Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Athiesm vs Christianity


osusev

Recommended Posts

Obviously Off-season is long and now that the Dems are running things its a bit boring on the news front.

 

One of my favorite debate topics is my Anti-religous stances and how it applies toward our world/government/society.

 

I am a proud Athiest that really dislike the Institute of christianity (not the people I like most of them).

 

Any particular subject relating to how Christianity affects our society I will like to debate on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here's one: What is religion? And what does something have to have in order to be called a religion?

 

Does there need to be traditionalism for it to be considered a religion? In the seven major religions in the world today (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism) you find strong tradition present.

 

Does there have to be mythology for it to be a religion? Does there have to be some kind of crazy story with miracles and supernatural things? Does there have to be a creation story? The Abrahmic tradition is full of it. Hinduism has mythology, but not nearly on the scale of the western religions. Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism do not have mythology like the others.

 

Does there need to be a concept of salvation? In Judaism, Christianity and Islam there is heaven. In Hinduism there is Moksha, the radical liberation to the ultimate truth, Brahman. In Buddhism there is nirvana, where desires are “blown out” and there is a release. In Confucianism and Daoism there is no salvation.

 

Do there need to be sacred places or objects? Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism have sacred places and objects. Confucianism and Daoism don't.

 

Do there have to be sacred actions or rituals to be performed? All of the major seven include rituals. From attending church, meditating, practicing one of the four yogas or going to worshiping your ancestors at their shrine, rituals are present.

 

Does there have to be a community? The word religion itself comes from the latin “religare – to bind.” Does there have to be a binding of a community of people for it to be a religion? Christianity started with Christ and his 12 disciples. Buddhism started with one man, Siddhartha Gautama. Is the sense of one-ness with a community of people essential, or is it optional?

 

And finally, does there have to be a god? For the Abrahamic tradition there is a single god, and it is scary as shit. Hinduism is very pluralistic, but the gods aren't really gods like in the western religions. They are simply manifestations of Brahman, the ultimate truth, that make it easier for people to grasp the concept. Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism do not have a god at all.

 

How is it that scholars agree that all seven are religions, but they don't fulfill all the same criteria? Are there any other things you think are needed for a religion to be a religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for the wife to get dressed to go out to dinner, so unsurprisingly, I have some time to kill...

 

Not surprisingly coming from me, I think Christianity has a major, major effect on all of the social "issues" that divide our country. And for me it's mostly a negative effect.

 

Adolescent sex education in schools: for some reason, premarital sex is frowned upon. Not sure why, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with sex being for procreation only. Which is stupid. Didn't anyone in the Biblical Era realize sex was fun, natural, healthy, etc.? Perhaps the dudes who wrote the Bible couldn't get laid and wrote out of spite. I really don't know, but it is a totally antiquated notion, and the reason I think most folks are afraid to teach teens that sex, when you're ready, is because they are adhering strictly to the Bible without even thinking about whether the Bible was "correct." Abstinence education clearly does not work for teens, so why not teach them how to be safe. I cannot see how everybody isn't for this. (That's a solid double-negative...)

 

Gay marriage: I understand Christianity, because of what is written in the Bible, believes marriage is between a man and a woman only. Which is fine. But I really don't think the reason they hate gay marriage is because of the Bible, it's because hatred for gays. Nothing is gonna convince me otherwise.

 

Legalization of drugs: To be honest, I don't know why/how religion, and Christianity in particular, has taken the stance on drugs they have. I hope someone can explain this to me. I like having persona freedoms, and this is one people feel like they can take away from other people for no good reason.

 

Global warming: Huh? Yes, Christianity has an effect on how we feel about Global Warming. GW just happens to be the poster boy for rejection of science altogether for some reason. Which is a shame, because it really has an effect on our future. Can't you Creationists just rally against Dinosours or some other shit that is in the past?

 

Adultery: Just kidding.

 

Foreign diplomacy: No matter what everyone says, this is cut and dried to me. It's the Crusades, plain and simple.

 

Note that all of these are attempts by the Christian Right to take away personal freedoms, and since I am a Semi-Chomskyian, freedom and lack of oppression are important to me. Stuff like the economy I could go either way on. The reason I'm as Liberal I am is because of the social issues and how important my personal freedoms and the freedom of everyone else is to me.

 

I could go on forever about these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a plethora of pittfalls to having sex that go along with the great benefits of it. Even if you teach safe sex, does that ensure that the kids will follow those guidelines? Hell we tell them not to have sex now, and they do it, what makes you think guys are gonna start slappin' rubbers on their cocks?

Why do anything if you can't guarantee the outcome?

 

I just think school should stay out of it altogether and let the parents chose how they want to approach it. Sex ed is fine, teach them what a vagina is and what a penis is, and what the vas defrance does and all that anatomy bullshit and leave the moral judgements to the families themselves.

How is teaching the basics of contraceptives a moral judgement? It is simply putting the information out there, telling them it is available and how it works. Nobody is forcing anything

 

 

 

What's funny is that there are some Hebrew texts that date back pretty far that said one of the incense that Moses and Aaron burned in the tabernacle was cannibus. Burning bush? Perhaps.

 

I like the Rasta take on weed. They love to quote Genesis where God says "I give you every seed bearing plant on the earth for your use for food" You know weed has the same exact effect eaten as it does smoked, it just takes longer to kick in. It does make you wonder, if you believe in God and believed he created everything on the earth then what was the purpose of weed? It's one of the only drugs that does not have to be altered by man whatsoever to have the stoning effects it does. Cocaine has to be processed as well as heroin, and most other drugs. Weed comes ready made right out of the ground. Perhaps he made it as a natural pain killer. I do know one thing, a stoner is the most peaceful loving laid back creature on this planet. Sure there are those who become potheads and thus useless, but like everything in life moderation is key.

Some people think that when moses went up Mt. Sinai he ate some shrooms that grow there. The ten commandment might have been a weird trip.

 

 

Although the Crusades weren't a completely evil event in history. I've read books that made arguments that the Muslims were advancing pretty hard through Turkey and had ambitions to make a serious move into Europe. I'm no expert on the Crusades, but I'm sure there are faults on both sides in that situation.

The crusades really were evil though. Killing thousands and thousands of people goes right against the teachings of Christ and the gospels. It also demonstrated how the Catholic church had become a lot more sinister than just a church. If you read the scripture you don't see the hierarchy and power that the church has.

 

What most people don't realize about the Islam vs the west thing is that when Mohammed first went to Medina he signed a pact with the Jews there, who were at the time in danger from many of the arab tribes. The constitution of medina formed an alliance between the Jews and Muslims. Muslims would defend a Jew like he defended muslims, if Jews would defend a Muslim like he defended a Jew. The conflict between the "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) and Muslims started because the Christians and Jews ridiculed Mohammed and his revelations, and ostracized him. Before they started doing that Mo hammed viewed Jews, Christians and Muslims as natural allies. They had the same god, the same core teachings and structure of belief.

 

Jews and Christians, with their scripture and customs already firmly entrenched simply rejected Mohammed as a prophet. What I don't understand is why the Jews will believe that their prophets were talking to god because they said they were, while Mohammed was not. Or how Christians can accept the New Testament as an extension of the old testament because it is the story and word of god, while they wont accept the Qu'ran as an extension of the bible. The Qu'ran doesn't overwrite the bible, it is an extension. And according to the Qu'ran it is a manifestation of god. (The Qu'ran is to Muslims what Jesus is to Christians) Using the logic that the old and new testaments are valid the Qu'ran should be valid too.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most interesting college courses I ever took, alongside of the course where

I learned and read Joseph Campbell's brilliant work "Hero of a Thousand Faces"...

 

was an outstanding, seriously deep class on the Middle East.

 

For some ACCURATE HISTORY that isn't contorted to discredit the Jewish and Christian faiths:

 

BEFORE Muhammed and Islam came about, Jews and Arabs did have harmonious relations, Jews were respected

highly by Arabs. This is documented in ancient Arab texts.

 

Muhammad created his religion, with himself designated as Prophet and wanted the Jews to adopt him and his religion.

 

While he developed his army of followers, he had few supporters of the Jews...so he

adopted some of the Jewish customs, like daily prayers facing Jerusalem, Yom Kippur, etc.

to try to get them to convert.

 

But the Jews didn't buy it. So, Muhammed dropped Jerusalem for Mecca, and dropped the

idea he could get them to accept him and his new religion.

 

He hated the Jews for that, and developed a resentment so great, that vicious

denunciations of the Jews led to widespread attacks and murders of Jews.

 

Muhammed decreed that Jews will be destroyed, per a religious decree that is attributed to him.... that when the Jews are destroyed, and only then, will they have their Day of Resurrection.

 

The Jewish tribe of Quraiza was was a victim of horrific genocide, for refusing to convert to Islam.

 

Despite misinformation to the contrary, Jews living in Arab states were enslaved, and were despised and were the recipients of wanton violence because of the long standing determination of the Jews to refuse to become Islamic.

 

When Israel was created, hundreds of thousands of Jews desperately moved to the new state.

In 1948, over 3/4 of a million Jews lived in Arab countries. The Jewish people fled, for their well-being, if not their

lives.

 

And so, those Islamic terrorists must be stopped. They wish to force the entire western world to convert and will stop at nothing, including horrific genocide to accomplish their religious cult's goals.

 

I hardly can concur with the cherry picking of ancient history about how the Jews were the "same" and they were

 

terrible because they had a treaty with an army that they feared, and justly so.

 

But, anti Christian rants are all to easily manufactured by teaching others bits and pieces. Kinda like

 

using only certain numbers in certain ways to say whatever you want them to say.

 

So, I'm left to wonder:

 

Does anyone think that Muslim extremist terrorists don't really want to nuke Israel off the map?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius
What most people don't realize about the Islam vs the west thing is that when Mohammed first went to Medina he signed a pact with the Jews there, who were at the time in danger from many of the arab tribes. The constitution of medina formed an alliance between the Jews and Muslims. Muslims would defend a Jew like he defended muslims, if Jews would defend a Muslim like he defended a Jew. The conflict between the "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) and Muslims started because the Christians and Jews ridiculed Mohammed and his revelations, and ostracized him. Before they started doing that Mo hammed viewed Jews, Christians and Muslims as natural allies. They had the same god, the same core teachings and structure of belief.

Any account of Mohammed's life and actions has to take into account the fact that he was both a religious & political leader. The pact with the Jews of Medina, from what I can tell, had both political & religious components. Mohammed did seem to realize that he was working from within the context of the Abrahamic tradition and expressed a sense of kinship with the "people of the book". In fact, one of his main disciples and key formulators of early Islamic doctrine was a Yemenite Jew named Ka'ab al-Ahbar, the subject of an interesting piece of historical fiction, The Rock: A Seventh Century Tale of Jerusalem.

 

Thats said, the Medina alliance didn't break up because Jews and Christians were ridiculing his revelation. Political allegiances got in the way of any notion of religious toleration: Jewish tribes were accused of treachery, with the result being that some were forced to convert, others sold into slavery, and others beheaded.

 

I guess you could say that there was a sort of inverse bell curve when it came to religious toleration. When Mohammed was at his weakest, he saw a natural ally in the Jewish community of Medina. But once he was an ascending yet still insecure power, Mohammed and Islam in general took a more harsh approach to devotees of the other Abrahamic religions. And when Islam became enshrined as a strong political power, it once again returned to a level of toleration that exceeded anything one could find at that time in Europe.

 

Despite misinformation to the contrary, Jews living in Arab states were enslaved, and were despised and were the recipients of wanton violence because of the long standing determination of the Jews to refuse to become Islamic.

This is inaccurate. Though things weren't always peachy for Jews living in Islamic countries, their situation was comparatively better than that of the Jews living in Europe. Dhimmi status was better than the complete lack of any rights given to Jews living in Christian nations.

 

If you want to read more on the subject, I recommend checking out Bernard Lewis's The Jews of Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

religion serves a purpose, and, despite my personal beliefs, i recognize the need for it to keep society in order. my only real issue with christians is the incessant need to grow the herd. of all the years of listening to my aunt rant and rave about going to hell for various actions, i became quite resentful to religion peddlers.

 

so long as any religion individual doesn't get pushy with me, i dont have a problem with it. but i will gladly point out where i think its wrong.....

 

atheism itself is a religion.....i, by definition, would be agnostic....cause i have no way of knowing either way. i let my conscious guide me through life.....which has worked pretty well thus far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Al. You are wrong. The Jews, as I stated previously, ahead of the statement you question, were

 

respected by the Arabic populace. This is fact.

 

After the Jews rebuffed Muhammed's desire to become a prophet, he kept trying long enough for

 

Rabbis to easily be able to pick apart his lack of correct answers to their legit religious questions.

 

It was then that Muhammed changed the direction that his religion should pray in.

 

He then demanded Jews submit and convert. They still refused, therefore, the antagonism

 

grew. You mentioned Dhimmi status. I suppose in the genocide of Quraiza, they had Dhimmi status,

 

that "was better than Jews had in Europe" ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius

I thought you were talking about Jewish life in Islamic countries in general, not just what happened to Banu Qurayza. After all, over thirteen hundred years goes by between Qurayza and 1948. Any discussion that doesn't cover that stuff would be incomplete.

 

And I'm not sure what exactly you meant when you talked about the Jewish exodus from Arab lands in 1948, but it doesn't sound right either. You should check out this Wikipedia page for more info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my only real issue with christians is the incessant need to grow the herd. Choco

***********************************************

 

This is the Bible thumping syndrome. A lot of Christians don't go much to church

 

because of the self-righteous, obligative search to spread the Word and bring in members.

 

All too often, in my ancient experiences, the "bring more members into the fold" had a

 

self-interest. More members meant more people in your church tithing. eh... theoretically.

 

I once had a pastor talk to me about my opinion that tithing wasn't valid.

 

I explained that in the ancient Hebrew and Greek, the tribes paid 10 percent of their

 

sheep, goats, bread, etc, (they hardly had money) to support their tribe's government, which was a religious gov.

 

I simply saw today, that we already pay far more than 10 percent to our government, which

 

obviously takes a lot of money. And, in that, we don't have a traveling tribe with a traveling government....

 

So, I offered him 10 percent of my crop of tomatoes, and he got upset. He said not tithing your income goes against

 

the will of God. I said no, I was just objectively appraising ancient Jewish tribe's practice of tithing, and didn't

 

see the analogy to church membership. So, I asked him why he felt so strongly about tithing being a Biblically deemed

 

requirement in terms of payment of money to the church. He said simply, that "it works, the church needs funds to be able

 

to pay bills and do good works, which is God's will".

 

Well, being me, I was annoyed, so I said "robbing banks works, too, but that wouldn't be right, either."

 

So, I found myself being asked to leave his office and not come back. So, I did, and quit coming to church until

 

he called one night and apologized and said he was wrong, and indeed, church policy on tithing was going to

 

be significantly modified. And it truly was. I got hugs from wives who quietly admitted they reluctantly

 

went into debt, affecting their home lives, including food and their children's activities, Christmases and school books and clothes..

 

But yes, having the Latter Day Saints, I think it is, show up at yer front door once a year..

 

wanting to spread the message and info about their church ticks me off in a huge way.

 

I was in the shower one summer afternoon, working from home, and the doorbell rang.

 

Then, some seconds later, it rang twice. So, I thought something was wrong, got out of the shower,

 

wrapped a towell around me, and hurried to the door.

 

I had one hand on our 3 rd old 80 lb. pup, and one hand on the door, soaking wet, and

there were two church ladies there with all sorts of pamphets to give out.

 

I tersely said I was not interested, that I'd like to finish showering, and the older lady,

 

the mother of the young adult daughter next to her, starting quoting Bible verses and talking

 

about their church. Again, I tried to be polite, and said I was not interested...at all.

 

She kept on and put her hand inside the door to hand me some literature like I hadn't said anything,

 

ignoring her daughter's pleas to continue on to the next house.

 

Well, 80 lbs of our big puppy went past me, I slipped trying to hold him back, and I fell through the doorway, half

 

onto the porch headfirst and my towel came loose. Bernie knows when something isn't right.

 

I looked up into the sun at her daughter and said:

 

"You need to get her off my property before I get up and call the police..." The daughter apologized all over

 

the place and -put- her mom into the car.

 

They never came back. But, I was mowing the yard a week later and the young daughter (married) stopped

 

by for a second to smile and apologize. She said wasn't into bothering people and intruding on their space, but

 

she accompanied her mom trying to convince to her stop bothering people at their homes, to no avail.

 

So, she thanked me for trying to nice when I answered the door and said she was going to make sure we weren't bothered again.

 

And, she mentioned with a grin, that after that incident, her mom is talking about going to shopping malls instead.

 

And so, the problem was solved.

 

In conclusion: "One of the worst things that ever happened to Christianity is ... religion"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That preacher has got a set of big ones to demand such tithing, Where I go they use the rule of 10% and dont make such demands. The leadership lets everyone make up what they feel fit to give. This is a matter between God and each individual.

 

Every church is different. We try and follow the Bible for what it says and dont want to take away or add anything different, and with that I am comfortable with what is being done.

 

As far as Athiesm, If someone is that, it will be their own decision. They can take that up with God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider:

 

http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_history.htm

 

"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in General Assembly Resolution 181. A war broke out in fact, while the British were still in Palestine. The Arabs initiated a war against the Jewish community and the the Jewish state, with the declared aim of "driving the Jews into the sea." There was little doubt about their intentions. The Mufti, a Nazi collaborator who escaped the clutches of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, had told the British that in his view the preferred solution for the Jews of Palestine was the one adopted in Europe, in other words, annihilation. Almost as soon as the UN decided on partition of Palestine, Arabs began attacking Jews, beginning with lethal riots in Jerusalem and attacks on Jewish transportation. The British allowed a volunteer army under Fawzi El Kaukji, to enter Palestine in January of 1948. During the fighting, with Jerusalem virtually blockaded, the state of Israel was established on May 15, 1948. Arab countries, chiefly Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, invaded almost immediately."

 

**********************

Now, given that centuries old hostility became common due to ancient Muhammed's anger at his inability to get Jews

to convert to his religion, when the UN voted to create a JEWISH state and ARABIC state, the subcultural and/or religious

hatred of the Jews by the certain elements of angry activist Arabic peoples took hold - to their own discredit and loss historically.

They wanted the entire state for themselves, and wanted to push the Jews into the sea. As in, they determined

that the Jews should not have their own state.

 

In effect, they rejected having their own state if the Jews had Israel. Hence, they kinda shot themselves in the foot.

Israel was created over the Arabic objections, the Palestinian Arabs were left without their own country because of their

leaders' hate for the Jews. It was not some imagined oversight by the United Nations, nor any intentional slight toward

the Arabic peoples in the region.

 

This hostility grew, given that it was so great that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq were the primary countries involved

in the war on Israel.

 

Whether due to a desire to defend their new Jewish state per their common bond, or the heighted Arabic anger and

violence toward Jews in those and other countries, there was a major immigration of Jews by many, many thousands,

to Israel, upon the creation of Israel in 1948.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with ya there. I'm definitely all about the personal freedoms as well.

 

After reading your responses, it looks like we're almost on the exact same page on most of these issues. Doesn't it?

 

The only difference between you and me is you work to contain your disgust for things and allow people to be people for the most part, where as I just don't give a shit what anyone does unless it very directly harms me or others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aloysius
Whether due to a desire to defend their new Jewish state per their common bond, or the heighted Arabic anger and

violence toward Jews in those and other countries, there was a major immigration of Jews by many, many thousands,

to Israel, upon the creation of Israel in 1948.

Oh, I don't doubt that there was a mass exodus from Arab countries, and the reason's given in the Wikipedia page I linked to: in some countries, they were expelled, while in others they were compelled to leave through property confiscation and other coercive measures.

 

Obviously a terrible thing, but it goes against the narrative I understood you to be laying out in your post: that Mohammed killed and hated Jews, so Jews lived in fear for 1300 years, then fled to Israel when they had a chance. In reality, Jews in Muslim countries were treated better than they were in European countries. In fact, many of them retain warm feelings and a sense of nostalgia for the countries they were forced to leave.

 

What I'm trying to get at here is that I find it strange that Islam would be bashed for being anti-Semitic when, historically, its adherents treated Jews better than Christian Europe did. Yes, you can bring up Banu Qurayza, but I could respond with the Crusades, where entire Jewish communities were wiped out by the Christian troops marching to the Holy Land. You could bring up Jews being expelled from Arab countries in 1948, but much worse things happened in Europe just a few years earlier.

 

It just doesn't seem like a good argument, unless you want to vilify Christianity alongside Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me a true atheist wouldn't even think of religion, let alone single one out, nor debate the merits.

 

The ones that do almost seem as if they are mad some people have something they don't.

 

JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider:

 

http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_history.htm

 

"On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states in General Assembly Resolution 181. A war broke out in fact, while the British were still in Palestine. The Arabs initiated a war against the Jewish community and the the Jewish state, with the declared aim of "driving the Jews into the sea." There was little doubt about their intentions. The Mufti, a Nazi collaborator who escaped the clutches of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, had told the British that in his view the preferred solution for the Jews of Palestine was the one adopted in Europe, in other words, annihilation. Almost as soon as the UN decided on partition of Palestine, Arabs began attacking Jews, beginning with lethal riots in Jerusalem and attacks on Jewish transportation. The British allowed a volunteer army under Fawzi El Kaukji, to enter Palestine in January of 1948. During the fighting, with Jerusalem virtually blockaded, the state of Israel was established on May 15, 1948. Arab countries, chiefly Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, invaded almost immediately."

 

**********************

Now, given that centuries old hostility became common due to ancient Muhammed's anger at his inability to get Jews

to convert to his religion, when the UN voted to create a JEWISH state and ARABIC state, the subcultural and/or religious

hatred of the Jews by the certain elements of angry activist Arabic peoples took hold - to their own discredit and loss historically.

They wanted the entire state for themselves, and wanted to push the Jews into the sea. As in, they determined

that the Jews should not have their own state.

 

In effect, they rejected having their own state if the Jews had Israel. Hence, they kinda shot themselves in the foot.

Israel was created over the Arabic objections, the Palestinian Arabs were left without their own country because of their

leaders' hate for the Jews. It was not some imagined oversight by the United Nations, nor any intentional slight toward

the Arabic peoples in the region.

 

This hostility grew, given that it was so great that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq were the primary countries involved

in the war on Israel.

 

Whether due to a desire to defend their new Jewish state per their common bond, or the heighted Arabic anger and

violence toward Jews in those and other countries, there was a major immigration of Jews by many, many thousands,

to Israel, upon the creation of Israel in 1948.

 

Could those Arabs be angry at the terrostic acts in palestine by zionist groups during the 30's and 40's? Or how about the fact that the United Nations, which doesn't really have the power or authority to create a nation, creating the state of Israel? I could see why they would be a little angry.

 

I am not a Jew hater by any means, although I am probably coming off like one. It just seems to me that everything we hear about it is solely from the perspective of the Jews. You can't comprehend everything with one sided information.

 

 

What I'm trying to get at here is that I find it strange that Islam would be bashed for being anti-Semitic

The funny thing is, according to the bible the Arabs are Semites!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously a terrible thing, but it goes against the narrative I understood you to be laying out in your post: that Mohammed killed and hated Jews, so Jews lived in fear for 1300 years, then fled to Israel when they had a chance. In reality, Jews in Muslim countries were treated better than they were in European countries. In fact, many of them retain warm feelings and a sense of nostalgia for the countries they were forced to leave. Al

**************************************************

 

That wasn't the overall narrative, sorry if you took it that way. It's just that the antagnostic division started back then,

 

and -in some Islamic circles- let's say, not even including terorrists... there is still a hatred of Jews, which goes back

 

culturally, seems like forever.

 

And, PB&J, I actually don't know about "Jewish terrorist acts in the 30's and 40's. Perhaps you could document that

 

a bit. But the early Jews were hardly to blame for the anger of Muhammed when they declined to convert to his

 

religion.

 

The fact that Jews and Arabic peoples have lived together in peace in all sorts of countries doesn't negate the horrible fact:

 

From the beginning of the state of Israel, they were hated by extremists who wanted them immediately pushed out into the sea.

 

How different a Middle East we would have had in the world, if, instead of blind, cultural and religious hatred, the

 

Arabic people had welcomed THEIR own country too, and the two countries could have lived in peace for all these years.

 

Well, if yer going to dream, dream big.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, PB&J, I actually don't know about "Jewish terrorist acts in the 30's and 40's. Perhaps you could document that a bit.

 

Off the top of my head, the King David hotel bombing in 1946. I'll find some other examples later when I have a bit more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've come across two types. The ones who are just the type that love to go against the grain and have this condescending snooty attitude towards those of faith. They just love to prop themselves up as being far more intelligent that us stupid knuckle dragging believers.

 

Then there's the type who have been legitimately injured by those of faith, and thus have rejected anything they have stood for. Also those who have been in communities where faith is shoved down their throats at every turn have made them bitter.

 

I'm not sure if I am or not, but I hate to think that the only people who don't believe in "faith" are either snooty elitists or those wronged by organized religion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask some of the christians in here about something that plagues me when I look at "Christ" stories and other christian stories and ideologies.

 

Mithras....

1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.

 

2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.

 

3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.

 

4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.

 

5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.

 

6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).

 

 

Other "holy" figures born of virgins:Augustus (his father was the god Apollo) Agdistis Attis

Adonis Buddha Dionysus

Korybas Krishna

Osirus Perseus Romulus and Remus

Tammuz Zoroaster Jesus

 

The EXTREMELY ODD COINCIDENCE to another story that well PREDATES Christianity and or Christ is the Osiris story always bothered me:

 

OSIRIS – EGYPT: He came to fulfill the law. Called "KRST," the "Anointed One." Born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave / manger, with his birth announced by a star and attended by three wise men. Earthly father named "Seb" (translates to "Joseph.") At age 12 he was a child teacher in the Temple and at 30 he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years. Osiris was baptized in the river Iarutana -- the river Jordan -- by "Anup the Baptizer," who was beheaded. (Anup translates to John.) He performed miracles, exorcised demons, raised El-Osiris from the dead. Walked on water and was betrayed by Typhon, crucified between two thieves on the 17th day of the month of Athyr. Buried in a tomb from which he arose on the third day (19th Athyr) and was resurrected. His suffering, death, and resurrection celebrated each year by His disciples on the Vernal Equinox -- Easter. Called "The Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "god's Anointed Son,' the "Son of Man," the "Word made Flesh," the "word of truth." Expected to reign a thousand years.

 

Other odd rip off stories

Trinity―Trinities were popular in pagan sects before Christianity was introduced to the world. Some of the more well known trinity gods included Mithra-Vohu Mana-Rashnu, Amen-Mut-Khonsu, and Osiris-Isis-Horus.

 

Virgin Birth―Among the pagan cultures that preceded Christianity, virgin birth stories abounded. The long list of pagan gods born of virgins includes: Romulus and Remus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Mithras, Chrishna, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, Perseus, and Dionysus.

 

Disciples―In the following 'saviors' cases, a grouping of disciples was present, just as they were present in Jesus' story: Horus, Buddha, Chrishna, Dionysus, Mithra. Interestingly enough, in the case of Dionysus, his disciple Acoetes was a boatman, just as Jesus' disciple Peter. And just as Peter was freed from jail when the doors miraculously flew open, so was Dionysus' disciple Acoetes. In Budda's case, he, like Jesus, demanded that his disciples renounce all worldly possessions. Yet another instance of similarity is that the disciples of both Jesus and Buddha were said to have been arrested for preaching, as well as witnessed to have "walked on water."

 

Miracles―Among those 'saviors' who, like Jesus, performed countless miracles include: Horus, Chrishna, Buddha, Dionysus, Mithra, Osirus, and Adonis. Horus was said to have walked on water, just as Jesus did. In addition, Horus raised one man, El-Azarus, from the dead in front of countless witnesses. In the case of Buddha, it was told that he fed five hundred men with one loaf of bread, that he cured lepers, and that he caused the blind to see. Dionysus rescued a person from dying when the person was utterly desolate and placed them among the stars. And he gave food and drink, herbs and berries, to the starving people -- not to mention turning water into wine.

 

The Sun―Here is another common theory, quoted from S. Acharya's "The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus:" "The reason why all these pagan narratives are so similar to a "god-man" is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe.

 

Honestly the whole new testament/old testament just seem to me honesly like Plagiarism. The flood story recently linked to the SUMERIAN religions complete with the Ark story line just stinks of copying.

 

How do you christians even look at the bible and the religion critically knowing that almost all of its stories and parables including Christ stories were well recorded prior to Christ even possibly being born?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in the Roman era, Mithraism was perhaps Christianity's leading competitor for the hearts and minds of others. Today Mithraism is religiously a non-factor, but it still "competes" with Christianity, in another way: It is a leading candidate for the "pagan copycat" thesis crowd as a supposed source for Christianity.

 

Our walking papers are laid out for us by over a dozen things that Jesus supposedly has in common with Mithras and, by extension, Christianity allegedly borrowed to create the Jesus character. The points are:

 

1. Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds.

2. He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

3. He had 12 companions or disciples.

4. Mithra's followers were promised immortality.

5. He performed miracles.

6. As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.

7. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.

8. His resurrection was celebrated every year.

9. He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.

10. He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."

11. His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.

12. Mithra had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.

13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

14. "His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."

15. Shmuel Golding is quoted as saying that 1 Cor. 10:4 is "identical words to those found in the Mithraic scriptures, except that the name Mithra is used instead of Christ."

16. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as saying that Mithraic services were conduced by "fathers" and that the "chief of the fathers, a sort of pope, who always lived at Rome, was called 'Pater Patratus.'"

 

Our goal in this essay is to offer an overview of Mithraic belief and at the same time analyze each of these claims in terms of the evidence. In order to lay some groundwork, however, it will be necessary to briefly explore the goings-on over the past few decades in the field of Mithraic studies. There is a certain caveat emptor that will be necessary in order to help the reader understand exactly how critics are misusing their sources -- and what to be on the lookout for in future comparisons.

 

From Cumont to Ulansey: The Mithraic Studies Revolution

 

In 1975, Mithraic studies scholar John Hinnells lamented "the practical difficulty of any one scholar mastering all the necessary fields" -- linguistics, anthropology, history (Indian, Iranian, and Roman!), archaeology, iconography, sociology -- in order to get a grip on Mithraic studies. Hinnells of course is on target with his lament; we have made the same observation here regarding Biblical studies. But Mithraism being a relatively dead religion, there are no equivalents of seminaries keeping the Mithraic studies flame alive, and no past history of "Mithraic Fathers" who produced voluminous works and meditations upon Mithra.

 

Thus it is not surprising that for the longest time, from the end of the 19th century until the middle of the 20th, there was only one person in the world who could be regarded as any sort of authority on Mithraism -- and that was Franz Cumont.

 

Cumont worked with the thesis that Mithraic belief was of a continuous, fairly invariable tapestry from it's earliest history up into the Roman period. The first remaining record of a god named Mithra appears as a deity invoked in a treaty dated 1400 BC [Hinn.MS, ix]; thereafter he is one of several Indo-Iranian gods, and he is known for giving orders, assembling people, and marshalling them -- perhaps with some militaristic overtones. He also appears as one who represents the concept of fidelity -- one of many such abstractions and personifications of virtues in the ancient East, such as Bhaga the god of sharing and Aryaman the god of hospitality (think of them as divine-level Care Bears, if you will).

 

As such, Mithra was the guy who went around dishing out punishment to those who broke treaties. He was the "guardian of the truth," "most dear to men," one "whose long arms seize the liar," who "injures no one and is everyone's friend," one who was all-seeing and all-knowing -- the sun was his "eye" on the world.

 

Mithra was responsible also for bringing rain, vegetation and health -- for in the ancient eastern mind, it is the moral behavior of persons (especially the king) that determines the national welfare and brings a fertile climate. If the king in your land broke a treaty, you would be advised to pack up if you were a farmer, because Mithra would soon be gliding in on his chariot with a boar shape on the front (accompanied by a divine sidekick representing Victory) to kick some tail and put things right [MS.27-51].

 

At other times Mithra was paired with a deity named Varuna, who was his superior. Varuna was the god in charge of helping men cultivate rice (although rice "ripening in the untilled soil" was still Mithra's business), so the two of them together oversaw the agricultural aspects of men's lives.

 

The ancient Mithra was a great guy. Lord of the Contract, Upholder of Truth. Peaceful, benevolent, protector, provider of a nice place to live and cattle, not easily provoked. A little later in Aryan history, he did become more of a warrior (previously, he had left a lot of the tail-kicking duties to Varuna), but then switched back to pacifism.

 

But then Zoroastrianism came along, and Mithra had some new things to do. He served as mediator between Ohrmazd and Ahriman, the good and bad gods of Zoroastrian dualism; but at the same time, he underwent something of a demotion as he became one of a group of seven lesser yazatas who served the upper-level deities [Cum.MM, 5] and was assigned some special escort duties: bringing demons to hell, and bringing souls to Paradise.

 

For a while after, things seem to have been quiet for Mithra. As late as the first century BC, Mithra is still associated with the sun along with Apollos and Hermes. [MS.129] So, why all this background? The problem was that Cumont was entirely wrong about very ancient (we shall say for convenience, Iranian) Mithraism being in continuity with Roman Mithraism.

 

For you see, the Roman Mithra was best known for his act of slaying a bull; yet there is no indication that the Iranian Mithra ever made his way into a bullpen for any reason. [MS, xiii] The Roman Mithra didn't appear at all interested in contract enforcement or escorting demons into hell. (Most likely, because demons are terrible tippers.)

 

And to make matters more complex, his followers in Iran, unlike the Roman Mithraists, did not worship in cave-like rooms (although Porphyry did think, incorrectly, that Zoroaster, the "putative founder of the cult," originated the idea of a cave as the image of the cosmos -- Beck.PO, 8), design levels of initiation, or pursue secrecy. [ulan.OMM, 8]

 

There was simply no solid connection between the two faiths except for the name of the central god, some terminology, and astrological lore of the sort that was widely imported into the Roman Empire from Babylon anyway [beck.PO, 87].

 

Nevertheless, because Cumont was locked into the notion of continuity, he assumed (for example) that the Iranian Mithra must have done some bull-slaying somewhere along the line, and he molded the evidence to fit his thesis, straining to find an Iranian myth somewhere that involved a bull-killing (it was done not by Mithra, but by Ahriman) and supposing that there was some connection or unknown story where the Iranian Mithra killed a bull.

 

Cumont's student Vermaseren [Ver.MSG, 17-18] also tried to find a connection, but the closest he could get was a story in which Soma, the god of life (who, as rain, was described as the semen of the sacred bull fertilizing the earth), was murdered by a consortium of gods which included Mithra -- as a very reluctant participant who had to be convinced to go along with the plan.

 

But simply put, the Roman Mithra wasn't anything like the Iranian one. He dressed really sporty, with a Phrygian cap (typical headgear for Orientals of the day) and a flowing cape that would have made Superman green with envy. He slayed a cosmic bull and earned the worship and respect of the sun god. He had new friends, animals that gave him a helping hand (or paw, or claw) with the bull-slaying, as well as two torch-bearing twins who could have passed for his sons.

 

If this was the Iranian Mithra, he obviously went through a midlife crisis at some point. The only thing that remained the same was that Mithra kept a loose association with the sun, which was something many gods had.

 

By the time of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies in the early 70s, the lack of evidence of an Iranian/Roman continuity led Mithraic scholars to suspect that Roman Mithraism was "a new creation using old Iranian names and details for an exotic coloring to give a suitably esoteric appearance to a mystery cult" [MS, xiii] -- and that Roman Mithraism was Mithraism in name only, merely a new system that used the name of a known ancient Eastern deity to attract urbane Romans who found the east and all of its accoutrements an enticing mystery. Think of it as repackaging an old religion to suit new tastes, only all you keep is the name of the deity!

 

And what was that new religion? For years Mithraic scholars puzzled over the meaning of the bull-slaying scene; the problem was, as we have noted, that the Mithraists left behind pictures without captions. Thus in the 70s, one scholar of Mithraism lamented [MS.437]:

 

At present our knowledge of both general and local cult practice in respect of rites of passage, ceremonial feats and even underlying ideology is based more on conjecture than fact.

And Cumont himself observed, in the 50s [Cum.MM, 150, 152]:

 

The sacred books which contain the prayers recited or chanted during the [Mithraic] survives, the ritual on the initiates, and the ceremonials of the feasts, have vanished and left scarce a trace behind...[we] know the esoteric disciplines of the Mysteries only from a few indiscretions.

But before too long, Mithraic scholars noticed something (or actually, revived something first posited in 1869 that Cumont, because of his biases, dismissed -- Ulan.OMM, 15) about the bull-slaying scene: The various human, animal, and other figures comprised a star-map! The bull corresponded with Taurus; the scorpion coincided with Scorpio; the dog matched up with Canis Major, and so on.

 

What Mithra himself corresponded to took a bit longer to decide; Spiedel first made a case for a correspondence with Orion [spie.MO], but Ulansey has led the way with the thesis that Mithra is here to be identified with Perseus [ulan.OMM, 26ff], and that Roman Mithraism was founded upon a "revolutionary" discovery in ancient astronomy (which was closely linked to astrology in that time) that "the entire cosmic structure was moving in a way which no one had even known before" -- a process we now call the precession of the equinoxes. In line with the Stoic belief that a divine being was the "source of every natural force," the personifying of natural forces in the form of mythical divine figures, and the origin on the cult in Tarsus, a city long under Persian domination and where Perseus was the leading god, Perseus was the perfect choice -- but this wasn't the type of thing that the cultists wanted everyone to know about, so, Ulansey theorizes, they chose the name of Mithra (a Persian god), partly to cover the identity of Perseus (who was often associated with Persia), partly because of an alliance between the Ciclian pirates who first introduced Mithraism to the Romans and a leader in Asia Minor named Mithridates ("given of Mithra"). [ulan.OMM, 89]

 

What has been the point of this diversion? The point is to give the reader a warning, to be on the lookout any time a critic makes some claim about Mithraism somehow being a parallel to Christianity. Check their sources carefully. If they cite source material from the Cumont or pre-Cumont era, then chances are excellent that they are using material that is either greatly outdated, or else does not rely on sound scholarship (i.e., prior to Cumont; works by the likes of King, Lajard, and Robertson).

 

Furthermore, if they have asserted anything at all definitive about Mithraic belief, they are probably wrong about it, and certainly basing it on the conjectures of someone who is either not a Mithraic specialist or else is badly outdated.

 

Mithraic scholars, you see, do not hold a candle for the thesis that Christianity borrowed anything philosophically from Mithraism, and they do not see any evidence of such borrowing, with one major exception: "The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art." [MS.508n]

 

We are talking here not of apostolic Christianity, note well, but of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries, which, in an effort to prove that their faith was the superior one, embarked on an advertising campaign reminiscent of our soft drink wars. Mithra was depicted slaying the bull while riding its back; the church did a lookalike scene with Samson killing a lion. Mithra sent arrows into a rock to bring forth water; the church changed that into Moses getting water from the rock at Horeb. (Hmm, did the Jews copy that one?)

 

Think of how popular Pokemon is, and then think of the church as the one doing the Digimon ripoff -- although one can't really bellow about borrowing in this case, for this happened in an age when art usually was imitative -- it was a sort of one-upsmanship designed as a competition, and the church was not the only one doing it. Furthermore, it didn't involve an exchange or theft of ideology.

 

As to any other parallels, in the late 60s, before the coming of age of the astrological thesis, appeal was made to the "possibility of Mithraic influence" as appearing "in many instances" -- and then again, the idea that Mithraism borrowed from Christianity was said to have "not been taken seriously enough into consideration." [Lae.MO, 86] But regarded as more likely in any case was that the two systems "could have spoken to a Roman condition, a social need, and a theological question without having known of each other's existence.

 

As in so many other instances of philosophy and literature, parallel thoughts and social patterns can appear independently of one another as 'new' elements with the authentic consciousness of such newness."[ibid.] But such parallels have not been so much as suggested in the wake of the astrological thesis. Today (and even by Cumont) the parallels drawn between the two faiths (by professional Mithraic scholars) are almost entirely either "universal" religious traits (i.e., both had a moral code; what religion doesn't!?) or sociological: Both spread rapidly because of the "political unity and moral anarchy of the Empire." [Cum.MM, 188-9] Both drew large numbers from the lower classes. (And of course, numerous differences are cited as well: Christianity was favored in urban areas habited by the Jewish diaspora, whereas Mithraism was indifferent to Judaism and was popular in rural areas; Mithraism appealed to slaves, troops, and functionaries vs. Christianity's

 

 

http://tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

 

nice try :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any atheists in here?

 

The person who started the thread said this..

 

I am a proud Athiest that really dislike the Institute of christianity (not the people I like most of them).

 

That is what generated my comment....if he is truly a atheist, why even talk about those who don't feel that way unless he feels he doesn't have something some others do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he is truly a atheist, why even talk about those who don't feel that way unless he feels he doesn't have something some others do.

 

I was raised without any religion at all, other than the Browns. I don't think there is a god, but I am willing to be proven wrong if it reveals itself or the Browns win a super bowl or something. I like to study different religions and debate them, discuss them and all of that not because I don't have something, but because it is damn interesting. A lot of history was driven by religion, and a lot of the culture we live in was influenced by it.

 

By reading the Old Testament, New Testament, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Confucian Analects, Zhongyong and Chuang Tzu you can get a whole new perspective on how the world works. Each religion makes sense if you read their texts and look at it from their viewpoint. I believe it is the non-religious scholars that study religions, and those willing to study other faiths than their own, that are the ones who have the greatest understanding of religiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're saying atheists are just jealous of people of faith and they can't admit it?

 

Or that only religious people can talk about religion?

 

No....I can talk about chemistry all I want, but I won't know WTF I am talking about.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...