Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?
From: Al Klein (rukbat_at_pern.invalid)
Date: 01/02/05
- Next message: Al Klein: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "The Unbearable Lightness of Elaine"
- Maybe in reply to: ~ Windsong ~: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Next in thread: Precision: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Reply: Precision: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Reply: Raymond Griffith: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 06:17:30 GMT
On 1 Jan 2005 10:16:49 -0800, roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk said in
alt.atheism:
>Before this gets entirely out of hand, I think both sides might wish to
>know that there is no date for the birthday of Mithras, or the Persian
>Mitra, specified in any ancient text. I know that the idea that
>Mithras was born on 25th December goes around. But it's not true.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa122397b.htm “Mithras,
the sun-god, was born of a virgin in a cave on December 25, and
worshipped on Sunday, the day of the conquering sun."
http://www.takeourword.com/Issue022.html "Modern scholars believe
that the cult of Mithras was based on the secret understanding of an
astronomical phenomenon know as the "precession of the equinoxes",
that is, the background of fixed stars is not really fixed. They knew
that solar events such as solstices could be used to plot the movement
of these stars. Also, as the days begin lengthening after the winter
solstice, it is a time of new beginnings and hope for the future. Thus
Mithras' birthday was set at the winter solstice, which is usually on
December 22. However, due to the insertion of intercalary days (days
inserted into the calendar to correct for accumulated error) and
confusion with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, it has slipped to
December 25."
>2. People who know that the Romans worshipped a deity called Sol
>Invictus suppose that this day was a festival of Sol Invictus. This is
>wrong: the cult was created in 274AD by Aurelian, while the name of the
>day is primitive in Rome. The sun cult celebrated its festivals in
>warmer weather!
"Sol Invictus" was the Roman name for "Mithras". The Zoroastrian
Mithras was the Sun god.
>4. One of them may have learned that Mithras is also sometimes called
>Mithras Sol Invictus (Mithras the unconquered sun) and supposed that
>this means Mithras=Sol Invictus (it does not).
See above - it does.
"When it comes to specifics, Christians are as deceitful and two faced
as ever. They are utterly unable to deny that 25 December was the
birthday of the Unconquerable Sun, the Roman name of Mithras. What
they say is that it does not matter! Suddenly all Christians become
fundamentalists because the New Testament does not say when Jesus was
born. The church decided Jesus was born on 25 December precisely
because it was already the highly popular birthday of Mithras, and a
national holiday. What it was was the midwinter solstice, a solar
festival and therefore associated with a solar god. The reason the
Christian bishops were happy to accept this as a Christian festival
was because Christianity was seen by everyone as a solar religion—even
the Christian bishops." - ibid
-- "They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at verizon dot net
- Next message: Al Klein: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Previous message: Jim McGinn: "The Unbearable Lightness of Elaine"
- Maybe in reply to: ~ Windsong ~: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Next in thread: Precision: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Reply: Precision: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Reply: Raymond Griffith: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
