1. Comment #13621 by EvolvedDNA on December 18, 2006 at 9:36 pm

Happy Mythmas to all.

Other Comments by EvolvedDNA

2. Comment #13624 by michael fasher on December 18, 2006 at 10:18 pm

Mithras was a persian god dating from about 600 bc which was one of the gods christ was ripped of from

Other Comments by michael fasher

3. Comment #13627 by Roy_H on December 18, 2006 at 10:56 pm

"Thank you Richard Dawkins for pointing that out" This guy says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSmrLfz-rUo&mode=related&search=


A joke that was going around when I went to school ( This is going to date me!) An Anglican priest arrives at a school one morning, a few days before Christmas. He asks the headmaster "I do hope the children here are familiar with the true meaning of Christmas " "Of course they are!" replied the headmaster, "Go into any classroom, ask any of the pupils, they will be able to tell you, I am quite sure". So the priest goes into a class and asks "Who was born in a stable and had millions of followers?" So one lad puts his hand up and shouts "Please sir I know....it was Red Rum!"
(All the American visitors are now on google looking up 'Red Rum' )

Other Comments by Roy_H

4. Comment #13628 by Wonko the Sane on December 18, 2006 at 11:04 pm

Have a merry Mithmas and a happy New Year everyone!

Other Comments by Wonko the Sane

5. Comment #13629 by Nazgul on December 18, 2006 at 11:21 pm

Don't forget about Horus, Dyonisus (I think It's spelt that way), and Appelonious of Tyanna, (who was a real dude from the time of Jesus, who some say the Original Christains hijacked). Look 'em up.

Other Comments by Nazgul

6. Comment #13632 by icouldbewrongbut on December 18, 2006 at 11:46 pm

"Merry Mithramas" tshirts, ornaments and mugs:

http://www.cafepress.com/extremelysmart/2179599

Other Comments by icouldbewrongbut

7. Comment #13634 by paradigm667 on December 18, 2006 at 11:53 pm

The lady's comment is just pathetic. It's so useless to debate people who make comments on the level of hers. And then they wonder why we result to personal attacks....They can at least understand them. It's always the dumber ones who are the most annoying to debate. They know it all and don't need to explain it to you.

The whole story of Jesus has been told over and over and over again.

It's all astrotheology. Forget about evolution
proving religion wrong. That's beating a dead horse. What Richard does in his books is he goes through incredibly painstaking efforts to dissect and retrace and explain every point he makes in contrast to religion. I mean, anyone who reads his material thoroughly and has a clear mind and blood circulation to their heads will inevitably have to come to the conclusion that Richard is presenting some pretty real truths.
But despite the obvious scientific and evolutionary explanations for why god doesn't exist, it is also all too obvious just on the scholarly level that religions, in particular our own "beloved" Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc etc are all FORGERIES. They are all results of...well...a form of religious doctrine evolution, if you will. So in a sense they are subject to the very fundamental laws of evolution that they profess do not exist. Again, beating a dead horse. But its very interesting to read old documents written by the gnostics and even some priests who clearly indicate how it's all a sham and a complete forgery.
If you want to know more do some research into astrology and the bible. Thats all the bible is. Then you can understand why the Moses character and the calf were significant, jesus and fish, the END TIMES and aquarius. Most people who have a jesus fish on their cars for instance couldn't tell you why in the world it's a fish. They have no clue. Yet they will go on forever and ever telling you why their religion is real and the truth. LOL!!!

Incidentally, one of the main players in the organized atheist movement was himself a DEVOUT christian in his early days, even becoming a priest at one point. His name I forget, I remember I went to see one of his presentations/lectures in an auditorium when I was at the University of Arizona less than 2 years ago. I believe he has a book called "Losing Faith in Faith." Either way. Very rare to see an ex-atheist with newfound zealotry in their respective religion. It is all too common to find ex-zealots coming to grips with reality and realizing their delusions and trying to inform others.
Lost my train of thought...anyways, main point is above all else...its' all about giving the children and young a chance to come to their own conclusions. How dare we cripple them at birth by forcing them to shut out all belief about the universe and themselves without ever letting them think for themselves. this is one of the few thoughts that can actually make me vomit.

Cheers.

Other Comments by paradigm667

8. Comment #13635 by Comets on December 19, 2006 at 12:05 am

Lighten up paradigm667... it's a comedy show!

Jo Brand (the lady) is a Comedian, she's not asking for a debate!

Other Comments by Comets

9. Comment #13640 by macronencer on December 19, 2006 at 12:39 am

"Is he a tribute band?"

:)

Alan Davies is brilliant!

Other Comments by macronencer

10. Comment #13641 by paradigm667 on December 19, 2006 at 12:41 am

point taken, but I was referring to debating "people like her," not actually her. She just epitomized so many morons all in a one liner so well I had no choice but to make the connection.

I appreciate you asking me to lighten up though. I hope my tone didn't come across as angry or overly serious. I like to think I have a very wide and open minded sense of humor. Within the context she was certainly not implying she wanted a debate, however like I said she epitomized the exact people who do think that way.

Other Comments by paradigm667

11. Comment #13645 by BushYakker on December 19, 2006 at 1:45 am

QI is a very entertaining program, one of my favourites. I have yet to watch this edition.
Stephen Fry is profoundly non-religious, possibly anti-religious, and has been known to make derogatory remarks about religion on previous TV programs including QI.
I hold the theory that Atheists have a far superior sense of humour.
I don't know about Jo Brand but she used to be a psychiatric nurse. I work in the NHS and that has only served to reinforce my non-belief.

As for the astrotheology theory mentioned by paradigm667, I can recommend The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, by Acharya S, available from Amazon. An excellent book in many ways.

Other Comments by BushYakker

12. Comment #13653 by Nikki on December 19, 2006 at 2:55 am

7. Comment #13634 by paradigm667 on December 18, 2006 at 11:53 pm
'I believe he has a book called "Losing Faith in Faith." '

"Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist" by Dan Barker
Chapter 35
http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=assertions

Merry Mithras to all and Happy Holiday

Other Comments by Nikki

13. Comment #13699 by One Eyed Jack on December 19, 2006 at 6:10 am

Brilliant! Sadly, you couldn't get away with a bit like that on a major US network. Of course, it would be perfect for Penn and Teller's "Bullshit"... Elvis never did no drugs!

Merry Mithmas!

OEJ

Other Comments by One Eyed Jack

14. Comment #13720 by Zaphod on December 19, 2006 at 7:44 am

Happy Birthday to you
Happy Birthday to you
Happy Birthday dear Mithras
Happy Birthday to you

Other Comments by Zaphod

15. Comment #13731 by chbg21808 on December 19, 2006 at 8:25 am

With so much garbage on TV, QI is an excellent exception, very entertaining... Like 'Have I Got News for You' not scared to cut through the bullshit, but always in a humorous way.

Alan Davies: "Is he a tribute band?" ...LOL

Other Comments by chbg21808

16. Comment #13749 by yeahok on December 19, 2006 at 9:22 am

I'm not sure how much they said on that program is true. Such as when they said Mithras was born of a virgin, well, according to Wikipedia he was born of a rock. Also the conclusions Wikipedia comes to don't seem as interesting as the video. It probably was the Mithras religion that borrowed from Christianity... at least that's what i gather from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism#Connections
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism#Similarities_to_Christianity

Other Comments by yeahok

17. Comment #13777 by candor on December 19, 2006 at 11:19 am

It seems that Christianity copied the Mithraism. Think about this. why is Sunday called Sunday?? From the beginning, it was the day, holy to Mithra who was the god of sun. Catholic church just borrowed from it. And see what the pope's crown is. It's called a Tiara(and a Mitre for the bishop's), which is persian word and persian style. Persia was the homeland or origin of the Mithra. it is more probable that the Christianity came from the Mithraism than otherwise.

Other Comments by candor

18. Comment #13790 by Thrall on December 19, 2006 at 12:57 pm

Amazing, I've never heard of this before. Thanks to onegoodmove for the link. And don't always trust wikipedia, especially about emotionally charged subjects (such as religion).

Other Comments by Thrall

19. Comment #13791 by paradigm667 on December 19, 2006 at 12:58 pm

It is well known that the cult of Mithra existed hundreds of years B.C.E.

Religious scholars even admit this. Of course the argument they use is the standard "devil went back in time and created all these cults to trick or test your faith."

It's sad that if you are with a group of religious friends and you make such an argument you are looked at like you are from an alien planet. It really is. How much progress can we make if we refuse to acknowledge our reality. And why do we want to delude ourselves anyways? Stupid things like the bible promote being stupid. The bible has an answer for everything, so the point is, "hey why bother being curious about life, god is the answer for everything, no go do something productive, like pray for eternal bliss."

Good comment Candor: There is much more to what you just said about "Sunday" being the Sun's Day.
As well as the Pope's Mitra, or Mitre.

But Mithra is only one of a few mythical characters who shares similar a similar story to the jesus figure. A few more include:
Tammuz
Apollo
Dionysus
Attis
Baal
Horus
Zoroaster
Hercules
Buddha
Krishna

The list can go on almost to the infinite. There are far too many to list, the point is that all of these characters are considered fictional, yet they all share the exact same story as the jesus figure and are all dated before Christianity.

Here, you want to know what the bible is? It's all in the title:
HOLY BIBLE = Helios Biblios
Helios - Sun
Biblios - Book

Holy Bible = Sun Book
This is why we worship on SUNday.

It's all allegory. This is why the church doesn't condone astrology or astronomy. If you study enough astrology and astronomy you will inevitably come to the realization that the bible is a complete work of man referencing Lunar, Solar, and Celestial skies. No code. No hidden secrets to revelations and the apocalypse. No miracles. No walking on water (ie the sun's reflection on the ocean as it sets). I can go one forever. Anyways, if I made some of you curious, good. Hopefully everyone who is reading this already understands what I am saying.

Other Comments by paradigm667

20. Comment #13797 by yeahok on December 19, 2006 at 1:30 pm

When was the "Holy Bible" ever referred to as "Helios Biblios"? I tried looking up the etymology of "Holy" on Dictionary.com, wiktionary.com, and etymonline.com. They all say "holy" came from the word "whole". Etymonline.com says the Bible was originally called "biblia sacra" or "Ta Biblia".

I don't know where you got "Helios Biblios" from, but I would like to know. Otherwise, stop jumping to conclusions.

And yeah Thrall, you're right, wikipedia is a crap place to look for info about religion, my bad.

Other Comments by yeahok

21. Comment #13815 by paradigm667 on December 19, 2006 at 2:06 pm

Easy up Yeahok. Here...

"The word Holy Bible is derived from the Greek words Helios Biblos. Helios means sun and Biblos is derived from the Egyptian word for papyrus which means paper. Accumulated papers make books. "Holy Bible" means Sun Book…
Anthony T. Browder, From the Browder File, The Institute of Karmic Guidance, Washington, D.C., 1989, p. 54"
reference--
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:kltAfGLeUpwJ:www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_jesus/P100/+%22holy+bible%22+%22sun+book%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=22



Watch the Naked Truth Documentary..its very good for starters:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6410112404402873027&q=the+naked+truth



"Indeed, that the Christians worship on Sunday betrays the genuine origins of their god and godman. Their "savior" is actually the sun, which is the "Light of the world that every eye can see." The sun has been viewed consistently throughout history as the savior of mankind for reasons that are obvious. Without the sun, the planet would scarcely last one day. So important was the sun to the ancients that they composed a "Sun Book," or "Helio Biblia," which became the "Holy Bible." 91a"
reference--
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:q91tfD33sE0J:www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_9a.htm+%22holy+bible%22+%22sun+book%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=36


The bible is SO CLEARLY astrotheology and adamant sun worship that it still amazes me to this day how people cannot see this.
Honestly. Jesus=god=the sun

EVERY time the bible describes Jesus or god it is ALWAYS as "the light" "brilliant, bright" etc etc. Go find me a passage in the bible where it says jesus was a man with brown hair, skinny, about 6'00" tall, and tan skin. It DOESN'T.

WHAT DO YOU THINK A HALO is? HELLO! A HALO is nothing more than an outline of THE SUN BEHIND A PERSON'S HEAD. A halo is not a circle above your head! It is the VISUAL representation of an ANTHROPOMORPHIZATION of the SUN in relation to man. God did not create MAN in HIS image, rather MAN created GOD in HIS image.

Go do some research rather than looking up words on etymonline. It's a great site and it gives you the "chirstian" definition. Based on etymo's definition, the word basically originated with christianity. Clearly it was used in greek before that time, and in fact can be traced WAY back to summeria and babylon.

Hopefully this helps you out a bit. Have a good one friend, and don't get so jumpy next time. Calm down.

Other Comments by paradigm667

22. Comment #13828 by yeahok on December 19, 2006 at 2:54 pm

Did I sound jumpy? hmm... maybe it was the way you read it? But anyways...

Excuse me for being a bit skeptical about all of this. Some of these arguments sound very strange to me, being that I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian. All I really wanted was some references to your claims, which you just gave me, so thank you.

Other Comments by yeahok

23. Comment #13835 by paradigm667 on December 19, 2006 at 4:07 pm

My apologies. If you should want to know more I am always willing to talk. Likewise if you feel you have some very important point or strong conviction about something I am always willing to listen.

Have a good one. :-)

Other Comments by paradigm667

24. Comment #13842 by John P on December 19, 2006 at 5:12 pm

Re: Comment #13815 by paradigm667

>>God did not create MAN in HIS image, rather MAN created GOD in HIS image. <<

I don't know about the rest of post (not disputing it, just don't know) but the above is the essence of the truth about God.

Other Comments by John P

25. Comment #13845 by paradigm667 on December 19, 2006 at 5:50 pm

John P,

It would be nice to have a reason for your logic, because I don't follow.

How is man creating god in his image "the essence of the truth about god" ?

And, yeah, as far as the other stuff, I wouldn't try to dispute that if I were you either.

Other Comments by paradigm667

26. Comment #13852 by John P on December 19, 2006 at 6:49 pm

paradigm667

You wrote it. I simply agreed with it. :)

The statement is atheism boiled down to a one line description: God didn't create man, man created god.

Do you listen to XTC? "Dear God"?

Other Comments by John P

27. Comment #13855 by paradigm667 on December 19, 2006 at 7:19 pm

LOL! I completely misinterpreted you. LOL in this case I obviously agree with you, agreeing with me. : )
As far as XTC "Dear God" I am not familiar with this artist/group. I did just check out the music video.

Incidentally, I find it absolutely amazing to read people's comments on youtube and googlevideo etc. It is amazing some of the stupidity and utter ignorance that is displayed.

Cheers

Other Comments by paradigm667

28. Comment #13875 by troyboy on December 19, 2006 at 11:04 pm

19. Comment #13791 by paradigm667 on December 19, 2006 at 12:58 pm

wow paradigm667, that was very interesting. I'm going to follow the links now to learn more. Thank you.

Other Comments by troyboy

29. Comment #13891 by Roy_H on December 20, 2006 at 1:39 am

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/islam-christianity-p1.php
Many a true word spoken in jest ( or is it ridicule? )

Other Comments by Roy_H

30. Comment #13895 by lpetrich on December 20, 2006 at 2:20 am

I wonder what the primary sources on Mithra are, so that we can set the record straight.

But Jesus Christ does have a lot in common with other legendary heroes; he scores high on Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero scale -- and that's something more worth discussing than questionable stuff about Mithra and Mithraism.

(1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin, while
Virgin, yes, but royal, doubtful - 0.5
(this criterion ought to be split in two)

(2) his father is a king, and
While he lived as a commoner, both Matthew and Luke agree on his male-line descent from King David - 1

(3) the father is related to the mother.
No - 0

(4) The hero's conception is unusual or miraculous; hence
Yes - 1

(5) he is reputed to be a son of a god.
Yes - 1

(6) Evil forces attempt to kill the infant or boy hero, but
King Herod - 1

(7) he is spirited away to safety and
His parents flee with him to Egypt - 1

(8) reared by foster parents in a foreign land. Besides this,
They apparently don't stay long in Egypt - 0

(9) we learn no details of his childhood until
Only that child-prodigy story in Luke; we don't learn anything until he's about 30 years old - 1

(10) he journeys to his future kingdom, where
Yes - 1

(11) he triumphs over the reigning king and
He refuses the Devil's temptations and the Prince of Darkness slinks away in shame - 1

(12) marries a princess, often his predecessor's daughter, and
No. Mary Magdalene, his extracanonically-rumored girlfriend, was a commoner - 0

(13) becomes king himself.
Yes, both figuratively as a great religious leader and literally, as someone willing to call himself "King of the Jews" - 1

(14) For a while he reigns uneventfully,
He mainly goes around and preaches and works miracles - 1

(15) promulgating laws. But
His teachings include lots of instructions to his followers - 1

(16) he later loses favor with his subjects or with the gods and
When he gets put on trial, the people of Jerusalem turn from friendly to hostile, Peter claims he never knew him and he and the other apostles run away - 1

(17) is driven from the throne and the city and
The Jewish authorities find him guilty of blasphemy - 1

(18) meets with a mysterious death,
He dies very fast by crucifixion-victim standards - 1

(19) often atop a hill.
Yes - 1

(20) If he has children, they do not succeed him.
Yes - 1

(21) His body is not buried, yet
He rose from the dead - 1

(22) he has one or more holy sepulchers.
Yes, in Jerusalem - 1

I find 18.5 - JC usually comes out at about 18 or 19.

Two additional features sometimes found in mythic-hero stories are child-prodigy stories and prophecy fulfillment -- JC scores a 1 on both.


The likes of Moses, Romulus, Hercules, Oedipus, and Krishna often score very high in this scale. By comparison, well-documented people usually score very low; the highest-scoring well-documented people I've been able to find are Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar.

Sources:
http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=180642
http://faculty.dbcc.edu/eaton/Hero/Raglan.htm
http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/Clas230/MythDocuments/HeroPattern/default.htm

Other Comments by lpetrich

31. Comment #13930 by mumraist on December 20, 2006 at 6:21 am

Another piece of evidence...'A Red Christmas' is an anagram of 'Sacred Mithras'.

Other Comments by mumraist

32. Comment #13950 by Paul Knowles on December 20, 2006 at 8:41 am

I Love QI. One of the most entertaining progs on TV. Don't like Davies to much though. Stephen Fry is eloquent and intelligent and witty. Jo Brands joke about shouting out Mythmus when men cum was very good. She is also a Crystal Palace fan so she is OK in my book.

Merry Mythmas everyone!

Other Comments by Paul Knowles

33. Comment #13967 by ImagineAZ on December 20, 2006 at 10:27 am

Paradigm, you forgot the ORIGINAL one, Osiris.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

34. Comment #13977 by paradigm667 on December 20, 2006 at 11:52 am

"Paradigm, you forgot the ORIGINAL one, Osiris."

--No, I didn't: I mentioned Horus.

Osiris, Isis, and Horus (God, Mary, Jesus)

And as we know, the trinity IS god, and god IS the trinity. Same story with Osiris. In fact same exact story as
Baal, Ishtar, and Tammuz predating Osiris.

There is no "original" unfortunately. The only original thing to trace it all back to is simply the same thing we have today: The same SUN up in the sky, and stars in the night.

Other Comments by paradigm667

35. Comment #14039 by Niels Thorsen on December 21, 2006 at 12:38 am

RE: paradigm667

Brilliant posts! You're way ahead of me in the research department.

However, I have read Joseph Campbell, an expert on global cultural myths. His points are much the same about the origins of myth and religion.

I do think that he was too afraid to come right out and state that he was an atheist. Perhaps his reluctance was due to the culture of his generation. Watching his lectures, I distinctly get the impression that he did not wish to offend, with a mind toward getting his audience to stay open to his message.

Even so, the underlying theme is that early humans worshiped the sun (as an expression of a very ill-informed human need to understand our environment) and most religions still do today. They have simply moved to a more egocentric interpretation.

There is much more to be learned from this thread, in fact I have firm intellectual convictions that this is at the heart of why humanity has remained deluded.

Niels

Other Comments by Niels Thorsen

36. Comment #14047 by paradigm667 on December 21, 2006 at 1:43 am

Agree with you about J. Campbell, Niels.

I think many authors and especially philosophers were subject to the same probable explanation you propose.

It's always hard to go against the grain, eh?

I will say this: it's very hard to say: "religion is solely based on ____ " It's based on many things and for many reasons. Some of them I dare not mention in this thread, but Sun, Lunar, Stellar worship is certainly a MAIN element that influenced religions of all kinds. Another is obviously male/female anatomy. Another is also nature. There is alot more though, however it isn't necessary to research for hours on end if you are simply looking for logic. All you have to do is just...realize. We all know there is no god. Some of us just don't realize it.

Even those Jehova's Witnesses...They come around and tell you that only 10,000 people get into heaven and it's the end times 'a comin, right? Now, why would they be so worried about getting as many people to convert, so they can be saved and go to heaven...that would drastically lower the J. Witnesses's own chances of making the cut, one would think, right? I mean the logic is quite ludicrous. To think: There must be more than 10,000 Jehova's Witnesses in the world at any given time, not to mention ALL TIME numbers, so I would say it's probably a better idea to first sift through their own members for the unlucky ones before spreading the word. That, or proofreading their scriptures just in case there are hopefully some more zeros in the number that they might have missed somehow. :-) --> I can't even call those people idiots, you know. It's just too easy and pointless. They are just plain and simply comical. I find humor in their very existence. It's a feeling one can develop and comprehend much better after reading anything by Albert Camus, actually.

Anyway, to quote one of my favorite philosophers, Alan Watts speaking about the assumption that religious people really do believe what they say:
"They don't believe. They believe that they SHOULD believe. They believe they OUGHT to believe. But they don't believe. If these people really believed the things they preach there would be screaming in the streets. People would be taking out whole pages in the newspaper ads! The churches would be going out of their minds!"

Have a good one guys.

Other Comments by paradigm667

37. Comment #14259 by grandmagus on December 21, 2006 at 5:26 pm

Yalda (rather similar to Yuletide?) is widely celebrated to this day in Iran on winter solstice eve, which is December 21. This is an obvious choice of date for the celebration of the birth of the sun god Mithras, as it is the longest night of the year, after which the days start growing longer. "Mitra" is also a common girls' name in Iran, where the sun is considered to be female.

Yalda, just like the new year festival of Norooz, which occurs at the spring equinox, is not considered to be directly related to any religion currently practiced in Iran, except perhaps to Zoroastrianism through historical association.

Other Comments by grandmagus

38. Comment #14268 by troyboy on December 21, 2006 at 7:59 pm

paradigm667, From wikipedia:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will receive the reward of eternal life in heaven with Jesus Christ. They believe that the wicked will be destroyed at Armageddon, and that the righteous will form a new society and live forever in an earthly paradise.

They also refuse blood transfusions. Pretty nutty eh?

Other Comments by troyboy

39. Comment #14271 by paradigm667 on December 21, 2006 at 8:11 pm

my fault I thought it was around 10 thousand. Yeah, either way, how nutty indeed.

Other Comments by paradigm667

40. Comment #14321 by Nikki on December 22, 2006 at 2:51 am

According to this guy, he has evidence that Mithras is a rip off from christianity. Where does he find the supporting evidence for this assertion? Why,in the bible of course! However, the author of the post at this site,(Jack Wallace),does go into some in-depth detail about presumptions of the pagan origins of christianity.
http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/myths.htm

Other Comments by Nikki

41. Comment #14534 by Homo economicus on December 23, 2006 at 3:40 am

On the subject of QI, it took a lot of petitioning and pressure to get the BBC to realease a DVD. Thankfully they have now just done so with first series (which discusses things beginning with A).

Please if you think this show is funny buy the DVD, I want them to be able to make money so they will get the other series out soon.

And paradigm667, did mail you about the nature of the show not realising how many good comments you had made on here. It would be great if the creationists did have Jo Brand's humour!

Other Comments by Homo economicus

42. Comment #14557 by mspatriot9 on December 23, 2006 at 7:45 am

Okay, so it's pretty well established that the use of the word "virgin" in the contemporary version of the bible is the thing that causes Christians to insist that Jesus was born of a virgin...as if to suggest, she was not privy to sexual reproduction or intercourse, yet we now know that this was a mistranslation and the actual reference was simply "young woman."

Christian's putrid hatred of all things sexual would underscore the necessity of running off the deep end and embracing the unlikely event that no, Mary was a virgin, no sexual intercourse happened, it was divine conception.

Basically, they got it wrong. A mistranslation.

(Even as a teenager I couldn't help wonder did it not occur to these people that the whole notion of "virgin birth" did not necessarily mean no sexual intercourse but simply she'd never had sex before, she was a virgin, and THEN, like all of us, had intercourse, since it'd mean the same thing...and yet they opted to go with the most absurd interpretation.)

Now there are others but to keep it simple, here we are with the Christian version of Jesus being the son of god...and Mithras being the Sun God. Both the light of man, yada yada.

Okay I can't help but wonder if all of this drama, trauma and genocide and mass delusion confusion sprang from something as banal as the guy that interpreted the ancient texts was just dyslexic, (or drunk)...and he meant to write SUN god but it came out SON (of) god and it all went to hell from there.

It's not that big a stretch - there are many many mistranslations in the bible, the version the christians run with is probably about 85% disingenuine anyway based entirely off misprints over several hundred years and a whole other language translation. Somebody's bound to get it wrong, screw up a letter or an assumed definition, and now look at what they caused...massive delusion, people running around making assinine claims of women getting pregnant by invisible entities, breaking the laws of physics at every turn, and screwing up the SUN GOD to mean the son of god.

THAT would be the greatest irony of all time.

Other Comments by mspatriot9

43. Comment #14642 by Robert O'Brien on December 23, 2006 at 10:20 pm

The Indo-Iranian deity Mitra predates Christianity but Mithraism as practiced in the Roman Empire, while ultimately derived from the Indo-Iranian deity (imported via Phrygia), was distinct and the epigraphical evidence for (Roman) Mithraism postsdates Christianity by some 2-3 centuries. That is a elementary point and ignorance of it marks the posters in this thread as possessing only a pretense of learning.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien

44. Comment #15012 by NoLongerHaveBelief on December 28, 2006 at 5:49 am

Hi Robert.

Interesting point of view. What would be your source for this, please?

I am not qualified to comment either way, but Wikipedia states that the Roman God Mithras was worshipped BEFORE Christ up to around the 5th Century A.D. It also states that Mithras ascended up to heaven in the year 208 B.C.

Unless you know better, that it is. Otherwise, what you say is correct. Please highlight where we are all going wrong, if we are. Any new material is highly valued by Atheists such as myself.

Other Comments by NoLongerHaveBelief

45. Comment #15248 by Robert O'Brien on December 29, 2006 at 11:54 pm

NLHB:

I recommend Edwin Yamauchi's Persia and the Bible as a start.

Other Comments by Robert O'Brien