There was a post on here a couple of days ago that listed many of the gods, prior to the god of the bible, who were born of virgins, rose from the dead, were visited by three wise men, were parts of trinities, etc. This is information that isn't difficult to uncover, especially in the age of the Internet, but the faithful seem to have little or no knowledge of these things. I was wondering if more widespread decimation of this information would create a dent in the numbers of people who believe the hogwash dished out by the major religions . . . or would the faithful just dismiss it all as being "of the devil" or some such thing.
What a sad state of affairs that humans are so ignorant, and often willfully so.
Note: some of the gods listed in the previous post I alluded to: Horus. Attis, Mithra, Krishna, and Dionysus. All predated Jesus, sometimes by thousands of years! When I was first exposed to this information, some fifty years ago, there was no way I could continue to swallow the drivel I'd been brainwashed to believe.
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
5 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I’ve often wondered the same ...having read Madalyn M-O’Hair’s comment in AA Magazine going something like, ‘in the past there were thousands of gods,’ ‘so we’re no longer that far apart,’ ‘I only believe in one fewer than you.’
As I ponder those I’m told believe in a god, it’s apparent they rarely question the concept ..because it’s telling them what they want to hear. Like children never wanting to grow up, apparently they find comfort or security pretending there’s an all knowing preacher or ‘god’ doing their thinking ...or protecting them from reality..
Watching them scoff at Greek ‘gods,’ or the ‘creation myths’ of other cultures further exhibits their hypocritical ‘beliefs.’ I’ve met many an ultra-meek librarian steeped in knowledge ..yet too weak to disseminate it beyond the near silent suggestion ... ‘you read this.’ The knowledge is there, if gathering dust..
Varn
Level 8
Sep 17, 2019
0
Most are not interested in their own religion, if they can go though the motions and they can convince themselves that it makes the happy, though whether it does so is open to question, why should they bother with anything else. Especially if it is difficult and could force you to do things you don't like, such as thinking, best avoided.
But in any case how would you encourage it, especially as the worlds political establishments are increasingly turning away from the teaching and encouragement of history as a subject in education. First because they do not see a knowledge of history as of any practical value in the wage slaves needed to serve them in the lower functions, and because such knowledge would only make them questioning and difficult to manipulate anyway.
Fernapple
Level 9
Sep 17, 2019
0
@Winkiedink54 unfortunately this is another of those internet propagated misattributed quotes. There is no extant work of Seneca that makes this quote. The best we have is Gibbon paraphrasing Augustine in turn referring to something Seneca or Lucretius may have said.
@Winkiedink54 I agree totally. It’s just that misappropriation leads to bad education and that is not to denigrate yourself. Just correcting an internet error.
If it’s known that the idea has travelled through Augustine and Gibbon it gives a wider appreciation of its application and may encourage others to explore a little of Augustine and Gibbon, broadening knowledge.
Just a thought.
The "virgin birth" story does not appear in the gospel of Mark. which is acknowledged as the first written so was probably added to later gospels to make Jesus appear more "godlike". but as you say willful ignorance is endemic in believers.
Moravian
Level 8
Sep 17, 2019
1
The Virgin birth doesn’t appear in any of Paul’s epistles either and one would think that would be a pretty spectacular narrative for Paul considering the rest of his rhetoric.
Matthew I can understand with its Shakespearean Messianic drama but can’t work out where Luke gets the idea from unless they are both pulling from Christian narratives doing the rounds at the time, bearing in mind this around 80-100 CE.
It won't matter to the "faithful", because, in the words of one member at my ex-wife's church, "Those were just mythological gods. Jesus is True." The power to believe in one's own version of myth is self-blinding.
(Notice how similar this is to the belief in one's own politicians or in conspiracy theories, no matter how many facts are laid out in contradiction.
It's cognitive dissonance, and atheists/agnostics have it too. Human nature generally settles on a view of the universe, and woe betide anyone who tries to shake it. It takes incredible intellectual honesty to critique one's own beliefs as one would critique anyone else's.)
Paul4747
Level 8
Sep 17, 2019
1
Sumerian religious lore is almost verbatim in parts of the babble!
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Sep 17, 2019
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Christopher Hitchens Fans
80 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.