Though our modern societies, which claim to be secular, are, on the contrary, governed by secularised theological concepts, which act all the more powerfully because we are not conscious of their existence. — Beebert

They act as idols, not because we are not conscious of them, but rather because we aren't conscious of them as what they are in their essence. And in their essence they are that which arrests our gaze, and prevents it from reaching beyond them [onto God].

And I believe this is a main reason for the death of God in society. — Beebert

I think you are quite close. We live in an age dominated by idolatry, and this is what makes idolatry special. Those who are engaged in it, are not aware of what they are doing - the idol blinds and masks the Truth. It conceals it. The death of God is really the concealment of God behind our modern idols, including capitalism, science, and technology - all three which are inseparable. To see God, one must destroy the idols.

capitalism has replaced God. — Beebert

Quoting from here:

I count Schopenhauer as a religious philosopher, whose philosophy does descend into mysticism. Same with Aquinas as well. Obviously Aquinas is my favorite philosopher, so I do appreciate him (and Schopenhauer) but this doesn't change this fact. I'm disillusioned with their potential of being of help in re-Christianising the West - and rightfully so I'd say.

The main enemy to re-Christianising the West is libertarianism/liberalism, especially of a social kind, which is very intertwined with corporate "crony" capitalism, sexual promiscuity & technological development. Go to Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. - you reckon you'll find Christians there? No. You'll find Christians labouring away on construction sites and the like, but not at the large corporate behemoths, especially those that are driving technology - they are as progressive as your college Marxists and postmodernists are.

These people control (1) technology, (2) education (via the Academia), and (3) culture (via the Media and Hollywood, including the internet). Remember what Marx said: — Agustino

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production [ TECHNOLOGY ], and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. … Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned … — Karl Marx

And remember also who Marxists opposed - it wasn't the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie, it was the proletariat AND the bourgeoisie vs what he termed as the Reactionaries. It is the Reactionaries who are opposed to the dialectical process of proletariat-bourgeoisie - the dialectical process which leads to COMMUNISM - the abolition of private property. No bourgeoisie - no capitalism. No capitalism - no proletariat. No proletariat - no communism. The Reactionaries are hence identified as "feudal socialists" and "half echo of the past, half menace of the [Communist] future". The secret behind this is that CAPITALISM IS COMMUNISM.

So control of technology is absolutely critical - it is this control which guarantees the survival of the bourgeoisie. This control is associated with profaning what is holy, creating everlasting uncertainty and agitation, disturbing social conditions. That's why the CEO of Facebook and your Marxist university professor share the same goal. Indeed corporations are the way through which Communism will manifest itself. As time goes on, everyone will be renting, not owning property, and people will have less and less to pass on to their descendents - apart from debts. So we are actually approaching at a fast rate the Communist paradise.

Now, the continuous quest for new and better technologies at all costs leads to the structuring of education (the Academia is now controlled by corporations which finance it) to fulfil the needs of technology. Corporations need technology in order to maintain their dominance over the means of production. Culture is likewise geared to fuel more and more consumption - sexual promiscuity for example is merely a justification for our consumerism. Consumerism is required to fuel increased sales, which are required to fuel increased production and market diversification. — Agustino

In this light we can also understand Nietzsche IMO, who actually tried to find the living God beyond language and concepts. — Beebert

Yes, I agree Nietzsche did not attack the real God.

That is Why he blamed Paul, for starting to theologize and make theories and define things. That is part of the revaluation of all values, to do away with concepts that doesnt build up anymore — Beebert

I think that quite the contrary, St. Paul's faith was absolutely based in his direct experience of God, and not in theories. Actually, St. Paul warned against them:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world… — Colossians 2:8

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? — 1 Corinthians 1:20

We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. — 2 Corinthians 10:5

In a macro sense, sure. Not in a micro sense. — Buxtebuddha

Yes, the macro-sense is what I'm talking about. You don't live in the micro world of your family, relatives, neighbours, etc. Thanks to technology the macro world impinges on your wherever you are.

You have to distinguish between whatever God is in himself and the idea of God. I would agree that the idea of God seems to have withered away in the West, but you'd be a crackpot to say that God himself isn't still "ruling" people's lives. — Buxtebuddha

The idea of God emerges from the experience of God. The fact that the idea of God has withered away is a sign that something has blocked the experience of God, which until now was present - or more present than today.

I've not seen God in either good times or bad, so I'm not convinced of this viewpoint. — Buxtebuddha

Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior! — Isaiah 45:15

You'd have to argue that previous "ages" were more in line with God, which would be nigh-impossible to do without donning rose-colored glasses. — Buxtebuddha

It's not nigh-impossible. All one has to do is behold their cultures and compare them to our own materialistic one.

Explain this, lol. — Buxtebuddha

Certain things are required of you to "have a career", "be accepted in society" (have a family), have friends, etc. The world is so structured to push Godly men to the periphery. That isn't so in all ages, but it is so in ours.

You really are sounding like a crackpot now... — Buxtebuddha

Good, how much will you charge to accept me as a patient? :P

I will tell you later! — Beebert

Well do say, because it is hard otherwise for me to know what you're struggling with. Not all sins are alike.

Very interesting post about capitalism being communism; it is a strong argument. So Marx wasn't as wrong as one might think...
Regarding Paul, I agree he didnt theorize in that sense; but he did create a theological understanding of how the atonement Works, how salvation comes about by God "paying " for man's sins and guilt etc. Which is a way of UNDERSTANDING the cross that cant really have been understood in exactly that way and been as clearly defined by the other apostles before Paul came about. And if we take a look at the great theologians of especially the west, we find a theology that is extremely based on Paul, so to tv degree that it has sometimes even seemed to be something that stands in opposition to the teachings and life of Christ.

"I count Schopenhauer as a religious philosopher, whose philosophy does descend into mysticism it by the other apostles before"

Interesting, that is how I see Nietzsche. I can't agree with Schopenhauer that christianity is a denial of the Will to live. Rather it is an affirmation of the Will to live. Sure Christ was crucified... But he was also resurrected.

I just need to put down some time to it since it Will take quite a long post to explain my situation properly

The idea of God emerges from the experience of God. The fact that the idea of God has withered away is a sign that something has blocked the experience of God, which until now was present - or more present than today. — Agustino

Questionable. Surely one can consider the idea of God, consider belief in him, without having to acknowledge any supposed experiences of him. Like right now, I'm discussing ideas about God, but I wouldn't claim to have experienced God.

It's not nigh-impossible. All one has to do is behold their cultures and compare them to our own materialistic one. — Agustino

You act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not.

Certain things are required of you to "have a career", "be accepted in society" (have a family), have friends, etc. The world is so structured to push Godly men to the periphery. That isn't so in all ages, but it is so in ours. — Agustino

I can have a career without being a slave to society.

Good, how much will you charge to accept me as a patient? — Agustino

I'll turn you away at the door. I only accept Jeebus.

So Marx wasn't as wrong as one might think... — Beebert

I don't think Marx was wrong, except for the fact that he thought Communism would be a utopia, while I think quite the contrary. He was also wrong about the way communism would be brought about - he did not foresee corporatism, and the role it would play in leading to communism.

Regarding Paul, I agree he didnt theorize in that sense; but he did create a theological understanding of how the atonement Works, how salvation comes about by God "paying " for man's sins and guilt etc. — Beebert

It depends how you read Paul. His letters were meant as guidance to newly formed Christian communities, which had just converted and were struggling to keep the faith alive. If you read them in that light, then all this changes.

Interesting, that is how I see Nietzsche. I can't agree with Schopenhauer that christianity is a denial of the Will to live. Rather it is an affirmation of the Will to live. Sure Christ was crucified... But he was also resurrected. — Beebert

But Schopenhauer had a different concept of the Will than Nietzsche. For Schopenhauer the Will was effectively evil and cruel - it was the worm from man's heart. In that Schopenhauer was prescient for he understood that if man gives in to his impulses and selfishness, then he will wreak havoc around him. And I think Schopenhauer was right - the Will is what is left when God is gone, and the Will is the opposite of compassion and self-restraint - it is pure ego - it's Dostoyevsky's "everything is permitted". So by the denial of the will Schopenhauer didn't mean a denial of "life" exactly. Rather he meant a denial of our corrupt nature, in order to affirm the noumenon, which in his later writings he separated from the Will, and left as an unknown, which is what remains, or what shows itself, after the Will has been denied. But this noumenon which is affirmed through the denial of the will remains unreachable for those of us who are still full of will.

Nietzsche re-interpreted the Will as something positive, to be affirmed - but just because the Will was all that was left when God (the noumenon) was gone. This is in fact why I find Schopenhauer deeper than Nietzsche in that he saw something of the transcendent, whereas Nietzsche was desperate to see some of it, but it seems to have eluded him. The will-to-power in my vision is inadequate at explaining anything that is transcendent. It can explain the behaviour of most people in todays society, I can grant that. But it cannot explain the behaviour of the holy, except in the sense that the holy are the strong - they are holy out of strength, not out of weakness (but I don't think Schopenhauer would disagree here).

I also think you are misreading Schopenhauer. Christ was resurrected, but that wasn't an affirmation of the Will to Live in the sense that Schopenhauer understood it. Quite the contrary, Christ did not accept life at all costs, but rather chose to die out of his Love and Compassion. So he denied the will to life - that will which would do anything to stay alive, even the highest immoralities. It was an affirmation of the noumenon and a denial of the will to live.

Questionable. Surely one can consider the idea of God, consider belief in him, without having to acknowledge any supposed experiences of him. Like right now, I'm discussing ideas about God, but I wouldn't claim to have experienced God. — Buxtebuddha

You can consider the idea of God, but for that idea to arise in society and gain prevalence in the first place (so that you get to discuss it today), the experience of God needs to be presupposed.

You act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not. — Buxtebuddha

If we look at the moral codes and cultures of different ancient societies we will see something that is starkly different from our modern, consumer based mass society.

I can have a career without being a slave to society. — Buxtebuddha

It's not about being a slave. Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. And don't take this the wrong way - belief means action, you cannot believe only in name, for that is not real belief.

I'll turn you away at the door. I only accept Jeebus. — Buxtebuddha

>:O Is poor hospitality common in the US? :P

You can consider the idea of God, but for that idea to arise in society and gain prevalence in the first place (so that you get to discuss it today), the experience of God needs to be presupposed. — Agustino

No, I don't think so. There only needs to be belief, not experience.

If we look at the moral codes and cultures of different ancient societies we will see something that is starkly different from our modern, consumer based mass society. — Agustino

I'll say it again - you act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not.

Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. — Agustino

What the fuck? >:O >:O >:O

Is poor hospitality common in the US? — Agustino

Americans usually don't let crazy people into their home. We notify the police.

No, I don't think so. There only needs to be belief, not experience. — Buxtebuddha

How can there be belief if there is no experience?

I'll say it again - you act like this is as easy as deciding which box of cereal you should buy. It's not. — Buxtebuddha

I really don't understand what you mean here. The difference is quite easy to see for me at least, why do you find it difficult?

What the fuck? >:O >:O >:O — Buxtebuddha

It's not about being a slave. Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. And don't take this the wrong way - belief means action, you cannot believe only in name, for that is not real belief. — Agustino

Americans usually don't let crazy people into their home. We notify the police. — Buxtebuddha

Wait wait wait, I thought I was coming as a patient to your office, not your home >:O

How can there be belief if there is no experience? — Agustino

Mithras is real because ancient Romans believed in him because they had experiences of him........sure, lol.

I really don't understand what you mean here. The difference is quite easy to see for me at least, why do you find it difficult? — Agustino

Because analyzing history is not simple. You can't just pick up some books and have a full knowledge of all the complexities of historical societies.

Yes, you can have a career, so long as you give up belief in God. And don't take this the wrong way - belief means action, you cannot believe only in name, for that is not real belief. — Agustino

The rest clarifies nothing. Clearly someone in modern society can have a career and still believe in God. Like, what the fuck? Again, you're mad, bro.

Mithras is real because ancient Romans believed in him because they had experiences of him........sure, lol. — Buxtebuddha

Yes, actually Mithras does represent an experience of the transcendent that was revealed to the Romans. My entire point is that such theophanies weren't uncommon in the past, but they are uncommon now - almost entirely absent.

The rest clarifies nothing. Clearly someone in modern society can have a career and still believe in God. Like, what the fuck? Again, you're mad, bro. — Buxtebuddha

Depends what you understand by having a career. But the point I'm making is that to - say - work for Facebook - the community there will force one to give up on some of his/her beliefs, especially if they want to be appreciated, promoted, etc.

Mithras does represent an experience of the transcendent that was revealed to the Romans. — Agustino

.............

Depends what you understand by having a career. But the point I'm making is that to - say - work for Facebook - the community there will force one to give up on some of his/her beliefs, especially if they want to be appreciated, promoted, etc. — Agustino

You have a career in programming, therefore, you do not, and cannot, believe in God.

............. — Buxtebuddha

Why the dots? It's true, how else do you think they came to believe in Mithras?! :s

You have a career in programming, therefore, you do not, and cannot, believe in God. — Buxtebuddha

Nope, I didn't say that.

I think he does-- the nature of morality is such that it advocates things violence, rape and killing. Morality is a justification for such actions. By Christian doctrine, billions are sent to burn for all eternity and it is moral greatness

God gets to be amongst the cruelest beings there will ever be and it is good. Throwing someone into the violence, rape and torture of Hell is moral virtue for God. All that cruelty, it is the greatest achievement of God. What Nietzsche advocates is nothing less than what God commands and celebrates for vast numbers of people.

I think he does-- the nature of morality is such that it advocates things violence, rape and killing. Morality is a justification for such actions. By Christian doctrine, billions are sent to burn for all eternity and it is moral greatness — TheWillowOfDarkness

:s No, I'm quite sure hell doesn't include rape, killing of innocents, etc.

But the kind of cruelty that morality is and that you described in your previous post can be positive.

The point wasn't about innocents. It was about those God sends to the torture of Hell: the guilty. Nietzsche is entirely right. If you're guilty, then violence, rape and death are fine. Such cruelty cannot be intrinsic immoral (or moral). It takes a morality to define actions or states as such, and it demands cruelty to the immoral.

No doubt it's a positive... that's the point: moral greatness is found in the cruelty to and possession of the immoral. Given this, how do you disagree with anything Nietzsche states in the quotes you seemingly found so offensive?

Why the dots? It's true, how else do you think they came to believe in Mithras?! — Agustino

They experience the idea of Mithras, the idea that there is a deity of war watching over them in battle, that praying to him before battle will ensure victory. This experience of Mithras as an idea does not mean that Mithras is real and that he is, therefore, directly experiential. In other words, Roman soldiers would have believed in what Mithras represented, not in he himself, because no one had ever directly experienced him.

Nope, I didn't say that. — Agustino

Unless you claim to not be in a career, yes, yes you did....

The point wasn't about innocents. It was about those God sends to the torture of Hell: the guilty. Nietzsche is entirely right. If you're guilty, then violence, rape and death are fine. Such cruelty cannot be intrinsic immoral (or moral). It takes a morality to define actions or states as such, and it demands cruelty to the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, no, I don't think rape, etc. are okay towards the guilty. This doesn't seem to be what Nietzsche is saying at all either.

No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise.

This is just a non-sequitur for example, confusing an is with an ought.

Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They [ the nobles ] revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise.

And here, behold! It is the aristocracy, the noble races, those who came before Christianity, that murder, arson, rape and torture! It is the masters, not the slaves. So it is not the Christian morality that Nietzsche is speaking about, but quite the contrary, the pre-Christian morality, which he actually praises!

It takes a morality to define actions or states as such, and it demands cruelty to the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, but not in the sense of raping them, and so forth. It demands cruelty in that the immoral are told that they must change their ways, repent. In a certain sense this is a cruelty. One is even being cruel to themselves when they demand that they change. But this is absolutely not the same as the cruelty of violence, being raped, etc.

No doubt it's a positive... that's the point: moral greatness is found in the cruelty to and possession of the immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, this would be wrong. Moral greatness - even according to Nietzsche actually - comes from strength, and is not a reaction to the weakness of others. It is a self-affirmation of one's own greatness, it is not being cruel and possessing the immoral.

Also, you have quite a wrong view of hell... Here

They experience the idea of Mithras, the idea that there is a deity of war watching over them in battle, that praying to him before battle will ensure victory. — Buxtebuddha

And how does the idea of Mithras arise? :s And by the way, the ancients relate to gods in a different way than you imagine. They prayed and offered sacrifices, etc. in the hope the deity would aid them in battle, but they were also aware of the possibility that they couldn't control the transcendent, and it was much the other way, the transcendent controlled them - so the possibility that the gods would lead them to defeat was also real, and accepted as such.

In other words, Roman soldiers would have believed in what Mithras represented, not in he himself, because no one had ever directly experienced him. — Buxtebuddha

They couldn't believe in what he represented without experiencing the world as such. It's that underlying experience that made them believe.

This experience of Mithras as an idea does not mean that Mithras is real and that he is, therefore, directly experiential. — Buxtebuddha

What does being real mean? Being real doesn't have only one understanding. Clearly the transcendent is not real in the same sense an immanent object is - for one the transcendent cannot be object. Numbers are also real in a different sense than chairs are, etc.

You can find that it is Paul and to some extent John who changed the hebrew understanding of trust proclaimed also by Christ, trust as openness to an encounter Into Faith in an image, in an idea of Christ's role as sacrifice etc.

Are you familiar with Martin Buber? "In his Two Types of Faith", He distinguishes between the messianism of Jesus and the messianism of Paul and John. While he had great respect for Jesus as a man, Buber did not believe that Jesus took himself to be divine. Jesus’ form of faith corresponds to emunah, faith in God’s continual presence in the life of each person. In contrast, the faith of Paul and John, which Buber labels pistis, is that God exists in Jesus only, and that salvation turns into believing in the work of Jesus. They have according to Buber a dualistic notion of faith and action, and exemplify the apocalyptic belief in irredeemable original sin and the impossibility of fulfilling God’s law. Buber accuses Paul and John of transforming myth, which is historically and biographically situated, into gnosis, and replacing faith as trust and openness to encounter with faith in an image. How would you respond to this?

What does being real mean? Being real doesn't have only one understanding. Clearly the transcendent is not real in the same sense an immanent object is - for one the transcendent cannot be object. Numbers are also real in a different sense than chairs are, etc. — Agustino

Does Mithras exist or is he a figment of Roman soldiers' imaginations?

Buber did not believe that Jesus took himself to be divine — Beebert

Of course, he's Jewish! >:O

You can find that it is Paul and to some extent John who changed the hebrew understanding of trust proclaimed also by Christ, trust as openness to an encounter Into Faith in an image, in an idea of Christ's role as sacrifice etc. — Beebert

I think the two are not opposed, but supplementary to each other.

Are you familiar with Martin Buber? — Beebert

Somewhat, but not "very familiar". I have his work "I and Thou" and it's another one of those that I started but not finished yet.

How would you respond to this? — Beebert

I would say that Buber is wrong in his interpretation of Christ. Christ did have a salvific role, in that Christ came to deify human nature (where forgiveness of sins is only a part of that). To treat Christ merely as a man with a close relationship with God as opposed to Saviour would be blasphemy from a Christian point of view. Unless Christ died and rose from the dead, as Paul said, there is no Christianity and our faith is in vain.

faith in God’s continual presence in the life of each person — Beebert

I disagree that we always perceive God's presence in our lives. We see darkly.

Does Mithras exist or is he a figment of Roman soldiers' imaginations? — Thorongil

Mithras is a name. Does it matter whether you call it Mithras or Cthulhu?

Mithras is a name. Does it matter whether you call it Mithras or Cthulhu? — Agustino

"It?" Does the being signified by the name Mithras exist?

And how does the idea of Mithras arise? :s And by the way, the ancients relate to gods in a different way than you imagine. They prayed and offered sacrifices, etc. in the hope the deity would aid them in battle, but they were also aware of the possibility that they couldn't control the transcendent, and it was much the other way, the transcendent controlled them - so the possibility that the gods would lead them to defeat was also real, and accepted as such. — Agustino

You answer your own question here.

They couldn't believe in what he represented without experiencing the world as such. It's that underlying experience that made them believe. — Agustino

Uh, explain to me what this underlying experience was, please. But I have a feeling you won't actually tell me about Mithras in and of himself, you'll tell me secondary factoids and attributions.

What does being real mean? — Agustino

Perceptible, experiential, verifiable, and fundamentally private. This keyboard I'm typing on is real, being a part of and existing within reality, because it is perceptible, tangible, and so on (I can touch it, type on it, bash my head into it if I wanted to), I can experience its tangibility, which also means, therefore, that the keyboard is verifiable through both its tangibility and experiential quality. It is additionally not contingent upon any outside agent's confirmation. Me and the keyboard is all that is needed.

So, let's consider just Mithras, since he's the current example. Is Mithras in and of himself perceptible, i.e., can he be smelled, touched, etc.? No. Is Mithras in and of himself experiential if he's not perceptible? No. Is Mithras in and of himself verifiable, then? Obviously not, as we have no other means with which to confirm interaction with ourselves by outside agents. Is Mithras in and of himself a perceptible experience that is verified through one's own privacy? Again, clearly not, seeing as Mithras is not perceptible or experiential.

Okay, so Mithras in and of himself is a dud. But what about the idea of Mithras - all that which is attributed to be him, of him, and from him? Surely this is more the case, given the frescos, statues, and so on dedicated to him, the god of War. Merely because there were ideas of a war god named Mithras, said to do this, that, and other things, doesn't mean Mithras is real. And if he's real in a supernatural sense, then there's nothing to be said of it. To name a supernatural entity, give it qualities, a personality - that's all silliness to me.

I'll add that my perspective on realness is influenced by William James' system on thinking about mysticism.

"It?" Does the being signified by the name Mithras exist? — Thorongil

Yes, the spiritual reality signified by Mithras' name does exist.

Perceptible, experiential, verifiable, and fundamentally private. This keyboard I'm typing on is real, being a part of and existing within reality, because it is perceptible, tangible, and so on (I can touch it, type on it, bash my head into it if I wanted to), I can experience its tangibility, which also means, therefore, that the keyboard is verifiable through both its tangibility and experiential quality. It is additionally not contingent upon any outside agent's confirmation. Me and the keyboard is all that is needed. — Buxtebuddha

Sure, the number 2 also exists, and yet you cannot touch it or see it. (Nor can you "verify" it for that matter). Not all beings exist in the same manner.

Is Mithras in and of himself perceptible, i.e., can he be smelled, touched, etc.? No. Is Mithras in and of himself experiential if he's not perceptible? No. Is Mithras in and of himself verifiable, then? Obviously not, as we have no other means with which to confirm interaction with ourselves by outside agents. Is Mithras in and of himself a perceptible experience that is verified through one's own privacy? Again, clearly not, seeing as Mithras is not perceptible or experiential. — Buxtebuddha

Spiritual experiences are subjective and therefore not objectively verifiable to begin with. There may be intersubjective verification though it cannot achieve the degree of objectivity that is possible when dealing with objects. Obviously if you adopt your new form of scientism, you'll now reject anything which is not an object (and thus not "verifiable") as nonexistant - basically objectifying the entire world.

But what about the idea of Mithras - all that which is attributed to be him, of him, and from him? — Buxtebuddha

Again, where does this idea come from? If you tell me they had an idea of Mithras - where the hell did they get it from? :s

You answer your own question here. — Buxtebuddha

No, I don't think I've answered it at all. Clearly there was an underlying experience of trying to relate with a transcendent being/force which was capable of influencing the outcome of their affairs, otherwise they wouldn't think of doing it in the first place, nor would they invest resources to do it - they were quite pragmatic.

the spiritual reality signified by Mithras' name does exist. — Agustino

Okay.

Yes — Agustino

Then you mean "no." :-|

So why is your God real but Mithras not? If you answer that you have in some way experienced God, then what distinguishes your experience from the Roman soldiers' experience of Mithras, such that your experience is true and theirs false?