Christianity-Just Another Mystical Branch Of Judaism?

[Dustypuppy]

The Key point being Jesus' key and core teaching of the souls ultimate and deeply personal union with the Divine, no need to have intermediatries, one can speak and access divinity oneself, no need for temples and priests etc etc, a chunk of the rest is based on core Judaism-such as the ten laws of Moses, thoughts?x

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Er, Jesus doesn't talk about the Ten Commandments at *all*. He gives a few new ones. The entire point about Jesus is that he's supposed to render the whole of the Old Testament irrelevant.

[LostSheep]

Well, i think there was never any intention to replace the Commandments, Jesus would naturally have taken those as being, well, set in stone, so it was taken as read that those would still stand. His intention, i think, as far as anyone can really tell now, was to build on that basis and update the Old Testament thinking. But yes, i don't think there was ever any intention that he would found a whole new religion, his thinking was based firmly on the principles of Judaism. And he'd certainly have never imagined the whole industry of the Christian church being built up in his name. That's our old friend Paul to thank again.

[David19]

I agree with what LostSheep said, Jesus, i think, wanted to create a Jewish sect, not a seperate religion (in fact, i believe the Roman Christians completly eradicated the original Jewish followers of Jesus, as they actually knew what Jesus was like and what he had said).

[Adrianus]

Jesus was one of many that thought he must truly be the Jewish messiah. There were many messiahs roaming around Israel at that time. If he actually did exist, it is most likely he wanted to lead Judaism, not a mere sect. That is what a messiah was to do.

[Toby Stimpson]

Well, the interesting thing with Jesus was he was very mystical in his teachings. He believed and taught in a very personal experiance of God. Especially when you look at the Gnostic gospels... atleast those Christians saw Christ as a mystical seer. Now, whether or not Jesus Christ saw himself as a reformer... he never the less reformed Judaism and spawned a new religion... and subsequently inspired another religion, but I don't think that even Jesus could see the far reaching implications of his work and teachings. I think he was, at first, a sub sect of Judaism... because his own teachings do correspond with older Jewish thought, even though he does disagree with a lot of what he would consider outdated covenant's and teachings.

[Tanya]

I have always wondered if Christianity isn't a bastardized perversion of Mother religions..dying god, virgin /mother.... and it all just went VERY VERY wrong

[Cindlady2]

I always found it interesting that it was his followers that "wrote" his teachings down many, many (sometimes) many years after his death. Why didn't He write anything? Or at least have a scribe as events took place? I heard that supposedly there were writings by Jesus but they were never excepted as being His.
Frankly I find the whole Bible as a nice set of parables.... nothing more.

[Arion]

It's odd how different the two testaments are, especially with their preception of God. In the Old Testament, God is very clearly depicted as a very harsh, angry, jealous old man. He seems more like a master instead of father figure, until Jesus came along, and preached about God as a loving, benevolent "daddy". In the New Testament, God is love, and "He" isn't necessarily a "he" anymore, but it a generic, genderless consciousness. Whether you see God as a male or a female doesn't really matter. Holy Father, Holy Mother... same thing, it doesn't matter. They are just words humans use to relate to God (yay me for paying attention in Catholic religion class!).

The Old Testament and the New Testament don't seem to have anything in common, except that Jesus was a practising Jew, and his own ideas were based upon the foundation of the Old Testament, though most of his teaching were completely contradictory. According to the OT, God says you should stone people to death for certain stupid reasons, but Jesus taught compassion and love instead, apparently going against God's original teachings. The OT and the NT don't seem compatible to me, but I guess it isn't my problem.


I always found it interesting that it was his followers that "wrote" his teachings down many, many (sometimes) many years after his death. Why didn't He write anything? Or at least have a scribe as events took place? I heard that supposedly there were writings by Jesus but they were never excepted as being His.
Frankly I find the whole Bible as a nice set of parables.... nothing more.

Yeah, I agree with you. Unless Jesus had scribes following him around, documenting his every move since birth, I doubt much of the Bible is historically accurate. It's also kind of funny how the myth of Jesus's life has peices of other myths as well, like how he turned water into wine at a wedding, which is what the Greek god Dionysos did at his wedding to Ariadne. Dionysus was also born of a mortal maiden, fathered by the almighty father god... and then of course, there's the whole sacrificed and resurrected thing, which is also Dionysos's thing. :lol:

[David19]

Yeah, I agree with you. Unless Jesus had scribes following him around, documenting his every move since birth, I doubt much of the Bible is historically accurate. It's also kind of funny how the myth of Jesus's life has peices of other myths as well, like how he turned water into wine at a wedding, which is what the Greek god Dionysos did at his wedding to Ariadne. Dionysus was also born of a mortal maiden, fathered by the almighty father god... and then of course, there's the whole sacrificed and resurrected thing, which is also Dionysos's thing. :lol:

But don't forget, there have been gods who've died, and been resurrected, a lot of Middle Eastern gods (which would have probably influenced early Christians more considering Palestine/Israel isn't that near Greece).

[LostSheep]

Yeah, I agree with you. Unless Jesus had scribes following him around, documenting his every move since birth, I doubt much of the Bible is historically accurate. It's also kind of funny how the myth of Jesus's life has peices of other myths as well, like how he turned water into wine at a wedding, which is what the Greek god Dionysos did at his wedding to Ariadne. Dionysus was also born of a mortal maiden, fathered by the almighty father god... and then of course, there's the whole sacrificed and resurrected thing, which is also Dionysos's thing. :lol:

ah, but no one knows anything about the first 30 or so years of Jesus' life ... the story about his birth, the stable, the wise men, the star,etc., is almost certainly fiction, invented to fit in with the prophecies in the old testament and show that he was the Messiah that had been predicted. (Though the probably was a conjunction of stars that later gave rise to the story of the Star of Bethlehem, and there was a census around that time, and even if he didn't authorise the massacre of the innocents, Herod was a fairly unpleasant piece of work).

It was only the last few years of his life, after he became a public figure, that was recorded by anyone. Though there are enough differences between the gospels that it's fairly obvious that each of the writers is seeing it from the particular angle that they want to, emphasising the things that they want to, and keeping quiet about some parts that don't suit the audience they were writing for so much.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

It's odd how different the two testaments are, especially with their preception of God. In the Old Testament, God is very clearly depicted as a very harsh, angry, jealous old man. He seems more like a master instead of father figure, until Jesus came along, and preached about God as a loving, benevolent "daddy".

Good Lord, have you read the OT? Sure, YHVH is a total jerk at times, but I'm always amazed at how much patience he has with his Chosen People. They're always hardening their hearts to him, or lusting after idols, or doing that which is abominable in his sight, for *ages*, and he keeps on forgiving them. He does most of his smiting when they're carving out their empire and wandering the desert, but if you'll read Chronicles and Kings, there is a crapload of YHVH just letting the Jews do as they will.
Now, that said, I think you've got a pretty good point about the differences between them.

[Adrianus]

Now, whether or not Jesus Christ saw himself as a reformer... he never the less reformed Judaism...

With respect to Galadraal, the idea that Jesus reformed Judaism is ludicrous.

Besides, what Jesus actually said is irreverent. Little attention was paid to such details when a big religion was to be built by his followers. At one point, the Christian leadership based the new and improved Christianity on Mithraism, mostly because it was so popular, and they could simply fool their own followers and grab Mithra's huge membership at the same time.

The thing is, there is virtually nothing unique about the Christian religion except the depths of fanatic intolerance and depraved violence committed in the name of Jesus and his "holy" church.

Mithraism was so convenient. The Christian "fathers" were able to grab the ideals of humility and brotherly love [ironically], baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the priest were called "father", the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. Mithraism differed only in the exclusion of women from its ceremonies and in its willingness to compromise with polytheism. These similarities, however, made the conversion of its' followers to Catholicism easy.

[Jolixte]

The thing is, there is virtually nothing unique about the Christian religion except the depths of fanatic intolerance and depraved violence committed in the name of Jesus and his "holy" church.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that was unique either.

[Toby Stimpson]

With respect to Galadraal, the idea that Jesus reformed Judaism is ludicrous.

Woah there... how is it ridiculous? He did reform certain parts of Judaism... and converted Jews to his teachings.


Besides, what Jesus actually said is irreverent. Little attention was paid to such details when a big religion was to be built by his followers. At one point, the Christian leadership based the new and improved Christianity on Mithraism, mostly because it was so popular, and they could simply fool their own followers and grab Mithra's huge membership at the same time.

I don't think that all of his followers were Catholic, not by any means. There are many offshoots of the oldest forms of Christianity in existence in the world. Mostly still around the Middle East. There is also the whole other part of Gnosticism, which speaks very clearly to being Christian. Now whether or not Christianity adopted all or a little off Mithraism is up for debate. Obviously the two were in competition with each other, but you make it out to almost be some horrible Christian plot. Evolution and adaptation and assimilation of religion is a gradual step and may take over a hundred years for traditions to co mingle. I disagree with you in the assumption that this was some kind of meticulously planned plot to steal followers. I do concede that it was on the minds of Christian leaders to find followers and make their underground community strong, and whether or not some of those lied is up for debate again and quite frankly we just cannot know. but making a sweeping statement like that shows some prejudice on your part.


The thing is, there is virtually nothing unique about the Christian religion except the depths of fanatic intolerance and depraved violence committed in the name of Jesus and his "holy" church.

Be careful here. Be careful to distinguish between the acts of a few and the acts of the many... and also take into account cultural and historical truths. Christianity is not the only religion in the world who has had terrible acts commited in it's name... Id be careful here.


Mithraism was so convenient. The Christian "fathers" were able to grab the ideals of humility and brotherly love [ironically], baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the priest were called "father", the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. Mithraism differed only in the exclusion of women from its ceremonies and in its willingness to compromise with polytheism. These similarities, however, made the conversion of its' followers to Catholicism easy.

You are mixing a lot of things up here. Holy water and Communion were modelled after many of the rituals abound in the ancient world at that time. Water is a universal symbol and element of Purity. Communion, taking blessed food is also a universal act. IF christianity were totally modelled after Mithraism, wheres the Bull blood initiation? Now it is clear that Christianity and Mithraism again were in competition and that the Roman Christianity did adapt to take on some of it's rituals...that is quite clear in history and also documentation. Whats up for debate is how and the thoughts behind it. if it was a few years to do this or quite a few.

I think there is a little bias on your side, as there is with all of us, but I do not appreciate your tone of writing... it expresses clear prejudice.

[David19]

With respect to Galadraal, the idea that Jesus reformed Judaism is ludicrous.

Besides, what Jesus actually said is irreverent. Little attention was paid to such details when a big religion was to be built by his followers. At one point, the Christian leadership based the new and improved Christianity on Mithraism, mostly because it was so popular, and they could simply fool their own followers and grab Mithra's huge membership at the same time.

The thing is, there is virtually nothing unique about the Christian religion except the depths of fanatic intolerance and depraved violence committed in the name of Jesus and his "holy" church.

Mithraism was so convenient. The Christian "fathers" were able to grab the ideals of humility and brotherly love [ironically], baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the priest were called "father", the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sundays and of December 25 (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. Mithraism differed only in the exclusion of women from its ceremonies and in its willingness to compromise with polytheism. These similarities, however, made the conversion of its' followers to Catholicism easy.


Woah there... how is it ridiculous? He did reform certain parts of Judaism... and converted Jews to his teachings.



I don't think that all of his followers were Catholic, not by any means. There are many offshoots of the oldest forms of Christianity in existence in the world. Mostly still around the Middle East. There is also the whole other part of Gnosticism, which speaks very clearly to being Christian. Now whether or not Christianity adopted all or a little off Mithraism is up for debate. Obviously the two were in competition with each other, but you make it out to almost be some horrible Christian plot. Evolution and adaptation and assimilation of religion is a gradual step and may take over a hundred years for traditions to co mingle. I disagree with you in the assumption that this was some kind of meticulously planned plot to steal followers. I do concede that it was on the minds of Christian leaders to find followers and make their underground community strong, and whether or not some of those lied is up for debate again and quite frankly we just cannot know. but making a sweeping statement like that shows some prejudice on your part.



Be careful here. Be careful to distinguish between the acts of a few and the acts of the many... and also take into account cultural and historical truths. Christianity is not the only religion in the world who has had terrible acts commited in it's name... Id be careful here.



You are mixing a lot of things up here. Holy water and Communion were modelled after many of the rituals abound in the ancient world at that time. Water is a universal symbol and element of Purity. Communion, taking blessed food is also a universal act. IF christianity were totally modelled after Mithraism, wheres the Bull blood initiation? Now it is clear that Christianity and Mithraism again were in competition and that the Roman Christianity did adapt to take on some of it's rituals...that is quite clear in history and also documentation. Whats up for debate is how and the thoughts behind it. if it was a few years to do this or quite a few.

I think there is a little bias on your side, as there is with all of us, but I do not appreciate your tone of writing... it expresses clear prejudice.


I agree with everything that Galadraal said again, so i won't bother repeating his points, but you also may want to read this site, http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/index.htm, it's by a scholar (a Pagan actually) who actually knows about Mithraism and Christianity, especially this article called 'What Mithraism isn't?' (http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/whatmithisnt.htm), it covers some of the main points of what people think Christianity 'stole' from Mithraism.

Also, again, this point:


there is virtually nothing unique about the Christian religion except the depths of fanatic intolerance and depraved violence committed in the name of Jesus and his "holy" church

As other's have said, this isn't unique to Christianity, bloodshed was and is a part of many different faiths.

[Tanya]

The thing is, there is virtually nothing unique about the Christian religion except the depths of fanatic intolerance and depraved violence committed in the name of Jesus and his "holy" church.

.

alas, if it were true of only Christians.... sigh


BTW on this subject, I've been thinking of picking up some of the gnostic texts, anyone read any? i'm particularlly interesed in the Gospel of thomas and obviously the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.

I think (suspect) there were originally forms of Christianity which were NOT so hostile to other religions or females (thank you St. Paul), and in some ways were much more like the modren Unitarians in world view and teachings. For example, the branch that wrote to the gallatians (Celts) got into a lot of hot water by preaching to gentiles and thus "opening it up to ALL people, preaching that the 'chosen' people were not special in God's eyes. thoughts?

[Arion]

As other's have said, this isn't unique to Christianity, bloodshed was and is a part of many different faiths.

That may be, but Christianity wins first prize. Even if you disregard the violent aspects, no other major religion has come close to the large scale intolerance they have for other faiths. Most history bores me to tears, but as far as I know, no other organized religion has gone into other cultures, destroying the old ways of worship, calling their gods demons, and forcing conversion of the masses. Sad, but true.

[Annest]

BTW on this subject, I've been thinking of picking up some of the gnostic texts, anyone read any? i'm particularlly interesed in the Gospel of thomas and obviously the Gospel of Mary Magdalene.


I´ve only read the thomas gospel yet, but I found it interesting. The gnostic online library have thomas, but I don´t know if they have added mary yet..
http://www.gnosis.org/library.html

Anne

[Toby Stimpson]

I´ve only read the thomas gospel yet, but I found it interesting. The gnostic online library have thomas, but I don´t know if they have added mary yet..
http://www.gnosis.org/library.html

Anne

Ooo, this website's pretty cool. I've added to my favs :). Thankyou!

[Toby Stimpson]

That may be, but Christianity wins first prize. Even if you disregard the violent aspects, no other major religion has come close to the large scale intolerance they have for other faiths. Most history bores me to tears, but as far as I know, no other organized religion has gone into other cultures, destroying the old ways of worship, calling their gods demons, and forcing conversion of the masses. Sad, but true.

Thats not entirely true S. Islam has come close, especially when it spread into Asia and met Hinduism, Buddhism (one of the largest Buddhist and Philisophical Universities of the ancient world was burned down by the armies of the Shah as they swept into India) and later on when Sikhism started to develop..

[Arion]

Thats not entirely true S. Islam has come close, especially when it spread into Asia and met Hinduism, Buddhism (one of the largest Buddhist and Philisophical Universities of the ancient world was burned down by the armies of the Shah as they swept into India) and later on when Sikhism started to develop..

Christianity, Islam... six of one, half a dozen of the other. Same God, same holy writ they base their teaching on, same backwards intolerance of other cultures and religions.

[David19]

Christianity, Islam... six of one, half a dozen of the other. Same God, same holy writ they base their teaching on, same backwards intolerance of other cultures and religions.

Islam and Christianity aren't the same, Islam, from what i understand, is supposed to be the final chapter, so to speak, of the Abrahamic religions (in that Muhammod was the last prophet, although i believe Ba'hai is also Abrahamic).

And, Islam isn't that intolerant, afterall, without Islamic scholars, no one would remember who Plato and other Greek philosophers were plus we wouldn't have chemistry or some of the sciences (or at the least, we wouldn't be as advanced as we are now).

Besides, the Romans did crush the Druids, and i'm sure there was a lot of Celtic religions repressed by the pagan Romans in things like Boudicca's(sp?) rebellion, etc, so it's definantly not just Christianity or Abrahamic faiths, plus also we don't know that much about the Etruscian(sp?) religion and beliefs either 'cause they were taken over by the Romans, and there's other examples too (and not just Roman either).

[Les_Nubian]

Christianity--just another pagan religion.

[Arion]

Islam and Christianity aren't the same, Islam, from what i understand, is supposed to be the final chapter, so to speak, of the Abrahamic religions (in that Muhammod was the last prophet, although i believe Ba'hai is also Abrahamic).
Not exactly the same, but it's splitting hairs, if you ask me. The differences between the Abrahmic monotheisms are very slight. Different chapters, same book ;)

I'm not sure if Islam is as conversion-happy as Christianity, though. I know for sure that the Bible encourages spreading Jesus's message, though I don't know if Islam has any equivalent declaration.

And yes, other cultures have tried to wipe out religions before, but it wasn't because of an "our way is the only way" mentality. The Romans just wanted to conquer lands, but it wasn't religiously motivated.


Christianity--just another pagan religion.

Haha, how do you figure? Certain parts of Catholicism do border on Paganism, that's for sure.

[David19]

Not exactly the same, but it's splitting hairs, if you ask me. The differences between the Abrahmic monotheisms are very slight. Different chapters, same book ;)

Not really, 'cause technically, Judaism is less focused on the afterlife (in fact, there's not that much written in the Torah about the afterlife), & is still awaiting the Messiah, Christianity says Jesus was the Messiah, and Islam states Muhammod was the last prophet, and that Allah is one (in fact, some Muslim fundamentalists see Christians as 'pagan' or polytheistic for adding 'the 3 to the one' and are against Catholics praying to Saints, etc).


I'm not sure if Islam is as conversion-happy as Christianity, though. I know for sure that the Bible encourages spreading Jesus's message, though I don't know if Islam has any equivalent declaration.

And yes, other cultures have tried to wipe out religions before, but it wasn't because of an "our way is the only way" mentality. The Romans just wanted to conquer lands, but it wasn't religiously motivated.

Technically, wiping out the Druids (or most of them anyway) was a form of religious persecution (considering, the Druids were the priests of Celtic religions, and therefore wiping out them would have probably left a dent in the various Celtic religions).

[Les_Nubian]

Not exactly the same, but it's splitting hairs, if you ask me. The differences between the Abrahmic monotheisms are very slight. Different chapters, same book ;)

I'm not sure if Islam is as conversion-happy as Christianity, though. I know for sure that the Bible encourages spreading Jesus's message, though I don't know if Islam has any equivalent declaration.

And yes, other cultures have tried to wipe out religions before, but it wasn't because of an "our way is the only way" mentality. The Romans just wanted to conquer lands, but it wasn't religiously motivated.



Haha, how do you figure? Certain parts of Catholicism do border on Paganism, that's for sure.

I definately believe that Christianity has been derived from Paganism. There are just waaaaaay too many parallels. I think this might be a good link if you're interested: http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/christianity/InTheBeginning.html

[Greyharp]

And, Islam isn't that intolerant...

Try telling that to people of non-Islamic persuasions living in strict Islamic countries.

All three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam trace themselves back to Abraham, physically in the case of the Jews and Arabs, spiritually in the case of the Christians. So with Christians being the adopted child, I guess all three are siblings :) All three believe they are right and the other two are confused and got the "facts" wrong.

[David19]

Try telling that to people of non-Islamic persuasions living in strict Islamic countries.

There are some places where Muslims can exist peacefully among non-Muslims, you're thinking of Islamic fundamentalists.


All three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam trace themselves back to Abraham, physically in the case of the Jews and Arabs, spiritually in the case of the Christians. So with Christians being the adopted child, I guess all three are siblings :) All three believe they are right and the other two are confused and got the "facts" wrong.

That's only what fundamentalists believe, other, more liberal, forms accept that there's is not the 'only way' and perfectly accept the other 2.

[Mesektet]

The Key point being Jesus' key and core teaching of the souls ultimate and deeply personal union with the Divine, no need to have intermediatries, one can speak and access divinity oneself, no need for temples and priests etc etc, a chunk of the rest is based on core Judaism-such as the ten laws of Moses, thoughts?x

Um, yes. With you all the way on that conclusion.

[LostSheep]

And, Islam isn't that intolerant, afterall, without Islamic scholars, no one would remember who Plato and other Greek philosophers were plus we wouldn't have chemistry or some of the sciences (or at the least, we wouldn't be as advanced as we are now). yeah, it was the Islamic scholars who pretty much kept alive all the values that we call "civilisation" during the dark ages. And the Moslems were probably more tolerant of other faiths in their countries during the time of the Crusades than the Christians were in the countries they'd occupied.


Besides, the Romans did crush the Druids, and i'm sure there was a lot of Celtic religions repressed by the pagan Romans in things like Boudicca's(sp?) rebellion, etc, so it's definantly not just Christianity or Abrahamic faiths, plus also we don't know that much about the Etruscian(sp?) religion and beliefs either 'cause they were taken over by the Romans, and there's other examples too (and not just Roman either).
And don't forget after the Romans, the saxons tried their hardest to wipe out the foothold that christianity had got in Britain; so it works both ways.

[David19]

yeah, it was the Islamic scholars who pretty much kept alive all the values that we call "civilisation" during the dark ages. And the Moslems were probably more tolerant of other faiths in their countries during the time of the Crusades than the Christians were in the countries they'd occupied.

True, and also, i think around the time of the Inquisition, when Jews were fleeing Spain, Turkey was one of the places that welcomed them, and provided a safe place for them.


And don't forget after the Romans, the saxons tried their hardest to wipe out the foothold that christianity had got in Britain; so it works both ways.

I actually didn't know about that, thanks for telling me :).

[maverick9750]

But don't forget, there have been gods who've died, and been resurrected, a lot of Middle Eastern gods (which would have probably influenced early Christians more considering Palestine/Israel isn't that near Greece).

it may not be that near greece, but it was a part of the roman empire, who had the same gods.

[maverick9750]

Christianity, Islam... six of one, half a dozen of the other. Same God, same holy writ they base their teaching on, same backwards intolerance of other cultures and religions.

I couldn't agree more. it is my opinion that thier god is actually a god of war who falsely claims to be a god of love, it certainly looks as though he only loves those that bow to him.

[David19]

it may not be that near greece, but it was a part of the roman empire, who had the same gods.

Off topic: but the Roman gods aren't the same as the Greek ones, i actually made a post about this fairly recently (a few weeks ago) asking whether they were the same, and it seems that they're not (so Jupiter is not Zeus, Minerva is not Athene, etc).

[Baobabtree]

I couldn't agree more. it is my opinion that thier god is actually a god of war who falsely claims to be a god of love, it certainly looks as though he only loves those that bow to him. I'm not even sure if the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism actually exists, but if he does I'm willing to bet that although he may be ill tempered, men have depicted him as being much more angry and vengeful then he actually is.

[maverick9750]

I'm not even sure if the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism actually exists, but if he does I'm willing to bet that although he may be ill tempered, men have depicted him as being much more angry and vengeful then he actually is.

I believe that the most sure fire way to recognise a gods true character is to look at the history of his or her followers. all three of those religions have a history full of intolerance and bloodshed, even if it isn't always "in the name of god" it is his people doing it, and they are under that gods influence.

[Arion]

I believe that the most sure fire way to recognise a gods true character is to look at the history of his or her followers. all three of those religions have a history full of intolerance and bloodshed, even if it isn't always "in the name of god" it is his people doing it, and they are under that gods influence.

Maybe, but dogmatic brainwashing and religious scare tactics do the trick too ;)

[Toby Stimpson]

I believe that the most sure fire way to recognise a gods true character is to look at the history of his or her followers. all three of those religions have a history full of intolerance and bloodshed, even if it isn't always "in the name of god" it is his people doing it, and they are under that gods influence.

I cant agree with this at all. I have studied religion for a long time, alternative and comparative religions. There is as much good done by a religion as there is evil. You cannot so generally say that because people have killed in the name of Allah/God/Elohim that the God is to blame. Most of the time i is people who zealously and fanatically devote themselves to the idea that is being presented to them. I mean after all, the Bible, Koran and Torah were all books during tiems of high illitericy, sometimes read to the illiterate masses by Priests, Imams, and Rabbis. There are though some communities where literacy was highly recognized as important and in those communities you found less intolerance. This is not due to the religion... but an interpretation of it by a small oligarchy.

So you cannot justifiably hold up your opinion, in my eyes.

[maverick9750]

I cant agree with this at all. I have studied religion for a long time, alternative and comparative religions. There is as much good done by a religion as there is evil. You cannot so generally say that because people have killed in the name of Allah/God/Elohim that the God is to blame. Most of the time i is people who zealously and fanatically devote themselves to the idea that is being presented to them. I mean after all, the Bible, Koran and Torah were all books during tiems of high illitericy, sometimes read to the illiterate masses by Priests, Imams, and Rabbis. There are though some communities where literacy was highly recognized as important and in those communities you found less intolerance. This is not due to the religion... but an interpretation of it by a small oligarchy.

So you cannot justifiably hold up your opinion, in my eyes.

it is undeniably true that there have been an uncountable number of good works by the people of those religions, but, most of them are in the service of spreading it (except in the case of judaism) or for the benefit of its followers, I can't think of any instances where that is not the case, if it was truely altruism, would they be trying to convert you? doesn't that give them a vested interest.

[Toby Stimpson]

it is undeniably true that there have been an uncountable number of good works by the people of those religions, but, most of them are in the service of spreading it (except in the case of judaism) or for the benefit of its followers, I can't think of any instances where that is not the case, if it was truely altruism, would they be trying to convert you? doesn't that give them a vested interest.

You have to realize though that Christianity is a a missionary religion, the same as Buddhism and any other non ethnic religion. Judaism doesn't wish to convert people because it is classed as an ethnic religion, the same as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism. Ethnic religions are evolved into the culture and did not start out as a missionary religion. In that it has no founder. Now, wanting to convert people by giving them incentives is NOT equitable to converting by the sword. I am not saying at all that Christianity and Islam have not had massacres.. but the important thing is to distinguish between the people. Now what I have issue with your statement is that you are basing your point of view on, 'what you have seen' and really not taking into account both the negative and the positive. This is why your post is coming off as a bit ignorant in some ways.

I can think of plenty of examples of Christians who in the nature of their religion give needlessly without trying to promote their religion. Mother Theresa for example helped Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, and anyone else in Calcutta. Archbishop Desmond Tutu gives needlessly to all the people of South Africa, regardless of his religious office. Like wise too, there are many people o the faith who do things without promoting their religion.

Muslims too. You know one of my closest friends is a self proclaiming Muslim. He opened up a Pagan store in a nearby city and enhanced the Pagan community there. He of course sold Islamic stuff as well in the store but he was far from promoting Islam over other religions.

So really I think it's a little unfair of you to judge and be judgmental over like 2 billion people and making generalized comments. You also cannot say of such a vast number of people that they are all hate mongering war loving people... because again that simply is not true.

[Baobabtree]

I believe that the most sure fire way to recognise a gods true character is to look at the history of his or her followers. all three of those religions have a history full of intolerance and bloodshed, even if it isn't always "in the name of god" it is his people doing it, and they are under that gods influence. And what evidence do you have to base this theory of yours on? To blame a God for what his worshipers do in his name, is like sending a teacher to jail because one of their students happened to commit a crime in his teachers name. Goddesses and Gods may have a certain influence on their worshipers, but I highly doubt they can control every single thing they do.

[Arion]

And what evidence do you have to base this theory of yours on? To blame a God for what his worshipers do in his name, is like sending a teacher to jail because one of their students happened to commit a crime in his teachers name. Goddesses and Gods may have a certain influence on their worshipers, but I highly doubt they can control every single thing they do.

But would they have done those same violent acts if their religious teachings hadn't influenced them and put the ideas in their heads? Faith drives people to do some crazy things, and when a person's faith is rich in violence, not to mention hatred for other gods and religions, it's gonna give way to some nasty behaviour. (Although of course not ALL Christians/Jews/Muslims hate other religions, but it IS a part of their faith. Whether they choose to agree with that part is up to them.)

[Toby Stimpson]

But would they have done those same violent acts if their religious teachings hadn't influenced them and put the ideas in their heads? Faith drives people to do some crazy things, and when a person's faith is rich in violence, not to mention hatred for other gods and religions, it's gonna give way to some nasty behaviour. (Although of course not ALL Christians/Jews/Muslims hate other religions, but it IS a part of their faith. Whether they choose to agree with that part is up to them.)

This reasoning is flawed. hatred is hatred no matter what it is disquised in. Look at Stalin... look at Mao Tz'Tsung...Look at Hitler...look at Saddam Hussein... all of these people are athiests with a string hatred of religion. Religion brings hope... and yet these people hated that. These people were not taught by religious ideaologies, and the idea was not planted in their heads. Hate is an imbedded part of Humanity... its an imbedded part of bias and socializing. No one can say that a religion teaches hatred... because if there are examples of good people who do not hate other religions, then what can be said of that? If there are a lot of people in a particular religion that do not hate or condone violence towards other people of different religions... then LOGIC dictates that it is not that religion that makes violent and hateful people. After all, if that was the case... what your truth you say about Christianity can also be applied to Paganism because there are many Pagans who bitterly hate christians. And ofcoruse we have this whole mythos of a long ago massacre called the "Burning Times" that literilly teaches as an example why people should hate christians. The validity of this myth is quite frankly un verified... yet peopl,e still believe it. However my point is there are a lot of good pagans, and a lot of Good Christians... so you cannot say that the religion teaches hate. Because really... its all a matter if interpretation... and if a flawed person interprets the religion in a hateful or violent way, then they teach that to disenfranchised people... is it the religion that is at fault or the flawed interpretation of the individual?

[Arion]

I just remember recently flipping through a CHILDREN'S Bible story book my grandparents gave me when i was baptised, and i was just utterly shocked at the level of violence in the old testament, even in a freakin' kid's book! My mom used to teach Sunday school, but she quit because she didn't agree with teaching such violence to children. It's funny, Christians seem to love war violence *cough*George Bush*cough*, but when Janet Jackson's boob pops out on national TV, you'd think it was Satan that fell out of her top.

As for hatred, let me paraphrase a few examples of what the Bible teaches:

"honour no false idols" (because all other gods are false, apparently)
"when two men lie together as with a woman, it is an abomination" (the infamous Levitcus 18:22, which some rather unpleasant Christians had the audacity to wave around on signs during Matthew Sheppard's murder trial)
"stone to death non-believers" (because if you don't believe in Jesus's message of love and compassion, you deserve to die, i guess)

That's all I can think of the top of my head, especially since it's late and I'm tired. Have a look for yourself, the Bible is a goldmine of nasty, hateful laws. I try not to go near Bibles anymore, they just piss me off if I read them. Sorry, but it's true.

[Toby Stimpson]

Ahhh but this is the thing...

How many of hose quotes were written by people of the religion, and how many of them reflect the core values of the religion?

After all, Jesus Christ did not say "stone Mary Magdalene" becasue she is a prostitute... he stopped other people from doing that same thing. I don't think Jesus ever taught out against Homosexuality directly, and all we have is the words of his apostles, who were HUMAN beings.

I would further g on to say that it is important to differentiate between religious teaching and cultural ideas. After all, religion is a reflection of culture, just as culture is a reflection of religion.

There will always be a few examples that can so asily be brought out. I am talking about the core of the religion though: love thy neighbour, do not strike the weak, help the poor, turn the other cheek, and also love God. Now it is of coruse easier for me as a semi Monotheist to love God bcause of my belief system... but at the same time, this is a commandment to those who are Christian. Killing non believers I am prepared to dismiss as a cultural attitude. Does that mean that people in western nations today are being killed becasue they do not submit to Christianity... noo.

[LostSheep]

I just remember recently flipping through a CHILDREN'S Bible story book my grandparents gave me when i was baptised, and i was just utterly shocked at the level of violence in the old testament, even in a freakin' kid's book! My mom used to teach Sunday school, but she quit because she didn't agree with teaching such violence to children. It's funny, Christians seem to love war violence *cough*George Bush*cough*, but when Janet Jackson's boob pops out on national TV, you'd think it was Satan that fell out of her top.

As for hatred, let me paraphrase a few examples of what the Bible teaches:

"honour no false idols" (because all other gods are false, apparently)
"when two men lie together as with a woman, it is an abomination" (the infamous Levitcus 18:22, which some rather unpleasant Christians had the audacity to wave around on signs during Matthew Sheppard's murder trial)
"stone to death non-believers" (because if you don't believe in Jesus's message of love and compassion, you deserve to die, i guess)

That's all I can think of the top of my head, especially since it's late and I'm tired. Have a look for yourself, the Bible is a goldmine of nasty, hateful laws. I try not to go near Bibles anymore, they just piss me off if I read them. Sorry, but it's true.


Ahhh but this is the thing...

How many of hose quotes were written by people of the religion, and how many of them reflect the core values of the religion?

After all, Jesus Christ did not say "stone Mary Magdalene" becasue she is a prostitute... he stopped other people from doing that same thing. I don't think Jesus ever taught out against Homosexuality directly, and all we have is the words of his apostles, who were HUMAN beings.. Exactly ... the Old Testament was concerned with things that were relevant to them in that situation at the time, and the values of society at that time, none of it has anything to do with what Jesus talked about. They were written by priests, prophets, those kind of people, hundreds of years earlier. And yes, Paul was anti homosexuality too, but again, that was his views, he wasn't quoting Jesus on the subject.

[David19]

As for hatred, let me paraphrase a few examples of what the Bible teaches:

"honour no false idols" (because all other gods are false, apparently)
"when two men lie together as with a woman, it is an abomination" (the infamous Levitcus 18:22, which some rather unpleasant Christians had the audacity to wave around on signs during Matthew Sheppard's murder trial)
"stone to death non-believers" (because if you don't believe in Jesus's message of love and compassion, you deserve to die, i guess)

That's all I can think of the top of my head, especially since it's late and I'm tired. Have a look for yourself, the Bible is a goldmine of nasty, hateful laws. I try not to go near Bibles anymore, they just piss me off if I read them. Sorry, but it's true.




Exactly ... the Old Testament was concerned with things that were relevant to them in that situation at the time, and the values of society at that time, none of it has anything to do with what Jesus talked about. They were written by priests, prophets, those kind of people, hundreds of years earlier. And yes, Paul was anti homosexuality too, but again, that was his views, he wasn't quoting Jesus on the subject.

I agree with LostSheep and Galadraal, you have to understand the cultural and historical context when the pieces were written, they weren't wrote in a vacuum.


"honour no false idols" (because all other gods are false, apparently)

This was a time, when the Jews needed to stick together as a nation, as a group, and also the original 10 commandments state 'have no gods before me' (or something like that), that isn't monotheism, that's henotheism, accepted that other gods exist, but worshipping only one (the 10 commandments were modelled on the Sumerian code of hammurabi, and the commandments are more like a contract between Moses (and the Jews) and their personal god, something that was common throughout the whole, polytheistic Middle East.


"when two men lie together as with a woman, it is an abomination" (the infamous Levitcus 18:22, which some rather unpleasant Christians had the audacity to wave around on signs during Matthew Sheppard's murder trial)

Again, the context is needed, it was written when the Jews wanted to become a nation, like the Greeks, etc, and at the time, they were still tribal.

To become a nation, you need a population, and to have more kids, you need guys having sex with the opposite sex.

Interestingly, there's a book i want to get called 'Jesus and the Shamanic tradition of Same-Sex love' by Will Roscoe (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shamanic-Tradition-Same-Sex-Love/dp/0974638838), which looks cool, and suggests that not only did Jesus not condemn homosexuality, but there's evidence he engaged in homosexual sex (or something similar with a naked man), as part of something mystical.




"stone to death non-believers" (because if you don't believe in Jesus's message of love and compassion, you deserve to die, i guess)

Again, i don't think Jesus said this, it's just quoted by fundamentalists (the bible wasn't written in Jesus's time, remember).

[maverick9750]

You have to realize though that Christianity is a a missionary religion, the same as Buddhism and any other non ethnic religion. Judaism doesn't wish to convert people because it is classed as an ethnic religion, the same as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Sikhism. Ethnic religions are evolved into the culture and did not start out as a missionary religion. In that it has no founder. Now, wanting to convert people by giving them incentives is NOT equitable to converting by the sword. I am not saying at all that Christianity and Islam have not had massacres.. but the important thing is to distinguish between the people. Now what I have issue with your statement is that you are basing your point of view on, 'what you have seen' and really not taking into account both the negative and the positive. This is why your post is coming off as a bit ignorant in some ways.

I can think of plenty of examples of Christians who in the nature of their religion give needlessly without trying to promote their religion. Mother Theresa for example helped Hindus, Muslims, and Christians, and anyone else in Calcutta. Archbishop Desmond Tutu gives needlessly to all the people of South Africa, regardless of his religious office. Like wise too, there are many people o the faith who do things without promoting their religion.

Muslims too. You know one of my closest friends is a self proclaiming Muslim. He opened up a Pagan store in a nearby city and enhanced the Pagan community there. He of course sold Islamic stuff as well in the store but he was far from promoting Islam over other religions.

So really I think it's a little unfair of you to judge and be judgmental over like 2 billion people and making generalized comments. You also cannot say of such a vast number of people that they are all hate mongering war loving people... because again that simply is not true.


I didn't intend to say that the people were war mongering, the people like mother theresa are an inspiration to us all, I was refering to the whole of the history. I believe that the gods have a lot of influence on the large scale, not nessecarily so on an individual basis (with glaring exceptions) if you look at the history of christianity, even where the people doing the missonary work were completely peaceful, they typically brought disease with them that destroyed the culture that they were attempting to convert, that I see as the hand of thier god, not nessecarily the peoples.

[Toby Stimpson]

I didn't intend to say that the people were war mongering, the people like mother theresa are an inspiration to us all, I was refering to the whole of the history. I believe that the gods have a lot of influence on the large scale, not nessecarily so on an individual basis (with glaring exceptions) if you look at the history of christianity, even where the people doing the missonary work were completely peaceful, they typically brought disease with them that destroyed the culture that they were attempting to convert, that I see as the hand of thier god, not nessecarily the peoples.

Ok, so if I understand correctly... you're saying that God uses people to do his will... sometime inadvertently. And that his will is sometimes malevolent?

I think your logic is flawed. You are taking a very general look and applying it towards an entire religion full of people. You've defeated yourself already because you say in this post that not a majority of people are bad, but that the religion it's self is bad. Yet you said in an earlier post that you think Religion has a lot of influence on people. Again looking at a logical analysius of what you are saying, IF religion (specifically christianity in this case) has a lot o Influence on the masses, AND the Christian God is not a good guy... THEN the majority (If not all) Christians are bad people. Bu this isn't the case, is it?

IF Mother Theresa is a Christian... and you say that she is an inspiration to us all... BUT she is was a very devoted catholic... how can she be a good person if you are saying that her religion teaches evil and that her God is 'malevolent' (Ill use that word in lue of a better one.) So how can you account for this then?

Im sorry but your theory that God uses soemtiems good people to do bad things I just cant agree with. That seems more like the Christian myth that the Devil uses people to do horrible things. NO, i disagree. WEe have to look and place things into context in that people are individuals capable of Individual evils... AND if bad individuals are in power and able to control large masses, they will influence those masses to do their bidding... regardless of the religion they profess to believe in. Likewise, if GOOD people are in power, they will have influence on the people regardless of their rleigion. The major great figures in the world are mostly spiritual people... and we know there is a differene between religion and spirituality. They draw their strength from religion but a majority of their teachings are Humanistic things.

This is why I cannot agree with you find your logic flawed.

BUT, I respect you in wanting to debate and discuss the topic... its a good thing :).

[Arion]

Ahhh but this is the thing...

How many of hose quotes were written by people of the religion, and how many of them reflect the core values of the religion?
Erm... well since the core values of the religion were also written by people, what's the difference? Why are people going to pick and choose which teachings of their religion they are going to follow, and which parts they are going to ignore? The Bible contradicts itself a million times over, so I can understand that figuring out which laws to follow can be difficult, but you can't dismiss what the Bible says just because it doesn't fit in with what Christians are supposed to stand for, because most of the time they're hypocrites.


After all, Jesus Christ did not say "stone Mary Magdalene" becasue she is a prostitute... he stopped other people from doing that same thing. I don't think Jesus ever taught out against Homosexuality directly, and all we have is the words of his apostles, who were HUMAN beings.
I don't think it was Mary Magdalene who he saved from being stoned, but I see what you are saying. It was the whole "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" story. Jesus does try to fix and change the traditional Jewish laws, which are a tad barbaric, yet the old testatment in still a part of the Bible, influencing Christians with it's harsh laws, whether or not Jesus meant for them to or not.

And no, Jesus didn't say a thing about homosexuality. Ever. After all, the guy never married and he preferred to spend his time in the company of his apostles... come to your own conclsusions;)


I would further g on to say that it is important to differentiate between religious teaching and cultural ideas. After all, religion is a reflection of culture, just as culture is a reflection of religion.
So then are the cultural ideas not a part of the religion? Religion is a man-made thing, and humans are influenced by the culture they live in and would create their religious teachings to fit in with the culture, but I don't see how they can be differentiated once they are a part of religious teachings. People can't just ignore what they don't agree with or dismiss what they don't like as cultural ideas. That's the culture that gave birth to their religion, so if they don't agree with it, than why are they following that religion?


There will always be a few examples that can so asily be brought out. I am talking about the core of the religion though: love thy neighbour, do not strike the weak, help the poor, turn the other cheek, and also love God. Now it is of coruse easier for me as a semi Monotheist to love God bcause of my belief system... but at the same time, this is a commandment to those who are Christian. Killing non believers I am prepared to dismiss as a cultural attitude. Does that mean that people in western nations today are being killed becasue they do not submit to Christianity... noo.
Well, maybe not here nobody is being killed for not submitting to Christianity, we have secular laws which wouldn't allow that, luckily. In third world countries there are plenty of instances of people being killed, not only for not being Christian, but often because they aren't the right KIND of Christian. A person may still follow Christianity, but people from different sects still kill each other because they disagree on certain minor things.


I agree with LostSheep and Galadraal, you have to understand the cultural and historical context when the pieces were written, they weren't wrote in a vacuum.
So if Christianity is so outdated, why do people follow it at all? Heck, why not just re-write the whole Bible and make a brand new religion to fit modern society, and ignore what we don't like and keep what we do, but still honouring Jesus as saviour of course, or else we'll go to hell :p



Again, the context is needed, it was written when the Jews wanted to become a nation, like the Greeks, etc, and at the time, they were still tribal.

To become a nation, you need a population, and to have more kids, you need guys having sex with the opposite sex.
So they call two men having sex and abomination and state that "God hates that" because they wanted people to reproduce? They already had God say "be fruitful and multiply", why not just leave it at that? beause God is a hateful, nasty old bigot, that's why, and these modern theories trying to justify such statements are a load of horse poo, in my opinion.


Interestingly, there's a book i want to get called 'Jesus and the Shamanic tradition of Same-Sex love' by Will Roscoe (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Shamanic-Tradition-Same-Sex-Love/dp/0974638838), which looks cool, and suggests that not only did Jesus not condemn homosexuality, but there's evidence he engaged in homosexual sex (or something similar with a naked man), as part of something mystical.
Mhmm, I bet. Modern new age writers can get pretty creative.


Again, i don't think Jesus said this, it's just quoted by fundamentalists (the bible wasn't written in Jesus's time, remember).

No, Jesus didn't say it, he was against stoning people. Unfortunately, the actual teachings of Jesus don't have much to do with Christianity, which exists in established sects that follow specific biblical guidelines, not necessarily just what Jesus said. Christianity as an organized religion focuses on the entire Bible, not just the NT.

I don't mean to sound anti-Christian or whatever, I'm not. I go to a Catholic school, where I met most of my friends (who are Catholic, of course), and have had many Catholic teachers I respect and admire. My problem isn't with Christians themselves, but the organized religion/dictatorship of Christianity, which is a problematic religion in society because of the hate and violence it encourages, whether or not it is inteneded. Sure, hate and violence are typical aspects of humanity, but that is on a personal level regarding personality conflicts, specific issues, and such. Hate and prejudice on a large scale against certain groups are things that are learned, and Christianity is doing a great job of teaching.

[Annest]

The Bible contradicts itself a million times over, so I can understand that figuring out which laws to follow can be difficult, but you can't dismiss what the Bible says just because it doesn't fit in with what Christians are supposed to stand for, because most of the time they're hypocrites.They? As in all christians?






Christianity as an organized religion focuses on the entire Bible, not just the NT.
Would that be catholics or protestants or the pentacostal movement or the jehovas witnesses or are you saying that they are all the same?


I don't mean to sound anti-Christian or whatever, I'm not.
Well you are doing a great job at generalizing.

Hate and prejudice on a large scale against certain groups are things that are learned, and Christianity is doing a great job of teaching.
Well so did the comunists in the eastern europe during the cold war...

Anne

[Arion]

Would that be catholics or protestants or the pentacostal movement or the jehovas witnesses or are you saying that they are all the same?
Every organized branch, obviously. Not all the same, they have different interpretations of the Bible (Catholics don't take the bible stories literally, som ebranches of Protestants do, etc). They all use the Bible as their primary religious text, which includes the OT teachings. What they choose to focus on is specific to the particular branch.



Well you are doing a great job at generalizing.
*bangs head against screen*

You can't get an unpopular idea across around here without being accused of something.


Well so did the comunists in the eastern europe during the cold war...

Yeah, so?

[Annest]

Every organized branch, obviously. Not all the same, they have different interpretations of the Bible (Catholics don't take the bible stories literally, som ebranches of Protestants do, etc). They all use the Bible as their primary religious text, which includes the OT teachings. What they choose to focus on is specific to the particular branch.
Just wondering since my sister who is pentecostal claims that the congregation she belongs to say the OT is about pre jesus history and not about rules for the christians.


*bangs head against screen*
You can't get an unpopular idea across around here without being accused of something.

Saying all christians are alike is a generalization, it´s like saying all muslims are alike, I´m not accusing you I´m stating a fact.


Anne

[David19]

So then are the cultural ideas not a part of the religion? Religion is a man-made thing, and humans are influenced by the culture they live in and would create their religious teachings to fit in with the culture, but I don't see how they can be differentiated once they are a part of religious teachings. People can't just ignore what they don't agree with or dismiss what they don't like as cultural ideas. That's the culture that gave birth to their religion, so if they don't agree with it, than why are they following that religion?

But people can with education figure out the parts that were meant for the specific time period and culture, and keep the parts that are relevant to them. Religion isn't (or at least shouldn't be) something that remains stagnant, it changes, it adapts to the modern times, that's what religions are meant to do, no religion that stays the same will live, and any that does stagnate will die.

But, it's not just Christianity which is influenced by the culture, in Greece, the myth of Zeus and Ganymede also has a cultural context, 'cause in ancient Greece, it was ok for middle aged men to have sex with young boys.

[LostSheep]

The Bible contradicts itself a million times over, so I can understand that figuring out which laws to follow can be difficult, but you can't dismiss what the Bible says just because it doesn't fit in with what Christians are supposed to stand for, because most of the time they're hypocrites..

who's "they"?


Just wondering since my sister who is pentecostal claims that the congregation she belongs to say the OT is about pre jesus history and not about rules for the christians.
yes, the way i see it is that the O.T. provided the background for the Jewish people, their mythology, if you like, and set out the prophecies that the Messiah would come along, so it's relevant in that it provides a context, even if most of the actual teaching and such like was outdated by then - it was written over a period of nearly a thousand years, they reckon, so you could hardly expect it to be completley consistent.

[Greyharp]

I think it hilarious when Pagans who've had little or no personal Christian experience start declaring what Christians do or don't, or should or shouldn't believe. The Bible is a complex document, as are the writings of any religion, and no one can form an accurate overall picture from reading a few scriptures here and there. Understanding comes from years of intensive study, without which your opinion is an uneducated one. And before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not pointing the finger at any individual here.


But people can with education figure out the parts that were meant for the specific time period and culture, and keep the parts that are relevant to them. Religion isn't (or at least shouldn't be) something that remains stagnant, it changes, it adapts to the modern times, that's what religions are meant to do, no religion that stays the same will live, and any that does stagnate will die.

Apart from small minorities of Liberals, most followers of religions with holy writings would disagree with you, especially with your statement "keep the parts that are relevant to them". And especially if they see their holy scriptures as "God's Word" and as an infallible document.

It's one thing to change with the times, another to start deciding whole sections of holy writings are irrelevant. But of course it does happen. Christians for instance do actively follow large parts of the Old Testament. How many Christians would say "We don't follow the Ten Commandments, they were part of the old Jewish Law and not relevant to us as Christians in this day and age"? Not many I think. Yet at the same time, Christians will pick and choose which parts they feel are relevant and which aren't. They'll happily embrace the OT scriptures that state homosexuality is an "abomination", but they'll tell you stoning people to death for adultery, or making women live separate from everyone else when it is that time of the month, are outdated laws specific only to the OT Jews. It all varies from group to group as to which parts of the OT they feel is relevant, and which parts aren't.


my sister who is pentecostal claims that the congregation she belongs to say the OT is about pre jesus history and not about rules for the christians.

And yet I've known many Pentecostal groups that do accept large parts of the OT as relevant to Christians. So if those within a religion can't come to a consensus as to what is relevant in their holy writings, what right do outsiders have to start making claims?

On the subject of Christ and the OT Law, the man himself said (according to the Bible and assuming he even ever existed as an actual person lol):


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Or in other words, the entire OT as the Christians call it, is relevant to the followers of Christ until "heaven and earth pass". I would suggest it's up to those who are Christians to decide how to interpret the phrase: "shall in no wise pass from the law".

And this quote also shows what Jesus thought about the links between his ideas and Judaism - that he and his teachings were a fulfilment of Judaism, not something different and unrelated.

[Arion]

Just wondering since my sister who is pentecostal claims that the congregation she belongs to say the OT is about pre jesus history and not about rules for the christians.

yes, the way i see it is that the O.T. provided the background for the Jewish people, their mythology, if you like, and set out the prophecies that the Messiah would come along, so it's relevant in that it provides a context, even if most of the actual teaching and such like was outdated by then - it was written over a period of nearly a thousand years, they reckon, so you could hardly expect it to be completley consistent.

Fair enough, but a lot of the OT stuff is used by Christians. For instance, you hear a lot more about the 10 Commandments in Christianity than you do in Judaism. Christianity seems to focus on specific parts, while Jews are expected to follow it as a whole (in my understanding, at least). So the OT is relevant to Christianity as well, perhaps not all of it, but a lot of it.


Saying all christians are alike is a generalization, it´s like saying all muslims are alike, I´m not accusing you I´m stating a fact.

Sorry, I didn't mean to generalize. It's just easier speaking in general terms on a message board to get my point across, than listing every specific instance. I didn't mean to be offensive or insult anybody.

So... Christianity as a mytical branch of Judaism, eh?

[maverick9750]

Ok, so if I understand correctly... you're saying that God uses people to do his will... sometime inadvertently. And that his will is sometimes malevolent?

I think your logic is flawed. You are taking a very general look and applying it towards an entire religion full of people. You've defeated yourself already because you say in this post that not a majority of people are bad, but that the religion it's self is bad. Yet you said in an earlier post that you think Religion has a lot of influence on people. Again looking at a logical analysius of what you are saying, IF religion (specifically christianity in this case) has a lot o Influence on the masses, AND the Christian God is not a good guy... THEN the majority (If not all) Christians are bad people. Bu this isn't the case, is it?

IF Mother Theresa is a Christian... and you say that she is an inspiration to us all... BUT she is was a very devoted catholic... how can she be a good person if you are saying that her religion teaches evil and that her God is 'malevolent' (Ill use that word in lue of a better one.) So how can you account for this then?

Im sorry but your theory that God uses soemtiems good people to do bad things I just cant agree with. That seems more like the Christian myth that the Devil uses people to do horrible things. NO, i disagree. WEe have to look and place things into context in that people are individuals capable of Individual evils... AND if bad individuals are in power and able to control large masses, they will influence those masses to do their bidding... regardless of the religion they profess to believe in. Likewise, if GOOD people are in power, they will have influence on the people regardless of their rleigion. The major great figures in the world are mostly spiritual people... and we know there is a differene between religion and spirituality. They draw their strength from religion but a majority of their teachings are Humanistic things.

This is why I cannot agree with you find your logic flawed.

BUT, I respect you in wanting to debate and discuss the topic... its a good thing :).


I think you have misunderstood me.

I ma not saying that the people or the religion itself is bad.

if you look at the OT you will see Yahew's character, as one of you said something like he's a mean nasty old man, yes, I agree, I also believe that he is very power hungry. before jesus, he was a minor god of a reletivly small very warlike people who were finally absorbed into the roman empire, to the point that the sanhedran (spelling) were actually romans, not jews. there was no way his people could leave either like they did in eqypt, that was the promised land. eventually, the romans were going to wipe them out, either by the jews being absorbed, or killed olutright. along comes jesus, (who I do believe was his son, not him in human form) just before he goes back to heaven, he tells them to spread the word to the gentile. in less than 300 years, the roman threat is ended, and he is now one of the preeminent gods in the world, ever since he has been spreading his religion around the world, stealing the other gods spotlight, or if that isn't possible due to culture, those people typically (other than asia) didn't survive real long, either wiped out like the azteks, or killed off by disease like the hawians.

the religion itself, IS one of love, compassion, and peace, but that does not mean that thier god is.

EDIT: not than I can blame him for wiping out the azteks, I have never heard of a more bloodthirsty people.

[Toby Stimpson]

I think you have misunderstood me.

I ma not saying that the people or the religion itself is bad.

if you look at the OT you will see Yahew's character, as one of you said something like he's a mean nasty old man, yes, I agree, I also believe that he is very power hungry. before jesus, he was a minor god of a reletivly small very warlike people who were finally absorbed into the roman empire, to the point that the sanhedran (spelling) were actually romans, not jews. there was no way his people could leave either like they did in eqypt, that was the promised land. eventually, the romans were going to wipe them out, either by the jews being absorbed, or killed olutright. along comes jesus, (who I do believe was his son, not him in human form) just before he goes back to heaven, he tells them to spread the word to the gentile. in less than 300 years, the roman threat is ended, and he is now one of the preeminent gods in the world, ever since he has been spreading his religion around the world, stealing the other gods spotlight, or if that isn't possible due to culture, those people typically (other than asia) didn't survive real long, either wiped out like the azteks, or killed off by disease like the hawians.

the religion itself, IS one of love, compassion, and peace, but that does not mean that thier god is.

EDIT: not than I can blame him for wiping out the azteks, I have never heard of a more bloodthirsty people.

Nono, I DO understand you... and thats what I'm not agreeing with.

You're examples thus far have been completely off base. You talk about disease... that isnt an action of God it is an unfortunate bi product of antibodies and immunity. You cannot blame a God for the antibodies of a certain group of people, and the diseases found in nature. You just can't.

Also, you say that the religion is peaceful, compassionate etc,.BUT God is the central figure of the religion. You cannot take God out of the religion, but you also cannot blame God for the misinterpretations of the religion that was built up around his worship. I guess what I am trying to say, and what makes me disagree so much with your idea is that you are blaming a figure, saying that he has some how less than good intentions in the world,m but using examples of what some of his followers.Some of these examples really are off base, like saying that God somehow planned disease to destroy people.

I am not a Christian, but I don't think it's fair to say that the religion is bad becasue of the God they worship... and then change your mind and say the religion is good.

[Paracelsus]

Trying to get things back on track a bit -
Christianity as Mystical Judaism.

Well, If by Christianity you mean the current world faith (with it's vast diversity) obviously not, as, contrary to what some posters have written above, it is a creature of it's times (no matter how many churches tell you, they can't get back to the religion of the early church).
However, if you mean the teaching of Jesus, then yes, of course it is.
Jesus, when seen in his historical context, as a wandering mystical rabbi, is a long way from being unique. There were many more like him - google Rabbi Akiva for another good example. There were plenty of dissenting traditions to boot (the idea that Judaism existed as a monolithic cult with not disagreement is complete bollocks - spread by the Deuteronomist reformers), who also fed into this.
It all depends upon what you mean...

[Adrianus]

While I understand and appreciate the true sentiment and logic behind your position, Maverick, I think it becomes an inaccurate generalization when you add the idea that it is "the gods' true character." For that which the gods say, if they think at all, has little to do with the actions of the clergy and the masses.

So, I agree with Galadraal's accurate response, which is well presented.

[Athena-Nadine]

I always find it amusing when Pagans go on about the violence inherent in Christianity and other religions but blatantly turn a blind eye to the fact that the Pagan religions have just as bloody a history. No religions' hands are clean. And if the violence in the Abrahamic religions is a reflection of their god, so too was the violence of the Pagans a reflection of theirs (ours).

The self-righteous pedestal is made of dust in this instance.

[maverick9750]

I always find it amusing when Pagans go on about the violence inherent in Christianity and other religions but blatantly turn a blind eye to the fact that the Pagan religions have just as bloody a history. No religions' hands are clean. And if the violence in the Abrahamic religions is a reflection of their god, so too was the violence of the Pagans a reflection of theirs (ours).

The self-righteous pedestal is made of dust in this instance.

I never intended to sound self rightous, bloodshed is a part of every religion and culture in the world, otherwise the first time they pissed off thier nieghboring tribe, they would cease to exist. my actual issue is more that he has risen to preeminence by a combination of missionary work, bloodshed, and disease. I do believe that the god(s) have much more control over our lives than some of you seem to, especially in christianity, due to the fact that he insists upon obiedience first and formost.

I believe that once a god has left the concensus consiousness of humanity, that god has ceased to exist, and that has been the goal of christianity from the very begining (go and tell) so by converting the world, he is attacking the other gods, some just faded away, the ones that refused, he had his people call demons, such as Pan.

[Adrianus]

I always find it amusing when Pagans go on about the violence inherent in Christianity and other religions but blatantly turn a blind eye to the fact that the Pagan religions have just as bloody a history. No religions' hands are clean.

Very true!

[Adrianus]

Woah there... how is it ridiculous? He did reform certain parts of Judaism...

I know of one instance where in his capacity as rabbi, Rabbi Ben-Joseph (Jesus) argued a point of Halacha (Jewish Law) before the Jewish Law Court at the Temple in Jerusalem. As I recall, it was a common practice for some Jews to buy items on Shabbat (the Shabbath) to be used that day in the Temple. Yet there is a Din D'Raishaw (Primary Law) implied (or interpreted) as forbidding the handling of money on Shabbat.

Now, The Rabbi Ben-Joseph brought a complaint before the Court and argued that the handing of money on Shabbat was not permitted even for the purchase of items to be used in Holy Service in the Temple. The Court agreed, thus refining Jewish Law to disallow ALL handling of money on Shabbat. That law stands today.

This does not make a "reform" of the Jewish religion. This is a minor, every-day legal action in the Jewish Courts. I'm wondering if you had something else, specific, in mind?



I don't think that all of his followers were Catholic, not by any means...

Did not mean to imply they were.



...Now whether or not Christianity adopted all or a little off Mithraism is up for debate.

True.


...but you make it out to almost be some horrible Christian plot... I disagree with you in the assumption that this was some kind of meticulously planned plot to steal followers.

Sometimes my mind just goes crazy with my vivid imagination and stories of evil about those darn Popes. "Meticulously planned"? Well, probably not. But in some form from time and again over the centuries, a "planned plot to steal followers," is more like planned plots to convert followers.



Be careful here. Be careful to distinguish between the acts of a few and the acts of the many... and also take into account cultural and historical truths.

Thanks for the advice.


Christianity is not the only religion in the world who has had terrible acts commited in it's name... Id be careful here.

I used the word "depths" perhaps unclearly to indicate IN relationship to other religions and their relative "fanatic intolerance and depraved violence." Of course, this is a common condition to, I imagine, ALL religions- including Pagan religions. It's just that the Roman Christians achieved some world records in this regard.


...IF christianity were totally modelled after Mithraism, wheres the Bull blood initiation?

Did I say "totally"? No. I don't think so. I certainly did not mean to imply so.


Now it is clear that Christianity and Mithraism again were in competition... Whats up for debate is how and the thoughts behind it...

Your knowledge of this matter is very apparent. Frankly, I haven't studied it in enough depth to agree or disagree. I do know I reflect a very popular position among seemingly many Pagans, not that this makes it true or untrue. It's not something I cooked up. But I agree that you could very well be correct.



I think there is a little bias on your side, as there is with all of us, but I do not appreciate your tone of writing... it expresses clear prejudice.

Yes, I am quite prejudiced in favor of Paganism.

[Adrianus]

...you also may want to read this site... , especially this article called
'What Mithraism isn't?' (http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/mith/whatmithisnt.htm)

Interesting site. Thanks.



As other's have said, this isn't unique to Christianity, bloodshed was and is a part of many different faiths.

I did not say it was. Did not mean to imply it is unique to Christianity.

[Toby Stimpson]

Trying to get things back on track a bit -
Christianity as Mystical Judaism.

Well, If by Christianity you mean the current world faith (with it's vast diversity) obviously not, as, contrary to what some posters have written above, it is a creature of it's times (no matter how many churches tell you, they can't get back to the religion of the early church).
However, if you mean the teaching of Jesus, then yes, of course it is.
Jesus, when seen in his historical context, as a wandering mystical rabbi, is a long way from being unique. There were many more like him - google Rabbi Akiva for another good example. There were plenty of dissenting traditions to boot (the idea that Judaism existed as a monolithic cult with not disagreement is complete bollocks - spread by the Deuteronomist reformers), who also fed into this.
It all depends upon what you mean...

Thats so true. I mean look at the sect of Rabbis around the Dead Sea, they had a completely different world view and ideology to the rest of Judaism, if there was such a thing as the rest of Judaism.

[Paracelsus]

Ah yes, the Essenes - I was trying to avoid them, as they've been taken up (like the culdee church) by every new age odd-bod. But yeah, fair point.