5.2, part 2: Satan's pre-Christian virgin birth stories

[rm02px]

To assert that the ancients were clueless about the universe is to suggest that the Aztecs, the Pyramids in Egypt, Stone Hedge, Mesopotamia, the Mayans and other ancient civilizations coincidentally built architectural masterpieces that not only challenges the existing psychology of human beings but also contains symbolic references to star constellations; planet movements and other astrological phenomena thousands of years before such thoughts were even conceived.

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

Okay, the word "clueless" was a poor choice: the ancient world had some impressive astronomers, given that their observations were all with the naked eye.

But my main point was that the ancients did not know what An Architect of the Universe would surely know: things like night & day being the result of the earth turning on its axis, and how the earth's orbit around the sun + its tilt resulted in the seasons. Man's observations were all earth-bound.

[rm02px]

@ToddAllenGates

The question is what is an Architect of the Universe?

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

> Architect of the Universe?

I don't believe there was any conscious intelligent Architect behind the Big Bang, the formation of the galaxies, life on earth, etc.

But theists believe there was, and they also believe this Architect wrote / inspired a book. They of course disagree over which book it was, but regardless, all these ancient books get the universe's layout wrong, thus giving us just one of many reasons to doubt that the Universe's Architect = [Holy Book's] Author.

[rm02px]

@ToddAllenGates

What is the layout of the Universe and how is it wrong?

I tend not to think in absolutes. The Big Bang Theory is still a “theory,” and is subject to discussions as new variables like “dark matter” are introduced into the equation. Never the less, M-theory establishes a context to question our cognitive dissonances based on the probability of 11 possible dimensions.

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

> What is the layout of the Universe and how is it wrong?

If you mean "why do you say the ancient books got the layout of the Universe wrong?" ... well, since I only have 500 characters, let's limit our scope to the fact that the bible's authors thought the earth didn't move. The Inquisition persecuted Galileo not because they were monsters, but because they took their Holy Book seriously: they assumed God authorized it, and God that doesn't make mistakes.

[rm02px]

@ToddAllenGates

Firstly you cannot speculate on the authors’ thoughts for no device can extrapolate such data to determine one’s thoughts of the past. Hypothetical assumptions can provide various probabilities. Furthermore, I am not familiar with the Christians believing in the idea that the Earth doesn’t move. Perhaps you can provide text from the Bible where this is true? Seeing as you're quite familiar with their truths.

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

1 of 5:

> I am not familiar with the Christians believing in the idea that the Earth doesn't move

Modern Christians of course don't, but most people—Christian & non-Christian alike—people believed the earth didn't move up until astronomers (Galileo, etc.) showed otherwise.

As for evidence that the Church said the earth didn't move, consider the following excerpts from the Church’s 1633 indictment of Galileo:

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 5:

Whereas you, Galileo ... were denounced ... for holding as true a false doctrine ... that the sun is ... in the center of the world, and that the earth moves ... for having pupils you instructed; ... you include several propositions contrary to the true sense and authority of the Holy Scriptures; ... The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves ... is ... absurd, philosophically false and ...  erroneous in faith.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 5:

> Perhaps you can provide text from the Bible where this is true?

Here are the passages that people of the Inquisition time period cited as proof that Copernicus / Galileo were wrong:

Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises.

Psalm 93:1 He [God] has established the world; it shall never be moved . . .

Psalm 104:5 : [God] set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken.

[ToddAllenGates]

4 of 5:

—as well as the line from the Book of Joshua that says when God wanted daylight to last a bit longer, He didn’t stop the earth from turning on its axis, but stopped the sun in its orbit:

Joshua 10:13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies … the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

[ToddAllenGates]

5 of 5:

> you cannot speculate on the authors' thoughts for no device can extrapolate such data to determine one’s thoughts of the past

True. Maybe when they wrote "the earth shall NEVER be moved," they *really* meant "the earth DOES move."

Strikes me as implausible though. It seems much less convoluted to simply acknowledge that they were wrong.

[rm02px]

@ToddAllenGates

1 Of 2

Religion deals with history, with poetry, with great literature, with ethics, with morals; including the morality of treating compassionately the least fortunate among us. Religion gets into trouble in this case when it pretends to know something about science. Faith is the belief in the absence of evidence. Believing when there is no compelling evidence is a mistake. The idea is to withhold belief until there is compelling evidence.

[rm02px]

@ToddAllenGates

2 Of 2

The trouble comes with people that are Biblical Literalists who believe that the Bible is dictated by the creator of the Universe to an unerring stenographer and has no metaphor for allegory.

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

If an Omniscient Omnipotent Creator had *anything* to do with the Bible, I would expect the He wouldn't use a sloppy / second-rate stenographer. I'd expect Him to use a dash of Omnipotence to ensure that His Word was perfect. After all, the all-too-human CEO of my company has no problem maintaining Quality Control over bulletins He broadcasts ... I would think on Omnipotent God would have no problem maintaining strict QC.

[rm02px]

@ToddAllenGates

Like I said, you’re a Biblical Literalist. *If* this being exists the probability of it catering to your assumptions about its sex and definition of *perfect* is subjective. Keeping in mind that this text was written thousands of years ago and has undergone hundreds of translations and revisions while keeping the WORD intact of integrity and free from manipulation and counterfeit is something we should be more cynical about. Especially when some are molesting little boys.

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

1 of 3:

> *If* this being exists the probability of it catering to your assumptions about its sex and definition of *perfect* is subjective.

I use "He" out of convenience, mainly because the Judeo-Christian god is so often referred to as male, as Heavenly Father, etc.

I agree that it's sexist if not absurd . . . but it just gets awkward to repeatedly write She/He/It.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 3:

As for *perfect*, I'm only saying it's a contradiction to think this is a Being who can do huge things like control solar systems, but can't do little things like control the text of a book.

> this text was written thousands of years ago and has undergone hundreds of translations and revisions while keeping the WORD intact of integrity and free from manipulation and counterfeit is something we should be more cynical about.

[ToddAllenGates]

3 of 3:

Everything you're saying here—as well as your previous statement about the bible being a book that "deals with history, poetry, great literature, ethics, and morals; including the morality of treating compassionately the least fortunate among us"—is 100% compatible with the perspective that I happen to share: the bible is the work of people and people alone.

Do you think a Higher Power had *anything* to do with the Judeo-Christian bible?

The Koran?

The Rig-Veda?

[rm02px]

@ToddAllenGates

I’m definitely open to the perspective that we are not alone in the Universe. I also subscribe (without getting too controversial) that some ancient texts have been manipulated by humans to coercive us. For example, the Bible before a 'book' was a series of popular manuscripts that were rearranged into a book by the same people that crucified him, the same people that silenced Galileo and the same people that created the banks.

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

> I also subscribe (without getting too controversial) that some ancient texts have been manipulated by humans to coercive us.

I'm guess that you believe the original texts were better than what we have now.

Who do you think wrote the originals:

(a) just humans? (that is, no supernatural assistance)

(b) *some* sort of Higher Power (of which we may not fully grasp)?

(c) a god as represented by a specific organized religion?

(d) something else?

[ToddAllenGates]

@rm02px

> Religion gets into trouble in this case when it pretends to know something about science

If fundamentalists were right, their preferred Holy Book (be in the Koran, bible, etc.) really *would* know something about science. After all, if this book were inspired by an Omniscient Creator of the Universe, He'd know something about (1) the universe's layout, and (2) how to communicate clearly in a way that people would know what's poetry and what's literal fact.

[aaronwilliams4w]

Have you studied anything in Daniel 11 & 12? No charts or data, but it's still interesting. The only way to deny God's responsibility here is to decide Daniel didn't write it, or had a time machine, or communicated with aliens, or wasn't referring to the matching time-line of history, or missed some details (but just enough), or some coincidental combination of each. Not hard. Not nearly as hard as seeking God.

[ToddAllenGates]

@aaronwilliams4w

> The only way to deny God's responsibility here is to decide Daniel didn't write it, or had a time machine ...

Which specific passages in Daniel do you think couldn't have been written by men of that age?

[aaronwilliams4w]

@ToddAllenGates Are you asking me the possibility of it being written by someone else? There are certain discrepancies in the Book of Daniel that on any given day (depending on who you talk to) can be explained one way or another. I don't pretend to have sturdy evidence for all things biblical, however as I already said, in the case of the Book of Daniel, one would simply have to lean one way instead of the other. Both sides inevitably place faith in their own limited understanding.

[ToddAllenGates]

@caseagainstfaith

> ...My bad.

No prob!

> Though you might go head and also make a complete 5.x playlist.

Right now I have all the 5.x series as their own playlists, and as part of one 21-part playlist for the whole "Using the Socratic Method..." series. Putting them on a third playlist might be overkill ... especially right now, since I may re-do some (at the very least, the 5.5 one, as I no longer think the evidence is strong enough to say Zorastrianism influenced the NT's "Satan").

[ToddAllenGates]

@caseagainstfaith

> I've been glued to YT watching all your videos

I'm very flattered!

> Please consider making a playlist.

On my channel, I have it set to display my playlists ... the first playlist is "Why the bible is not the greatest story ever told," and beneath that is the "Using the Socratic Method with Christian Proselytizers" playlist, with 21 videos on it (I excluded the 5.5 series, as I'll be re-making that one within a week or two).

Are you having trouble accessing the playlists?

[ToddAllenGates]

@caseagainstfaith

> ... perhaps you could have spent more time on that argument.

These examples are all taken from my book, and I try to explore a variety of answers that apologists give. I use the apologists' "small similarities are inevitable" argument when it comes to the pattern of the way so many gods from agricultural societies die and are resurrected ... and I didn't want to use the same argument in *too* many areas.

[odephraimchai]

Two thing you forgot! First Abraham came out of UR which was filled with Idols.

Jacob/Israel was created/planted by Yahweh. The difference is Yahweh is only interested in Israel. He does not care about all these false religions and their idol worship. Most of them could not understand the Bible if you read to them! Also,Yah does not care about those that are not his,point.

[ToddAllenGates]

@odephraimchai

> The difference is Yahweh is only interested in Israel.

I agree. Yahweh makes this very clear: foreigners are either less important, or not important, or even to be treated with savagery. I see this as further evidence that the Hebrew Bible is tribal, self-centered, 100% human-authored mythology (as opposed to something written/inspired by an Omniscient Benevolent Creator-of-us-all).

[StLennyBruce]

This is unbelievably fun.

[ToddAllenGates]

> This is unbelievably fun.

Thanks!

[StLennyBruce]

haha! I looked back at this comment and laughed. I was so engrossed in the argument, I forgot to add even an exclamation point! ha ha... I'm a dork.

[ResponseSBD]

I hope that you will find the truth one day.

[kub73158]

I believe satan is allowed limited knowledge of the future; I doubt that he would have been given it.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I believe satan is allowed limited knowledge of the future; I doubt that he would have been given it.

I agree with your conclusion that the "demonic pre-plagiarization" theory is weak, albeit for a different reason! (Namely, my lack of belief in any gods, be it a "good" or "bad" god.)

[kub73158]

The way I view these myths concerning Christ~ is that there were sages & prophets that foresaw these events would transpire, i.e. they were divinely inspired. Although and of course they were given other names, still many correlate to what actually happened. 

By man's reasoning, they were relegated (to the myths of being gods).

So, I take all this in a more positive way- it's additional proof that God's plan was understood by quite a few others.

[ToddAllenGates]

> There were sages & prophets that foresaw these events would transpire ... it's additional proof that God's plan was understood by others.

I suppose the story of Zeus impregnating the virgin maiden Danae who gave birth to their half-god / half-human son Perseus *could* be thought of as proof that God's Plan was understood by the ancient Greeks---but I confess to being more persuaded by the explanation that mythologies are created 100% by man, and one culture influences another.

[polopowers1]

There was no union between God and Mary.God by the Holy Ghost overwhelmed Mary's womb.DaVinci had graphs of flying machines does this negate the truth the Wright brothers were the first to fly ?God did not form a union like those you give as pagans. The whole of truth is always undermined by a lie of some truth.That is why every religion has some Christ in them And Christ was in the old testament before He was born This would give imagination to so called pre existing dogma on the subject.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> DaVinci had graphs of flying machines does this negate the truth the Wright brothers were the first to fly ?

A good-sounding analogy! Yet I don't feel it holds up. The Wright brothers were clearly part of the long human process at trying to figure out flight. But Jesus's birth was supposedly a unique phenomenon in history.

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

> That is why every religion has some Christ in them.

In my video, I acknowledge that Christian apologists differ when it comes to explaining why Christian concepts can be found in pre-Christian religions—and yes, the idea that other religions have "hints of The Truth" is one I've heard before.

I just find the secular explanation the most convincing—that religions pick up ideas from prior religions, and Christianity is no exception.

[Naiant]

What about an explanation which gives positive rather than negative value to the pre-Christian stories? They could be seen as part of the struggle by men to perceive the truth, a truth written into creation and therefore potentially apprehendable by them. And yet, since they are limited, their explanations will be to an extent incorrect, until the arrival of the Word of God makes them all clear. This changes the pre-Christian stories from delusions into part of a noble struggle for truth.

[ToddAllenGates]

Hi Naiant,

The explanation that Christian motifs appear pre-Christianity b/c the non-Christians were "struggling to recognize truths written within their own hearts" is not bad—and arguably better than the argument "Satan inspired Christian motifs in pre-Christian pagan religions to confuse people."

Although the most convincing explanation to me (perhaps needless to say) is the secular one: religions pick up ideas from prior religions, and Christianity is no exception.

[skinnyjohnsen]

I just saw your last video, Todd, and you were right. Talking fast, without breaks, really makes me sit, thinking....; What? Did he say something? I heard the sounds but not the words. Lesson to all: A few chosen words, with pauses, conveys more message than a long tirade.

[ToddAllenGates]

> I just saw your last video, Todd, and you were right. Talking fast, without breaks

I think my videos have gotten better since 2008 (in terms of speaking slowly enough for people to understand me) - if I had the time, I'd re-make all my 2007 videos.

[HezechiahBartlett]

And like Todd points out the idea was around even before torah and bible.

[HezechiahBartlett]

Christianity is a brainwash...there are no superbeings. God doesn't visit virgin women and impregnate them while they are sleeping. That is a ploy to control populations. This is the central lie that permeates christian doctrine. The idea isn't new to Mary. It is in the very beginning of the bible. Genesis: a passage about sons of god sleeping with the daughters of men. Spirituality is just a word. It defines human need to understand origin parentage, intellect and logic, why society lies to us?

[sulimon510]

Some good points. One thing I might say to the pre-plagirism argument is, If Satan is capable of doing this, who is to say he is not the author of the bible itself?

[MrFacet]

sulimon wondered "who is to say he [Satan] is not the author of the bible itself? "

If you look at the acts happening in the Bible, I often wonder why people think God is good.

[jityr2]

Satan has the power to trick people. But does he have ESP ? Because ESP is required in order for him to pre plagiarize. Isn't it?

[nique4life101]

JESUS/MICHEAL ok,ok. its obvious we have some different views in christ here...

Tell me this, is Jesus perfect? Why would he marry SATAN (WHO'S A GIRL ACCORDING TO YOU) and divorce'her"? and Micheal, is God's angel not JESUS SHRIST HIMSELF

[nique4life101]

EX-HUSBAND?!

[nique4life101]

HUSBAND?!

[Larsguy1992]

The fact that Mary had to be a virgin to produce a perfect child is totally incidental. Satan is considered a virgin because her children (followers) are not the product of her union with her ex-husband, who is Christ, thus she acquires children without his consent, in fact, in spite of it. Even so, the Bible addresses Satan in Eden and the fact she/he was once married to Jesus/Michael. So what you think is BORROWED is simply parallel versions from Noah. The Bible can be complex...Nice post!

[ToddAllenGates]

..Nice post!

Thank you!

> The Bible can be complex

Indeed!

You've made a lot of interesting comments that I'd like to discuss (on this video and several others), but unfortunately time restraints (stemming mainly from my family & day job) are prohibiting me, at least at the moment, from giving your responses the attention they deserve--so this is just a quick note to apologize for my lack of responses. But I've found your perspectives fascinating, and your attention is very flattering!

[nique4life101]

her?

[Larsguy1992]

Wow do you ever talk well! Geez! I wish I could talk like you! Anyway, your argument is a non-squitor because of the Edenic story. That is, everything was handed down from Noah and various cultures revised and improvised. Greeks believe "gods" came down from heaven and had sex with women. The Bible says the same thing. Greek influence? No, Noachin influence. The original "virgin" was Satan. Google Lilith and you'll see Satan is a woman in Eden. So the Virgin Mother is based on Satan.

[wayman29]

There is no such thing as pure culture. Everyone borrowed. Anti-religion will exaggerate the apparent borrowing of motifs, and symbolism , and believers will minimize those commonalities. Can we allow ourselves to read religious literature without an agenda or theological viewpoint. Can we first read religious literate as religious literature first before we add the commentaries?

[ToddAllenGates]

Hi Wayman29,

> Can we allow ourselves to read religious literature without an agenda or theological viewpoint

Yes ... and one of the reasons I'm a big fan of Joseph Smith's books on comparative mythology is b/c of the great stories found in the world's religions.

Plus, I read stories to my kids from the "Children's Bible," and from books on the Greek myths, African folklore, Rudyard Kipling, etc.--no theological commentaries added. But it's just not something I'd make a YouTube video of.

[lostn65]

I'll bet that "Children's Bible" left out the part where it says it's okay to beat your slaves, or rape them as long as you gave her a full month to mourn the parents you killed while pillaging and ransacking the town in the lord's name. Does it also say you must marry a woman you rape if she's not already betrothed, and cannot divorce from her? If only it were like that today...

[ToddAllenGates]

> I'll bet that "Children's Bible" left out the part where it says it's okay to beat your slaves, or rape them as long as you gave her a full month to mourn the parents you killed while pillaging and ransacking the town in the lord's name.

Odd but true ... the editors of the Children's Bible left that part of God's Word out.

[whippedcreamshampoo]

If demonic preplagiarization is a valid theory ... then I need a straitjacket.

How convoluted can human logic get

[Panman38]

H.G. Wells pre-plagerised scientology when he wrote War of the Worlds.

[neuronstorm]

Demonic pre-plagiarism hasn't been invented yet. Clearly you're consorting with demons.

[lovasip]

Well I am not in the business of defending any religion, but buddhism is certainly different, because it (at leats not all branches)does not belive in deities. So the demonic plagarism is definitely not used by them. They can say that earlier religions were small steps toward enligthement, but I do not know what they say actually.

[ToddAllenGates]

1 of 2:

> Buddhism is certainly different, because it (at least not all branches) does not believe in deities. So the demonic plagiarism is definitely not used by them.

Agreed ... although I don't know of ANY religion other than Christianity that uses the demonic plagiarism defense. My only point is that if this is indeed a valid argument, then "religious borrowing" suddenly fails as a reason to be skeptical of claims of divine origin ...

[ToddAllenGates]

2 of 2:

... because EVERY religion that was derived from others---be it Sikhism, Voodoo, Buddhism, etc.---*could* make use of this same rationalization (not that they do).

[VegetoStevieD]

The Story of Buddah doesn't reflect the Story of 'Jesus Christ' because that was never his role. Buddha, was raised in riches, but chose to live amongst the poor. There, he attained enlightenment.

This sounds a lot more like Moses, who was raised by royalty, chose to live amongst the poor, and then met God. Moses's face even glowed after meeting God (enlightened anyone?).

[Clutchology]

Interesting response. It's amazing how religious people apply these traits to every religion but their own.