ATHEISTS DESERVE THEIR OWN HOLIDAY

Only one person rose form the dead.

I can name two other than Jesus: Mithras and Osiris.

The polytheistic belief is illogical

Why is polytheism any more illogical than monotheism?

I'm cutting the Birchers some slack right now on account of it being Christmas and all. Merry xmas

The conservative movement owes William F. Buckley a debt of gratitude for exposing the Birchers for the buffoons that they are.

Pagan basis of common law bump.

can name two other than Jesus: Mithras and Osiris.

Good, compare them too.

Why is polytheism any more illogical than monotheism?

See my posts after this one. Essentially, polytheism results in unsutainable anarchy or is another form of monotheism.

how do we know what is the one true religion. Is it Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, or (insert your religion here).

They are either all false or one of them is true.

What if they are all true? Did you ever read the tale of the blind men and the elephant?

What if they are all true?

They make exclusive claims. For example Christ clearly rejects anything else in his statement "no one can come to the Father but by me.". They may all contain some truth but they cannot all be the truth.

The Death of the Mystery Gods and the Death of Jesus

The best way to evaluate the alleged dependence of early Christian beliefs about Christ’s death and resurrection on the pagan myths of a dying and rising savior-god is to examine carefully the supposed parallels. The death of Jesus differs from the deaths of the pagan gods in at least six ways:

(1) None of the so-called savior-gods died for someone else. The notion of the Son of God dying in place of His creatures is unique to Christianity.13

(2) Only Jesus died for sin. As Günter Wagner observes, to none of the pagan gods “has the intention of helping men been attributed. The sort of death that they died is quite different (hunting accident, self-emasculation, etc.).”14

(3) Jesus died once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-14). In contrast, the mystery gods were vegetation deities whose repeated deaths and resuscitations depict the annual cycle of nature.

(4) Jesus’ death was an actual event in history. The death of the mystery god appears in a mythical drama with no historical ties; its continued rehearsal celebrates the recurring death and rebirth of nature. The incontestable fact that the early church believed that its proclamation of Jesus’ death and resurrection was grounded in an actual historical event makes absurd any attempt to derive this belief from the mythical, nonhistorical stories of the pagan cults.15

(5) Unlike the mystery gods, Jesus died voluntarily. Nothing like this appears even implicitly in the mysteries.

(6) And finally, Jesus’ death was not a defeat but a triumph. Christianity stands entirely apart from the pagan mysteries in that its report of Jesus’ death is a message of triumph. Even as Jesus was experiencing the pain and humiliation of the cross, He was the victor. The New Testament’s mood of exultation contrasts sharply with that of the mystery religions, whose followers wept and mourned for the terrible fate that overtook their gods.16

The Risen Christ and the “Rising Savior-Gods”

Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. One can speak of a “resurrection” in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses.17 For example, after Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris’s dismembered body, Osiris became “Lord of the Underworld.” This is a poor substitute for a resurrection like that of Jesus Christ. And, no claim can be made that Mithras was a dying and rising god. The tide of scholarly opinion has turned dramatically against attempts to make early Christianity dependent on the so-called dying and rising gods of Hellenistic paganism.18 Any unbiased examination of the evidence shows that such claims must be rejected.

Christian Rebirth and Cultic Initiation Rites

Liberal writings on the subject are full of sweeping generalizations to the effect that early Christianity borrowed its notion of rebirth from the pagan mysteries.19 But the evidence makes it clear that there was no pre-Christian doctrine of rebirth for the Christians to borrow. There are actually very few references to the notion of rebirth in the evidence that has survived, and even these are either very late or very ambiguous. They provide no help in settling the question of the source of the New Testament use of the concept. The claim that pre-Christian mysteries regarded their initiation rites as a kind of rebirth is unsupported by any evidence contemporary with such alleged practices. Instead, a view found in much later texts is read back into earlier rites, which are then interpreted quite speculatively as dramatic portrayals of the initiate’s “new birth.” The belief that pre-Christian mysteries used “rebirth” as a technical term lacks support from even one single text.

Most contemporary scholars maintain that the mystery use of the concept of rebirth (testified to only in evidence dated after A.D. 300) differs so significantly from its New Testament usage that any possibility of a close link is ruled out. The most that such scholars are willing to concede is the possibility that some Christians borrowed the metaphor or imagery from the common speech of the time and recast it to fit their distinctive theological beliefs. So even if the metaphor of rebirth was Hellenistic, its content within Christianity was unique.20

SEVEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST CHRISTIAN DEPENDENCE ON THE MYSTERIES

I conclude by noting seven points that undermine liberal efforts to show that first-century Christianity borrowed essential beliefs and practices from the pagan mystery religions.

(1) Arguments offered to “prove” a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a “Last Supper” in Mithraism or a “baptism” in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word “savior” with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).

(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. “A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone.”2’ This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christ’s death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, “It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction.”22 It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.

A FINAL WORD

Liberal efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is available. It is clear that the liberal arguments exhibit astoundingly bad scholarship. Indeed, this conclusion may be too generous. According to one writer, a more accurate account of these bad arguments would describe them as “prejudiced irresponsibility.”23 But in order to become completely informed on these matters, wise readers will work through material cited in the brief bibliography.

http://www.equip.org/free/DB109.htm

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/copycat.html

I haven't read the thread - is any of it worth my time?

*Herein lies a deleted rant decrying the article in specific and "ignint' types" in general.*

"Nothing Day" sounds great, can we just watch Seinfeld and veg out? That's what I'd rather do on most holidays anyway.

Most of "Western Civilization" is BASED ON "Judeo-Christian Jurisprudence!!"

Doc

tortoise wrote:

Very true. Perhaps ironically, the United States of America (along with England but not Scotland) is one of the few exceptions to this -- our system of jurisprudence is essentially pagan at its core

--- "Some hold that common law came from Christian foundations, and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use various quotes from Supreme Court justices proclaiming that Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from its common law heritage.

Thomas Jefferson elaborated about this view of the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . .
This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. . . .
If anyone chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of, the common law."

Acting on political grievances against Great Britain, the framers of the Constitution derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking. Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity.
They gave us the First Amendment as a bulwark against an establishment of religion and at the same time ensuring the free expression of any belief.
The Treaty of Tripoli, signed in the early days of this republic and an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated our non-Christian foundation.

And while we inherited common law from Great Britain, this law clearly derived from pre-Christian Saxons and cannot be seen as a simple codification of biblical Scripture."

We all have some sense that things have gone very wrong. The Birchers just had a unique perspective on how and why. Unfortunately, professed religion (the kind we see on the 700 Club or from Coral Ridge ministries) isn't going to save America. Politicizing it may make things worse. But did Buckley have all the answers? Who does? It's startling to think how soon America could slip into the shadows of history if current trends aren't reversed. I see the Birchers as grabbing at anything they can to save themselves and their country. Religion seemed to be something that could unite and strenthen our resolve. Wouldn't we all like to see that? I think multiculturalism and post-modernism is the true enemy. A word like 'ethnocentric' would have made our founding fathers burst into laughter.

Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity.

That's true for many of them. The universalists and deists (none of whom were secular humanists!) among our founding fathers got along fine with the hellfire and brimstone Puritans. That should teach us a lesson.

" --- the framers of the Constitution derived an independent government out of Enlightenment thinking.

Our Founders paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity.
And while we inherited common law from Great Britain, this law clearly derived from pre-Christian Saxons and cannot be seen as a simple codification of biblical Scripture."
253 jones

That's true for many of them.

The universalists and deists (none of whom were secular humanists!) among our founding fathers got along fine with the hellfire and brimstone Puritans.

That should teach us a lesson.
255 risk

It seems that the lesson of Constitutional religious tolerance must be be learned anew by every generation.

We are presently engaged in fighting a war with religious fanatics.
We cannot win such a war by acting intolerant, -- like them.

-- Just as we didn't win WWII by becoming socialist fanatics.

TWO VERY Enlightening Posts.

My Thanks to You Both!!

Somehow, your "Revelations about 'Common Law'" give me Hope that our "Western Civilization" has a "Leg Up" on ALL OTHER "Civilizations!!"

Our "Forefathers" "GOT IT RIGHT!!"

I VERY MUCH Appreciate your "Elucidation!"

I am Humbled by my Ignorance.

Thanks!

Doc

I agree with you JT. I also agree with our founding fathers that the ethics and moral clarity that come from our religious traditions are important to our overall cohesiveness and vitality. That has to come from within individuals and their families, however.

The claim is that we can't fight the attack on marriage and our cultural heritage without "unsecularizing" our government. I think that shows a certain lack of imagination. Tar and feathers may be a better tool to deploy against our internal foes than turning America into a theocracy as Roy Moore, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson would like to do. I admit that the battle against all vestiges of Christianity led by the ACLU, multiculturalists, and the vanguard of the homo agenda are vexing. But when isn't freedom and the rule of law under attack? Instead of being shocked or reactionary, we should forge ahead and crush this move against America's families and its unity with our own media.

All across America the rule of law is under attack. We seem to be losing our stomach for enforcing our laws, starting with the second amendment. That much change, or we'll lose what our forefathers gained for us. We need to be fierce in defending the status quo.

Tar and feathers was used in the Colonies as a way of marking tyrants and shysters in a way that was difficult to remove as they faced exile from one region to another. We can use cyberspace to do much the same. We need to mark anti-American media, politicians, multi-national corporations, educators, and civil administrators by documenting their destructive impact on our country.

On a related note, Illegal immigration and offshoring are neutralizing and dispersing our R&D, manufacturing prowess, and shrinking our demand for domestic labor -- skilled and otherwise. Could we even manufacture fighters or military computers if Taiwan fell to mainland China, for example? What are our "Christian" legislators doing about these problems? I'm waiting...

The shell has value because it means something special to me. And, no, I don't expect anyone else to see value in the shell. When someone finds the shell on my table after I die, the shell will probably be discarded as valueless. That's okay with me...I don't expect others to see the value in things that I see.

You seem to think that if things don't have inherent value (what inherent value does the shell have? It has value to me because of a temporal transaction, because it was given to me, not because it is a shell) that all is meaningless. I just disagree with that assessment.

You deny that human beings can give meaning to the world. They clearly do. Each of us does it every day. Things, people and events have meaning because we find them meaningful.

Using your example, I disagree with you that the world of the cannibal is meaningless. Human flesh has meaning to the cannibal (for whatever reason), it has value. If you don't think it does, just ask the cannibal. It's really an empirical question. You can simply ask the cannibal what has value and whether the world has meaning. He'll let you know.

You seek to deny our responsibility to decide for ourselves what has meaning and what doesn't. To you, we are passive observers of meaning, either recognizing it or not. To me we are active participants of meaning, deciding for ourselves what is meaningful and what makes sense to us. It is up to us to decide for us what has meaning. We are responsible for those choices and must live with them. For me, free will means a lot, we choose what is valuable to us; to you it means little, as we either recognize inherent value or we don't...kind of like the way a dog recognizes food.

For some, the only meaningful choice is , indeed, suicide. For most others, however, there are many, many other choices that are meaningful.

I'm not surprised that you think the world is meaningless unless value is handed to you on a silver platter, as you don't see yourself as the maker of value. You have removed yourself from an active process and, kind of like a computer without software, you see your life as absurd without value being given to you. What is absurd, however, is to deny your ability and the empirical fact that you create value each and every moment of your existence.

and why does a shell from a little girl's hand have value? And if it does so to you, does that mean it does so to me?

Economic value (as in your second sentence) means that something is worth exactly what it would fetch on the open market (monopolies and price-fixing excepted of course). If everything of value is intrinsically valuable, then let's take gold, which the world has always believed to be valuable. The only reason gold is valuable is because of its relative rarity. Glut the market with gold, and it'll become worthless. For example, Mansa Musa single-handedly depressed the value of gold in Cairo because he brought so much with him and spent so much on the way to Mecca. Gold was plentiful in his native Africa.

Its value is what we say it is, and we make that decision based on various factors that often vary from culture to culture (beauty, rarity, usefulness, cultural or religious significance, etc.).

But you see you're mixing emotional value with economic. From your first sentence, yes, the shell likely has no economic value, but it has emotional value to him. And the only reason that shell has any value was because it came from his neice. But it's still value, and he assigned it.

Now flip that around to religion, and your relationship with your god has immense value to you. However, it is likely totally without value to an atheist who has no need for it. But across all values there is one common theme: we assign these values on a personal or economic basis, and nothing else does.

Also, the problem with Europe isn't as you state. They have their values too, but they value peace over freedom (forgetting the monetary aspect from the oil scandal), while we value freedom over peace. Both are good things to value IMHO, but different societies weigh them differently.