Heavens, I don't know how one can prove a point by calling it "pagan". It might just be possible that the pagans were right about some things you know.
Genetic fallacy. Believe in one supernatural being is not the same as belief in any or all of them, nor does it imply a direct connexion.
And the idea of a dying/resurrecting god?
Actually, if you mean it in the sense of a dying and resurrecting god who continues to die and resurrect, over and over again, then yes, you are quite correct, and in fact would be pointing to the same issue of "sacred vs. profane time" that I remarked about with respect to the Catholic mass.
If you are referring to the Christian belief about Jesus' death and resurrection, then you are quite off-base, since that event (as I noted earlier) was punctiliar, it was a one-time affair, and was never viewed by early Christians as being a repetitive, "sacred time" event. If this is the case, then you apparently don't understand the difference between superficial similarity, and likeness in underlying thought.
And the wedding ring?
I didn't realise the wedding ring was a religious rite. Atheists get married and wear wedding rings. Religious people sometimes don't wear rings, yet they are still married. The wedding ring is not a fundamental aspect of any religious system on earth, to my knowledge.
Oh, and the days of the week and the months too?
I didn't realise that the days of the week, nor the months of the year, were in any way, shape, or form integral to the religious beliefs of any group on earth, pagan or Christian.
Heavens, I don't know how one can prove a point by calling it "pagan".
One can prove the point that something is "not Christian" or "not biblical" by demonstrating (as opposed to merely "calling") it to be pagan, since the two are basically defined to be opposites.
It might just be possible that the pagans were right about some things you know.
I'm sure they were right about a number of things - just not religious things.