Thread: Is Jesus a Pagan? Make up your own God, Christians!

Your post is intended in malice against Christianity. Don't believe me, well let me qualify my point.
You're not a Christian theist. And I gauge that you don't like Chrisitanity, because it is allegedly intolerant to many groups. Do you agree?
I will assume that you will say that you don't like Christianity because the concepts inherent in Christianity are abhorrently contradictory to either logic or morality from your perspective. Not just because the Christian view is different from your own point of view. Do you agree so far?

And yet, you introduce a new religion to the forum, that allegedly bears striking similarity to the story of Jesus which you obviously don't like. And which is actually more intolerant (thinking as an atheist) in the fact that it excludes women from ceremonies where the New testament does not.

My point is that if you genuinely felt that the "knife-like" intolerance, immorality or illogicality of Christianity was bad, then why would you introduce the equally sharp blade of Mithraism?
The answer is you wouldn't. Which means you have no deep, moral quarrel with Christianity but you simply don't like it because it is different from your own point of view. This is called unfounded religious intolerance and it is morally bad. I hope you see my problem!

People will see this as stalling and avoiding the post, but I am compiling information, and will post my conclusions in a day or so.

Hehe psych student, once again finding intolerance and hatred where there is none. You are one of the reasons why discussions are so hard to come by. Stephen wants to discuss. Take your anger to the unofficial pissed off thread.

Its not anger. It a bunch of logical conclusions based on Stephent91's intentions for starting this thread. Did you read and understand the whole post?

And I would like to point out the absurdity of the claim that I always find offence with anti-theist content when atheists like you don't, and I am abnormal as a result!

Originally Posted by psychology student

And I would like to point out the absurdity of the claim that I always find offence with anti-theist content when atheists like you don't, and I am abnormal as a result!

Did I claim that you always find offense?

Did I say that you were abnormal?

Here again, you are taking a post (mine this time) and deriving certain conclusions to help fuel your anger.

Oh, God help me.

"once again" implies numerous occasions which implies consistency (i.e. always)


You said "I find intolerance when there is none" which implies psychosis, which is abnormal.

Anyway. I had a point in the first post. Didn't you understand, did you read it?

I am not angry.

You didn't address any of his real points PS you just fapped about whining about him. Address the problems this brings up for christianity or shut up and stop moaning.



edit; upon reading your original post again you have completely and entirely misunderstood what stephen was trying to say. like majorly.

I said im constructing a relevant post, in my initial post. Did you read it?

And I was pointing out faults in his intentions, not moaning.

If you don't eat those crackers and the wine in Church, do you go to hell?

I've been to a friends church a few times and children under a certain age do not drink the wine for obvious reasons. Would they go to hell?

Originally Posted by psychology student

I said im constructing a relevant post, in my initial post. Did you read it?

And I was pointing out faults in his intentions, not moaning.

moaannninnnggg.

Reaaaaaaaallllllllllllyyyyyy?

Originally Posted by psychology student

Your post is intended in malice against Christianity. Don't believe me, well let me qualify my point.
You're not a Christian theist. And I gauge that you don't like Chrisitanity, because it is allegedly intolerant to many groups. Do you agree?
I will assume that you will say that you don't like Christianity because the concepts inherent in Christianity are abhorrently contradictory to either logic or morality from your perspective. Not just because the Christian view is different from your own point of view. Do you agree so far?

And yet, you introduce a new religion to the forum, that allegedly bears striking similarity to the story of Jesus which you obviously don't like. And which is actually more intolerant (thinking as an atheist) in the fact that it excludes women from ceremonies where the New testament does not.

My point is that if you genuinely felt that the "knife-like" intolerance, immorality or illogicality of Christianity was bad, then why would you introduce the equally sharp blade of Mithraism?
The answer is you wouldn't. Which means you have no deep, moral quarrel with Christianity but you simply don't like it because it is different from your own point of view. This is called unfounded religious intolerance and it is morally bad. I hope you see my problem!

People will see this as stalling and avoiding the post, but I am compiling information, and will post my conclusions in a day or so.

You are searching for malice that isn't there. The post was to point out the amazing similarities of Mithra and Jesus to show that something is messed up.

I dislike Christianity less than I dislike organized religion in general, not because of illogical fallacies in the infrastructure, but because of how it turns people against one another and inhibits a form of mind control disallowing the use of a wandering mind. Sometimes I will laugh at the illogicality of certain aspects, but I don't dislike religion because of them. I also have no problem with opposing views, as I intend to build my knowledge and my own beliefs off of them. Just because they don't think like me doesn't make them any less of a person, and I don't view people in a degraded form for such reasons and I have even less respect for you now that you have accused me of such. You are a truly arrogant man, and I can't wait until our next discussion in the pissed off thread.

Did it seem that I was justifying Mithraism in any form? Did it seems that I was making it seem more logical than Christianity? Perhaps I should reword my original post then. I said very little though, so it must be that you who is misunderstanding. Like Carousoul and I have both said, I was putting forth the arguments that seem to discredit Christianity. Not because I dislike the religion, but because I found it interesting and wanted to discuss. I would love for there to be reasonable Theists in this discussion to hear what their points of view are.

Hopefully, you see the ignorance and extreme illogicalness of your post and intentions.

In the end, though, I would like for this argument to continue in the Unofficial Pissed Off thread if it does continue, so you should bring it there if you want to continue it. Thank you.

Hehe.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

Hehe.

I hope we'll have the very first carried over argument in the Pissed thread soon.

Originally Posted by Stephent91

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." ---Inscription to Mithras similar to John 6:53-54.

Mithra, a Pagan Sun God and Jesus have nearly identical lives. Here's some of the examples:

Both had Virgin births.

Jesus was born to The Blessed Virgin Mary in a cave in Bethlehem.
Mithra was born to the Blessed Virgin Myrrha in a cave in Bethlehem. (Believed to have been born in the same cave.)

Three wise men from the East bought gifts of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh to both births. (Gold is symbolic of the sun, Frankincense is symbolic of the creation of man, and Myrrh is symbolic of the Goddess.)

Both births are celebrated on December 25th. (A celebrated day for the winter solstice, was celebrated before both Gods.)

Both had Twelve Disciples. (The Zodiac)

Both had deaths and resurrections after 3 days. Mithra's celebrated ressurection would later become the Christian Easter.

Before their deaths, both had last suppers with their 12 disciples. (A common occurence in many early Pagan religions.

Both Christians and Mithraists engage in a Eucharist signed with a cross.

Catholics have Mass, Mithraists have Myazda, in which both eat bread and drink wine that is symbolic of the God's body and blood.

Both faiths require Baptism.

Both were identified as both the lion and the lamb.

The Mithraic Holy Father and the Pope both wear a red cap and garment, a ring, and carry a shepherd's staff.

Both were depicted with halos and called, "The light of the world."


In Mark 9:38, John says to Jesus that the disciples saw a man that was driving out demons in the name of Jesus Christ. He wasn't a disciple or Jesus, and they did not know him, and the Bible never mentions it again. At this time, Jesus' name wasn't known and the man was believed to be a Mithraist.

Taken from here.


For you Christians that could be saying, "Maybe Jesus was interpreted differently by different people and made into another religion!

Mithra was many centuries earlier than Christ. Somewhere around 4000 years ago.




Ok... there's no possible way that this is coincidence, so Christians basically had influences from Pagan beliefs and it seems like the pretty much stole a God from them.

I don't really need to say anything. It's all self explanatory.

If anything, this is proof that Jesus didn't exist and was fabricated from collective attributes of other Gods previously known.

What do you guys think about this?

Been said before. But yea, I agree that Christians needed to be more original.

But doesn't anyone understand my point, its not that complicated.
If you don't like knives, you don't introduce swords!


You say you "wanted to discuss". Now does this sound like discussion:

"Ok... there's no possible way that this is coincidence, so Christians basically had influences from Pagan beliefs and it seems like the pretty much stole a God from them.

I don't really need to say anything. It's all self explanatory.

If anything, this is proof that Jesus didn't exist and was fabricated from collective attributes of other Gods previously known".

Hmmmm very open ended, and promoting of discussion! I see no questions!

Can't anyone see the problem here? Atheists, I have no problem with atheism but just look at this guy's tone and attitude, is he promoting discussion?

Ahem.

Originally Posted by Stephen91

What do you guys think about this?

Seems to promote discussion to me!

Originally Posted by Stephent91

Ok... there's no possible way that this is coincidence, so Christians basically had influences from Pagan beliefs and it seems like the pretty much stole a God from them.

I don't really need to say anything. It's all self explanatory.

If anything, this is proof that Jesus didn't exist and was fabricated from collective attributes of other Gods previously known.

What do you guys think about this?

This is completely one sided and does not promote discussion. Stephent uses diction indicative of finality: "no possible...coincidence", "this is proof..jesus didn't exist.. was fabricated",

His admits his rigidity that he doesn't need to discuss: "I don't really need to say anything".

Now if that isn't something that dissuades discussion, well I don't know what is!

Originally Posted by psychology student

I hope you see my problem!

Originally Posted by psychology student

Its not anger.

I feel like I am reading the Bible.

I have an idea. How about discussing the actual topic instead of your feelings, Stephen's intentions, and any of the other tangents theists keep bombarding this forum with in place of real discussion?

But this is nothing to do with atheism or theism, did you read my posts. This guy isn't promoting discussion as he says he is.

Originally Posted by psychology student

But this is nothing to do with atheism or theism, did you read my posts. This guy isn't promoting discussion as he says he is.

He asked what you THOUGHT about what he WROTE.

Not DISCUSS what the post SAID.

Originally Posted by psychology student

But this is nothing to do with atheism or theism, did you read my posts. This guy isn't promoting discussion as he says he is.

Try addressing Stephen's actual points. Have you considered that option?

I can't? he left no room for discussion. As I have shown.

We're obviously going to have to wait for a theist other than psych student to come along. Because Stephen brought up something quite interesting. *sigh*

So my claims are completely unfounded?