You didn't answer the question. If you are making the accusation that the Christian gospel is taken from pagan myths you need to present a single demigod that is an UNCREATED PERSON. Good luck!
I didn't answer your question because you changed the question in midstream. What started with 'did the Christian gospel borrow from older myths?' (which is the question I responded to) has now changed to 'were or were the ancient pagan gods not created persons?' Those are not the same questions. One is broad and vague, whilst the other is narrow and specific. I was still answering the first one, and you went and changed the question in order to save face. You know perfectly well that Christianity borrowed a lot from older myths, but instead of just simply agreeing with that (oh my, I can't believe I agree with an atheist on the internet!!!) you make an intentional jump to a very different question and hope that nobody will recognize it for what it was. Classic Christian. It's called 'moving the goalposts'.
A divine being impregnating a human woman whose offspring was some form of divine being itself is consistent with the Christian myth and several of the pagan myths. Is that TRUE or NOT TRUE? Just answer it. Why can't you agree with that? Remove your emotion from it and just answer the question. Is that so hard for you to do here? If you'd like, you may say that all pagan mythological gods were 'created' and the Christian mythological version differs in some way from that, but I never said they were EXACT COPIES, and this is where your reasoning fails. It's not an exact copy. But a good portion of it IS borrowed.
Kingdoms have been converted over this.
Kingdoms have been converted over lots of stuff, including lots of other religions. If you would like to use kingdom conversion as proof that a specific religion is true, then you must allow for every other instance of this to be proof that other religions are true as well. Are you willing to do that?
Your fear and hypocrisy are too much to breath.
You'd sure like to think so. Can you show me what evidence you have that I am afraid of something you say, or that I am being hypocritical? Because I don't believe that I am. Point me to my posts that show beyond any reasonable doubt that I am afraid or being hypocritical.
Don'ty expect me to reply to another post you write until you refute that thread.
I already gave you my refutation. I guess you ignored it. But since you did, I will rehash it again in a bit more detail.
An interpretation of a dream about a multi-level statue and beasts from off the coast is not evidence of the divine. You can assert that it is all you want, but it's not. And that's all we're doing here. Asserting shit. When you have that sort of impasse, YOU don't automatically get to call yourself the winner. You have to back it up with something else, otherwise you're just being stupid, because in the grand scheme of things, no one in their right mind would ever, ever say that an interpretation of a specific dream about a metal statue is evidence of the divine, unless it was absolutely rock solid and irrefutable... which, by the way, it really could be! If Nebuchadnezzar's dream was of the same statue, and Daniel gave specific dates, times, names etc, for future events, without any question at all as to the authenticity of the predictions, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because I would probably agree with you. But that's not what this is. Not by a long shot. Why don't you get that? Don't answer that; I already know.
What if someone told you they had a dream about 15 people riding on a bus on Christmas eve 1991, and the bus crashed into a wall. Would you think this was divine intervention? No, of course not. Why should you? You probably wouldn't think much of it, would you? But did you know that the former USSR broke apart on the very next day into 15 sovereign states? This is the type of thing you're talking about here. Dreams about beasts from off the coast and statues made of different metals can be made to contextually fit with just about anything.
Forget for a moment that it all could have been made up later, and forget for a moment that we have no actual proof that Nebuchadnezzar had any dream at all that Daniel had to read, and forget for a moment that the bible is loaded with forgeries, errors and absurdities, and just examine the notion that an interpretation of a dream about a metal statue is what you are using as proof of the divine. Please think about that. It's fucking retarded. It really is. A divine interpretation simply requires more than what you've given in order to be believable.
Let me give this to you as easy as I can. If I came to you as a believer in a different religion, and I presented to you what you have presented in your IGI post, what would you think of it? Be serious now. If I said that I had a really old book and inside that book there was this king that had a dream about a statue, and some other guy interpreted it to mean future kingdoms, would you REALLY buy that as iron clad evidence that their god was real? I mean... we know kingdoms are going to come and go. That's a given. It's not news.
You're Daniel argument is loaded with holes. There are so many more. From the fact that NO kingdom has ever ruled the entire world (and don't give me the entire 'known' world bullshit. This is a divine interpretation, remember?) to the debate over the dating, to the multitudes of other possibilities of what the dream really could have meant (including that it meant nothing at all), it's just not worth a damn. For someone who already thinks Jesus and God are real, I can see why you would think this is good, but in terms of presenting a convincing argument to someone who is actively searching for one, you've presented crap. Sorry.
I'm not going to be dragged into a philosophical debate about reality, because it goes nowhere.
Another tap out huh. Man this is just easy.
/sigh. You are such the pigeon. Get off my chess board please.
Did you read any further, because I gave you my definition of reality that is pertinent to this conversation. I assume you can read English, so I will simply have to assume you are a coward for not responding to what I wrote. I will quote myself here so you may read it again and give yourself a chance at redemption.
For the purposes of this discussion, however, I would say that it is the realm in which I could provide sufficient proof to you that I can turn invisible every other Wednesday.
There you go. Now, when I say that your stance has no basis in reality, this is the reality of which I speak. The same one in which I could provide to you sufficient evidence that I am capable of turning invisible every other Wednesday. That is the reality I speak of. Not the one that exists only inside your deluded mind.