.

Margaret Thatcher: “ ... we all agreed that if you try to take the fruits of Christianity without its roots, the fruits will wither. And they will not come again unless you nurture the roots ”.

.

Historians tell us that Christianity has its roots not only in Judaism, Hellinistic religion, Greco-Roman paganism and Neoplatonism, but also in Egyptian and Indian religion and mythology.

Myths of virgin born gods, for example, existed prior to the birth of Jesus:

Krishna the Saviour (similar to Christ) was said to have been born of the virgin Devaki

Dionysus was said to have been born of the virgin Semele

Buddha was said to have been born of his virgin mother, Queen Mayadevi.

The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was said to have been a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son.

The Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.

The pagan gods Danae, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope were all said to have been born of virgins.

The Roman emperor, Augustus, was said to have been conceived in 63 BC by the god Appolo in the womb of his earthly mother Atia.

Plato, born in Athens in 429 B.C., was said to have been the divine son of a pure virgin, Perictione.

Myths of divine resurrection were equally abundant prior to Jesus, for example:

the Egyptian gods Horus and Osiris, the Greek gods Dionysus and Attis of Phrygia, Krishna of India and Mythra of Persia ... just to name a few.

Also, it appears that while there is no historical proof of the existence of Moses, if he did exist, he may not have been a Jew at all, but an Egyptian who, it has been suggested, may have transmitted the religion of Ikhnaton (an Egyptian pharaoh), the monotheistic Aton religion, to the Jewish people. If so, the roots of Christianity in Egypt may be even stronger than generally thought.

I guess nurturing all those roots must be keeping Margaret Thatcher pretty busy since she retired from public office in 2001.

.

Pericles,
Well known atheist, Philip Adams, was once asked what he believed? He responded, "Nothing." In your view atheists have no business in being a source of guidance. Considering this is article was spawned on the question of "the art of living", can I ask what is your base ethical position on how to lead a good or proper life?

Is that so, Dan S de Merengue?

>>Pericles, Well known atheist, Philip Adams, was once asked what he believed? He responded, "Nothing."<<

That may well be his position, although from hearing his dronings over many years, I would imagine that Mr Adams would have had far more than a one-word answer to the question. Care to share the rest of it?

It does however provide the perfect example of how atheists have widely differing views. The fact that this one atheist - allegedly - believes in nothing, places him at one end of a very broad spectrum. I know a ton of atheists who believe a ton of stuff, which puts them diametrically opposite to the "nothing" believers.

These beliefs, you would be pleased to hear - can contain a load of stuff that Christians also believe in. Which makes it pretty obvious that it cannot be atheism that informs their views on, say killing people, since this is something that Christians say they believe in too. Except in Belfast, of course, where for many decades Catholics/Protestants gave themselves dispensation to whack any Protestants/Catholics who upset them.

>>In your view atheists have no business in being a source of guidance.<<

Now, don't go twisting my words, y'hear...

I said that atheism itself has no role in the guidance business. Individual atheists, on the other hand, can of course provide guidance, being living, breathing, thinking, compassionate human beings like everyone else.

>>Considering this is article was spawned on the question of "the art of living", can I ask what is your base ethical position on how to lead a good or proper life?<<

Yep.

Just be good.

And please, resist the temptation to ask "how do you know what 'good' is, unless you believe in Jesus". Apart from being terribly trite and significantly beneath your fine intellect, it always comes across as vaguely insulting.

As if the only people who understand "good" are Christians.

Like the "good" kneecappers of Belfast, for example.

Pericles,

"Nothing."

I heard Philip Adams give this answer once on radio to the question of what he believes. Such a short answer may just have been an off the cuff comment reflective of the mood he was in. I know he's an intelligent man and capable of being eloquent if he so chose. And I know he believes in certain things. For example I know he believes in the value of supporting the Australian film industry. I would agree with him on this but neither of us can prove this as any kind of objective fact.

I'm used to barely ever being able to post on these pages without you giving a response like a shadow. That's fine by me. I'm happy to be critiqued. But I was wondering if you had anything more substantial to say on the issue.

I asked you a fairly open question, wondering about your base ethics in relation to "the art of living." You say to be good. I suppose that answers the question. And how you should define good is up to you.

"Be good." 

I suppose it's better than being bad. But I think many would find even de Botton more inspiring.

There's probably a reason for this, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I'm used to barely ever being able to post on these pages without you giving a response like a shadow<<

I have been a total fan of yours ever since our first exchange, which was (most probably) on the topic of young-earth creationism. Discussing stuff with someone who could write so articulately, but at the same time be in the thrall of a notion so absurd, was instantly attractive. And it has to be said, you have never been a disappointment to me, not once.

So for that alone, many thanks.

>>But I was wondering if you had anything more substantial to say on the issue. I asked you a fairly open question, wondering about your base ethics in relation to "the art of living." You say to be good. I suppose that answers the question.<<

Well, I thought so. It has been the foundation stone of every civilization since man became aware (yes, I know we have differing views on that, but bear with me for a moment), that co-operation was a better long-term bet than beating everyone else over the head with a club.

As these groupings became more widespread and started building villages, towns and cities, it became increasingly necessary to formalize and codify "goodness" into something more easily referenceable, hence laws. Sure, not everything that was "good' needed to be codified, hence we have uncodified bits such as kindness and charity. And sure, we don't always agree, in legal terms, what should be designated "bad", but that's where personal ethics kick in, allowing choice in such matters as abortion. And, of course, such issues as kneecapping Protestants in the backstreets of Belfast.

>>I suppose [being good is] better than being bad. But I think many would find even de Botton more inspiring<<

I'm sure they do, which is why he is mega-rich and I am not. But I still believe he talks a load of shite. But heck, that's what makes the world go round, just like the discussions we enjoy.

Well, that I do, anyway.

Pericles,
On the subject of creationism (since you have raised it here), my experience is that most of those who write off the subject as 'absurd' or something similar have never seriously looked into it. Have you ever read anything written by creationists (beyond website blogs)?