Re: How will you respond when people say 'Merry Christmas' to you this season ?


"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ci7jk4tvk3jh47svj7em25lq7q3bmclkn9@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:14:48 -0800 (PST), davidwg
<davidwg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 Dec, 18:59, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12 Dec, 10:48, "mark" <no-oneh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Even now, christians just shrug this date off as just a date that *we*
celebrate the birthday not the actual birthday (..like the queen!!)
ignoring
previous festivities, including, hey ho, a very similar story of
Mithras,
arguably born on the same day.

Unfortunately these claims about Mithras are all modern malicious
inventions. There is no ancient data linking Mithras with 25 Dec.,
and the tales that Mithras was "born of a virgin" etc (he was actually
born from a rock!) are likewise modern inventions by people with no
very great degree of honesty.

Been thinking about the response HappyMithras to a comment of happy
christmas. It's phonetically close and often might leave someone who
reposted "happy christmas" with the thought they may have misheard the
reply. It might even provoke a question of "who'sMithras" ....!! It
might even get those people who have little or no bias either way to
think
about the fraud and deception. Who knows?

Rather ironic, really, considering that you don't seem to know
anything about Mithras yourself! We need to be more sceptical of what
seems convenient, hey? Somewhere out there is some little man twisted
with hate manufacturing this rubbish.

Hardly one man! If you google Mithra you get nearly a million hits
and hundreds of thousands of them repeat the similarities between the
myth of Mithra and that of Jesus. Since the earliest period of
Christianity religionists have sought to deny that the Jesus myth was
based on the stories of earlier examples of mythical saviour gods.
The theory was even advanced that the stories of the earlier saviour
gods were invented by the devil to confuse the faithful!

But Pearse says otherwise. And he's right because he says so. He
doesn't need to read objective evidence because reality is wrong.

He's rather obsessed with Mithra (and, of course, himself). Mention the
name on, say, a food group and he'll turn up a few days later spouting his
usual "rebuttals".
Graham


.

Loading