Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?
From: Al Klein (rukbat_at_pern.invalid)
Date: 01/02/05
- Next message: Marc Verhaegen: "Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- Previous message: mark_at_spiznet.com: "Re: Only an idiot believes that dry apers don't believe aquatic apes lived in houses"
- In reply to: Raymond Griffith: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Next in thread: Raymond Griffith: "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 23:52:40 GMT
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 09:28:15 -0500, Raymond Griffith
<tiffirgrReverse@ctc.net> said in alt.atheism:
>> "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
>Actually, I was not able to find this last quote in either of your two
>sources above. I would be interested in finding the source for this quote.
>Would you please post the source?
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0690Mithras.html down near the
bottom (4th graph up). I don't know why I thought it was at the
second listed source.
>For a better perspective of the issue of the dating of Christmas, and indeed
>the *many* different dates that were celebrated and their reasoning for
>settling upon December 25, see the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Oh, now there's a totally unbiased source.
-- "The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith." - Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei (random sig, produced by SigChanger) rukbat at verizon dot net
- Next message: Marc Verhaegen: "Re: Is the AAH a legitimate hypothesis? Of course it is."
- Previous message: mark_at_spiznet.com: "Re: Only an idiot believes that dry apers don't believe aquatic apes lived in houses"
- In reply to: Raymond Griffith: "Re: Asian natural disaster or evolution in action?"
- Next in thread: Raymond Griffith: "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
|