Christianity as sun-worship

[karlhenning]

Well, some of it isn't as substantive as some of us are willing to credit, Ernie.

The idea that Christianity is "really" a variant of sun-worship, "because" this or that Christian feast is at the same point in the calendar as a former heliodolatrous holiday, is about as "substantial" as saying that any Russian who celebrates Constitution Day this year, is "really" a Communist, because that day used to be a celebration of the October Revolution.

[karlhenning]

And you've been around, Ernie, so you yourself know that I've brought forward that point before.  One of the genuinely pathetic things about the cyclical nature of these threads, is that Sean (for instance) apparently really thinks he's got hold of some Christianity-marginalizing "fact" which suddenly trumps Everything.

[karlhenning]

And, Ernie, you are right to weary of the insults.

And we agree that the tendentious simplification of the subject header here (for instance) is a pretty bald insult to Christians, isn't it?

[drogulus]

And, Ernie, you are right to weary of the insults.

And we agree that the tendentious simplification of the subject header here (for instance) is a pretty bald insult to Christians, isn't it?

     I'm don't agree with where you would draw the line, Karl, based on what you say here and elsewhere, since you tend to draw with a hair trigger in mind. The topic is fair game, ridiculing a belief is not a personal insult, and that's why you haven't gotten the restrictive policy you no doubt would like. And I noticed as well how you invoked Sean as the clincher here to no substantive end. If you have a disagreement with Sean, why not tell him? That's what I do. I think it's because your disagreement is not with Sean, but is about Sean. You choose to respond personally, giving yourself latitude while bringing down the hammer (you hope) on others.

     

[karlhenning]

     I'm don't agree with where you would draw the line, Karl, based on what you say here and elsewhere, since you tend to draw with a hair trigger in mind. The topic is fair game, ridiculing a belief is not a personal insult, and that's why you haven't gotten the restrictive policy you no doubt would like.    

You've just made two errors in attempting to read my mind; perhaps you thought you were addressing five or six other people.

But still, I leave it to you to seek better judgement in drawing your own lines, Ernie.

[karlhenning]

If you have a disagreement with Sean, why not tell him?

Well, for two reasons.

One is, that Sean basically just spams, in a manner not much different to Eric Anderson.

Another is that, as you will observe, once Sean has had his fun spamming the forum with ten-fifteen new navel-gazing threads, he tires of his own games, and deletes his account.

[BachQ]

Sean basically just spams,

Perhaps Sean is the reincarnation of Elgar .........

[drogulus]

Well, for two reasons.

One is, that Sean basically just spams, in a manner not much different to Eric Anderson.

Another is that, as you will observe, once Sean has had his fun spamming the forum with ten-fifteen new navel-gazing threads, he tires of his own games, and deletes his account.

     Then don't respond to him. Either argue substantively whether Christianity is, or is not, in any meaningful way descended from Sun Worship or some other pagan predecessor or ignore the provocation.

     I tell you what, Karl, why don't you "insult" my beliefs, insult them real hard. Don't bother being fair or convincing, just go at it, just like others do with your beliefs, and see if I can tell the difference between an attack on a belief, and an attack on a person.

And, Ernie, you are right to weary of the insults.

And we agree that the tendentious simplification of the subject header here (for instance) is a pretty bald insult to Christians, isn't it?

     Absolutely wrong, Karl. The tendentious simplification, and that sounds right to me, is not an insult to Christians unless you're displaying the hair trigger you wish to deny. It's fair game, and the proper response is the analogy with Communism you gave us, which I thought was quite to the point.

[some guy]

So.

What about that local sports team, eh?

But seriously, the early Christians worshipped on Saturday, not Sunday. After all, they were Jews. But when the Romans started persecuting Christians, too, along with the Jews, well, it seemed prudent to the nascent Christian folks to somehow distinguish themselves from the Jews to avoid unnecessary encounters with hungry animals from Africa.

And whatever one thinks about the possible birthdate of Jesus (very unlikely to have been in December, unless those shepherds were just sadists, with a side of masochism), there is no doubt about his crucifixion and resurrection, which were in the spring.

Still, that local sports team.... Whoa! WHOA!!!

[drogulus]

     All religions borrow from what came before. In the case of Christianity the direct connection to Judaism far outstrips anything else, though there were perhaps borrowings from Mithraism, which was popular among the same groups(soldiers, for example). Going further back, there's the obvious connection with Zoroastrianism, picked up originally during the Babylonian Captivity. It seems unlikely that Jews were instructed in the doctrines, but rather that Persian thought was absorbed in the same way Greek thought was. Cultured Persians simply told their stories, and the Jews, far from their homeland and vulnerable to influence, listened. Of course, you could believe that only "false" religions are influenced by rivals and predecessors, while "true" ones aren't, but then you'd have to have a way for scholars to tell the difference so they would know when to ignore or suppress evidence and when to admit it. An example of this can be found here, at a site devoted to a well known religion:

This looks to me to be another case of skeptics citing a pre-Christian religion, assuming that the post-Christian form of the religion (which we know about) has remained faithful to the pre-Christian form of the religion (which we know nothing about), and speculating that the similarities between the religion and Christianity are due to Christianity borrowing from the religion in question. It's a philosophical argument without solid evidence to back it up. Have we any good reason not to suppose that it was Zoroastrianism which borrowed from Christianity and not vice versa? We know that Zoroastrianism borrowed freely from the polytheistic faiths of the region in which it became popular. Mithra, for example, was a Persian god who found a prominent role in Zoroastrianism. Mithra's Hindu counterpart is the god Mitra.


     See what I mean? The hypothesis that the True Faith was influenced is a trick by skeptics, but then he goes on to speculate about the borrowings by the False Ones from each other! This would only be allowable if there was permission granted to do the same kind of speculation disallowed a couple of sentences before!

     The lesson to be learned here is that apologists are not to treated as scholars. Either the borrowings of the various religions are treated with the same analytical tools, and the evidence sifted according the demands of scholarly disinterest, or no actual scholarship is being done, just a form of advocacy.

      Even our apologist recognizes that religion, in its various forms, has a natural history. He merely wishes to create an exemption for his own faith. That is not motivated by any special circumstance other than the fact that an absolutist can't judge what's already been decided.

     Go Pats!  _{<<a priori belief system at work}

[david johnson]

(very unlikely to have been in December, unless those shepherds were just sadists, with a side of masochism)

i mostly agree, but there were temple employed shepherds that maintained the watch and care of flocks in all months.  i do not know where their pastures were.
some people merge the celebration day with the actual event.  i've never believed, taught, nor been taught that dec. 25 is the real day of Jesus' birth.

dj

[Haffner]

Armstrong, by the way, is if I remember correctly a former Catholic nun who has won several awards from Muslim groups and teaches at a Jewish school of some sort. So she is, in essence, an expert on everybody!

You find that convincing.

[Ten thumbs]

Paganism is rather a broad term for anything that is not Christian. Ancient religions were often matriarchal and myth systems such as those of the Greeks were presented against those old cultures. Conceiving a man-god is the ultimate weapon against the female sex. The virgin sacrificed in Spring was of course a young man, not a girl. I think Stravinsky got that wrong.

[Joe_Campbell]

Well the term 'gentile' just didn't sound condemning enough. 

[Xenophanes]

One wonders where the evidence for all this. You will notice that Sean provides no evidence.

The New Testament's main influences seem to come from Judaism, of course, and making up a bunch of alleged facts about other borrowings doesn't change that. For example, if you want miraculous births, you can find them in the Old Testament.  However, the New Testament was written mostly in Greek, which is a very early evidence of cross-cultural contact.

Judaism itself, of course, took over many things from paganism.  Sacred sites such as Jerusalem, for example. The office of nabi or prophet, for another.

As always, the question is not whether a religion borrows material and themes but what it does with them, and this applies to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as well as others.