Assuming the OP is not a Christian, what profit is it to assert that Christianity derives from pagan beliefs, comparing two "irrational" systems?  Does it, in your reasoning, discredit one? 

Or could it be that this is an example of pure polemic, designed to incite the almost inbred emotional aversion to paganism shared by most Christians? 

Either way, similarities do not imply causation, nor direction of causation.

Let me explain by allegory: one could speculate that, as a literary theme of betrayal is explored similarly in the literature of New Rhodesia (completely fake) and Zimbabambia (also fake), and as the Rhodesian literature was older, Rhodesian literature affected Zimbabambia.  However, would it not also be reasonable to assume that the theme exists in both cultures because people have experienced betrayal in both societies?

After all, even if both are linked in some great chain of causation to one source, there still must have been something in the human spirit which compelled that first author to express his experience of betrayal, and there must be a continued, cross-cultural experience of this betrayal which keeps it relevant and active in the society's literature.

The same reasoning applies to religion.  It is given that nearly all societies of man have, at some time or another, entertained a spiritual aspect.  It is likewise given, as you have so meticulously delineated, that similar themes arise within many spiritual traditions. 

On the one hand, as you have done, one could use these themes' chronological order to imply a chain of causation.  Alternatively, one could assume that the spiritual needs of men are similar enough, and that men's experiences of God lead them to similar conclusions (just as their similar experiences of betrayal lead to shared themes in literature).

Now, it must be decided which is more likely in the case of Christianity.  Christianity emerged from the Jewish subculture existing within a Roman-occupied Judea.  Is it likely that the founding Jews of the religion, the Apostles, under the sword of Rome as they were, would suddenly overcome their aversion to all things pagan when establishing the dogma of their new faith?  Is it likely that the early Gentile Christian theologians, the Fathers of the Church, who were quite opposed even to most things Jewish (see especially St. John Chrysostom's admonition to Christians cautioning them against participating in Jewish worship http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom-jews6.html#HOMILY_I, would borrow from the polytheistic religions when synthesising that dogma?) would choose to borrow from the polytheistic religions when synthesising that dogma?

Or is it likely that the similarities account for common themes emerging from the shared spiritual experience of man, and that the fundamental identity of any faith is how it differs, rather than how it is similar to, the others in addressing these issues?

Right. So if Christianity is pagan, and paganism is every other religion but judeo-christian, then paganism is just another word for religion and paganism doesn't have any meaning.

The word 'pagan' has multiple meanings. Some use it to mean "not judeo-christian/muslim". Some use it to mean "new age beliefs". Some  include buddhism, some don't. Some include hinduism, some don't. If you go to the dictionary you get "follower f a polytheistic religion" and "an irreligious or hedonistic person", etc.

In the context of the OP, I'm inferring that 'pagan' is being used to mean "not christian/jewish/muslim"(correct me if 'm wrong). So if we use this meaning of the word, and "christian is pagan", then all religions are pagan. If all religions are pagan, then pagan has no meaning aside from being a synonym for religion.

I'm also of the opinion that just because the abrahamic faiths are based on some form of paganism in part, I do not consider abrahamic faiths to be pagan.

Huh? Who contended that words possess inherent meanings? The word paganism has become sufficiently ambiguous to where it can mean anything from polytheism, to any religion other than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, devil-worship, witchcraft, nature worship, etc. (I think I'm beating a dead horse). Anyways, what is the meaning of paganism that you are applying here? If you're implying "any religion other than the Abrahamic faiths," then, by definition, all religions are pagan.

Although, I suppose this semantics exchange is irrelevant. It appears that the entire point of your thread is simply to lampoon Christianity and make Christians uncomfortable by pointing out how their religion is a plagiarism of other myths and belief systems. Yet, if that were the case, why didn't you just make your point clearer? Perhaps, you had other intentions?

An interesting post.

But could it be that there's another explanation for the similarity of the world's religions?  Of course there is.  I would propose an outline alonog the lines that all religions share roots in a common monotheism of which the "pagan" religions were a corruption.  As clans and tribes coalesced to form larger communities, perhaps single gods of different names were assimilated into the new culture and pantheons were constructed in which the "new" gods assumed different duties.  All these religions retained elements of the original truths about divinity of which man was orginally aware.

I would further suggest that the return to monotheism prevalent among humanity now is a return to those orignals truths.  Christianity being that which most clearly represents those original truths in varying degrees among its denominations.

Using the logic applied to support the claims that Christianity is a mere rip-off or a continuation of pagan beliefs one could easily construct the argument that McDonalds is the reincarnation of Babylon since the Babylonians liked gold and built arches and McDonalds using golden arces as its logo.

I never made the argument that Satan fashioned any religion to deliberately mock or imitate Christianity.  Nor do I find it in the least bit surprising that a dim recollection of the original monotheism intrinsic to mankind should spawn religions remarkably similar to that which was orginally promised to mankind.  Certainly there are similarities since all harked back to a common origin.  That some of these religions were preempted by demonic forces, I do not doubt for a second but would not use such an argument here since it is not germane to an historical discussion. 

Nor did I ever accuse you of being an asshole.  You should lighten up on yourself.

I restate here my original argument, that is, that since all religions sprang from a common religion, and that all except Judaism were corruptions of that original belief, it should not be surprising that common elements are to be found scattered amongst the world's religions.  It's an explanation that deserves consideration.  Lord Whatshisname's mythological hero checklist doesn't affect this surmise in the least.

Hope your indigestion eases.  Rest well.

All explanations that are not based on evidence are wrong.

Do you have any evidence for your explanation or is it just pure BS?

Assuming your hypothesis is correct...

If human religions (including Christianity) share a common origin, what makes Christianity the one true religion?

Better PR?

Each concept finds its basis in some aspect of human nature: Survival, child-parent attachment, purposeful thinking, the assertion of order, social behaviors, etc.

I'm a Christian, but I can't refrain my tounge. The first post is 100% pure unadulterated bull shit!

He has commited the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (false cause). If you don't know what this is, look it up. Just because two things co-exist, does not prove one is the cause of the other. A rooster might crow before the Sun rises, but the rooster does not cause the Sun to rise. Be comes after A, but A does not cause B.

The "pagan-parallel" theory, was refuted by scholars in the early 20th century.

Virtually no scholar alive today, believes Christianity borrowed from or was influenced by pagan gods. [see Mettinger, THE RIDDLE OF RESURRECTION].

And read "THE GOSPEL AND THE GREEKS," by Nash

Go to Youtube and type in "ZEITGEISTDEBUNKED" and watch all those videos.

It's easy to hide behind laughing when one does not know anything about the subject material.

TND Mettinger, a famous Swedish scholar, who is not a Christian, did a survey on contemporary scholarship. In his recent book "THE RIDDLE OF RESURRECTION," he says that most scholars in the world today, do not believe there were any pre-Chrisian god's that parallel the death and resurrection of Christ.  The scholars who are open to the possibility that there were such god's, you can count these scholars on the fingers of one hand.

The book is detailed, but worth reading.