A question for the faithful.

[AlexBP]

Hey, it's a Jesus thread. It came back from the dead!

madaz, I previously asked you this:

"If you believe that Mary Boyce's book Zoroastrians justifies your claim that "christianity adopted most of its rituals from the mithra religion", why don't you quote the actual words from Boyce's book that justify this claim, and tell us which pages those quotes come from?
​

Would you care to answer? If not, I think there's a lesson to be gleaned from this: don't try to win an argument by referring other people to a book that you yourself have not actually read.

 

[madaz]

Hey, it's a Jesus thread. It came back from the dead!

Yes back again after moving countries.

madaz, I previously asked you this:

"If you believe that Mary Boyce's book Zoroastrians justifies your claim that "christianity adopted most of its rituals from the mithra religion", why don't you quote the actual words from Boyce's book that justify this claim, and tell us which pages those quotes come from?
​

Would you care to answer? If not, I think there's a lesson to be gleaned from this: don't try to win an argument by referring other people to a book that you yourself have not actually read.

AlexBP,
Are you disputing that christianity adopted rituals from Mithra and other religions or are you simply disputing my claim of Mary Boyce's assertions in her book? Or both?
I am presently waiting for my personal effects to arrive in a shipping container. When I get my books I will refer you.
I concede that I may be wrong by using the word "most" in my claim but nonetheless christianity certainly has adopted some of its rituals from Mithra and other religions, eg 25th December birth date of the saviour Mithra who was born of a virgin and resurrected 3 days after death etc etc

The fact that christianity adopted some rituals from Mithra and other religions is well documented so you can easily research for yourself.

I do not need to refer you to any books to win my argument.

 

[AlexBP]

AlexBP,
Are you disputing that christianity adopted rituals from Mithra and other religions or are you simply disputing my claim of Mary Boyce's assertions in her book? Or both?
...
I concede that I may be wrong by using the word "most" in my claim but nonetheless christianity certainly has adopted some of its rituals from Mithra and other religions, eg 25th December birth date of the saviour Mithra who was born of a virgin and resurrected 3 days after death etc etc

The date of Christmas is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible and Christians have long known that. When Christians started celebrating the birth of Jesus on that date, where, and why is not known. Dec. 25 was the winter solstice in the Roman Empire and often an occasion for festivals; some have speculated that early Christians chose to celebrate Christmas on the date because of that. Maybe they're right. The truth is that no one knows. (However, when you say that Mithra was born on Dec. 25, you're wrong. There's no evidence to support that.) You advanced the supposed copying of Mithraic rituals as an argument that Christianity was false. The dating of Christmas is unrelated to anything in the Bible, and thus tells us nothing about the truth or falsehood of Christianity.

If you want to claim that anything about Jesus in the Gospels was copied from Mithraism or any other Pagan religion, I will absolutely dispute that. To start off with, I'll dispute your claim that Mithra "was born of a virgin and resurrected 3 days after death etc etc". (Presumably you believe that Mithras never existed, and you're really claim that in the relevant mythology these things are true.) I've already linked to an article that debunks these claims at length. To reiterate the relevant points:

• Mithra was not born of anyone, virgin or otherwise, in the relevant myths.
• Neither was he resurrected after death. In fact, he didn't even die.

Here are the sources. The article quotes archaeologist and historian Franz Cumont for the fact that in the myth, Mithras was formed full grown out of rock. Friezes on the walls of Mithraic temples back this up; there was no virgin birth nor a non-virgin birth. There is not a single scholarly reference to Mithras ever dying in the relevant mythology, much less being resurrected three days after death. Dr. Richard Lindsay Gordon, in his book Images and Value in the Greco-Roman World: Studies in Mithraism and Religious Art, says point blank: "There was no death of Mithras." (p 61) Your claim that Mithras was born of a virgin and resurrected is flatly refuted by the evidence.

I do not need to refer you to any books to win my argument.

Oh? Are you basically saying that you "win" the argument by just making claims, even if you're unable to provide a single source that backs up those claims? That would be a rather severe departure from your stance earlier in the thread, where you said that "logic and empiricism" would back up all your claims.

The fact that christianity adopted some rituals from Mithra and other religions is well documented so you can easily research for yourself.

Ah, the good old "you can research for yourself" line. I get this one all the time, and it always comes from posters who don't have any evidence to back up their claims. It always fails for the same reason. I have researched the claim that Christian beliefs and rituals are adopted from Mithraism and found it to be false; thus your insistence that I'll find it to be true if I do the research falls flat. I've already given you three links to sources that I found during my research and I could give many more. If you want to convince me that Christianity copied any ritual from Mithraism, I'd suggest you provide up-to-date and reputable sources which actually back up your claims.

 

[true2theword]

Hypothetically-If you were given a proof that religion was false, would you abandon it?

a true believer has had an experience that nothing in this world can prove false, Its like trying to make a person believe their body doesn't exist even though they are in it

 

[MrMoe]

Well done AlexBP, you are very correct.
Films like zietgeist are spreading false information about christianity around and have been debunked by those who bothered to do some research and not just take it's word for it, like madaz seems to have done.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well done AlexBP, you are very correct.
Films like zietgeist are spreading false information about christianity around and have been debunked by those who bothered to do some research and not just take it's word for it, like madaz seems to have done.

I agree, speaking from the Atheist perspective... If you buy into the message in Zeitgeist, you clearly are not using your critical thinking skills. Some very quick research will debunk a lot of the message in that movie.

There are some facts, however a lot of the conclusions they draw from those facts are pure speculation, and when researched, you will find that their speculation is wrong.

 

[madaz]

The point of this thread is not to prove Christianity or any other religion false.

As a non believer I would change my position if given empirical evidence, the point of this thread is to find out if believers would change their positions also?

 

[Crandaddy]

Hypothetically-If you were given a proof that religion was false, would you abandon it?

I'll accept any proof that I find sufficiently plausible. None of my beliefs are exempt from the test of reason.

 

[AlexBP]

As a non believer I would change my position if given empirical evidence,

That's what you claim. You're not alone. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion spends a lot of time bragging about how willing he and his allies are to change their views when the evidence warrants it.

At risk of stating the obvious, this thread has given us an opportunity to see whether your claim is true. You found some claim--on the internet, I assume--about Christianity copying its rituals and beliefs from Mithraism. You chose to believe it and post it here without first checking whether it was true. You've now been shown a large amount of scholarly evidence that the claim is completely untrue, starting with the fact that the Mithraic cult didn't come into existence until long after Christianity did. So you have a fine opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to empirical evidence and acknowledge that you got suckered on the issue of Christianity copying from Mithraism. Instead you chose to double down and insist you were right, referred to the book by Mary Boyce which I'm feel pretty sure you haven't read, and played the "you can research it yourself" card.

Being willing to change your position given empirical evidence is an admirable thing, but only if you actually do it. Saying that you'd do it and then doing the opposite is much less admirable.

 

[madaz]

That's what you claim.

You're not alone. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion spends a lot of time bragging about how willing he and his allies are to change their views when the evidence warrants it.

At risk of stating the obvious, this thread has given us an opportunity to see whether your claim is true. You found some claim--on the internet, I assume--about Christianity copying its rituals and beliefs from Mithraism. You chose to believe it and post it here without first checking whether it was true. You've now been shown a large amount of scholarly evidence that the claim is completely untrue, starting with the fact that the Mithraic cult didn't come into existence until long after Christianity did. So you have a fine opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to empirical evidence and acknowledge that you got suckered on the issue of Christianity copying from Mithraism. Instead you chose to double down and insist you were right, referred to the book by Mary Boyce which I'm feel pretty sure you haven't read, and played the "you can research it yourself" card.

Being willing to change your position given empirical evidence is an admirable thing, but only if you actually do it. Saying that you'd do it and then doing the opposite is much less admirable.

AlexBP-If you can not imagine a hypothetical scenario of your religion being false for the purposes of answering the question in this thread then it is pointless taking part in the discussion. This thread has given us an opportunity to demonstrate who exactly is being obstinate here. The info you have provided does not compel me. Although it has been some years since I researched the subject of I'm confident that my assertion has some validity. (Incidentally my user name madaz is a parody of the deity ahura mazda)
However I have made my assertion and if I'm wrong I'm wrong I'm very happy to concede. I personally support religion and have no agenda in proving it false.

I have no concern nor interest in the origin of christian rituals. That is the subject for an entirely different discussion which is off topic here.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Empirical evidence is not apt to the subject matter. Unless we assume that matter is all there is, and it is empirically defined.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength 1 Corinthians 1:25

Christ incarnuss the church in the world is weak as is all beauty. Flowers are easily crushed, and even sunsets glitter momentarily. All is vanity and absurd to the writer of Ecclasiastes, but the church in its delicacy and weakness prevails. It is not a case of might makes right, not right makes might. Jesus' enemies become his footstool because their enimies strength is their folly, they prefer darkness to the beauty of light. Gods ways are delicate and soft, and thus ascend because of their goodness, whereas the harsher "tough minded" mentality of the evidential empiricists (there are tough and tended minded people) is too brutal a response to the delicacy of the spirit. Just as it takes light and skilled fingers to engrave an ornament, so the Kingdom is softer than the brute force method of the external data gatherers. Cmon even you know of poetry. But science reduces both poetry and violence to mere brain states, alternative collections of neural debates.A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger Proverbs 15:1

 

[Elioenai26]

Hypothetically-If you were given a proof that religion was false, would you abandon it?

By religion, I am assuming you are referrring specifically to Christianity since this is a Christian forum. If this is correct, then I will answer your question because I am a Christian.

If I were given proof that Jesus Christ was not who He said He was, and that there was no truth to the biblical accounts of His birth, life, death, and resurrection, then as someone who must be honest in my quest for truth, I would seek the truth, wherever it led me.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

If you were to offer me absolute proof that my religion is false, how would I know that the proof is absolute? What evidence could you possible give me that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my religion is false?

The earthly remains of Jesus Christ, and proven to be His.
If the "real" tomb of Christ is found, with the body still there, and it can be proven that it IS Jesus....then Christianity is out the window, and we should all become Jews.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Hypothetically-If you were given a proof that religion was false, would you abandon it?

Based on your other responses it seems you've defined "proof" as "absolute proof". Assuming proof means absolute proof then I don't see how anyone could say "no" to this question. The way the question is set up demands the person to say yes. If such absolute proof existed then it would be necessarily objective, obvious and inescapable. It would be a mathematical statement of fact that is impossible to dispute. Everyone would see it and say "Oh, there it is, that makes sense" just as people must see that x=2 is the only possible answer to the algebraic expression x+2=4. The only way to deny a mathematical fact is to change the definitions (ie define "2" as "3" thus making the algebraic expression above have x=1).

Of course, such proof is impossible in almost every facet of life, especially something as complex as religion, spirituality, ethics, morality, history, etc.

But my answer is yes...obviously.

 

[madaz]

Based on your other responses it seems you've defined "proof" as "absolute proof". Assuming proof means absolute proof then I don't see how anyone could say "no" to this question.

I totally agree however this thread is proof that some faithful do say no. I guess they feel if their faith is "tested" then saying no to this hypothetical question would be the "right" response.

The way the question is set up demands the person to say yes. If such absolute proof existed then it would be necessarily objective, obvious and inescapable. It would be a mathematical statement of fact that is impossible to dispute. Everyone would see it and say "Oh, there it is, that makes sense" just as people must see that x=2 is the only possible answer to the algebraic expression x+2=4. The only way to deny a mathematical fact is to change the definitions (ie define "2" as "3" thus making the algebraic expression above have x=1).

The keyword here in the question is "Hypothetically" so we can disregard any mathematical "proof" for the purpose of the question..

Of course, such proof is impossible in almost every facet of life, especially something as complex as religion, spirituality, ethics, morality, history, etc.

But my answer is yes...obviously.

Thank-you for your honesty.

 

[AlexBP]

AlexBP-If you can not imagine a hypothetical scenario of your religion being false for the purposes of answering the question in this thread then it is pointless taking part in the discussion.

First you thank me for answering your question (post #36), then you tell me that I shouldn't take part in the discussion?

What I said was: "Yes, I would. However, I've never been given any convincing argument that my religion was false. Most of the arguments that atheists toss at me are so absurd and illogical that they tend to strengthen my conviction that Christianity is true." What's unfolded in this thread since I posted that has provided a perfect demonstration of what I'm talking about.

This thread has given us an opportunity to demonstrate who exactly is being obstinate here.

Yes, it has done that.

 

[Going Merry]

Answering the threads OP.

Yes of course I would. But saying that I am still a believer. The little benign atheist comments and explanations I receive are nothing worth mentioning. Base your argument off morality? Skipped. Basing it on supposed word contradictions, but having no actual contradiction? Skipped. Interpreting something in your way and saying "aha, see, I have shown how the bible is false" when looking at one verse. Haha those ones make me laugh the most. It makes me laugh considering a lot of these people tote logic supremacy when they can't demonstrate their position.


The bible along with history has demonstrated how God is real.
I am supposed to take someones opinion about said thing seriously?

 

[Skavau]

Answering the threads OP.

Yes of course I would. But saying that I am still a believer. The little benign atheist comments and explanations I receive are nothing worth mentioning. Base your argument off morality? Skipped. Basing it on supposed word contradictions, but having no actual contradiction? Skipped. Interpreting something in your way and saying "aha, see, I have shown how the bible is false" when looking at one verse. Haha those ones make me laugh the most. It makes me laugh considering a lot of these people tote logic supremacy when they can't demonstrate their position.


The bible along with history has demonstrated how God is real.
I am supposed to take someones opinion about said thing seriously?

That's up to you, but know that you can't expect anyone to necessarily take your conviction in the accuracy of the Bible seriously if you won't return the favour.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's up to you, but know that you can't expect anyone to necessarily take your conviction in the accuracy of the Bible seriously if you won't return the favour.

Dear Mr. Skavau,

Please examine what you just said closely.

Do you see where you are wrong?

You say that a person's conviction of the accuracy of the bible should be taken seriously based on their decision to take the claims of atheism seriously.

This is clearly quite fallacious and yet another classic yet sad example of a person using faulty logic to substantiate their position.

Classic in the sense that the godless have been using faulty logic and arguments laden with internal inconsistencies and contradictions for centuries in attempts to discredit theism, specifically Christianity, and sad in that many of these objectors, such as yourself, no doubt think they are actually saying something clever.

The bible is accurate as an ancient text based not on whether it's proponent is open to atheism, but whether or not it accurately records the events contained within its pages. A person's conviction of the accuracy of the bible stands or falls on whether or not the evidence proves it to be an accurate, dependable record of the events it records.

If the bible is not a dependable, reliable ancient text, then we have no right to maintain it is. But if it is, then it is reliable and trustworthy regardless of my view of atheism or acceptance of any other worldview for that matter.

If the bible is true, it is true, even if I refuse to indulge you in your defense of atheism. If the bible is true, it is true, even if I know nothing at all about any other religious text. If the bible is true, it is true even if no one in this world accepts it as such.

You have the right to refuse to listen to me or anyone else here who affirms the bible is God's word. What you cannot say is that you are justified in this refusal because so and so will not indulge you in your defense of your views.

- May all things praise Him.

 

[Skavau]

Dear Mr. Skavau,

Please examine what you just said closely.

Do you see where you are wrong?

No, but I'm sure you're about to lecture me on how.

You say that a person's conviction of the accuracy of the bible should be taken seriously based on their decision to take the claims of atheism seriously.

Not quite. I'm saying that if someone is refusing to even consider the position of people they elect to debate or discuss with then there's no obligation on the other person to take their position seriously. It is a matter of courtesy, if anything. I strongly disagree with Christianity myself I suspect that little could convince me of its accuracy or morality but that does not mean I hand wave away or ignore what others might say to me on the topic.

Bottom line, from a public relations perspective if your objective is to gain converts you need to listen to their concerns, their arguments and their beliefs and you need to respond to them and you need to do this however much you may not like to. Belittling and hand waving away the issues of those you seek to convert will create contempt and nothing else.

This is clearly quite fallacious and yet another classic yet sad example of a person using faulty logic to substantiate their position.

It would be if I was intending to use it as a reason that I'm not a Christian. You just misunderstood it, that's all.

Classic in the sense that the godless have been using faulty logic and arguments laden with internal inconsistencies and contradictions for centuries in attempts to discredit theism, specifically Christianity, and sad in that many of these objectors, such as yourself, no doubt think they are actually saying something clever.

I wasn't attempting to discredit theism nor specifically Christianity there. I was returning the favour of the poster.

The bible is accurate as an ancient text based not on whether it's proponent is open to atheism, but whether or not it accurately records the events contained within its pages. A person's conviction of the accuracy of the bible stands or falls on whether or not the evidence proves it to be an accurate, dependable record of the events it records.

Okay.

If the bible is not a dependable, reliable ancient text, then we have no right to maintain it is. But if it is, then it is reliable and trustworthy regardless of my view of atheism or acceptance of any other worldview for that matter.

If the bible is true, it is true, even if I refuse to indulge you in your defense of atheism. If the bible is true, it is true, even if I know nothing at all about any other religious text. If the bible is true, it is true even if no one in this world accepts it as such.

Right. Good job I did not contest the above there.

You have the right to refuse to listen to me or anyone else here who affirms the bible is God's word. What you cannot say is that you are justified in this refusal because so and so will not indulge you in your defense of your views.

I think I am quite justified I ignoring the perspective of someone who refuses to hear mine. That is from a point of civility. This is a discussion forum, not one where I should be expected to sit and watch as I get lectured to.