A simple thread that lets Atheists contend (or discuss, whichever you prefer) Christianity.

[Storm]

Just curious, have any of you folks heard of Diabolical Mimicry?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Just curious, have any of you folks heard of Diabolical Mimicry?

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine".

Tertullian

Ah, great excuse LOL

 

[Storm]

I guess that answers that. (And ftr, no, I don't believe it.)

 

[tomspug]

Of course not.

However, the real question is how much have you found FOR his existence that does not use the scriptures as its ultimate source?

This is, in my mind, the easiest question to ask and the one that atheists spend the least amount of time answering themselves.

There are not only historical references to Jesus as an influence in the region, there are historical references to the religion of Christianity itself, which appears to clearly BEGIN exactly when the Bible says it does. You can even go a step farther and ask YOURSELF a further question... if Jesus didn't exist, how exactly did this religion come about and WHY were people willing to die for it?

And in regards to the question itself, name five major non-military historical figures before Jesus that are referenced by any sources other the ones that directly relate to them. EVEN if such references exist, how can you prove that the individual itself actually headed whatever major movement they are attributed to? How do you know it wasn't some false-figurehead or made-up stories for the purpose of manipulating the masses? Honestly, it's pretty easy to just DECIDE, with no real motivation other than your own personal stigma, to accept such ideas... which is why there are so many people out there making a living out of producing materials that attempt to discredit Christianity... Ka-ching!

 

[Willamena]

There are actual several Gods or sons' of God rather that have virtually the same story as jesus. Mithra,Tammuz, Dionysus being a just a couple.
This seems to show that the Jesus story is just not original and weakens its pull for me dramatically, it looks like that this is a tried and tested control method of the past, and history proves it, look at the Stories of Mithra and the others i have included above they are virtually identical to that of Jesus, except for small changes, and lets give them credit for changing them a little bit.

The popularity of the motif serves to reinforce each instance of it, for me. Finding a similar motif in a backwater tribe in modern-day Outer Nowhere would especially strengthen my observation that there is something substantial to the myth (as opposed to the story).

 

[Storm]

This is, in my mind, the easiest question to ask and the one that atheists spend the least amount of time answering themselves.

It's a valid question. If the Passion is just a Jewish adaptation of the Dying God tradition, the Gospels were never intended to be read as history. If the question is inresolved, it invalidates the Gospels as a historical source.

There are not only historical references to Jesus as an influence in the region,

Other than Josephus? I know of none, do you?

there are historical references to the religion of Christianity itself, which appears to clearly BEGIN exactly when the Bible says it does.

So? Nobody's contesting that.

You can even go a step farther and ask YOURSELF a further question... if Jesus didn't exist, how exactly did this religion come about

As previously stated, IF Jesus didn't exist, it was a Hellenic Jewish adaptation of the Dying God tradition.

and WHY were people willing to die for it?

People needn't conflate myth with history to be willing to die for the truths it holds.

And in regards to the question itself, name five major non-military historical figures before Jesus that are referenced by any sources other the ones that directly relate to them. EVEN if such references exist, how can you prove that the individual itself actually headed whatever major movement they are attributed to? How do you know it wasn't some false-figurehead or made-up stories for the purpose of manipulating the masses? Honestly, it's pretty easy to just DECIDE, with no real motivation other than your own personal stigma, to accept such ideas... which is why there are so many people out there making a living out of producing materials that attempt to discredit Christianity... Ka-ching!

A valid point of which I am not unaware. Neither side has a compelling case.

My stance is: in the absence of compelling evidence, we are allowed to believe that which pleases us. I believe in the Passion as history, not because it is proven, but because I prefer to.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think the fact that Christianity has some myths that are similar to other myths is all that significant. I don't object to mythology, and I'm not surprised when people mistake it for fact, either. My objections to Christianity have almost nothing to do with people's believing in things like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection.

If you want to talk about what's wrong with Christianity, talk about dogmatism, authoritarianism, sexism, homophobia, coercion, persecution, holy wars, and the crusade against science. I don't really care if people believe in the Virgin Birth.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't think the fact that Christianity has some myths that are similar to other myths is all that significant. I don't object to mythology, and I'm not surprised when people mistake it for fact, either. My objections to Christianity have almost nothing to do with people's believing in things like the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection.

If you want to talk about what's wrong with Christianity, talk about dogmatism, authoritarianism, sexism, homophobia, coercion, persecution, holy wars, and the crusade against science. I don't really care if people believe in the Virgin Birth.

Well said! :clap

 

[tomspug]

If you want to talk about what's wrong with Christianity, talk about dogmatism, authoritarianism, sexism, homophobia, coercion, persecution, holy wars, and the crusade against science. I don't really care if people believe in the Virgin Birth.

See, to me, these are VERY valid reasons for disbelief in Christianity. Hypocrisy is the best evidence AGAINST Christianity, not mythological musings.

In response to Storm, Tacitus is a Roman reference, and is not Josephus reliable? The biggest proof of Jesus's existence IS, in fact, the proximity of the religion's birth to his supposed life and death. Say that you die, and fifty years from now, people try and start a religion based on four gospels that each account incredible, miraculous things that you supposedly did (not to mention that you were born of a virgin and that you died heroically on a cross by the Roman government with the Sanhedrin present to witness it). Would your family, (Mark was Jesus's half-brother) instigate or even believe such a thing?

Please explain to me how in the world your religion would survive the criticism, the obvious proof against all of these claims. If the gospels were written four-hundred years after Jesus (like the Koran), no problem! But the proximity to the ACTUAL EVENTS they describe would be SO EASILY discredited, that it really makes you wonder how they weren't? Keep in mind that the religion's largest expansions were apparently caused by Paul, who was a Pharisee, who knew EVERYTHING that the gospels describe (whether or not it was true). I mean, the simple question of whether or not Jesus actually existed brings up so many other questions, it makes you wonder how many of the people asking the question really care about finding the correct answer...

 

[McBell]

I have no interest in refuting the claims. ... ... I am merely refuting that claim.

Make up your mind

 

[challupa]

I don't see how that page can claim to "destroy" the comparison between Horus and Jesus. All it does is contest some very minor details. They may very well be part of curiously-named "Acharya S"'s book (Acharya means "teacher" or "instructor" so this is obviously a pseudonym), but they lack relevancy to the comparison itself.

Then again, I don't see how or why anyone would expect Christ's Myth to be original, either. It is most obviously never meant to be taken literally, so it may only have meaning in a symbollic way. Therefore, it can hardly be expected to be all-original in its message.

If you ask me, the one thing that is really wrong with Christianity (and Islam) is the surprising tendency of its adepts to think of their religion as a source of Truth as opposed to Inspiration.

Here's a quote that says what you are saying. It is written by John Dominic Crossan author of "who is jesus"
"My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."

 

[challupa]

There are actual several Gods or sons' of God rather that have virtually the same story as jesus. Mithra,Tammuz, Dionysus being a just a couple.
This seems to show that the Jesus story is just not original and weakens its pull for me dramatically, it looks like that this is a tried and tested control method of the past, and history proves it, look at the Stories of Mithra and the others i have included above they are virtually identical to that of Jesus, except for small changes, and lets give them credit for changing them a little bit.

Yes even the hindu Brahman has some similarities.

 

[Storm]

In response to Storm, Tacitus is a Roman reference, and is not Josephus reliable?

I thought Tacitus only referred to "Christians," not Christ. I could well be wrong.

The Josephus passages, otoh, are pretty much accepted as forgeries, to my (again, possibly mistaken) knowledge.

The biggest proof of Jesus's existence IS, in fact, the proximity of the religion's birth to his supposed life and death. Say that you die, and fifty years from now, people try and start a religion based on four gospels that each account incredible, miraculous things that you supposedly did (not to mention that you were born of a virgin and that you died heroically on a cross by the Roman government with the Sanhedrin present to witness it). Would your family, (Mark was Jesus's half-brother) instigate or even believe such a thing?

I don't have a horse in this race, Tom.

Please explain to me how in the world your religion would survive the criticism, the obvious proof against all of these claims.

Bwuh? What does my religion, be it UU or my theology, have to do with any of this?

And if there were obvious proof to either side, I'd accept it. There isn't.

If the gospels were written four-hundred years after Jesus (like the Koran), no problem! But the proximity to the ACTUAL EVENTS they describe would be SO EASILY discredited, that it really makes you wonder how they weren't? Keep in mind that the religion's largest expansions were apparently caused by Paul, who was a Pharisee, who knew EVERYTHING that the gospels describe (whether or not it was true). I mean, the simple question of whether or not Jesus actually existed brings up so many other questions, it makes you wonder how many of the people asking the question really care about finding the correct answer...

Was there a point to this, or were you just venting?

 

[J Bryson]

Watching a humanist or atheist try to debate a UU on theological points is like watching someone try to cut soup with a knife.

 

[tomspug]

I thought Tacitus only referred to "Christians," not Christ. I could well be wrong.

The Josephus passages, otoh, are pretty much accepted as forgeries, to my (again, possibly mistaken) knowledge.


I don't have a horse in this race, Tom.


Bwuh? What does my religion, be it UU or my theology, have to do with any of this?

And if there were obvious proof to either side, I'd accept it. There isn't.


Was there a point to this, or were you just venting?

I think you misread my post.

 

[Willamena]

It's a valid question. If the Passion is just a Jewish adaptation of the Dying God tradition, the Gospels were never intended to be read as history. If the question is inresolved, it invalidates the Gospels as a historical source.

That's not a reasonable conclusion, though. That the Passion is an adaptation of another story has no impact on its historical accuracy, it simply makes the question of whether it is 'historical' superfluous.

 

[McBell]

See, to me, these are VERY valid reasons for disbelief in Christianity. Hypocrisy is the best evidence AGAINST Christianity, not mythological musings.

Yet this thread is about the mythological musings.

In response to Storm, Tacitus is a Roman reference, and is not Josephus reliable? The biggest proof of Jesus's existence IS, in fact, the proximity of the religion's birth to his supposed life and death.

For you perhaps.

Say that you die, and fifty years from now, people try and start a religion based on four gospels that each account incredible, miraculous things that you supposedly did (not to mention that you were born of a virgin and that you died heroically on a cross by the Roman government with the Sanhedrin present to witness it). Would your family, (Mark was Jesus's half-brother) instigate or even believe such a thing?

In fact they likely would, given that they like the Biblical gospels, were as predisposed to believe.

Please explain to me how in the world your religion would survive the criticism, the obvious proof against all of these claims. If the gospels were written four-hundred years after Jesus (like the Koran), no problem! But the proximity to the ACTUAL EVENTS they describe would be SO EASILY discredited, that it really makes you wonder how they weren't?

ROTFLMAO
In a time when people blamed disease on the wrath of god and or demons/evil spirits...

Keep in mind that the religion's largest expansions were apparently caused by Paul, who was a Pharisee, who knew EVERYTHING that the gospels describe (whether or not it was true). I mean, the simple question of whether or not Jesus actually existed brings up so many other questions, it makes you wonder how many of the people asking the question really care about finding the correct answer...

Nice strawman.
The discussion is not about if Jesus existed or not, the topic is about the parallels between the Jesus story and the stories of other and older stories.

 

[challupa]

Mithras is only one of the several stories almost the same Jesus's. Also Mithras goes back to 2300 years before Jesus i believe, anyone with a non biase view point clearly see the similarities between all the stories and can make and informed decision that the likely hood of truth in these stories are improbable.

Actually the early church did not deny these connections. In fact they used the similarities to draw new recruits to Christianity. In fact when they started saying that these myths were actual history that is when they started to run into problems. They actually taught at one time that the devil had seen that Christianity was going to be formed in the future so he inspired pagan religions to have similar stories to lead people astray. That's the biggest rewrite of history as Islam has done by saying all the Jewish and Christian prophets are Islamic. You always need to do your research and understand not everything is what you thing it is.

 

[tomspug]

Yet this thread is about the mythological musings.


For you perhaps.


In fact they likely would, given that they like the Biblical gospels, were as predisposed to believe.


ROTFLMAO
In a time when people blamed disease on the wrath of god and or demons/evil spirits...

I love how many assumptions you choose to accept as logical criteria.

Nice strawman.
The discussion is not about if Jesus existed or not, the topic is about the parallels between the Jesus story and the stories of other and older stories.

Strawman, or simply MORE RELEVANT to the debate? Besides, the argument has been made by more knowledgeable people than myself that many of these "parallels" are not coincidental.

 

[Storm]

I think you misread my post.

Would you like to correct me, then, or is that just an excuse not to answer?