Atheism-o-Phobia Part 3

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
981

Sloth, what you seem to be looking for is an exact plagarization of Pagan sources - which I don’t support. I think that there are similarities. So, WRT virgin births, I don’t think you are going to find a pagan source where a woman named ‘mary’ goes into a manger to give birth to a child named jesus.

That said, the concept of pregnancy without human intercourse (ie, a virgin birth) has been around for millenia. Your link demonstrates this. Justin Martyr, who I linked to, was making the argument that Pagan religions were forgeries by Satan (and that Christianity was the one true religion).

So even the ancient apologists recognized the similarities. Are you disagreeing with them as well? Maybe you aren’t, but if not, then I don’t exactly know what your stance is. Can you explain?

982

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
Um, exactly how am I supposed to provide that? I don’t have access to the primary sources.[/quote]

You could name and quote them? Provide a link to them?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
He made comparisons in the sense of the…well, miraculous…in general. He was dealing with the “increduality” of the intended audience. Zeus, a was known to do, got his groove on.

I don’t think that’s accurate - Justin Martyr was trying to put forward the idea that Christianity was not some altogether different religion, at least in his Dialogue with Trypho. In fact, in some places he claims that the pagan religions were ‘imitations’, here’s a bit from the dialogue (Saint Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Roberts-Donaldson)):

"CHAPTER LXX – SO ALSO THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRAS ARE DISTORTED FROM THE PROPHECIES OF DANIEL AND ISAIAH.

"And when those who record the mysteries of Mithras say that he was begotten of a rock…[/quote]

Mmm-hmm. A virgin rock?

[quote]Paraphrase: The serpent (satan) copied Jesus’s birth via Perseus.

Sloth wrote:
“When Acrisius inquired of the oracle how he should get male children, the god said that his daughter would give birth to a son who would kill him.49 Fearing that, Acrisius built a brazen chamber under ground and there guarded Danae.50 However, she was seduced, as some say, by Proetus, whence arose the quarrel between them51; but some say that Zeus had intercourse with her in the shape of a stream of gold which poured through the roof into Danae’s lap. When Acrisius afterwards learned that she had got a child Perseus, he would not believe that she had been seduced by Zeus, and putting his daughter with the child in a chest, he cast it into the sea.”
http://www.theoi.com/...lodorus2.html#4

Pangloss wrote: I have no idea why you quoted this. I was speaking specifically of Justin Martyr. Can you tell me the relevance of this passage?[/quote]

And Justin martyr was making arguments, within a hostile enviroment, in defense of the claims within the “Jesus story.” I think the fact the Danae was but another notch on Zeus’ belt is pretty relevant. Perseus didn’t have a virgin birth, but a miraculous birth. It is fascinatinag that the only stretched reference of Perseus’ ‘virgin birth’ ever cited, when challenged, is always from the same Christian apologist who had a goal in mind of making room for a faith in a hostile enviroment. Why is there never a citation of Pagan literature stating that Zeuss kept Danae’s virginity intact? Why? Because they were all for the idea that Zeuss, as my passage pointed out, was one virile old hound.

983

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
That said, the concept of pregnancy without human intercourse…[/quote]

Any intercourse. Zeus scoring, yet again, isn’t a virgin birth.

984

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You could name and quote them? Provide a link to them?
[/quote]

Again, what are you specifically asking for? Different versions of the Mithra’s legend?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mmm-hmm. A virgin rock?
[/quote]

Right…?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And Justin martyr was making arguments, within a hostile enviroment, in defense of the claims within the “Jesus story.” I think the fact the Danae was but another notch on Zeus’ belt is pretty relevant. Perseus didn’t have a virgin birth, but a miraculous birth.
[/quote]

Justin Martyr was saying that the other religions copied Christianity - through Satanic forgery. Justin makes the claim about Perseus’s virgin birth as an example of such forgery. You disputing this with other legends doesn’t detract from this point at all. At best, you could argue that Typhro was technically correct. Who cares though? I’m not arguing that Justin was ‘correct’.

I don’t think that notches on belts makes any difference, since it wasn’t what Justin was saying at all.

You seem to be twisted the original sources to say something completely irrelevant to what they were saying. All I’m saying is that the Christian story is similar to the pagan stories. EARLY CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS (ie, Justin Martyr) ALSO claimed this. Which is why I linked to his own words.

You haven’t disputed this. You just claim that Perseus doesn’t count as a virgin story - when the ancient apologists used it specifically to demonstrate that the pagan religions lifted it from Christianity (through Satanic forgery). My point is that they are similar - not that they are one to one copies.

I’m not actually arguing that virgin births are possible or that there are criteria for what constitutes a ‘virgin’ birth. I could care less about both. What I am arguing is the ancient apologists viewed Jesus’ virgin birth on the same level as Perseus and others.

985

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
That said, the concept of pregnancy without human intercourse…[/quote]

Any intercourse. Zeus scoring, yet again, isn’t a virgin birth.[/quote]

I have no idea what you are arguing. Again, my point is that the births were considered similar by the ancient pagans.

Whether or not they technically qualify to you is completely irrelevant.

986

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You could name and quote them? Provide a link to them?

Pangloss wrote: Again, what are you specifically asking for? Different versions of the Mithra’s legend?[/quote]

A link to any Mithraeic literature. You don’t have to visit the museum and snap a photo of the piece. Simply name it. Provide a link to it’s contents. I provided a link to one ancient piece.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Mmm-hmm. A virgin rock?

Plangoss
Right…?[/quote]

If the best answer to the stretching of coming forth from a rock, to that of a ‘virgin’ birth (where’s the virgin?) is “right…?”, then perhaps we should stop referring to Mithras ‘birth’ as a virgin birth?

How could it NOT make a difference? It wasn’t a virgin birth…Zeus, who loved (lusted for) her, poured into her captivity room, seduced her, and had intercourse with her. As Zeaus was known to do.

987

Here’s more from Justin Martyr (Saint Justin Martyr: First Apology (Roberts-Donaldson)):

“And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.”

Suetonius, in the Lives of the Caesars (XCIV) also makes mention of a ‘virgin’ birth of Augustus: From here (Internet History Sourcebooks):

"When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. "

988

[quote]Sloth wrote:
link to any Mithraeic literature. You don’t have to visit the museum and snap a photo of the piece. Simply name it. Provide a link to it’s contents. I provided a link to one ancient piece.
[/quote]

I’m only aware of second hand sources and sculptures of Mithrailism. I’m not aware of any first hand sources.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
If the best answer to the stretching of coming forth from a rock, to that of a ‘virgin’ birth (where’s the virgin?) is “right…?”, then perhaps we should stop referring to Mithras ‘birth’ as a virgin birth?
[/quote]

I didn’t mention Mithras, with regard to a virgin birth.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How could it NOT make a difference? It wasn’t a virgin birth…Zeus, who loved (lusted for) her, poured into her captivity room, seduced her, and had intercourse with her.
[/quote]

It didn’t make a difference to Justin. Take it up with him.

My point is not about technicalities, it’s about what the ancients believed. So Perseus doesn’t count as a virgin birth to you, so what? My point is that it did to the people back in the day, who, you know, actually BELIEVED this nonsense.

I kind of find your line of argument rather trivial, to be honest. Again, I’m not arguing for a one to one copy. I’m just arguing that the ideas were already there. So a shower of gold didn’t impregnate Mary. The idea is that a god impregnated her - that Jesus had a divine origin. You seem to be nit-picking nat shit, no offense.

I would argue that the old testament passage that refers to the virgin birth was a simple mistranslation anyway.

989

You seem to be arguing against a strawman, Sloth.

990

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ephesians 1:3-9 NASB:
[/quote]

Humorous - I believe Van Til would consider this viciously circular. I mean, how do you justify the idea that Ephesian’s is truly a revelation from God?

Remember, you can’t use reason to justify it - since we are all blinded by sin.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I was dead. He raised me. Blind. Now I see. Deaf. Now I hear. Though surrounded with and created as His revelation, and plainly knowing it everywhere, I lived in stiffnecked rebellion against Him and for myself.
[/quote]

How do you know what you are ‘seeing’, ‘hearing’, ‘etc’ are actually genuine?

After all, Mormon’s could claim the exact same thing. By your standards, they are rationally justified to do so.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
HE raised ME. HE freed ME. I wasn’t seeking Him. I did not ask to be saved from anything before that night in Phoenix 26 years ago. Though my life had been a disaster, I thought I had myself on a much improved path. He came to ME. HE sent that man TO ME. NOW, having been raised purely and entirely by the sovereign grace of an unspeakably merciful and loving God, that accounts for everything I say. New and eternal life. I am commanded to tell you. How you respond is outta my hands. I promise you I intend no arrogance and believe myself superior to no one. If you only knew.
[/quote]

You say this, but you can’t really know this any better then the person who claims that Krishna has shown them the path to enlightenment. Your claims are no better then theirs - in fact, they are a bit worse, since your worldview contains a contradiction, making it incoherent.

At the end of the day, you can claim you aren’t being arrogant or superior, but that’s exactly what you are doing. You should just say that you believe Christianity because it’s absurd. I’d respect that. Right now this ‘inner witness’ of God is coming off like the lady who drowned her children because God told her their souls were possessed by Satan.

She has the exact same justification for her beliefs as you do. What boggles my mind is that this doesn’t frighten you at all. In fact, from all appearances, it doesn’t even BOTHER you.[/quote]

This is exactly the point I’ve been making throughout this thread. He rejects rationality as a tool for testing his truth against the truth of others. He is left only with his subjective religious experience, and has no answer for Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others with similarly powerful religious experiences. It’s his experience against theirs. I get it, because it was the same for me as a believer. I had heard the voice of God, had been born again, and nobody could tell me any different.

I do think religion can help some people, especially those with addictions and destructive lifestyles, who wouldn’t otherwise have the motivation and structure for living a healthy life.

991

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

"When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. "[/quote]

She wasn’t a virgin…By the way, this is a post-christian account.

992

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ephesians 1:3-9 NASB:
[/quote]

Humorous - I believe Van Til would consider this viciously circular. I mean, how do you justify the idea that Ephesian’s is truly a revelation from God?

Remember, you can’t use reason to justify it - since we are all blinded by sin.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I was dead. He raised me. Blind. Now I see. Deaf. Now I hear. Though surrounded with and created as His revelation, and plainly knowing it everywhere, I lived in stiffnecked rebellion against Him and for myself.
[/quote]

How do you know what you are ‘seeing’, ‘hearing’, ‘etc’ are actually genuine?

After all, Mormon’s could claim the exact same thing. By your standards, they are rationally justified to do so.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
HE raised ME. HE freed ME. I wasn’t seeking Him. I did not ask to be saved from anything before that night in Phoenix 26 years ago. Though my life had been a disaster, I thought I had myself on a much improved path. He came to ME. HE sent that man TO ME. NOW, having been raised purely and entirely by the sovereign grace of an unspeakably merciful and loving God, that accounts for everything I say. New and eternal life. I am commanded to tell you. How you respond is outta my hands. I promise you I intend no arrogance and believe myself superior to no one. If you only knew.
[/quote]

You say this, but you can’t really know this any better then the person who claims that Krishna has shown them the path to enlightenment. Your claims are no better then theirs - in fact, they are a bit worse, since your worldview contains a contradiction, making it incoherent.

At the end of the day, you can claim you aren’t being arrogant or superior, but that’s exactly what you are doing. You should just say that you believe Christianity because it’s absurd. I’d respect that. Right now this ‘inner witness’ of God is coming off like the lady who drowned her children because God told her their souls were possessed by Satan.

She has the exact same justification for her beliefs as you do. What boggles my mind is that this doesn’t frighten you at all. In fact, from all appearances, it doesn’t even BOTHER you.[/quote]

This is exactly the point I’ve been making throughout this thread. He rejects rationality as a tool for testing his truth against the truth of others. He is left only with his subjective religious experience, and has no answer for Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others with similarly powerful religious experiences. It’s his experience against theirs. I get it, because it was the same for me as a believer. I had heard the voice of God, had been born again, and nobody could tell me any different.

I do think religion can help some people, especially those with addictions and destructive lifestyles, who wouldn’t otherwise have the motivation and structure for living a healthy life.[/quote]

Yes, I realize that - it’s just that in my prior arguments with presuppositionalists, they try to defend their worldview. They try to make the case that their worldview is the only consistent one.

993

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

"When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. "[/quote]

She wasn’t a virgin…By the way, this is a post-christian account. [/quote]

“Post-Christian”? This was 115 CE. “Christianity” didn’t exist at this time. The gospels were just being written. Augustus died in the first decades “AD”, this was a legend at the time.

So are similarities only one way? Everyone cribbed the Christian’s stuff?

As to your ‘she wasn’t a virgin’ nonsense - again, you are nit-picking nat shit. The point is that she was impregnated by a God, this time without sexual congress. The impregnation by a God is the idea that was lifted, not the specific details.

This is what I’m arguing, not that a 1 for 1 copying occurred. I am arguing, in a similar vein, that Stephen King used some of the ideas of HP Lovecraft in his own works. NOT that Stephen King plagarized the Call of the Cthulu (sp?). Cool? Do you understand what I’m actually arguing?

994

You still haven’t refuted Justin the Martyr, btw. He considered the births the same (in a miraculous sense) and even termed them ‘virgin’ births. In other words, the apologists at the time considered the stories (Jesus & Perseus) similar enough for Justin to try to discredit the Pagan sources by saying they were demonic mimicry.

Please explain that. Why is it that the original Christians considered Christianity similar to Pagan religions? You act as though this charge of similarity is something new. It is not.

Right now it seems like you are getting your stance from modern day apologists in the vein of JP Holding. Is this where you are getting your stance from?

995

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

"When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. "[/quote]

She wasn’t a virgin…By the way, this is a post-christian account. [/quote]

“Post-Christian”? This was 115 CE.[/quote]

Not this account. Suetonius - Wikipedia. Just an aside.

Sorry, but when you call a major detail “nit-picking” I start to question if you even believe your own arguments, or if you’re holding on to them out of pride. Atia wasn’t, in any way, shape, or form, a virgin. If you’re now trying to make this about miraculous births instead of virgin births, fine. But stop throwing in ‘virgin births’. It is not an incidental issue. Now, if you are going to redefine the argument to simply miraculous births, you might as well throw in Hercules, Ares…heck, entire pantheons.

996

[quote]Sloth wrote:
By the way, this is a post-christian account. [/quote]

I just wanted to concentrate on this a bit, the implication is that the divine impregnation idea came from Christianity.

This is a bit absurd, since the first mention of a virgin birth of Jesus came from the Gospel of Matthew, which was written between 80-100 AD. So, presumably, once the gospel ‘hit the shelves’ it was such a run-a-way hit that all the Romans were intent on copying it. Not only would they have had to be very familiar with it they would have had to have explained away this prior Christian belief - which they did not do.

Instead, all you EVER see is Christian apologists making excuses for the similarities between Christianity and Pagan beliefs (Pagan beliefs were demonic forgeries).

So the rational for believing the Romans copied the Christians is weak and doesn’t make any sense.

997

[quote]Pangloss wrote:

I just wanted to concentrate on this a bit, the implication is that the divine impregnation idea came from Christianity.

This is a bit absurd, since the first mention of a virgin birth of Jesus came from the Gospel of Matthew, which was written between 80-100 AD. So, presumably, once the gospel ‘hit the shelves’ it was such a run-a-way hit that all the Romans were intent on copying it. Not only would they have had to be very familiar with it they would have had to have explained away this prior Christian belief - which they did not do.[/quote]

Didn’t say they copied it…Since the claim wasn’t that Atia was a virgin (as I pointed out). But you did use this passage as ‘evidence.’ And it’s post-christian. Doesn’t matter, no virgins giving birth here.

998

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not this account. http://en.wikipedia.org/...wiki/Suetonius. Just an aside. [/quote]

Link didn’t work. This link says 121: The Twelve Caesars - Wikipedia

Not a big difference.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, but when you call a major detail “nit-picking” [/quote]

It’s not a major detail. It’s not even important in the scope of the story - the important point is that a “GOD” was the father.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I start to question if you even believe your own arguments, or if you’re holding on to them out of pride.[/quote]

?

I fail to see why this would even be an inkling. I’m the one doing the heavy lifting here, argument-wise, you are simply nay-saying about inconsequential details.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Atia wasn’t, in any way, shape, or form, a virgin. If you’re now trying to make this about miraculous births instead of virgin births, fine.[/quote]

I’m referring to the people as the ancients saw them. I doubt these women were impregnated by Gods, I’d bet that if they had any grain of truth in them at all, that they were the result of simple affairs.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But stop throwing in ‘virgin births’. It is not an incidental issue.[/quote]

Negative - I will refer to them as the ancients did, not as modern apologists do. Again, you have to explain why Justin Martyr (among others) referred to it as a virgin birth, not why I am.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, if you are going to redefine the argument to simply miraculous births, you might as well throw in Hercules, Ares…heck, entire pantheons.[/quote]

For my argument to work, I could very well do that. I think it’s overkill, personally.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Didn’t say they copied it…Since the claim wasn’t that Atia was a virgin (as I pointed out). But you did use this passage as ‘evidence.’ And it’s post-christian. Doesn’t matter, no virgins giving birth here. [/quote]

It is evidence of what I’ve been arguing - Atia is an example of impregnation without sexual congress. It’s also contemporary of Christianity, it is not post christian.

Again, my argument is that Christianity is similar to Pagan religions, not that it was a direct copy.

So this bit about what constitutes a technical virgin is irrelevant. Throw away the ‘virgin’ part and my argument works just the same.

Which is why you are nit-picking gnat shit. It’s an attempt at a misdirect - to take the focus off of the main argument (the similarities) to nit pick an inconsequential detail (technical virginity). The miracle claim is what is important. Justin the Martyr considers Perseus a ‘virgin’ birth. Origen also makes the claim that Christianity was not unique in this regard (Origen: Contra Celsus, Book 1 (Roberts-Donaldson)):

"Nay, according to the Greeks themselves, all men were not born of a man and woman. For if the world has been created, as many even of the Greeks are pleased to admit, then the first men must have been produced not from sexual intercourse, but from the earth, in which spermatic elements existed; which, however, I consider more incredible than that Jesus was born like other men, so far as regards the half of his birth. And there is no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks, with the view of showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the son of Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was pregnant by Apollo. And yet these are veritable fables, which have led to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements than others, because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who were too great to be human beings. And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, land not one who is writing in a serious tone. "

In otherwords, Origen does NOT argue that The Pagans copied the Christians, he argues that the Pagan’s miraculous (nay I say ‘virgin’) birth narratives were simply false, whereas Christianities stories were true.

Your ‘rebuttal’ sounds suspiciously like Holdings. Is that where you’ve gotten it?

999

Virgin birth simply means virgin conception to the ancients.

1000

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
It is evidence of what I’ve been arguing - Atia is an example of impregnation without sexual congress. [/quote].

Actually it isn’t even that. Atia wakes and washes, having the feeling of having been with her husband…The story, if anything, suggests some kind of sexual congress.

Again, my argument is that Christianity is similar to Pagan religions, not that it was a direct copy.

Yeah, they both have non-mortal characters and miraculous stuff happening. Not exactly ground-breaking material.

Throw away the virgin part and you might as well compare Zeus’ ability for speech to the Christian God’s. Ok, they both talk, and? I bet both were considerd gods, too!

Nit-picking? Wow. I haven’t seen this level of backing off from specifics to meaningless generalizations, the changing of the parameters of claims being made, badly read excerpts (such as Atia’s), ommisions, and unashamedely clinging to a now defunct argument, since the last time I stopped in on a 9-11 troofer thread. I’m still waiting on Mithraic literature containing one mention of a virging birth. You did imply alternative tellings, which included such. I’ll check back in a few hours, but I know I’ll be dissapointed.