Sunday, March 22, 2009


The Satan and Hell myths have always been among the most disreputable and primitive anachronistic baggage and garbage to poison the well of Christianity's core message of love. Tragically, neither of these additions were even original, but further cases of plagiarization from pagan religions that preceded Christianity.

For example, "Hell" had long been intertwined and promoted in the Mithraic tradition for Persian Mithraism. While no literal “Book of Mithras” persists – there have been segmented texts referred to as “pagan epistles” which were known originally as the Izeds (28 in number) appearing in The Zendavesta. The Zendavesta, literally "text and comment," is the doctrine of Zoroaster (Zarathrustra), comprised in eight parts, written at different periods, but of which the earliest have been assigned to the date of B.C. 1200-1000.

Aspects of Mithraism - such as "Hell" and "Shaitan" or Satan - that later filtered in the Graeco-Roman world undoubtedly came from this text (the Izeds, wherein “Mithras” was chief and ruler) as well as others likely destroyed with the burning of the library at Alexandria. (See, e.g. J.M. Robertson’s ‘Pagan Christs’, 1966) Since Mithraism was a secret cult or mystery religion, this wouldn’t pose too much of a problem since its precepts, rituals were held in confidence anyway – as a secret society would. (Much like today’s FreeMasons who maintain absolute silence as regards their rituals.)

More authoritative texts-sources include: 'The Origin Of Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World', Oxford Univ. Press, 1989, Origin of All Religious Myths- The New Testament Exposed, by James B. Pullen, Jr. and Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, by Helmut Koester.

All of them point to the fact that Christians copied at will from ancient books that predated Christianity by a thousand years or more. Christian Fathers, for their part, regularly and uniformly lost it whenever they encountered those predated references from Mithraism - whether to "the Last Supper", or the "virgin Birth", or Mithra's crucifixion, or his Ascension into heaven. It infuriated them because they desired such accounts be solely in reference to the Christian Savior (who they actually confabulated from Mithraic descriptions)

By way of example, after describing the “Lord’s Supper’ as told by and for Mithraists, Church Father Justin Martyr evinces outrage as he writes :


Tertullian also bears this out, scolding:


While a careless Christian may still infer (after Justin Martyr) that the Mithraists copied from the Christians instead of the other way around, the reading of more of Justin Martyr's works dispels this. Martyr expressly argues that:

"the demons anticipated the Christian mysteries and prepared parodies of them beforehand".

The use of term "anticipated" clearly shows Justin recognizes the Mithraist mysteries occurred BEFORE the mysteries portrayed in the Gospels. If he knew this, the question remains of why he simply didn't refer to imitation alone, rather than introduce "demonic anticipation"? Tertullian also records such anticipatory recognition.

Again, what strikes a person is the desperate need to preserve these as exclusively Christian.

As to the origins of Hell, we know up to the time of the 2nd Council of Constantinople the general doctrine was one of metempsychosis a form of reincarnation taught by Clement of Alexandria and Origen of Adamantius. These doctrines were rejected by the 2nd Council, however, because they were believed to "give Man too much time to seek God".

Thereby Hell was seized from the scriptures- Izeds of the Mithraists and put to work in the Christian format. If then Hell could be pushed as the "end" for unbelievers, for the "one life to live" paradigm, then the Church might garner far more converts in a shorter time.

Alas, it didn't work out that way, and the evil in the world merely seemed to multiply as the Inquisition and Crusades showed.

Satan was also borrowed as the primary tender and Manager of "Hell" and he also arrived by way of earlier Mithraic texts. There is nothing in any of the earliest scrolls or Christian documents that singularly refer to a "Satan" which were not already plagiarized from the Mithraists.

So why keep using these primitive and deceitful creations? Because the latter day Christians - Fundies mainly -possess such a meager and bankrupt faith that they have no other options to try to drive the unwilling into their tent. The true fact here, as Bertrand Russell once pointed out (Why I Am Not A Christian) is that once a religion succumbs to dignifying fear, by exploiting it in brazen ways to grab converts- it loses the battles for heart, minds and would-be souls.

The reason is that the only ones who will belong to such a discredited faith will be those prepared to sacrifice their integrity and minds, or those who are in some way already insane. At least now there has emerged a site dedicated totally to exposing the basis of the Hell and Satan myths and the regressive minds that have always embraced them. One can find that site here:


Caleb Shay said...

That has to be one of the best articles on Hell and Satan I have ever read. It also shows that Pastor Mike actually backs and supports lawlessness, that is stealing from earlier sources as the Christians did. I believe it is known as plagiarism and today it would be prosecuted as copyright infringement.

Of course, the Christians have no shame, and will support whatever lawlessness that's convenient in order to try to "scare people into the fold" as you say.

It is really pathetic that this demented concept of Hell is still around. I believe we need to round up all the Christians so indoctrinated and begin immediate electro-shock therapy on all of them. Starting with Pastor Mike and his sidekick, Rene.

This is also another good reason to burn all their KJV bibles, since they probably have more copying-plagiarism and lies than any others. So, aren't worth turds or batshit.

Caleb Shay said...

Oh, I nearly forgot - thanks for the link to the anti-Satan and anti-Hell site! They really do a terrific demolition job on Satan and Hell followers.

Who is that deformed looking guy in the photo? Is that Pastor Mike, or Rene?

Rene said...

In Phil’s presentation he attempts to prove that the traditions and beliefs of the Christian faith were plagiarized from earlier pagan religions especially Mithraism. The following is my rebuttal to this.

The following is from an interview with Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH.D. who has a doctorate in Mediterranean studies from Brandeis University, and having taught at Miami University of Ohio for more than thirty five years. Yamauchi has studied twenty two languages, including Akkadian, Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Chinese, Comanche, Coptic, Egyptian, Mandaic, Syriac, and Ugaritic. He received eight fellowships from Brandeis, Rutgers, and elsewhere, delivered eighty eight papers on Mithraism, Gnosticism, and other topics at scholarly societies, published over two hundred articles and reviews in professional journal, lectured at more than one hundred colleges and universities. His seventeen books include the 578 page authoritative tome ‘Persia and the Bible’ which includes his findings on Mithraism, as well as Greece and Babylon, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, The Stones and the Scriptures, Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the Archaeology of the New Testament, and The World of the First Christians.

On mystery religions:
“The so called mystery religions were a variety of religious movements from the eastern Mediterranean that flourished in the early Roman Empire. They offered salvation in a tight knit community. They were called mystery religions because those who were initiated into them were sworn to secrecy. They had sacred rites, often a common meal, and a special sanctuary.”

What was the oldest of them?
“That would be the Eleusinian cult of Demeter, which was already established in the Archaic Age of Greece, which would be from 800 to 500 BC. The latest, and certainly the most popular in the later Roman Empire, was the mysteries of Mithras, who started as a Persian god. There were also the mysteries of Cybele and Attis, which wee restricted to non Romans until the middle or late first century.

“Who popularized the idea that Jesus’ resurrecting was derived from the worship of dying and rising fertility gods?
“In the scholarly world, these comparisons were promoted by a group of scholars called the Relgionsgeschichtliche schule. That’s the so called History of Religions School, which flourished at the end of the nineteenth and into the early twentieth centuries. The seminal work by Richard Reitzenstein was published in German in 1910 but not translated into English until 1978. He thought the sacrifice of Christ aligned itself with the killing of a bull by Mithras. Carsten Colpe and others severely criticized the anachronistic use of sources by these scholars. On the popular level, Sir James Frazer gathered a mass of parallels in his multivolume work called ‘The Golden Bough’, which was published in 1906. He discussed Osiris of Egypt, Adonis of Syria, Attis of Asia Minor, and Tammuz of Mesopotamia, and concluded there was a common rising and dying fertility god. Unfortunately, much of his work was based on misreading of the evidence, but nevertheless this helped introduce theses ideas to popular culture. Later in the 1930’s three influential French scholars claimed that Christianity was influenced by the Hellenistic mystery religions. One of these scholars said that Christ was ‘a savior-god, after the manner of an Osiris, an Attis, a Mithras….Like Adonis, Osiris, and Attis he died a violent death, and like them he returned to life.

Did a universal mystery religion actually exist?
“There was a widespread view that there was a general, common mystery religion, but upon a closer examination of the sources, nobody believes that any longer. There were quite different beliefs. In fact by the mid twentieth century, scholars had established that the sources used in these writings we far from satisfactory and the parallels were much too superficial. It was pretty much of a closed issue in the scholarly community, but it seems to have been revived in recent years among writers on a popular level sort of like Frankenstein. A few current text books, as well as more popular publications were repeating claims and arguments that should have been laid to rest decades ago, circulating one sided and misinformed arguments and ignoring the weighty scholarly opinion that has already been published to refute their assertions. Efforts to undermine the uniqueness of the Christian revelation via claims of a pagan religious influence collapse quickly once a full account of the information is made available.

On Mithraic belief:
“Mithraism was a late Roman mystery religion that was popular among soldiers and merchants, and which became a chief rival to Christianity in the second century and later. The initiates were all men, and the participants met in a cave like structure called a mithraeum, which had as its cult statue Mithras stabbing a bull, the so called taurocony. There are relatively few texts from the Mithraists themselves. We have some graffiti and inscriptions, as well as descriptions of the religion from its opponents, including neo Platonists and Christians. Much of what has been circulated on Mithraism has been based on the theories of a Belgium scholar named Franz Cumont. He was the leading scholar on Mithraism in his day, and he published his famous work ‘Mysteries of Mithras’ in 1903. His work led to speculation by the History of Religions School that Mithraism had influenced nascent Christianity. Much of what Cumont suggested, however, turned out to be quite unfounded. In the 1970’s, scholars at the Second Mythraic Congress in Tehran came to criticize Cumont. The Congress produced two volumes of papers. A scholar named Richard Gordon from England and others concluded that Cumont’s theory was not supported by the evidence and, in fact, Cumont’s interpretations have now been analyzed and rejected on all major points. Contrary to what Cumont believed, even though Mithras was a Persian god who was attested as early as the fourteenth century BC, we have almost no evidence of Mithraism in the sense of a mystery religion in the West until very late – to late to have influenced the beginnings of Christianity.”

Details concerning when the Mithraic mysteries were introduced in the West:
“The first public recognition of he Mithras in Rome was the state visit of Tiridates, the king of Armenia, in 66 AD. It’s said that he addressed Nero by saying, ‘And I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras.’ There is also a reference earlier to some pirates in Cilicia who were worshipers of Mithras, but this is not the same as Mithraism as a mystery religion. Mithraism as a mystery religion cannot be attested before AD 90, which is about the time we see a Mithraic motif in a poem by Satius. No mithraea [or Mithriac Temples] have been found in Pompeii, which as destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. The earliest Mithraic inscription in the West is in a statue of a prefect under the emperor Trajan in AD 101. The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated after AD 140. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. That’s basically what’s wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity. As Ronald Nash and so many other knowledgeably scholars have concluded, the dating disproves that Christianity borrowed its tenets from Mithraism. The flowering of Mithraism occurred after the close of the New Testament canon, to late for it to have influenced the development of first century Christianity.

Mithras vs. Jesus

Was Mithras born of a virgin?
“No, that definitely not true, he was born out of a rock. Yes, the rock birth is commonly depicted in Mithraic beliefs. Mithras emerges fully grown and naked except for a Phrygian cap, and he is holding a dagger and torch. In some variations, flames shoot out from the rock, or he is holding a globe in his hand.”

Birth in a cave:
“Well, it is true that Mithraic sanctuaries were designed to look like caves. Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus described as having been born in a cave. This idea is first mentioned in the letter of Barnabas at the beginning of the second century. This tradition does not come from a dependency on Mithraism, but rather from an ages old tradition in Palestine itself of holy shrines in caves. There is no doubt that the Christian tradition does not stem from the Mithraic account.”

Jesus and Mithras born on Dec. 25.
“Again not a parallel, because we don’t know the date Jesus was born. The earliest date celebrated by Christians was Jan. 6. In fact it is still celebrated by many churches in the East. Of course, Dec. 25 is very close to the winter solstice. This was the date chosen by the emperor Aurelian for the dedication of his temple to Sol Invictus, the god call the ‘Unconquerable Sun.’ Mithras was closely associated with Sol Invictus; sometimes they are depicted shaking hands. This is apparently how Mithras became associated with Dec.25.

When did Dec. 25 become Christmas for Christians?
“That seems to be in 336, a year before the death of Constantine, the first Roman emperor to embrace Christianity. We know that before his conversion, he worshiped Sol Invictus. We know for sure that Constantine made Sunday, or the Lord’s Day an official holiday, even though Christians had already been observing it as the day on which Jesus was resurrected. So it is conceivable Constantine also may have appropriated Dec. 25 for the birthday of Christ. We know that Christian emperors and popes suggested that instead of simply banning pagan ceremonies that they appropriate them for Christianity.”

Was Mithras a great traveler or maser with twelve disciples?
“No, he was a god not a teacher.”

Did Mithras promise his followers immortality?
“Well, that can be inferred, by certainly that was the hope of most followers of any religion. So that is not surprising.”

Did Mithras sacrifice himself for world peace?
“That is reading Christian theology into what is not there. He did not sacrifice himself he killed a bull.”

Was Mithras buried I a tomb and rose after three days?
“We don’t know anything about the death of Mithras. We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no references to a supposed death and resurrection.”

Was Mithras considered the Good Shepherd, The Way, the Truth, and the Life, the Logos, the Redeemer, the Savior?
“No, again that is reading Christian theology into this.”

Was there a sacramental meal in Mithraism that paralleled the Lord’s Supper?
“Common meals are found in almost all religious comminutes, what is noteworthy is that the Christian apologist Justin Martyr and Tertullian point out the similarities to the Lord’s Super, but they wrote in the second century, long after the Lord’s Supper was instituted in Christianity. They claimed the Mithraic meal was a satanic imitation. Clearly, the Christian meal was based on the Passover, not on a mystery religion. According to Clauss’s book, ‘The Roman Cult of Mithras’, ‘The ritual meal was probably simply a component of regular common meals. Such meals have always been an essential part of religious assembly; eating and drinking together creates community and renders visible the fact that those who take part are members of one and the same group.’ The Christian sacrament is rooted in the Jewish tradition of the Passover feast and the specifically historical recollection of Jesus’ last acts, while Mithraic feast has its origins in Mazdean [Persian] ceremonies.

Other scholars’ comments.
Manfred Clauss, professor of ancient history at Free University in Berlin, said in ‘The Roman cult of Mithras’, “That it does not make sense to interpret the Mithraic mysteries as a fore-runner of Christianity.
Press L. Patterson in his “Mithraism and Christianity” [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921], 94. “There is no direct connection between the two religions either in origin or development.”
Gary Lease, professor of religious studies at the University of California at Santa Cruz and long time executive secretary of the North American Association for the Study of Religion, who earned his doctorate at the University of Munich and later occupied its renowned Romano Guardini chair for Theory of Culture and Religion states, “After almost 100 years of unremitting labor, the conclusion appears inescapable that neither Mithraism nor Christianity proved to be an obvious and direct influence upon each other in the development and demise or survival of either religion. Their beliefs and practices are well accounted for by their most obvious origins and thee is no need to explain one in term of the other.

Again Phil, get your facts straight.

Anonymous said...



Copernicus said...

It is laughable that Rene appears now again, to tell me to get my "facts straight" - when he has totally obliterated any semblance of factual presentation by his half-cocked references to outlier "scholars" (like Yamauchi) whose words need to be taken with several grains of salt.

In fact, as I noted in all the true scholarly texts (cited with titles and authors in my blog article), the correlations of Mithras to Christ are FULLY validated. There is NO doubt they were plagiarized wholesale.

My class notes from my Comparative Theology class at Loyola University are fortunately still in one of my old file boxes with Exegesis notes. The main theme, to summarize, is that the course was based on the original writings of Church fathers, including Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Julius Firmicus – all referencing Mithraic scriptures and references therein.

After describing the “Lord’s Supper’ for example, Justin Martyr evinces outrage as he writes (from my notes): “WHICH THE WICKED DEVILS HAVE IMITATED IN THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, COMMANDING THE SAME THING TO BE DONE.”.


As the notes indicate, a careless Christian reader might jump to the conclusion that the Mithraists copied from the Christians, but this simply isn’t so, on closer examination. The refutation of this notion inheres in the language of the same trio of Christian Fathers. They all speak, for example, of resemblances of Mithraic rites to Christian rites as bineg “the work of devils”.

But why such an obscure use of language, when they could simply have stated the Mithraists IMITATED their own works, and done? Why the need to introduce devils? An answer becomes manifest when we examine more closely the words of Justin Martyr, who expressly argues that the demons ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries and prepared PARODIES of them BEFOREHAND!

Note that if even an esteemed scholar-early Church teacher like Tertullian could admit it, then all of Rene's faux scholars are merely making sport with their daft dreck.

Even this esteemed scholar also recnogized that Mithras WAS born of a virgin, all Rene's bloviations and caterwauling nothwithstanding. Again, one can do no better than these early Fathers since they were the first exposed to the treachings! Thus, Rene's cites are all essential nincompoops - clearly since they have never read any of Tertullian's or Justin Martyr's tracts.

As Justin writes (cf. from Theology notes):

“When I hear that ***Mithra was begotten of a virgin***, I understand that the deceiving serpent also counterfeited this.”

Addendum in notes: No one pretends the Pagan virgin myth in general is LATER than Christianity. Justin’s own words, with anticipatory reflection – clearly discloses he KNOWS the Mithraic version PRECEDED the Christian version. What he says also underlies the arguments from Tertullian and Firmicus.

Again, we have the spectacle of a flyweight trying to present himself as some kind of ancient biblical scholar or pretend one, when all he knows how to do is to cut and paste from assorted google searches. Pathetic, Rene, pathetic. But what else can we expect when he doesn't even know that the "rock = virgin" tautology was actually invented by Firmicus to try to detract from the Mithras validity and spoof it. (But his other writings clearly show the "rock" gambit is just sheer tomfoolery).

Rene's absurd and desperate allusion to Mithraism as a "late Roman religion" is also pathetic and below the standards I would expect of anyone who enters a dialogue on this blog. J.M. Robertson in his earlier scholarly work, `Pagan Christs: Studies in Comparative Hierology' (1928)totally demolishes that take, and this is consistent with the course notes I have from my Comparative Theology 336 course.

In fact, there were a number of manifestations of Mithraism but the Roman form was among the most recent. But Persian forms predated it, IF Rene were able to do any valid research on his own without being spoon fed by his googling machine.

As Robertson notes, in the Graeco-Persian manifestation of Mithra (alt. Mithras) he was born of a virgin on the winter solstice, Dec. 25th. The leader of the cult was called a pope and ruled from a mithraeum. The Mithraists consumed a special meal (‘Myazda’) completely analogous to the Catholc Eucharist. And just like the Christians, they celebrated the atoning death of a Savior. In addition, those who did not partake of the body and blood od Mithra-Mithras were condemned to “Hell’, designated as a “lake of fire”.

The earliest radiocarbon dating of these ancient (Persian) texts was ca. 2300 BC or long before Christianity appeared.

Detailed textual analysis (see e.g. John Dominic Crossan's: 'The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant') further corroborates this, all Rene's comedic detractions to the contrary, and also shows that Christianity began as a 'mystery cult' - analogous to the Mithraists. A careful reading of the Pauline Epistles, as he points out, and Gospels (supplemented by modern documentary discoveries) shows Christianity began as a mystery religion, replete with initiations, secrets and multiple levels of indoctrination. The word "mystery"(Greek 'musterion': 'what is known only to the initiated') occurs twenty seven times in the offical New Testament and almost all these occurrences demonstrate the "secret infrastructure of a nascent cult".

Clearly then, Christians not only copied content lock, stock and barrel from the Mithraists, but also their very "musterion" structure! That Rene doesn't see this, or maybe won't see it, shows he is not up to the challenge of even rudimentary dialectic.

Amazingly, Rene is not even aware that the Christians not only borrowed heavily from the Mithraists, but also took content from the Greek Old Testament, known as the Septuagint. For example, passages of a Pauline 'mystagogoue' are very evident in passages such as 1 Cor. 2:6 ff.

Crossan, Robertson, Hebrew bible scholar Geza Vermes and others all have noted that the many logia recounted in the Gospels would, if they could convincingly be shown derived from a single personality or source, be strong evidence that a historical Jesus existed.

But such is NOT the case. A group of prominent Bible scholars (of which Crossan is a premier memeber) known as 'The Jesus Seminar' recently completed their 6-year analysis and reported that at least 80 percent of the sayings in the New Testament were NOT authentic! This is to say, they were able to find explanations for their composition that did not require a "historical Jesus".

The NT, as Oxford scholar Vermes notes, is littered with the preconceptions, false assumptions and misplaced theological influences of the various writers – indeed, Vermes meticulously points these out almost passage for passage in his excellent monograph: ‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’. (Try to pinpoint exactly the last words said on the cross- then compare to Vermes' interpretation of what 'Eloi, Eloi lama sebacthani' really means)

The bottom line in all this is that folks like Rene have been totally "had" and their brains gummed up by misdirection and chicancery. The bulk of the hard evidence, from REAL scholar - not the pretend ones Rene dredges up from the boonies, is that Christianity rest on a plagiaristic foundation and its central character is more myth than actual "divinity".

But, of course, one suspects that neither Rene nor his preacher man pal will concede this. It isn't in their interest to do so. But it is amusing to behold a theological lightweight tell someone who's taken three years of theology - plus done hermeneutic, textual analysis, and exegesis to "get his facts straight".

Next thing you know Rene will be running outside to yell at the stars over his head, "I am taller and higher than you!"

Copernicus said...

Preacher Man (Pastor Mike) wrote:



Oh yeah, that's real cute. I suppose you are going by that old saw 'the fool hath said in his heart there is no God".

But heck, Mike, I won't even belabor you with trying to provide the ontological basis for your god. Clearly that is way beyond you.

Let me simply ask you to do a simpler chore: prove that Nazareth existed before the 4th century AD. There is no evidence that it did, none at all.

Forget for the moment that the name borne by the earliest followers of Yeshua ("Jesus") was “Nazoreans’ - NOT “Christians” – And Yeshua was known as “the Nazorean”.

This is a sectarian term of which the Hebrew is ‘Notsrim’ and is NOT connected directly with a place called “Nazareth” or with the messianic “Nezer” branch from the roots of Jesse.

Nazoreans’ members proclaimed themselves the “preservers of the true faith of Israel”- but this claim was also made by the Samaritans, inhabiting Samaria (Shomron) who represented themselves as the ‘Shamerine’ – the custodians or keepers of the original ISRAELITE religion, as opposed to the Judeans (Jews)

The brutal truth is “Nazareth” is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historians or geographers mention it before the beginning of the 4th century.

Cursory perusal of the Talmud will show that although it names 63 Galilean towns, it seemingly knows nothing of Nazareth!

Worse, Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) ….mentions Nazareth not even once – although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee.

This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth!

Although the New Testament tells us very little about our mythical municipality, it does tell us enough to allow us to conclude that present day Nazareth couldn’t be the biblical city referred to say, in the fourth chapter of Luke.

Seems that like the White Queen whom Alice met in ‘Through the Looking Glass’, Christian fundies have always been able to believe six or more mutually contradictory, impossible propositions every morning before breakfast.

Unlike the White Queen, however, the Christians have been able to maintain such belief after breakfast as well.

Let's see who the real fools are - since between you and Rene you ought to be able to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Nazareth actually existed (before 4th century AD) and isn't another figment of a deluded Christianoid's imagination!

Anonymous said...

Hey Copernicus, that was one hell of a post on "Blasting the Satan and Hell Myths". I also really enjoyed your new webpage at: which talks about the comparison of the christian fundies to satan, and the photo of Pestor Mike on the top of the Home Page is priceless. I also see the two losers, Pesty Mike and Rene chirping back into your blog here with the same babble crap as before. I guess they weren't getting enough attention on Pesty Mike's website so they had to come here to parrot the same shit. Again Copernicus, you had to set the two bozo's straight. Like you said, Copernicus, all they are able to do is google, cut and past, all their arguments, and spread the shit around making it look like they know what they're talking about. Trying to argue with those 2 satanists, Pestor Mike and Rene, is like trying to piss upwind without getting wet. Neither of those 2 idiots could stand up to any debate about religion or atheism.

Caleb Shay said...

I have to agree with you, harleyman. I read 'The Origin Of Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World', Oxford Univ. Press, 1989, cited by Copernicus, and it totally makes mincemeat out of all Rene's claims. What does he do, quote halfwits, or is it morons?

Mithraism preceded christianity and developed concepts of salvation, redemption long before the myth of Jesus, which was invented from a combination of Horus and Mithras.

I guess it's just hard for these simpletons to accept the fact that neither their religion or savior is original.

At least if Rene could argue intelligently his comments might be worth reading. But every time he returns, it's like a Rottweiler eating a baby for breakfast, when Copernicus goes after him.

I mean it's uggggllly!

Rene, best you stay home and mind your nappies or maybe get a pacifier at least until you learn to play with the big boys.

As for preacher man, I once had a dog that could do tricks like he does. But at least that dog had half a brain and knew the only fool was a christian fundie fool.

They don't make 'em any dumber.

Caleb Shay said...

harleyman wrote:

"Pestor Mike and Rene, is like trying to piss upwind without getting wet. Neither of those 2 idiots could stand up to any debate about religion or atheism."


Hey, harley, I still say it's a good idea to grab their KJVs and burn them to a crisp. Imagine the bonfires with all those good books toasting. Oh wait, it would increase global warming.

Probably best we just use 'em for toilet paper!

Anonymous said...

Hey Caleb Shay, I agree with you, use the fucking KJV bibles as shit paper. They take up less room than rolls of toilet paper because they're flat, and one KJV book goes a long way, especially when you get the squirts.

Unknown said...

Wow, you guys hit it on the head. Copernicus, thanks for your brilliant takedown of Rene's stupidity and nonsense, trying to claim Mithraism was never copied by the Christians. It does my heart good to see such brilliant writing in responses from a *serious* researcher, as opposed to a charlatan who needs google to assist in his thoughts.

As for using the KJV for toilet paper, I am not quite ready to go that far, I believe I will stick to Charmin. However, the pages could be used as coverings for my pet canary's cage, or maybe to pick up and clear kitty litter!

Anonymous said...

The anti-Christ ? Mmmmmm YOU tell me :

Caleb Shay said...

Preacher Man wrote:

The anti-Christ ? Mmmmmm YOU tell me :"

Holy jumpin' Jeezus. So, Obama is the 666 man? And lookee this, Preacher has set up his own extra blog here on blogspot. Wow! I am impressed.

Let's look at some specifics from the Xtian's own literature.

According to the fundie line (Hal Lindsey, 'Late Great Planet Earth') the Anti-christ:

- will be born somewhere in the Middle east

(Obama was born in Hawaii and is African-American not Middle -Eastern)

- will be born one generation after the "fig tree" is planted

The "fig tree" marks the birth of the state of Israel, which was 1948. But Obama was born in 1962.

- Will arise out of the "sea of nations" and be an initial ruler of the ten-headed beast known as the European Union. He will rule from Rome (new Roman empire)

several things: The EU now has over 20 nations, so it no longer matches the forecast from Revelation by Lindsey or his other nuts.

Obama governs from Washington, DC not Rome

I could go on and on but the point made here is Preacher is psychotic, as Copernicus portrayed all these fundies in his latest blog article (Mental health and fundies)

Obama is no more the 666 man than the preacher is the pope.

Caleb Shay said...

- will be born one generation after the "fig tree" is planted

The "fig tree" marks the birth of the state of Israel, which was 1948. But Obama was born in 1962."

One generation in the bible terms is 40 years. So one generation after 1948 is 1988. But as I said, Obama was born in 1962. That's not even a half of a generation.

Anonymous said...

Hey isn't PreacherMan the anti-christ? Seems to me someone planted a fig tree up his pompous ass awhile ago.

Anonymous said...

By the way PreacherMan you dumb-ass link doesn't exist, just like you.

Caleb Shay said...

Hey harley, it did exist yesterday when I checked it out. It had a photo (looked like a fake one) of Obama kneeling in front of a Saudi Prince or something.

Now, the message reads:

"Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name whatashamebrothersandsisters is available to register! "

I suspect that after I posted my comment showing how and why Obama could NOT be the A-christ, Mr. Preacher Man removed his link and his presence.

Preferring not to look like the fool he is, having been exposed as ignorant.

And then he has the cojones to call us fools!

Anonymous said...

Hey Caleb,
Personally I think Pestor PreacherMan, was too chicken shit to keep it up on the internet. He knows he has no argument with facts vs. his fantasy bullshit. He's nothing more than a wanna-be PreacherMan, who'll amount to nothing more than the loser he shows himself to be.

Unknown said...

harleyman wrote:

"Personally I think Pestor PreacherMan, was too chicken shit to keep it up on the internet. He knows he has no argument with facts vs. his fantasy bullshit"

It seems clear to me that the Pastor and his pal Rene are simply out of their depth. Rene's comment on Mithraism, for example, was so immature and lacking in heft that he came across as one of those high school kids that uses internet sites to get their homework done. It was sooooooo obvious he just copied and pasted from different google searches. I doubt 1 word in 10 were his own words.

Preacher Man is probaby even less well educated than Rene. I doubt he even attended a year of college. If so, I would be amazed. If that's the case it's no wonder why he'd not wish to confront Copernicus. Who would? Especially if they only had half his education. It would be like coming to a gunfight with only a sling shot!

What it shows is what I always suspected: that highly religious people are among the most poorly educated in the world. This is why their ignorance is so vast, and why it's so much easier to blame an obvious figment of their imagination ("Satan") for the world's ills than to look at their own responsibility for them.