The Christmas Hoax

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zhavric For centuries, Christians were in the habit of MURDERING other Christians who believed that Jesus' story was slightly different. It's important to keep perspective here. No, Christians usually don't do that sort of thing anymore, but Christianity, itself, is a propaganda. Like any other propaganda it can be used to swing the will of people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do (like going to war or voting for people who will shaft them). Also, I'd like nothing more than for Christians to admit that Jesus is a story not unlike Santa Claus. We both know that's simply not the case. Christians insist that Jesus actually existed as a real person which is demonstrably false. I have no problem with a grown person believing in Santa Claus as a metaphor for being nice to others & generous. I do have a problem when a grown adult insists there are flying reindeer warming up at the north pole and may be (under the right circumstances) willing to murder me if I say they're flying aardvarks or simply not real.

1 + 1 = 11
If that is your formula for life, then enjoy it.

Are you attempting to "correct" others that percieve this world differently to your own concept (in comparison) ?
(A sort of dictatorship ? )

That is none of your business, unless requested and/or specified.
Yet you have an impudance to submit some (cynicism-filled-with) alleged arguments in order to support your stance ?

Do you know why every state establishes the Law as one of the fundamental pillars for its existence ?
- to protect others from guys like : yourself and alike
That what Democracy is all about : Respect Others (just like others need to follow that equally, as well). That what U.S. Consitution is all about.
You do not like it (?), then change the system along with Mankind (itself).

Where are you from ?
How old are you ?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Rainbow 1 + 1 = 11 If that is your formula for life, then enjoy it.

Why would that be my formula? I'm not a theist.

Are you attempting to "correct" others that percieve this world differently to your own concept (in comparison) ? (A sort of dictatorship ? )

lol Yes. Call it the fascism of fact. The tyranny of truth.

People can believe whatever they want. If you want to say "I believe in Santa" I'll smile, nod and be on my way. If you say "I believe in Santa and he's real, lives at the north pole and really does fly around" then I reserve the right to say back, "No, he doesn't."

Notice what happened there. I didn't state "You're not allowed to believe in Santa." I simply countered the truth claim made about Santa.

Many Christians aren't able to draw a distinction between the two. The nature of the propaganda is such that it links the alleged "reality" of Jesus with belief in him. The story actually falls apart UNLESS he's an actual historical person. This is a problem Christians have made for themselves by balancing their spiritual claims onto a faulty & demonstrably false historical claim.

I'm neither the villain nor the fascist for pointing out what was actually happening circa 2000 years ago.

That is none of your business, unless requested and/or specified. Yet you have an impudance to submit some (cynicism-filled-with) alleged arguments in order to support your stance ?

Please.

1) This is a debate forum. We're here to debate. Nothing is "off-limits" to argumentation.

2) See above. Already covered most of this.

3) Knock off the ad hominem arguments. Attack the arguments, not the person making the argument.

Do you know why every state establishes the Law as one of the fundamental pillars for its existence ? - to protect others from guys like : yourself and alike That what Democracy is all about : Respect Others (just like others need to follow that equally, as well). That what U.S. Consitution is all about. You do not like it (?), then change the system along with Mankind (itself).

What a horribly off-topic statement? Let's make sure we understand what's going on here. I'm raising arguments about the origins of Christianity & Jesus. You're attacking me instead of my arguments and attempting to bring in something from the Constitution to justify your desire to censor my line of questioning. The Constitution of the United States was written by people who had enough of monarchal and theistic tyrany. Do you really think they drafted the Bill of Rights to get people to shut up and do as they're told?

Again, I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by my line of argumentation, but if I were to challenge you to find me stating "I don't think people should be allowed to be Christian" you'd fail. I've never made such a statement. I've only ever stated the truth. The fact that you dislike it doesn't constitute wrongdoing on my part.

Where are you from ?

A little town called logicville and I'm starting to feel home sick...

How old are you ?

Old enough to know that you're looking for more material for ad hominum arguments. I could be 19, 29, 39, 49, or 59... or anywhere in between or not. What does it matter to your argument?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Cephus The one thing you cannot draw from myths are *FACTS*, which is the point here. The Bible is not factual. It may have some good knowledge, but then again, so did Aesop, but that doesn't mean that anyone in their right mind should believe there are really foxes jumping to get grapes, or that there is some farsical father figure in the sky. Take from the myths whatever comfort or wisdom you wish, but stop claiming that most things in that laughable book actually happened.

Italics my own in above.

I never have claimed the bible to be true. What I was suggesting is that Christianity should evolve from a fundamentalist religion into a, how to put it...more philosophical one? I am reflecting my own spirituality here. I do not believe the stories to be true, but to have the lessons of my people bound into them. They are the collected wisdom of the group that produced them. The existence of the divine is just as possible as impossible, and whether you believe is a matter of faith, but to say the myths, the cultural baggage if you will, are true is foolish.

[Athena]

Quote by: Destroyer Yes, and your propoganda site never offers any source or shows these "similarities' in the texts themselves....yet you believe every one of them blindly. WHen a Christian site says "X", you ask questions like, "how do we know this to be the case" and "why". When an obviously propaganda site says "X", you just believe it and post it like it's an authority on the subject. And what was the purpose of posting all of that? I'm familiar with Mithraism (though your 'source' apparently isn't given it's blatant falsehoods) and most of it didn't address or refute my claim, namely that the "similarities" are spurious and the sites claiming there are similarities never show you the Mithraic texts themselves and just make these "similarities" up themselves. In fact, what you just posted confirmed exactly what I had been saying. They listed some "similarities" but never showed us these similarities in the texts themselves...like how they mentioned Mithra apparently having 12 followers (without providing support)even though I've already shown this to be false. You're trying to move us backwards in this debate, Rick claimed that Mithra had 12 followers, I pointed out that there is no evidence for this and that the only texts we have say 2 followers, then you come in and repeat that Mithra had 12 followers even though this has already been disproven. What you need to do next is provide evidence that Mithra had 12 followers, don't waste your time though, there is none, your conspiracy site made that up. Did you think copy and pasting a whole bunch of text from a propaganda site run by an non-expert would impress someone? "emerged from the virgin earth"! LOL! Is this the desperate measure Christ-myther's must go to in order to find similarities? Calling the earth a "virgin"?! Because we all know that being formed from solid rock is the EXACT same as being born of a woman whom had not had sex. You're making your desperation all too apparent. We both know you haven't heard a Christ-myth theory you didn't like...from Jesus=Julius to Jesus=Jesii to Jesus=Teacher of Righteousness etc. etc. Your posts have all the markings of someone who WANTS something to be true DESPITE the evidence to the contrary. I think I'll create a website alleging that Jesus was really Alexander the Great. I'll make up a fanciful story and provide no support, then I'll watch as you post the crap I made up on some message board and cite my made up story as an authority... This doesn't refute the point in the least. No Christian believes nor does it say in the NT that Jesus was born on the 25th of December, this is just the day we celebrate his birth...thus this "similarity" is patently false. I bet you don't know how scholars have come to date it in the first century... (Hint: Internal Evidence) How does it easily predate Christianity when this one similarity from Mithraism was in the 2nd Century (the same as when you date the "other" three gospels) and the other contrived "similarities" don't come to us from texts until the 4th Century? Of course Mithraism was around when Christianity was, but none of these contrived "similarities" show up until centuries later....and even then the "similarities" are often completely forced/made up (ie calling the earth a virgin) Also, I bet you can't tell me how we date these Mithraic texts... (Hint: Internal Evidence) I've also noted your blatant inconsistancy as well. Matthew, Luke and John weren't written until the 2nd Century (according to you and other non-experts) because we don't have any copies of them until them until then and internal evidence doesn't count at all (even though it does for every other text in antiquity)...but you believe Mark was written in the 1st Century even though the external evidence for Mark is the same as the other gospels and it is dated to within the 1st Century SOLEY on internal evidence. I'm not here to debate your assinine Christ-myth assumptions. You claimed that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism because Mithra had 12 followers, however not one Mithraic texts says this ANYWHERE. However, those that wrote of Jesus' life mention him having 12 disciples, whether this is true or not is outside the realm of THIS debate - the point is, this story, whether historical or contrived, was not borrowed from Mithra. I claimed that there is absolutely no reference to Mithra being resurrected...how you became this confused about the actual claims being made is beyond me.

And it is said I have a lot to say. These a lot of words to argue what? The Christian stories are absolute truth and all the rest are bad information? That is like saying the stew is beef stew because it has a hunk of beef in it, ignoring the potatoes, tomatos, celery and onion that is also in the stew.

Christianity is the result of applying the Roman Law of Nature to religion. The law orginally applied to legal decisions, taking what was common in different city/states to make just decisions when people from different city/states were in a legal conflict.

How did anyone determine "truth"? They took want was common in the most popular beliefs at the time and declared it to be the truth, because this is where the most agreement was. Jesus is the meat in the Christian religious stew.

Why did they do this? Because of the great diversity among those who considered themselves to be Christian, the whole movement was almost lost. To save this religious movement, someone had to decide what is Christian and what is not Christian, and give the religion structure. No human organization can exist without defining what it is and what is not, and giving it structure. Same as sand castle is just sand on the beach, until someone gives the sand organization and structure. Christianity was all the popular beliefs, until it went through the defining and structure process. It was complete anacrhy before this, with people gathering with their diverse collection of beleifs.

Christianity asborbed the popular paganism of the day.

[Athena]

Quote by: Cephus The one thing you cannot draw from myths are *FACTS*, which is the point here. The Bible is not factual. It may have some good knowledge, but then again, so did Aesop, but that doesn't mean that anyone in their right mind should believe there are really foxes jumping to get grapes, or that there is some farsical father figure in the sky. Take from the myths whatever comfort or wisdom you wish, but stop claiming that most things in that laughable book actually happened.

I agree.

Why is this discussion even up here again? How long ago was it when someone's thread attempted to prove that Jesus mythology predated Jesus? Seems then most posters where defending Christianity and fewer where discussing all the related myths. May be we have made process, but we are back to the same arguement.

:) time to check the arguements for Israel in politics.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zhavric Why would that be my formula? I'm not a theist. lol Yes. Call it the fascism of fact. The tyranny of truth. People can believe whatever they want. If you want to say "I believe in Santa" I'll smile, nod and be on my way. If you say "I believe in Santa and he's real, lives at the north pole and really does fly around" then I reserve the right to say back, "No, he doesn't." Notice what happened there. I didn't state "You're not allowed to believe in Santa." I simply countered the truth claim made about Santa. Many Christians aren't able to draw a distinction between the two. The nature of the propaganda is such that it links the alleged "reality" of Jesus with belief in him. The story actually falls apart UNLESS he's an actual historical person. This is a problem Christians have made for themselves by balancing their spiritual claims onto a faulty & demonstrably false historical claim. I'm neither the villain nor the fascist for pointing out what was actually happening circa 2000 years ago. Please. 1) This is a debate forum. We're here to debate. Nothing is "off-limits" to argumentation. 2) See above. Already covered most of this. 3) Knock off the ad hominem arguments. Attack the arguments, not the person making the argument. What a horribly off-topic statement? Let's make sure we understand what's going on here. I'm raising arguments about the origins of Christianity & Jesus. You're attacking me instead of my arguments and attempting to bring in something from the Constitution to justify your desire to censor my line of questioning. The Constitution of the United States was written by people who had enough of monarchal and theistic tyrany. Do you really think they drafted the Bill of Rights to get people to shut up and do as they're told? Again, I'm sorry that you feel so threatened by my line of argumentation, but if I were to challenge you to find me stating "I don't think people should be allowed to be Christian" you'd fail. I've never made such a statement. I've only ever stated the truth. The fact that you dislike it doesn't constitute wrongdoing on my part. A little town called logicville and I'm starting to feel home sick... Old enough to know that you're looking for more material for ad hominum arguments. I could be 19, 29, 39, 49, or 59... or anywhere in between or not. What does it matter to your argument?

Since you have rephrased and precised your stance, I offer my apology in return for a little harsh vocabulary I used while addressing my previous post to you.

You need to understand, that people may or may not accept your demand(s), especially with religous aspects as the main issue.
You can not force people to follow your concept, at all. That is their choice, option, privilege, etc. to respond to your request(s), since they are free to opt for any.
That is the whole sense of my expression addressed to you in my previous post.

The matter with concern to your age or place of staying, was a rethorical question, with one goal in my mind :
- we all need to respect others' views
Acceptance is not a necessity. Tolerance is all what it takes.
These are basis for Democracy (regardless of what that Democracy may stand for).

Example and/or comparison with Santa does not serve for your request's purpose accurately, since Santa is rather taken as fairy tales.
Unless you have proof for Jesus' non-existence, your arguments carry not much of supportive exhibits. Some assumptions, deductions, etc. based upon others' speculations, so far.
As Technosoul mentioned, we need to use a completely different technology - in order to examine facts covering Jesus' biography and/or life - which we are lacking one, as of today.
Till then.

P.S.
Why should I bother with guys following Islam (for example) ?
IF "yes", would that change and/or influence my life in any form ?
I am afraid that changes not much, except for time spent on something that is none of my concern, at all.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Athena Why is this discussion even up here again? How long ago was it when someone's thread attempted to prove that Jesus mythology predated Jesus? Seems then most posters where defending Christianity and fewer where discussing all the related myths. May be we have made process, but we are back to the same arguement.

The argument won't go away because the adherents don't care about the truth, they just care about their beliefs. That's why it's ultimately pointless to discuss theology with theists, they don't want to find out what's real, they want to believe whatever they believe, no matter how irrational and stupid, because it gives them emotional comfort. It is fundamentally impossible to debate religion with the religious because they cannot step outside of their preconceived ideas to examine what religion really is.

We'll be doing this again in another couple weeks, with the same results.

[Apokalupsis]

Well, what is being debated here exactly? That Christianity has roots in pagan religions or that the holiday of Christmas is a "hoax"?

Despite the rhetoric in the opening post, Christ IS the reason for the season.
The Christmas Hoax

[Rainbow]

It looks Volcanvo can withstand a lot, then it seems to be a matter of perception, instead :-)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

So what if he's not the reason for the season. Christmas hasn't been about Jesus for awhile, now it's about the benefits of giving. Everyone here's arguing over whether or not Jesus exists but they've totally missed the point. Jesus is not the real reason for christmas, giving is. So christmas is only a hoax to the superstitious christian who thinks it is actually about Jesus.

If you look at the reason for christmas as giving, it's not a hoax at all. In fact it's quite successful - parents who have the means give their children MAD PRESENTS. If that's a hoax it's the most elaborate hoax ever created

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Well, what is being debated here exactly? That Christianity has roots in pagan religions or that the holiday of Christmas is a "hoax"? Despite the rhetoric in the opening post, Christ IS the reason for the season. The Christmas Hoax

Your post admits that no one is sure when Jesus was born. Why exactly is he the "reason for the season"?

[Cephus]

Quote by: Apokalupsis Despite the rhetoric in the opening post, Christ IS the reason for the season.

I beg to differ, considering the season has been around for thousands of years before Christ was supposedly born, he's hardly the reason for anything. Jesus is certainly not the reason for my enjoyment of the season, in fact, he's not even an afterthought.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: Zhavric Your post admits that no one is sure when Jesus was born. Why exactly is he the "reason for the season"?

Quote by: Cephus I beg to differ, considering the season has been around for thousands of years before Christ was supposedly born, he's hardly the reason for anything. Jesus is certainly not the reason for my enjoyment of the season, in fact, he's not even an afterthought.

It's an issue of equivocation. The "season" at one time, was pagan. Christians didn't celebrate in the festivities. And in order to "combat" or detract from the pagan practice, the early Church started celebrating the birth of Jesus during this time. Eventually, this new reason for celebrating overshadowed that of the pagan's. It became the new reason for the season.

Today, we do not celebrate Saturnalia. We celebrate Christmas which borrowed from Saturnalia to squelch it. It worked.

Christmas today, IS the "the reason for the season". Had the early church not sought to fight against the pagan festivities, Christmas would not exist today and there would be no season. It's highly doubtful that we would be celebrating the pagan festival of an agricultural society.

As far as Jesus being the reason for the season, of course He is. He may not be your focus, you may be into the more commercial aspect of it, but it does not remove the fact that without the celebration of Jesus' birth, there would be no Christ-masse. Even the word is a referent to Jesus.

[rez]

Quote by: Apokalupsis It's an issue of equivocation. The "season" at one time, was pagan. Christians didn't celebrate in the festivities. And in order to "combat" or detract from the pagan practice, the early Church started celebrating the birth of Jesus during this time. Eventually, this new reason for celebrating overshadowed that of the pagan's. It became the new reason for the season. Today, we do not celebrate Saturnalia. We celebrate Christmas which borrowed from Saturnalia to squelch it. It worked. Christmas today, IS the "the reason for the season". Had the early church not sought to fight against the pagan festivities, Christmas would not exist today and there would be no season. It's highly doubtful that we would be celebrating the pagan festival of an agricultural society. As far as Jesus being the reason for the season, of course He is. He may not be your focus, you may be into the more commercial aspect of it, but it does not remove the fact that without the celebration of Jesus' birth, there would be no Christ-masse. Even the word is a referent to Jesus.

so basically the Church said "screw your mythological holiday! I want to celebrate our mythological holiday!"

[Zhavric]

That doesn't make sense, Apok. You've admitted that people were holding celebrations around December 25th BEFORE Christians were around and that Christians decided to declare the 25th Jesus' birthday. Obviously, if early Christians hadn't done this, we'd still be having celebrations. Though I agree that Jesus is the "new reason", this hardly seems like something I'd go advertising.

[Apokalupsis]

What doesn't make sense exactly? A pagan holidy was transformed into the Christian holiday. Also, what western society today celebrates ancient agricultural pagan holidays? None that I am aware of. If the early church did not detract from the pagan holiday by way of Christmas, we wouldn't be celebrating jack during this time. THAT'S why Jesus is the reason for the season. Without Christianity, we'd have no season.

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: rez so basically the Church said "screw your mythological holiday! I want to celebrate our mythological holiday!"

No.

[ByaKya]

Quote by: Apokalupsis the early Church started celebrating the birth of Jesus during this time. Eventually, this new reason for celebrating overshadowed that of the pagan's. It became the new reason for the season. .

So Jesus wasnt even born on december 25th like most christians believe?
looks like more editing of religion to me, i guess it is true, christianity has been so filtered, edited, changed and modified that jesus himself would not call us christians.

[Cephus]

Quote by: rez so basically the Church said "screw your mythological holiday! I want to celebrate our mythological holiday!"

That's pretty much it. The fact is that early Christians specifically chose the Winter Solstice because it was an existing pagan holiday, not because Jesus was born anywhere near December 25th. They did it to sabotage the pagans when they sought to forcibly convert them to Christianity. Christianity converted by the sword, after all.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Who cares what day Jesus was actually born on. Christmas is not a celebration of when Jesus was born, but that Jesus was born. You can attack Christianity all you want, but that's all any Christian needs to know about the reasoning for the date behind Christmas. We're engaged in one of the more pointless arguments i've ever been a part of.