Why believe in god?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

Carolling is crazy sh!t? (Note the spelling of sh!t, so it doesn't get caught by the IT people at somebody's workplace.) If you say so.

Fact is, carolling, along with Christmas trees and reindeer, have nothing to do with the scriptural basis of Christianity. These things, although lovely, were secular practices appended onto the faith, but they are in no way a fundamental part of it. If somebody ripped carolling, bell ringing, reindeer, snow, presents, ivy and egg nog out of Christmas starting tomorrow, the New Testament would be completely untouched. That's right, there's no carolling, snow, reindeer or ivy in the canonical New Testament.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

I don't see anything in the examples you cite that would negate belief in God or of Jesus. Christians do not dispute that the religion - the rituals, calendar, etc - are man made and as the PP stated we are aware of the history and that the Christian calendar draws on paganism and other ancient traditions. None of this has anything to do with the life and gospel of Jesus or with theology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

Carolling is crazy sh!t? (Note the spelling of sh!t, so it doesn't get caught by the IT people at somebody's workplace.) If you say so.

Fact is, carolling, along with Christmas trees and reindeer, have nothing to do with the scriptural basis of Christianity. These things, although lovely, were secular practices appended onto the faith, but they are in no way a fundamental part of it. If somebody ripped carolling, bell ringing, reindeer, snow, presents, ivy and egg nog out of Christmas starting tomorrow, the New Testament would be completely untouched. That's right, there's no carolling, snow, reindeer or ivy in the canonical New Testament.

Exactly. Those of us who are Christian and celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday recognize caroling, Santa, trees, etc etc as secular aspects of the holiday. I would argue however that the tradition of giving presents is tied directly to the New Testament, and is done to symbolize both the gift of Jesus himself and the gifts of the three kings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

And here, my friends, you see the danger of pasting stuff from atheist chat forums without checking into it first. Horus is the guy who was conceived after his mother, Isis, had sex with his Osirus' severed penis, or maybe not.

Close parallels with the Christian birth narrative? You be the judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus. "Horus was born to the goddess Isis after she retrieved all the dismembered body parts of her murdered husband Osiris, except his penis which was thrown into the Nile and eaten by a catfish,[7][8] or sometimes by a crab, and according to Plutarch's account (see Osiris) used her magic powers to resurrect Osiris and fashion a gold phallus[9] to conceive her son (older Egyptian accounts have the penis of Osiris surviving)."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

Carolling is crazy sh!t? (Note the spelling of sh!t, so it doesn't get caught by the IT people at somebody's workplace.) If you say so.

Fact is, carolling, along with Christmas trees and reindeer, have nothing to do with the scriptural basis of Christianity. These things, although lovely, were secular practices appended onto the faith, but they are in no way a fundamental part of it. If somebody ripped carolling, bell ringing, reindeer, snow, presents, ivy and egg nog out of Christmas starting tomorrow, the New Testament would be completely untouched. That's right, there's no carolling, snow, reindeer or ivy in the canonical New Testament.

The history of caroling is simply a random example of of how traditions get passed along. The history behind Carolling is quite bizarre!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

What story are you referring to?

This particular example is of Horus. There are many examples of religion taking on aspects of older belief structures, the stories make the transition easier. Look up the history behind caroling, that's some crazy shit!

Carolling is crazy sh!t? (Note the spelling of sh!t, so it doesn't get caught by the IT people at somebody's workplace.) If you say so.

Fact is, carolling, along with Christmas trees and reindeer, have nothing to do with the scriptural basis of Christianity. These things, although lovely, were secular practices appended onto the faith, but they are in no way a fundamental part of it. If somebody ripped carolling, bell ringing, reindeer, snow, presents, ivy and egg nog out of Christmas starting tomorrow, the New Testament would be completely untouched. That's right, there's no carolling, snow, reindeer or ivy in the canonical New Testament.

The history of caroling is simply a random example of of how traditions get passed along. The history behind Carolling is quite bizarre!

Random describes that post, alright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

Wait, whut?

How can you write that several other people were born on "that day," and argue in the same breath that Jesus himself wasn't actually born on "that day"?

And sorry, but Horus conceived by a golden, severed penis isn't exactly a close match. Try again.

It's like you don't read anything anybody else posts. As PP explained, it's pretty inconsequential what day of the year Jesus might have been born on, and instead we look to the message of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

+1000. It's like the current thread on Jews with Christmas trees. Some of them may have adopted somebody else's secular bells and whistles (the tree), but theologically speaking, they're still 100% Jewish. These bells and whistles (trees, birth dates) have nothing to do with a given faith's tenets about God, the prophets, or their messages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Jesus is not the first story of the son of a god, born on Dec 25th, of a virgin, and resurrected in the spring. Understanding these aspects of religious history, how is it possible to truly believe one story and not another? Do those of you who believe have any knowledge of religious history or do you prefer to blind yourself to these realities?

Of course. I'd guesstimate that 95% of Christians in the US are aware that December 25th is not Jesus' true birthdate. He probably wasn't born in 0 AD, either, but more like 3AD or 4AD.

Nobody is "blind" to this. Nobody is pretending that we actually know Jesus' true birthdate.

Reasonable people understand that lots of facts are lost to time, and Jesus' birthday is one of them. To celebrate his birth, somebody had to pick a day, and they picked December 25, probably because it coincided with other festivals. As good a day as any other.

The big reveal about 12/25 isn't going to shatter anybody's faith, because we all know it already. If you were Christian, you'd understand that this is a big ho-hum, because the magical part isn't the arbitrary 12/25 date, it's the birth itself.

and faithful christians also don't find it odd that several other ancient gods were born on the that day, and/or had virgin mothers and died and rose again. It doesn't occur to them (and they are certainly not taught) that Jesus as son of god is simply an updated myth. People with faith understand these things.

You need to read up on the history of early Christianity. The Christians sought converts by appropriating other traditions, and this is well known to modern Christians. The fact that they did so does not disprove who Jesus is nor does it disprove the existence of God. What it proves is that the early Christians were very shrewd strategists when it came to recruiting converts. Again, this has nothing to do with theology.

It proves that they had deceitful intents and were willing to fudge details in order to get what they wanted.

Are you OP? Either way you have a very simplistic worldview and it's not really worth engaging with someone who is so uneducated about the topic at hand.