to be priests then they certainly shouldn't be! And if they really want to give their lives in service to God and the Church, the best way for them to do that is to teach in the home, passing their Faith on to their children. Men have less of a role in this in the married life, since that is not their principle role. Their role is defending and providing for the family. Thus, it is they who are best suited for the priesthood, guarding and protecting the faith and ensuring that it people follow the teachings of the Church properly.

Note also that not all men can become priests. Very few men can. Should all other men be given equal opportunity? If they can manage the affairs of their parish with great expertise, for instance, and are excellent preachers, should they be permitted Holy Orders despite a lack of prayer life and personal holiness? The idea that the Church can just give out the priesthood to anyone who suits the expectations of the "job" is absurd (when the jobs of a priest are taken to be the administration of a parish, preaching, and performing other exterior functions which are associated with the priesthood). It is spiritual character that is most important, and part of our spiritual character is based on our sex (as in male or female--not our sex life :P).

Some accuse the Church of being sexist, yet the (non-divine) human it honours most is a woman. Mary had a hugely important role. Note that no man could have been the true father of Jesus because a woman would be necessarily involved in order to carry him in their womb, give birth to him, and then raise him. Now, there were women leaders in the early church (for example, Priscilla, and according to some sources, Mary Magdalene). They were not priests, however, yet they served God well. One doesn't have to be a priest to serve God and the Church, so there is no reason why anyone should demand the priesthood. Note that there have been many men who wanted to be priests but weren't called to that life. Why is their refusal any different than the refusal of women?

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?

One may as well ask

"could you give me your reasons for thinking men should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Black people  should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Asians should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Hispanics should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Native Americans should be allowed to become priests?"

 

 It's absolutely ridiculous to equate gender/sex with race. Men did not evolve into women or vice versa. Black people did evolve into white people, Asians, Hispanics, and native Americans. There is not always a clear distinction between them. The only time this is the case between men and women is when there is a physical deformity. There's a big difference between that and a black person who is born albino, and thus with white skin (which is where white people come from).

Shall I continue your line of reasoning?

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with moustaches should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with black hair should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking blonds should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with scars should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking albinos should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with chronic illnesses should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking Spaniards or Germans should be allowed to become priests?"

Where does one stop?

There are clear and obvious differences between men and women in terms of both biology and psychology. The only differences between black people and white people are physical, historical, and cultural.

Post Praetorian said:

Possessed said:

What do you think of this article, more specifically the subject matter of it than the article itself?  Not trying to be challenging or mocking, I'm just really curious as to how you would explain it?  This isn't very detailed, but it was the best article I could find quickly enough.  It didn't mention that Horus was also resurrected and ascended to the heavens after three days of being dead, but I have seen other places that indicated this.  Not saying the story of Jesus was plagiarized from an egyptian tale that predates it by thousands of years, because I don't have to.

On a similar note, the story of Noah and the ark (even down to the detail of a dove signifying dry land) also appears thousands of years before Judaism, and the story of Moses, with the same basic idea of the same story with different names (although the story of moses the earlier versions had somewhat similar names)

If a being of supernatural, yet eternal, intentions might exist, is it not possible that his message may be consistent in its elements, yet stressed somewhat differently to disparate peoples?

To clarify, is it not possible that God might merely enjoy recounting the same tales?

 Actually, that's exactly what I believe.  I personally don't believe that the story of Jesus is untrue, I just believe it's a retelling of a different story with changed names, and with details altered to fit the desired culture or audience.  I was not saying that this makes the story of Jesus untrue, I think it's true, it just may not have been "Jesus of Nazareth".

However, I find Ric's points about finding similarities between two things very weak.

Sure you can find similarities in anything, but let's look at these similarities:

*Both born of a virgin

*Both had stars signifying their birth
*Both teachers at age 12.  SPECIFICALLY age 12.

*Both "baptized" at age 30, specifically.
*Both tempted by the evil force, on a mountain.

* Both crucified, then ascended to heaven.

Those are pretty damn specific, and I don't think you can find those similarities between two random people.

Like I said, I still think the story is true, I just believe the story of Jesus and the story of Horus are merely retellings of the same story.

RicOlie_2 said:

3. My point was more that men are obviously better equipped to be leaders in general, since it is the male sex that very predominantly holds positions of leadership.

I fail to understand this. 

And if they really want to give their lives in service to God and the Church, the best way for them to do that is to teach in the home, passing their Faith on to their children.

there is also of course the option of becomiing a Nun.

Note also that not all men can become priests. Very few men can. Should all other men be given equal opportunity?

But the ones that can't, are because they fail to meet all of the qualifications you listed (including wanting to be a Priest for the right reasons).    A woman could meet all those qualifications (including wanting to be a Priest for the right reasons and would still be denied because of what she is lacking between her legs.

If they can manage the affairs of their parish with great expertise, for instance, and are excellent preachers, should they be permitted Holy Orders despite a lack of prayer life and personal holiness?

out of the Billions and Billions of the women that have been Catholic throughout the over 2000 year history of the church, there has never been one Catholic female that had the proper prayer life and personal holiness?

The idea that the Church can just give out the priesthood to anyone who suits the expectations of the "job" is absurd (when the jobs of a priest are taken to be the administration of a parish, preaching, and performing other exterior functions which are associated with the priesthood). It is spiritual character that is most important, and part of our spiritual character is based on our sex (as in male or female--not our sex life :P).

please explain how one's spiritual character is based on one's sex..

 Note that there have been many men who wanted to be priests but weren't called to that life. Why is their refusal any different than the refusal of women?

 because they weren't disqualified because of what is between their legs.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

To help me answer your question properly, could you give me your reasons for thinking women should be allowed to become priests?

One may as well ask

"could you give me your reasons for thinking men should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Black people  should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Asians should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Hispanics should be allowed to become priests?"

"could you give me your reasons for thinking Native Americans should be allowed to become priests?"

 

 It's absolutely ridiculous to equate gender/sex with race. Men did not evolve into women or vice versa. Black people did evolve into white people, Asians, Hispanics, and native Americans. There is not always a clear distinction between them. The only time this is the case between men and women is when there is a physical deformity. There's a big difference between that and a black person who is born albino, and thus with white skin (which is where white people come from).

Shall I continue your line of reasoning?

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with moustaches should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with black hair should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking blonds should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with scars should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking albinos should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking people with chronic illnesses should be allowed to become priests?"

"Could you give me your reasons for thinking Spaniards or Germans should be allowed to become priests?"

this is my point,  you don't ask why any of the of the above that you and I listed should be allowed to become Priests, yet you ask this about women.  Why?  Why does sush a question need to be answered about women but not of any those that you or I listed?

There are clear and obvious differences between men and women in terms of both biology and psychology. The only differences between black people and white people are physical, historical, and cultural.

 I fail to see how the biologic and psychologic differences make it impossible for all women to be Priests.   I fail to see why these differences should mean an automatic disqualification for women.   Do the differences truly mean that all the Catholic female that have ever been in the 2000 year history of the church  would not make good Priests?  All of them?  There has never been one instance where a woman could qualify despite the differences?  

Due to the day, I will be leaving this thread for now.  I suggest everyone else does so as well and we can come back to it in a few days.   

Merry Christmas.

Possessed said:

Post Praetorian said:

Possessed said:

What do you think of this article, more specifically the subject matter of it than the article itself?  Not trying to be challenging or mocking, I'm just really curious as to how you would explain it?  This isn't very detailed, but it was the best article I could find quickly enough.  It didn't mention that Horus was also resurrected and ascended to the heavens after three days of being dead, but I have seen other places that indicated this.  Not saying the story of Jesus was plagiarized from an egyptian tale that predates it by thousands of years, because I don't have to.

On a similar note, the story of Noah and the ark (even down to the detail of a dove signifying dry land) also appears thousands of years before Judaism, and the story of Moses, with the same basic idea of the same story with different names (although the story of moses the earlier versions had somewhat similar names)

If a being of supernatural, yet eternal, intentions might exist, is it not possible that his message may be consistent in its elements, yet stressed somewhat differently to disparate peoples?

To clarify, is it not possible that God might merely enjoy recounting the same tales?

 Actually, that's exactly what I believe.  I personally don't believe that the story of Jesus is untrue, I just believe it's a retelling of a different story with changed names, and with details altered to fit the desired culture or audience.  I was not saying that this makes the story of Jesus untrue, I think it's true, it just may not have been "Jesus of Nazareth".

However, I find Ric's points about finding similarities between two things very weak.

Sure you can find similarities in anything, but let's look at these similarities:

*Both born of a virgin

I wouldn't mind having a link to the story that has this detail, because in all the Horus stories I've seen (which admittedly are all summaries of the story, and not many at that), this was not mentioned.

*Both had stars signifying their birth

Pretty normal for that time. The heavens were thought to reflect important celestial and earthly events.

*Both teachers at age 12.  SPECIFICALLY age 12.

The number twelve is considered a symbolic number by many cultures. Maybe Jesus wasn't actually twelve.

*Both "baptized" at age 30, specifically.

What exactly was Horus' "baptism"?

*Both tempted by the evil force, on a mountain.

Only one gospel mentions a mountain, and that was only one of three temptations.

* Both crucified, then ascended to heaven.

I need to see the story to counter this one.

Those are pretty damn specific, and I don't think you can find those similarities between two random people.

I think you're giving too much weight to those similarities. There's a well-known list of comparisons between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Some things were made up, but much of it is true. When one starts to break it down, a lot of the parallels lose their significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Kennedy_coincidences_urban_legend