On Sol Invictus, Mithras And The Origin Of Christmas

The Roman Sol Invictus image bearing the inscription: "The most holy and sacred Sun"

Par for the course in our culturally and socially divided country, much hullaballoo is made every year over the celebration of Christmas, using the words "Merry Christmas" and the possibility those nasty atheists and secularists are trying to "destroy" the holiday. Very seldom do any inquiring minds chill out long enough to investigate the actual origins of the holiday - which dates back to antiquity.

For example, we know the first certain record associating December 25th with the birthday of Sol Invictus is the ROMAN Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar, VIII Kal. Jan. is identified as N INVICTI CM XXX (Natalis Invicti; CM abbreviates circenses missus or circus races)  "Natalis Invictii" refers to the birth of Sol Invictus, NOT Christ. (See graphic attached of a Roman rendering of Sol Invictus). The celebratory factor in the inscription is punctuated by the fact XXX (30) races were to be scheduled in the Roman Circus. This would never be done to commemorate the exclusive birth of a Jewish Messiah! Even given that the Edict of Milan was formalized some 40 years earlier.

Coincidentally, this is also the earliest reference to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. In a commemoration of Christian martyrs, the notation for VIII Kal. Jan. is natus Christus in Betleem Judeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea"). Because the Depositio Martyrum was completed in AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas can be dated to that year as well. In the list of consuls, there also is the note: "Dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian".

Note that although the first celebration can be dated to the year 336, it was not formalized! As I noted in a post from December, 2011, the formalization wasn't until 29 years after the Council of Nicaea, in 354 A.D. Then the newly liberated Christians formally claimed December 25th - the designated original birth date of the Sun god Mithras - as their own nativity for Christ. This exactly parallels the timing already in the Chronography of AD 354 where, in the part known as the Philocalian Calendar,  the date first emerges in a written record.  We see then a confluence between Christ,  Sol Invictus (the Roman Sun god) and Mithras.

Regarding Mithras' birth date (also on Dec. 25th), one should note that just as Jesus' date of birth was ahistorical, Mithras' was as well. The assignment of ancient god-man births to this date is understandable given the ancients investment in agriculture, and the Winter solstice marked the day of shortest daylight giving way to increasing lengths of day through Spring. (See my earlier post on the Winter solstice.) 

Some who complain about Mithraism in general insist there's no evidence that Mithras was a great teacher. But this is belied in Ized 28. (We were introduced to this in our Comparative Religion class at Loyola, in 1966). In brief passages we see Mithras teaching the multitudes about son-ship and stewardship and the Logos-Trinity.  One trope used to try to demean the import of Mithras as an ancient god Man is that he was said to have "been born of a solid rock".  Hence, is worthy of belittlement.

The notion of Mithras being "born of a solid rock" can probably be traced to certain writings of early Church Father Justin Martyr, who analogized Peter as the mystic "Rock" of the Church ("Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church") and to the emergence of Mithraism with Mithras. Researcher J.M. Robertson ('The Origin Of Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World') speculates that Martyr's ruminations are "in touch with the Graecized but probably Semitic myth of the Rock-born Agdestis, son of Jupiter".

In other words, not peculiar to Mithraism proper, but a subsequent syncretic addition which then became distorted into a "rock birth" by early Christians. Not surprisingly, probably because of the Agdestis- connection, Mithras is derived from the Latin "rock born" and that concept has been perpetuated with the name.

A number of ancient authors (e.g. Porphyry) bemoaned the catastrophic destruction of many of the original works at the hands of the Christians.  Nonetheless, we do have enough in Ized 28 of the Zendavesta to document much of Mithras' mythological basis. Perusing through it there is no mention of battling a "bull" - which likely originated from the Graeco-Roman version of the myth, which was probably distorted by re-translations over centuries (much the same way the Christian New Testament has been).

In the actual Izeds (#23- #28) there’s no record of any “Bull”. There is a peripheral reference (by Porphyry) to Mithras as "the Bull of Demiurgos and lord of generation". But again, no "battle" with such. (so it's likely corrupted over time). Robertson (p. 121) speculates Porphyry's reference is actually based on a conceptual error mixing up the Mithraic seat at the equinoctial table (assigned to the Ram, Aries) "which also bears the sword of the Ram." He adds (ibid.): "The sword of the Ram is simply figured as a cross, since the sword IS a cross".

A much older version, probably more accurate,  is cited in Robertson's 'Pagan Christs' (p. 119) wherein he notes that according to a (Vendedadic) legend "Mithras shoots an arrow at a rock, and water gushes forth where the arrow strikes". The passage is believed by some scholars of pagan mystery religions to refer to either an incident where Mithras saves his followers who are lost in the desert, or that he uses his arrow to reveal an analog to the Judaeo-Christian Decalogue.

Aspects of Mithraism that later filtered into the Graeco-Roman world (in the form of emergent Mithraic cults) 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) . Many scholars believe the greater details including Mithras’ disciples, the full recounting of his miracles: including walking on water, raising the dead, changing water to wine etc. were in those destroyed manuscripts.

According to Plutarch, Mithraism first arrived in the Roman Empire through the Cilician pirates whom Pompey subdued, then brought back to Rome as slaves. (Many were actually believed to have been soldiers for whom Mithraism would have been the religion naturally embraced).

Mithraism was a mystery religion, so its historical legends would have always been more accessible than its precepts. Rituals were held in strictest confidence – available only to the select few - as a secret society would. (Much like today’s Free Masons who maintain absolute silence as regards their rituals.) As Frank Zindler notes, "no specific works of Mithraism are known since like other Mystery Cults, it centered around a secret or body of secrets only known to those initiated into the rites. Most of our knowledge of it is derived from the iconography of its temples”.

Another common canard is that Mithraists copied from Christians to fabricate their god -Man not the other way around. This is totally false, and can be ascertained from Tertullian’s writings combined with just minimal reasoning ability. My class notes, e.g. from my Comparative Theology course,  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”

Tertullian also bears this out, scolding:

“The Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, IMITATES EVEN THE MAIN PARTS OF THE DIVINE MYSTERIES. HE ALSO BAPTIZES HIS FOLLOWERS IN WATER THAT PURIFIES THEM OF THEIR SINS”

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 resemblance of Mithraic rites to Christian rites as being “the imitation 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? This presumes a supernatural influence over and above ordinary human copying.

An answer becomes manifest when we examine more closely the words of Justin Martyr, who expressly argued that "the demons ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries and prepared PARODIES of them BEFOREHAND"! (Pagan Christs, p. 118).

As Justin further writes (cf. from Loyola Theology notes):

"When I hear that Mithra was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent also counterfeited this!"

(Addendum in Comparative Theology notes: No one pretends the Pagan virgin myth in general is LATER than Christianity. Justin’s own words: "ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries" can mean only one thing: he KNEW the Mithraic version PRECEDED the Christian version. What he said also underscored the arguments from Tertullian and Firmicus. He was so incensed that the Mithraists trumped the Christians' Savior myth on the timeline, that he attributed this to demonic work, aka the "imitation of devils".)

Robertson (op. cit., p. 121) also cites other common symbols that the Christians appropriated from Mithraic traditions, including the Agnus Dei, or "Lamb of God". As he notes:


"The Christian assimilation of Mithraism is still more clearly seen in the familiar Christian symbol in which Christ is represented as a lamb, carrying by one forefoot a cross."

The takeaway here? Celebrate Christmas by all means, but bear in mind it is actually the celebration of the birth of Mithras-Sol Invictus and the date itself is consistent with that of the winter solstice - or the "rebirth of the Sun".   Christians later copied this ancient pagan template for the nativity of their own god-Man, Jesus.

The Original Nativity- Before Jesus Christ's

Over a thousand years before the birth of Yeshua - which Christians celebrate today - there was the birth of the Lord Mithras. In the oldest extant version of the Izeds (28 in number) appearing in the Zendavesta, Mithras was born on December 25th of the Virgin, Anahita. 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. In its present form it was collected by Ardeshir, the founder of the Sassanian dynasty, from oral tradition, at the time when he re-established the ancient religion of Persia.

While we have a scattered collection of works in the Izeds, much of what we've learned about Mithras has had to be pieced together by painstaking investigation over many decades. As scholar F. Zindler notes, "no specific works of Mithraism are known since like other Mystery Cults, it centered around a secret or body of secrets only known to those initiated into the rites. Most of our knowledge of it is derived from the iconography of its temples”.

Other documents related to Mithraism had likely been in the great library at Alexandria but this was totally destroyed during a massive raid by Christian invaders. A number of ancient authors (e.g. Porphyry) bemoaned the catastrophic destruction of many of the original works at the hands of the Christians. Why would this have happened? Most likely because Christians couldn't tolerate the notion of an earlier "God -man" born on the exact same day and of a virgin to boot.

This hostility is exposed  in the original writings of Church fathers, including Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Julius Firmicus – all referencing Mithraic scriptures and references therein. And not with any beneficence. For example, after describing the “Lord’s Supper’, Justin Martyr evinces outrage as he writes (from my Loyola Comparative Theology notes):

“WHICH THE WICKED DEVILS HAVE IMITATED IN THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRA, COMMANDING THE SAME THING TO BE DONE”

Tertullian also bears this out, scolding:

“The Devil, by the mysteries of his idols, IMITATES EVEN THE MAIN PARTS OF THE DIVINE MYSTERIES. HE ALSO BAPTIZES HIS FOLLOWERS IN WATER THAT PURIFIES THEM OF THEIR SINS”

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 resemblance of Mithraic rites to Christian rites as being “the imitation 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? This presumes a supernatural influence over and above ordinary human copying.

An answer becomes manifest when we examine more closely the words of Justin Martyr, who expressly argued that "the demons ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries and prepared PARODIES of them BEFOREHAND"! (Pagan Christs, p. 118)

As Justin further writes (cf. from Loyola Theology 210 notes):


"When I hear that Mithra was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent also counterfeited this!"

But let's apply basic logical reasoning here. Justin’s own words: "ANTICIPATED the Christian mysteries",  can mean only one thing: he KNEW the Mithraic version PRECEDED the Christian version. What he said also underscored the arguments from Tertullian and Firmicus. He was so incensed that the Mithraists trumped the Christians' Savior myth on the timeline, that he attributed this to demonic work, aka the "imitation of devils".

All of this would have been much more widely known had the Christian invaders not pillaged Alexandria and destroyed his venerable Library.

In Carl Sagan’s COSMOS, Episode 13, ‘Who speaks for Earth?’ he recounts the killing of Hypatia, one of Alexandria’s foremost woman scientists and also the library’s burning. J.M. Robertson ('The Origin Of Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World', Oxford Univ. Press, 1989) suggests than more than 300 manuscripts documenting the role of Mithras’ disciples were likely destroyed around the same time as Hypatia’s martyrdom.
(Image of Hypatia)

Other aspects of Mithraism that later filtered into the Graeco-Roman world (in the form of emergent Mithraic cults) undoubtedly came from the Izeds,  as well as other "musterion" texts  likely destroyed with the burning of the library at Alexandria. (See, e.g. J.M. Robertson’s ‘Pagan Christs’, 1966) . Many scholars believe the greater details including Mithras’ disciples, the full recounting of his miracles: including walking on water, raising the dead, changing water to wine etc. were in those destroyed manuscripts.

J.M. Robertson observes (op. cit.)

"The celebration of the Mithraic mysteries, of the burial and resurrection of the Lord, the Mediator and Savior, the sacrament of bread and water...all these were in practice long before the first Christian Gospel of a Lord who was buried in a rock tomb."

Re: Mithras' birth date on Dec. 25th, one should note that just as Jesus' date of birth (putatively on the 25th December) was ahistorical, most likely Mithras'  birth was as well. The assignment of ancient god-man births to this date is understandable given the ancients' investment in agriculture, and the Winter solstice marking the day of shortest daylight giving way to increasing lengths of day through Spring. (Perfect for planting in the northern hemisphere).

Robertson (op. cit., p. 121) also cites other common symbols that the Christians appropriated from Mithraic traditions, including the Agnus Dei, or "Lamb of God". As he notes:


"The Christian assimilation of Mithraism is still more clearly seen in the familiar Christian symbol in which Christ is represented as a lamb, carrying by one forefoot a cross."

What about the way in which Christians have consistently copied images of Mithras and used them for Jesus?  E.g.
Robertson again (op. cit.) supplies an answer (p. 124):


"The Christian imitation, took place, be it observed, because the features imitated were found by experience to be religiously attractive."

It’s clear from this that the Mithras myth sticks in the craw of many biblical literalists and even orthodox non-literalist Christians, since their dependency on the notion of one unique "Savior" exposes their egocentric certainty they have the one "lock" on "truth" via the one "savior" that came for all mankind. But their lack of historical perspective omits that an earlier savior existed and was worshipped and that the latter nativity, God-man miracle myth was copied from it.

Today, what Christian believers ought to be doing is THANKING the Mithraists for providing a ready- to -use template for Christian copyists and re-translators to build their "Savior" myth on, and have everyone convinced he's unique and the only one that ever was. (Which this blog post seeks to refute.)

Atheists Need to Back Off In Their 'War on Christmas'

One of the early cards designed by American Atheists to help promote the meme that Christmas is a myth.


As we approach another Christmas holiday, and word has gone out that American Atheists has put up a forty foot billboard in New York to advance the 'war on Christmas', the outside observer can't help but note how this plays right into the Right wingnuts' hands: "Looka there! Ya see! The liberals and atheists are all together in this waging a war on Christmas!"

Of course, this is bollocks but many may not see it that way. And as atheists are still seen as the 'bad guys' in the country (polls show only a minority would vote for one as President) they can ill afford to be further smeared. The way out is to find allies, preferably progressives, who will unite with atheists for a defined common good. Maybe that is fighting for a better health care system, or decent living wages, or even Elizabeth Warren's latest campaign to have employers back off doing credit checks on prospective employees.  The point is atheists risk being marginalized unless they link up to larger social causes besides waging a myopic  "war on Christmas". It makes them look detached from the larger society and foolish.

The historical reasons for why atheists have waged this war are well known, at least among atheists and most freethinkers. Ancient Rome had essentially made its peace with the indigenous Christians - thanks to the Emperor Constantine (274 - 337). Recall that Constantine was the de facto head of the Sol Invictus cult for which December 25th was celebrated as "the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun".

In reality, this referred to the Winter Solstice, or that date in the year when the Sun was at its maximum declination below the celestial equator (now calculated to be at -23.5 degrees). At the same time, it was the date at which the Sun would begin its journey back north along the ecliptic to meet the celestial equator by the time of the Vernal (Spring) equinox. This northward march meant geometrically longer diurnal circles, hence the winter solstice marked the astronomical date when days began getting longer - hence a solar "re-birth" in a manner of speaking.

By selecting December 25th (the date of the ancient winter solstice)  as the nativity of Christ, the Church repaid Constantine for his generosity (via the "Edict of Milan" issued in 313, which not only permitted Christians the freedom of religious worship and their religion's recognition by the State, but also reparations for previous losses, such as having property confiscated). In other words, the choice sealed a continued basis for accommodation and cooperation between Rome and Christianity and also empowered the latter - providing the impetus to become the religion of the then civilized world.


Less well known, is that the ancient religion of Mithraism was also well-entrenched in Rome by the time of the Christian choice of December 25th, and indeed, they (Mithraists) also celebrated that date as the nativity of the Lord Mithra. (See, e.g. the book, Pagan Christs. )   In this respect, the American Atheists are quite correct and December 25th does not exist as any uniquely holy date, hence for all intents is a myth. In this sense, "myth" means: an unproved collective belief that's used to justify a social institution. If one therefore is going to celebrate a nativity - he should (for history's sake) go the whole hog and celebrate it not only for Yeshua, but the Lord Mithra, as well as the Roman god, Sol Invictus. They all share that date, and all are entitled to acknowledgement.

For many atheists, the issue is elementary: they simply acknowledge the date as that coinciding with the ancient Winter Solstice and mark it purely as an astronomical event. Yet socially we may well celebrate with family and friends and even exchange gifts, but this is part of a recognized habit or custom. Hence, when atheists declare "Christmas is a myth"  they're charging wholesale into an established religious -commercial quagmire where they're not only seen as attacking religious beliefs, but customs too. It's a no win game.

Atheists by doing this also reinforce the belief that they are always against things and never stand for a positive value.  In his brilliant article Atheism Wars[1], the eminent economist John Gray, author of False Dawn- The Delusions of Global Capitalism,   argues:


Contemporary unbelief is a hollowed –out version of monotheism- a cult of human deliverance lacking the beauty and flashes of wisdom of traditional faiths. Defined properly, it is an entirely negative position. An atheist is anyone who has no use for the concepts and doctrines of theism

This is an honest take, and is also perhaps why Gray declares himself an atheist in the proper meaning of the term, as I do. That is, one who simply withholds belief. I provided the original definition, of what later came to be known as implicit atheism, in a Mensa Bulletin letter. That definition read[2]:

Let's be clear about what constitutes Atheism and what doesn't. The Atheist - to put it succinctly, absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition”

 

What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. making a statement 'There is no god', but rather simply passively withholding belief/acceptance in a statement already made.  Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological atheist’s is the absence of belief in it. No more - no less.

Reading John Gray’s excellent essay showed me that my position is genuinely more implicit atheism, or what George Smith described as agnostic atheism, than the more hard-edged variety of Ayn Rand, or Madalyn Murray-O’Hair. In Smith’s words:

The agnostic atheist maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind. And further - not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well

This more open or implicit basis also backs the atheist away from a hard-edge, intolerant stance. It also opens the way for positive cooperation with others of a liberal mindset.  As I  noted in my first atheist book, The Atheist's Handbook to Modern Materialism,  this paved the way for positive alliances for advance of social justice, such s Paul Kurtz defined in his (2000) 'Humanist Manifesto'.


Hard-edged,  take no prisoners atheism is also a loser philosophically, as I have noted in my new book, Beyond Atheism, Beyond God. Therein I noted the "Camus conundrum"
discussed by Greg M. Epstein ( Good Without God, p62) to do with Albert Camus’ novel, The Plague.  The essence is embodied in a question Camus’ character Jean Tarrou asks his friend, Rieux:

Why do you show such devotion considering you don’t believe in God?

 

Epstein puts this in a contemporary setting, referencing a 2006 book tour by Richard Dawkins for his God Delusion. According to Epstein,  Dawkins was somewhat startled when a young man approached him and asked directly: "Dr. Dawkins, I am thinking of committing suicide, what do you have to say?

 

Epstein relates that initially Dawkins was so nonplussed he could think of nothing to say,  then suggested the young man (a student at Harvard) could go to the humanist chaplain or – if he’d been at Oxford, he could go to the Anglican chaplain.  In understandable astonishment, Epstein observed (ibid.):


"Is that the best we can do? Rage, rage against the dying of the Enlightenment then shoo our troubled youth back to religion because we’re too distracted or cerebral or both to spend a few minutes of our deep thoughts on being more loving and more helpful?"
 

Let’s be clear the Camus conundrum highlighted in modern form by Epstein isn’t just a problem for Dawkins.  I am certain that in a similar situation, all the current hard core crop of atheists (including those waging wars on Christmas) would be at a loss for words. Overly obsessed with combat against the "believers"  and their myths they'd have lost sight of the human dimensions.

 

In regard to the "war against Christmas" we need to bring those dimensions into focus as well, and whether we are familiar with the historical basis for Christmas or not, understand that by trying to extinguish it  we are exercising a futility similar to Dawkins in his response to the Harvard student. The atheist meme and philosophical foundation survives,  not by making more enemies or alienating more people, but by finding common cause with others to ennoble the human condition and not degrade it.

 

---

[1] Gray: Playboy (60), 49.

[2] Mensa Bulletin, March (1994), 8.

A REAL Piss-Off Issue: Hell Mongers Who Threaten Siblings That Have Months to Live

My wife and I were watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC last night, wifey with her laptop open – when a ‘ping’ for email arrived. It was from our long time (20 years) friend Nancy, who lives in Aurora. Nancy has been stoically trying to make the best of life after learning her dear older brother, David, had recently been diagnosed with massive, metastasizing adenocarcinoma that has spread to liver, abdomen, spleen, and lymph glands. After a meeting with his oncologist he was given about 6-7 months to live.

Nancy had emailed that she and siblings got together over the Thanksgiving holiday: Dave, wife Mary, Nancy and another hyper Christian sister named “Leah”. (Note that two years ago, Nancy, Dave and Mary accompanied my wife and me to Barbados). Things went okay until Leah buttonholed Dave for an hour, hocking her own brand of hell-mongering baloney and bullshit, and warning him that unless he got “saved before he died he would end up burning in Hell forever”.

To rub it in deeper, this clown zealot then asked him: "You DO want to see Mom and Dad, don't you? Well, you won't if you're burning in Hell!"  Dave already dealing with the stress from the worst prognosis one could conceive took it stoically. I admire the guy, because had I been there in his place, I’d have told the harpy to fuck herself. No apologies, no goofy euphemisms....no ‘telling it through the flowers’.

Dave, to be sure, is a gentleman - and I mean that literally. He is of benign temperament and takes most things in stride, unlike me. (Perhaps why I am dogged with high blood pressure, but maybe because I’m outraged most of the time, especially by obdurate Repukes who play political games with our nation's future and hell-mongering fundie whackos who prey on the weak.) Dave is also one of the few people who was able to read my entire book, ‘The Atheist’s Handbook to Modern Materialism’ and even asked intelligent questions about various chapters. He noted that it provided him with a solid perspective on many things, including that there was no afterlife: when we’re gone we’re gone, as with anesthesia. (I did make allowances for a nonlocal afterlife but this is nothing to do with anything supernatural, i.e. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/has-stuart-hameroff-explicated-way-out.html


My beef with Leah presuming to “save” her brother is the same I have with other Fundie idiots who have nothing better to do with their time than trespass on time and eternity with their boring, ignorant misinterpretations of two thousand year old bollocks written by sheep herders. It would not be so bad if they all remained in their own enclaves (looney bins) but no – they are allowed to go out into the world and render damage to stressed or weakened psyches. People who have been through one wringer or other and don’t deserve mental stress on top of physical deterioration. Moreover, they do it relentlessly to the most unassuming people, or those with a very short timeline like Dave. People who, unlike me – would never take these creeps by the scruff of the neck and bodily hurl them out the door and into the street.

Why are these psychos - like Leah and a certain pretend FLA pastor- running around loose? Why not confined to an institution someplace and on meds, or with ECT prescribed? Who knows? I guaran-damn-tee you, however, if anyone aggressively pushed aliens and ETs like these nutcases, they wouldn't be tolerated. But because the blather carries the specious cachet of "religious speech" they are allowed to get away with it. Meanwhile, Stalin would have long since had them locked up in Gulags and receiving home -made anti- psychotics.  (I generally don't applaud the likes of Stalin, or Mao Tse Tung, but in regards to controlling uppity, in -your face, hell-mongering Christians, they did have the right idea! In that respect, our country allows these nuts way too much leeway.)

First, let's understand the whole basis for their suppositions on the afterlife is totally askew.

A condescending aspect of current evangelical Christianity is its prescription for personal salvation: that one must be “born again in the Lord Jesus Christ” and “accept Him as persona Savior”. Of course, in spouting this codswallop, Christians thoughtlessly consign billions to the Christians’ eternal microwave: Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Buddhists and others – whose only “crime” is they either refused to follow, or weren’t privy to, the magic salvation formula. 

In fact, the evidence shows that the Christian myth of the unique God-Man / Savior is not original, but probably plagiarized from earlier pagan sources – such as the Book of Mithras - nee 'Mithra' (Actually, the Zendavesta). This was the main source for the ancient religion of Mithraism, which predated Christianity by hundreds of years.

Exactly like Jesus, Mithras (Mithra) was “born of a virgin” (Anahita), in humble surroundings, and later worked miracles including walking on water, and raising the dead. He was also crucified, died and was buried, to ascend three days later. Coincidence? Hardly! It is more likely the basis of a common myth (also present with the God-Man Horus, and Orpheus) present throughout antiquity. Thus, it would have made eminent sense for the early New Testament authors to copy these stories where they could. Why reinvent the proverbial Savior “wheel”?  Indeed, why re-invent a punitive afterlife, when the Mithraists had already conceived a "Hell" that was essentially wholesale copied by Christians?

In his excellent expose article “How Jesus Got A Life” (The American Atheist, June, 1992, p. 46) author Frank Zindler notes even more comparisons, such as the fact that Mithras was born of Anahita on Dec. 25th (the Winter Solstice, according to then crude computations), he was also worshipped on SUN-days (being also a solar deity), and the leader was called “papa” (pope) and ruled from the “mithraeum” on the Vatican Hill in Rome.

Mithraic priests also wore “miters” (from which current Catholic Bishops’ head gear is derived), and they consumed a sacred meal “Myazda” – which “was completely analogous to the Catholic Eucharist service”. (Ibid.)  Why the need to copy wholesale earlier God-man stories? The Catholic historian, the Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter is clear on this:

“The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or God.”

In other words, the earlier pagan tracts and myths were copied to try to fulfill a Church agenda, not to disclose any historical or biographical truth.  Later Protestant sects, formed after the Reformation, would simply alter the theme to making “salvation” contingent not only on the belief in the overall God-Man mythology – but BELIEF in the MYTHICAL MAN as GOD and SAVIOR. In other words, what evangelicals are effectively doing, is threatening unbelievers with eternal perdition unless they embrace a God-Man account likely plagiarized by their Catholic forbears from ancient pagan works.

  Ah, but to confer credibility, or what we in the secular world call 'rabid cherry picking' - the numskulls had to dredge up what they took to be biblical or scriptural quotations to "ice" their convictions in stone, and thence, grant them perverse power to try to "save" or "convert" others. (No surprise many of these louts were burned or shot, especially when they tried it in Hindu India.) And so they isolated quotes like John 3:16, which we sports fans often see morons holding up at stadiums. They are trying to remind all who might glance their way of the need to get "saved" by a mythical, plagiarized "savior". (The Xtians didn't even have the brains to think up their own original version!)

The whole thing would actually be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic, and one can imagine the ancient founders of Mithraism laughing hilariously from their graves at the gullibility and profound ignorance of modern day Christians that buy this hogswill, that they really are putting their trust in a unique “Savior” and ‘god”.


Did a real historical Jesus exist? According to Oxford scholar Geza Vermes in The Authentic Gospel of Jesus:

“Jesus was an ordinary man, crucified because he clashed with Jewish and Roman leaders and was regarded as a potential threat to law and order “

In other words, one could almost think of him like an ancient JFK, given all the interests he pissed off, although unlike JFK he held no office.  But invoking him to be "saved" would make about as much sense as invoking JFK for the same. Nevertheless, you can be sure the religio-tards will never ever accept this, and they will remain convinced they have the one and only salvation "formula" and woe betide anyone who doesn't accept it - they will pick up a ticket to "Hell". (As Dave's crazed sister warned him).

French philosopher and teacher, Andre Comte-Sponville has a solid take on these Xtian knotheads and pests. I quote his words as follows:

"They mistake their faith for knowledge and are prepared to kill or die in its name. They have no doubts or hesitations. They know everything there is to know about Truth and Goodness....and Salvation. So of what use is Science to them? None. Of what use is democracy?

Everything worth knowing is in "the Book". One need only believe and obey. From Genesis to Revelation they have taken sides once and for all. They are on God's side, so how can they be wrong? Why should they believe in or obey anything else? Fundamentalists, obscurantists and terrorists...but they see themselves as angels, though they behave as beasts and tyrants.

They take themselves for the Knight of the Apocalypse. They are the janissaries of the absolute, which they reduce to the narrow dimensions of their own conscience and perceive as their private property.

They are the prisoners of their faith, slaves of God or of what (with absolutely no proof) they claim to be His Word or Law. Spinoza summed their type up admirably when he said:  "They fight for their servitude as if it were their salvation"


I couldn't have said it better. But one thing we atheists, secularists, skeptics and rationalists will not do is place ourselves in mental or cooperative servitude to those who are already in thrall to their self-created mental chains of  "salvation" delusion and supernatural bunkum!