Son (Sun) of God "born" on Dec 25th EVERY YEAR.

[Viva_Daddy]

Nine months earlier (counting counter-clockwise) we find the Virgin Mother (Virgo).

COINCIDENCE? or #Astrotheology?

[immoderate]

1. Boggles the very mind...

--imm

[hrmjustin]

2. What does this mean for us Christans?

[Goblinmonger]

3. That your mythology just co-opted mythology that came before it?

[hrmjustin]

4. Lol.

[prefunk]

15. Why is that funny to you?

That is the most likely explanation, so why is your only response "lol"?

[hrmjustin]

19. Most likely? I think not.

[prefunk]

20. What is then?

[hrmjustin]

22. Well I believe the story is true.

[prefunk]

23. What story?

[hrmjustin]

24. The Christian story.

[prefunk]

25. What makes "The Christian Story" fundamentally different from any other religious story that came

before it? It is fact that the many religions that came before christianity all contained elements of and were built from the same religious mythology that came before it, so how is christianity's inclusion of these elements different from the religions it replaced?



You seem to propose suspending the acceptance of fact, logic, and reason in favor of whatever explanation you personally prefer to reach that conclusion.

[hrmjustin]

26. Can you prove that this story is not true?

[prefunk]

28. I've already shown that christianity "co-opted mythology that came before it" is the most likely

and plausible explanation and that what you propose as an explanation ("The Christian story&quot is quite unlikely and implausible.


Again, you seem to propose suspending the acceptance of fact, logic, and reason in favor of whatever explanation you personally prefer to reach that conclusion.

I'll ask again, since you seemed to miss or ignore it in my post above. What makes "The Christian Story" fundamentally different from any other religious story that came before it? It is fact that the many religions that came before christianity all contained elements of and were built from the same religious mythology that came before it, so how is christianity's inclusion of these elements different from the religions it replaced?

[hrmjustin]

30. You haven't proven anything.

I can deal with facts but you have not given me any.

I am well aware of the other similiar religions of the time.

[prefunk]

32. I wasn't trying to prove anything, but I have given you facts, which you choose to ignore.

For the third time now, as you seem to be ignoring, it is fact that the many religions that came before christianity all contained elements of and were built from the same religious mythology that came before it, so how is christianity's inclusion of these elements different from the religions it replaced?


You don't appear to want to deal with this fact at all, despite your proclamation of "I can deal with facts but you have not given me any".

If your intent here is to simply tell any that are reading that you 'just don't believe that' and are not interested in defending your position, I'll bid you good day.

[hrmjustin]

35. I bid you a better day.

No you haven't shown me anything.

[prefunk]

38. I've shown you plenty. You are choosing to ignore it or dismiss it out-of-hand

All without bothering to explain why you find it lacking or why YOUR explanation is more factual or logical at all.

I'm not looking for confrontation, I'm looking for discussion. Discussion includes explaining why you find it lacking or why YOUR explanation is more factual or logical at all, which you have yet to do.

Are we having a discussion or not? If so, kindly continue and explain why you find it lacking or why YOUR explanation is more factual or logical at all. If discussion isn't what you are looking for, why are you here?

[hrmjustin]

41. I am here because I want to be.

What makes it more believable? I don't know. For me I choose to believe it.


I am well aware that there are many similiar religions from the time. That does not make the Christian story untrue.

[prefunk]

43. "What makes it more believable? I don't know. For me I choose to believe it. "

Hardly a compelling counter-argument, and not likely to convince me or anyone else reading that to give your position any additional consideration.

Not trying to convince anyone of anything or discuss why you think yours is the more-likely explanation? Then why chime in with your opinion in the first place? Why are you on a discussion board if you don't want to have a discussion?

[okasha]

34. You''ve stated a proposition.

You haven't supported it.

[prefunk]

39. No, I've stated a fact and asked a question.

Here it is, again.

It is fact that the many religions that came before christianity all contained elements of and were built from the same religious mythology that came before it, so how is christianity's inclusion of these elements different from the religions it replaced?


Is there something not factual there? Is the question not reasonable?

[okasha]

40. The proposition is in post 28.

Your question above isn't even coherent. I have no idea whether you intended something reasonable or not.

[prefunk]

42. The same can be said about your intrusion into this conversation.

That's not my proposition, it was goblinmonger's in post #3. I stated a fact that supports that the proposition is the most likely and probable, and asked a follow-up question that is both pertinent and reasonable. Your inability to comprehend isn't due a lack of coherence on my part.

Now, if you would care to give your take on the issue at hand, please do. If not, why are you here?

[okasha]

45. You're giving me flashbacks

to the bad old days when I taught freshman comp. Not good.

First: this is a public message board. Any member is free to comment on any post. If you want to have a private conversation, use DU Mail.

Second: what does "it" in your question refer to? From the way you have worded the thing, it's unclear what you mean by "it," and your whole question hangs on that reference.

Third: support consists of specific instances and examples. Your "fact" is an unsupported proposition until you provide same. You seem to be unwilling or unable to do that.

Your ball.

[prefunk]

47. You're giving me a laugh.

First: This is a discussion board. Did you explain what it means to have a discussion in Freshmen Comp?

dis·cus·sion
noun \di-ˈskə-shən\

: the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something

Second: If all you have to contribute here is a your professors-eye of language and writing used by other posters, this isn't a discussion. See First.

Third: A dissertation isn't required to show that newer religions co-opted older religions' mythology. They did. It's a fact. Read a bit on the history of religions for more if you need convincing. What I've stated has already been established as fact. If you would like to dispute that, please elucidate your reasoning as to why it isn't.

Keep your ball.

[okasha]

54. Still having those flashbacks.

Am I going to get a note from your mommy?

[prefunk]

57. lol.

Substance free and childish. I'm sure you made quite the impression on your students.

[prefunk]

60. Considering the substance of many of your 5800+ posts.

[hrmjustin]

46. Well you are persistent.

I am not here to convience you to believe my way, nor can I prove my faith so I am not going to try.

[prefunk]

49. Which brings me back to the orginal question: What's so funny?

You found humor in a plausible and likely explanation for a question posed in the OP, yet won't explain why you find it so laughable.

[hrmjustin]

53. Well it is a reasonable argument to argue that christians co-opted other beliefs but I do not

believe they did. That us to say for the story of Jesus's life. The church throught history did incorporate other beliefs into its worship.

I find it funny. There are other reasons but I am n8t getting into it.

[prefunk]

56. lol.

[hrmjustin]

61. ok.

[prefunk]

63. yep.

[hrmjustin]

64. Have a pleasant evening.

[rug]

48. No you haven't.

[prefunk]

50. Yet another proclamation without explanation or basis.

[rug]

51. Counting yours, that makes two.

[prefunk]

55. I'm sure you believe that.

[rug]

62. Make that three.

It's based on directly observable evidence.

[prefunk]

65. I realize that you believe that.

[rug]

66. Listen, there's a comfortable spot over there in the corner if all you want to do is repeat yourself

[prefunk]

67. You now want to make this personal.

tsk, tsk.

Don't like my replies? No one forces you to respond.

[rug]

68. I don't know you well enough undder that name to make it personal.

I suggest you check what you call implications before resorting to innuendo. And now to disingenuousness..

[prefunk]

69. I'm sure you believe that.

[rug]

70. 66

[elehhhhna]

52. Because Jesus.

!!1!!!

[prefunk]

58. Sadly, thats the most lucid reply in this conversation.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Mostly paganism, specifically.

[hrmjustin]

21. Nothing to do with Christianity.

Yes Christian leaders used pagan rituals and holidays but I don't believe they got the story from this.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. There seem to be some patterns in some of the stories, but

I think in this case, probably not the cause.

[pinto]

6. I think intermingling & cross-cultural influences were always parts of the history of religions.

Look at the Yezidi. Apparently they share aspects of Sufi, Zoroaster, and other traditions in their religious culture.

[okasha]

7. And they still are.

There are some non-orthodox versions of Christianity that have reincorporated overt worship of a goddess figure.

[Viva_Daddy]

11. You can call it mythology but I prefer to say...

...it's using story-telling techniques to describe the way the Sun appears to "recycle" itself each year. And, yes, many cultures told "THE GREATEST STORY" in several different ways. Some of these stories became what were called "Mystery Religions" between the 4th Century BCE and the 1st Century CE.

[okasha]

5. The Son/Sun homonym only occurs in English

which was not spoken in Judea 2000 years ago.

Children are born nine months after conception, not nine months before.

[Viva_Daddy]

8. That's what I said...nine months earlier (i.e. conception).

[okasha]

10. Virgo is four months before Solstice, not nine.

[arcane1]

29. Precession of the equinoxes has to be factored in as well.

So where Virgo rises now is not the same as where it rose 2,000 years ago, and 2,000 years before that, etc.

Whether that bolsters the claim or not, I have no idea.

[okasha]

31. It doesn't.

Precession affects all signs equally, and Virgo and Capricorn do not change in relation to each other.

[arcane1]

33. Right, but it does change in regard to the winter solstice n/t

[okasha]

37. Yes. It shifts the whole zodiac.

That's why modern practice defines 0 degrees Aries as the sun's position at the spring equinox, rather than the other way around.

[Viva_Daddy]

12. PS. It's not about LANGUAGE. It's about SYMBOLISM.

[okasha]

14. Your OP subject line

presents it as a matter of language. Suggest you edit if that was unintentional.

[msongs]

9. the "son" ressurects itself every 24hrs at dawn and dies every 24 hrs at sunset. superstition is no

needed to create myths about it

[Viva_Daddy]

13. In addition to the daily cycle, there's a yearly cycle and a cosmic cycle. (3 in One)

[prefunk]

17. Nine months earlier is Aries/Pisces, not Virgo. Kinda blows your premise apart from the start.

Not really sure what your point is.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I seriously need off this planet. Like soon.

[okasha]

27. Oh, come now. "Astrotheology"is a bit eccentric,

but it's not THAT bad.

[Viva_Daddy]

44. I personally find astrotheology rather reductionistic, but very interesting.

I see the Mystery Religions (and Scripture) as having MULTIPLE LAYERS of symbolic "meaning". They were not JUST about Astrology.

However, I'm glad to see this post got so many responses. I hope some of you will find the subjects of Astrotheology and the Mystery Religions interesting enough to check out.