How do I refute claims that we Christians worship the Sun?

[losh14]

Welcome to today’s logical tennis. We score Cassini versus Catholicism, starting love-love. And Cassini is first to serve:

‘We shall digress briefly to tell a little of the story of a Vatican obelisk…since these matters have a bearing on our primary theme – namely the survival of secret traditions that have carried ancient Egyptian religious concepts and symbolisms through time and lodged them in western heartlands of orthodox Christian power.’ — Talisman, p.303

Appeal to obscure source, penalty, love-20.

Freemasonry is little more than the continuation of the Mysteries, the religious institutions of the sun-worshipping pagans. … This bond, common in the hermetic, Gnostic and cabbala writings, is called Phallicism.

Contrivance to unrelated topic, penalty, love-30.

In all of them, homage was paid either to the phallus as an object of adoration and worship, or as a symbol of the creative principle, or to the sun as the generative principle. It is the basis of sun worship, tree-worship, animal worship, serpent worship, and man worship.

Appeal to an unrelated practice without presenting evidence of Catholic adoption, penalty, love-40 and game point.

In view of the divine command “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen.1:28), the generation of human life became a most solemn privilege, a pure and holy function.

Stated fact, no point, still love-40 and game point.

In the course of time this Author and Source became associated with the organs and factors of its reproduction, and then supplanted by them as an object of veneration and worship.

Second appeal to unrelated practice without presenting evidence of Catholic adoption, penalty. Game in favor of Catholicism.

 

[FanChan]

Very well, game on.

Aww, but it could’ve been over.

Oh well.

cassini:

Does this mean you have run out of excuses or cannot defend the undefensible, or you would rather not have the truth about things come out in the open?

It means I found your restating illogical ‘facts’ over and over again annoying, and didn’t see it necessary to continue to defend the same points.

Though I would still like to see your source about the obelisk originally having a cross on it. I assume you have something credible, like an ancient reference to it, a piece of artwork depicting it before it’s transference to St. Peter’s Square, etc. While looking for such a reference, I came across something else interesting, a study done in the 1900s that determined the obelisk to have been erected by a Roman prefect in Egypt as a political stunt. Given the lack of original markings on the obelisk, and no reliable documentation of its origin, there really is no clear way of knowing where it was originaly from or what its intended use was. Even so, we’ve made the point time and again that its original use is of no importance to its current day significance.

And, I still rather like the idea that it’s the only obelisk not torn down because it was the silent witness to St. Peter’s martyrdom.

 

[cassini]

Welcome to today’s logical tennis. We score Cassini versus Catholicism, starting love-love. And Cassini is first to serve:

Appeal to obscure source, penalty, love-20.

Contrivance to unrelated topic, penalty, love-30.

Appeal to an unrelated practice without presenting evidence of Catholic adoption, penalty, love-40 and game point.

Stated fact, no point, still love-40 and game point.

Second appeal to unrelated practice without presenting evidence of Catholic adoption, penalty. Game in favor of Catholicism.

Well done losh, you win. But read Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval’s Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith anyway.
homepage.ntlworld.com/fusniak/talisman/ -

 

[cassini]

Aww, but it could’ve been over.

Oh well.
.

Tell you what FanChan, it is over, you just do not want to know and you do not want anyone else to know.

 

[FanChan]

Tell you what FanChan, it is over, you just do not want to know and you do not want anyone else to know.

Whatever you say, Cassini. None of us will be intelligent in your eyes until we agree completely with what you say, so it’s pointless to even talk to you. All you’ll listen to is what you want to hear. Why are you here, anyway? What are you? You never answerd those questions.

 

[cassini]

Whatever you say, Cassini. None of us will be intelligent in your eyes until we agree completely with what you say, so it’s pointless to even talk to you. All you’ll listen to is what you want to hear. Why are you here, anyway? What are you? You never answerd those questions.

The Devil’s advocat.

 

[FanChan]

The Devil’s advocat.

…So you’re admitting that the whole sun-worshipping thing is nonsense, you’re just trying to show why those people might believe what they believe? Or are you just using that term mistakenly?

I find it ironic that you use the term of an office started in the Church by the same pope who moved the obelisk to St. Peter’s Square.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think Jack would take up drinking after watching that.
Not sure if I should thank you, but thanks anyway.

I wasn’t sure about posting it - so thanks ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for that about your name fanchan. You did read that the original obelisk in Heliopolis had a cross on it. Rather than christianising it, they restored it to its original state. My how the Devil must be amused, Catholics now defending his symbol as Catholic in their holiest place… Well I for one would have smashed it up and put up a crucifix. My how that would have put the devil in his place.

The inscription added to it in 1586 explains the function of the Cross (also added then) on the pyramidion. So your work has been done for you. And what’s all this about the original obelisk already having a cross on it ? Who removed it ? Caligula ? Sixtus V ? Why would the Pope want to remove a cross from it, if there was one on it already ?​