|
Posts:
90
Registered:
8/31/09
|
|
(1 of 25)
Sep 29, 2009 5:04 PM
|
since when did everyone decide christianity is the ultimate religion? its roots have inspiration from greek mythology, norse mythology, celtic pagan religions, egyptian, kabala, middle eastern religions, and so on.
so lets face it im breaking this down the way i, a teenager, would understand what im saying, so dont call me dumb or say that i can't use proper grammer, im doing this the way my generation understands it.
my first point is from one of my favorite bands, dimmu borgir (look them up their actually really intelligent). christianity destroyed the norweigan culture when it came. it took away from them their rightful heritage that came from ancestery vikings. jesus christ wasn't even born in december. to help the vikings and pagans convert they moved it closer to the major pagan festival of saturnalia. some say it was in september, but the most credible resources say late april to mid may.
second point the catholic church (not the same of christianity but they piggyback off eachother so i dnt care) didnt even translate their texts until the 1920s into english in america. i understand we still have many different people migrateing to america but by then no one understood latin who was in these churches, and if you asked wha it said the priests would be angry with you for not trusting them.
third most of the bible is taken out of context anyways. consider it this way the story of sodom and gomorrah wasn't even talking about homosexuality as a sin. it was about hospitality when the man offered his daughters and even himself before his guests. do you offer to murder so your friends dont because its a sin? maybe. but not because its a sin. because of hospitality.
fourth why does christianity still use tactics used by the nazis to get people excited about its religion and join? i was once christian and went to the a christian festival called battle cry and they did all the same things as in the old nazi videos, it was actually kind of frightening.
so im just asking, dont be offended as i was once christian and went by the book and everything too. why do we insist on this being the religion that dominates the world and still act like its been around forever when it's a teenager, as i am, to religions.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,154
From:
Urth
Registered:
10/20/03
|
|
|
Posts:
245
From:
Salt Lake City
Registered:
6/26/09
|
|
(3 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Sep 29, 2009 8:05 PM
|
If I may offer my opinion on your query.
It is incorrect to say that everyone has decided that Christianity is the ultimate religion. There are several Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Animists etc. who would contest it. It became the religion of Europe because it was promoted by missionaries who were firm believers. The missionaries were successful in the beginning because Christian doctrine was seen to be preferable by the converts to the pagan religions of the time. It was only after the church became a tool of the state and then the state itself, that it was spread by more forceful means. But even then, it was more common for the spread to be by missionaries than by generals. It also helped that the kings of the new post Roman states saw Christianity as a political tool. For a king, accepting Christianity was a way of cementing relations with a powerful ally in the church, for eliminating the power of pagan priests and for unifying his power in his own kingdom. Christianity did not fare very well in the land of Jesus because of the newer and more aggressively militant religion, Islam.
Christianity did not totally take away any pagan cultures. It tried to pacify some of the more violent aspects of the converts and subsumed what it could, like Halloween and the Yule. The Norse still sang the sagas, Beowulf was still praised. Cuchulain and Fionn were still known around the halls of Tara. However, they were given a Christian gloss to make the more PC for the time. In most of the early European lands, what you ended up with was a pacified pagan population only minimally Christian. After many generations Christianity and the local paganism blended and produced the churches that are Christian but having a local twist to them.
The place of Latin is the Catholic church is much like Arabic in Islam and Hebrew in Judaism. The language itself was/is considered sacred. Texts in that language should not be translated because you then have the translator between the reader and God. By the 1920’s there were enough vernacular translations of the Bible that anyone could have a copy if they desired. There have been English translations since the 1400’s. But in the past, even if you had a Bible in your language, chances are that you would still have to take the word of the priest or minister. General literacy is a modern condition and very much an American idea. It came from the idea, that each man should be able to read the Bible and learn it for himself. A very protestant thing to believe. The Catholics were of the opinion that that would only invite confusion and heresy since most people would not have the training to properly interpret the scriptures.
You are correct that a great deal of scripture is taken out of context. Most people don’t have the inclination to find the quotation in context. What we have is more bibles available than ever in history and more literate people ignorant of its content than ever before. We can use your reference to Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. You are referring to the events of Genesis Chapter 19, verses 1 through 11. What is the context of that event?
The first mention of Sodom and Gomorrah is in Genesis Chapter 13 when Abram and his nephew Lot decide to go there separate ways. Abram went to Hebron and Lot to Sodom. And the text says “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” (Gen. 13: 13). So we know that the people are not the best people and that lot has probably made a mistake. The Sodom story is picked up again in Genesis chapter 18 when the Lord tells Abraham that he intends to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 20 again reminds the reader what kind of place Sodom is “And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;”. This is the point where Abraham bargains with the Lord and gets him to agree that if there are only ten righteous men in Sodom, He will not destroy it. Two messengers (angels) are sent to tell Lot of the Lords plans. This is the point where your reference comes in. Lot greeted the messengers at the town gate and brought them to his house. The men of Sodom saw the visitors and were curious, to say the least. The events in question take place after dinner but before bedtime.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.
11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
The people of Sodom want to know the strangers. Know in what way? From Lots actions, it is not in a good way. He went outside to try to calm the mob. He said “do not so wickedly.” What did the mob intend with the strangers that lot thought he could buy them off by offering his two daughters which have not known man? The implication is that there is a libidinous intent. The sin of Sodom is not just libidinous and certainly not focused on gay activities, but you cannot dismiss the story as just a man trying to protect the sanctity of hospitality.
A further scan of the Bible to references to Sodom on bring out two places where the sin is specified. Ezekiel 16:49 says
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister aSodom, bpride, fulness of bread, and abundance of cidleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
.
Jude says Jude 1: 7
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
So, after all that, it can be said that the incident with the men of Sodom was more than just Lot protecting his visitors, although that is a part of it. There is a libidinous component of the attack of the men of Sodom on the visitors. Sodom and Gomorrah were known as wicked cities at the time. The wickedness was not just gay nor just straight but also social injustice and pride.
That’s putting things in context.
What bothers me is how Hollywood takes scriptures out of context or makes them up out of thin air to have a wacko religious villain or madman spout off.
The Nazi reference is a bit off the mark. The mass meetings and hyper inspiring speakers have been a part of most religions from time immemorial, whether Christian or not. Just because it was used by Nazis doesn’t mean it is ipso facto an evil thing. It is a tool. As such it is neither good nor bad. The intent of the user determines the quality.
Lastly, Christians tend to be more active proselyters than some other religions because they have been given the command in the end of the Gospels to convert all the world. But, it’s not just Christians. Muslims are very keen on converting the world. Buddhists were also active proselyters. The thing is that when a person has what they see to be the ultimate truth, without which a person is lost, there is a felt obligation to share that truth.
The age of the truth, whatever it is, does not affect the truth. If something is true, it is true no matter what the age, theologically speaking. Remember that Christianity did not spring into the world like Athena from the forehead of Zeus. Jesus was a Jew. He had the teachings of Judaism to build upon. When he spoke about the scriptures he was not talking about the New Testament. He was talking about the Jewish scriptures. So even though Christianity is less than 2000 years old, it has roots that go back at least 1000 years before it.
Don’t apologize for being a teenager. Most people wish they could be one again. As Paul told Timothy, “Let no man despise thy youth..”
|
|
|
Posts:
6,154
From:
Urth
Registered:
10/20/03
|
|
(4 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Sep 29, 2009 11:22 PM
|
dp
Were you home schooled? I ask because you seem to have strange and limited ideas about how Xtianity was spread in Europe.
Did you know that the Roman Emperor Theodosius outlawed ALL religions in the Roman Empire except for the Catholic Church in 391 CE? That was followed by rampaging Xtians going around destroying pagan temples and libraries, and also killing the priests and priestesses of the nonXtian religions.
Did you know that Charlemagne sent his armies around to the Pagan villages with the order for the people to convert to Xtianity or die? Sometimes whole villages were slaughtered when they refused to convert In Verden 4,500 Saxons were beheaded on Charlemagne's orders in one day because they refused to convert.
Did you know that in 1193 Pope Celestine III began the Northern Crusades that for the next 200 years murdered Pagans in northern Europe as a way of spreading Xtianity in that area.
Have you ever heard of the Inquisitions where nonconformists were tortured and murdered for not following the Xtian churches' dogmas?
Xtianity certainly was not spread "because Christian doctrine was seen to be preferable to the Pagan religions of the time", unless you mean it was seen as being preferable to being killed by those demanding conversion to Xtianity.
Has anyone informed you about the millions of Native Americans who were killed in order to make the Americas a Xtian land?
Tellurian
--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the ruler as useful" Seneca the Younger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtISyZYW5fY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkGpO1lQrLY&feature=related
|
|
|
Posts:
217
Registered:
10/8/08
|
|
(5 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 1, 2009 6:04 AM
|
Chelsi,
I feel I need to correct a number of historical inaccuraceis in your post.
1. You missed out the most important singlle root of Christianity - Judaism.
2. You included Norse and celtic religoins which had no influence at the roots of Christianity as they did not exist in the Middle East where Christianity started. It had expanded to hundreds of thousands of believers long before any of them had even heard of Scandinavia.
3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that Christiantiy moved any festival to match a pagan one. If they were aiming at Saturnalia (Dec 17th - Dec 23rd), they missed. There is evidence that the Romans deliberately created a new pagan festival to compete with Christmas.
4. There is no credible source which can date the birth of Christ. Dec 25th is just as likely as, and no more likely than, any other date.
5. As far as Yule goes - see 2. Christmas was settled before Christianity reached anywhere where Yule might have been held. In any case, a Yule feast coudl be celebrated any time between Dec 1st and mid January. The first Christian king of Norway moved his Yule feast to Christmas. It was essentially a warrior drinking fest.
6. The Catholic church is Christian. It also recognises all the other main churches as Christian.
7.The Cathollic church published an approved translation of the Bible into near modern English in 1610 - the Douai bible. Earlier English (not easily understood these days) incomplete RC translations go back to the 7th century.
8. You are correct about the Sodom and Gomorrah text.
|
|
|
Posts:
6,971
Registered:
4/11/02
|
|
(6 of 25)
how about 'facts vs. bunk' ?
Oct 1, 2009 1:29 PM
|
"its roots have inspiration from greek mythology, norse mythology, celtic pagan religions, egyptian, kabala, middle eastern religions, and so on"
There is nothing from the norse mythos in Christianity, and Christianity predates early Kabbalah by roughly 1000 years.
"to help the vikings and pagans convert they moved it closer to the major pagan festival of saturnalia."
Since the Norse had no connection to this festival or the gods of the Romans (This was a ROMAN festival) this makes no sense at all.
I know you are a teenager but it helps if you have more facts to go on.
--
"It's interesting to note that there was little or no media focus on the 9-11 terrorists during the Bush administration and therefore no public outrage." - Whitehall
|
|
|
Posts:
90
Registered:
8/31/09
|
|
(7 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 1, 2009 8:29 PM
|
"Chelsi,
I feel I need to correct a number of historical inaccuraceis in your post.
1. You missed out the most important singlle root of Christianity - Judaism.
2. You included Norse and celtic religoins which had no influence at the roots of Christianity as they did not exist in the Middle East where Christianity started. It had expanded to hundreds of thousands of believers long before any of them had even heard of Scandinavia.
3. There is no historical evidence to suggest that Christiantiy moved any festival to match a pagan one. If they were aiming at Saturnalia (Dec 17th - Dec 23rd), they missed. There is evidence that the Romans deliberately created a new pagan festival to compete with Christmas.
4. There is no credible source which can date the birth of Christ. Dec 25th is just as likely as, and no more likely than, any other date.
5. As far as Yule goes - see 2. Christmas was settled before Christianity reached anywhere where Yule might have been held. In any case, a Yule feast coudl be celebrated any time between Dec 1st and mid January. The first Christian king of Norway moved his Yule feast to Christmas. It was essentially a warrior drinking fest.
6. The Catholic church is Christian. It also recognises all the other main churches as Christian.
7.The Cathollic church published an approved translation of the Bible into near modern English in 1610 - the Douai bible. Earlier English (not easily understood these days) incomplete RC translations go back to the 7th century.
8. You are correct about the Sodom and Gomorrah text. "
1. Sorry i was getting ahead of myself and forgot the obvious lol i meant stuff further back mainly.....
2. true but when they tried to convert them into christianity they used ALOT of influence from them. IE: hercules was the first jesus-like idol. he was a son of a god whom had sinned and took on other's problems and took the blame for them (saveing his mother from hera's rath, etc.), i can't remember the religion right now (3 days no coffee is like 3 days no meth to an addict) but the one middle eastern religion with the famouse bible came before judaism, as they are the same as christianity and catholicism as in only the details seperate them, the message is still the same. jewish people just dont believe jesus christ is their savior.
3. actually their is considering astrologists found only one date of that CENTURY that matches the bible's description. also their is evidence from the switch. and to roman createing it thing thats idiotic because the holiday came first all over greece and parts of ireland. sorry to be mean.
4-5. i just answered that.
6. in certain regions. im from bay area california usa and they get so angry when i compare them all the time.
7. not true. go to our usa history books let alone all of our immigrants (i volunteer way too much in nurseing homes) im right. also my ex's history teacher wrote a (unpublished so far) book on it. i am right.
8. yes i am.
are you jewish?
btw sorry for long reply i hate them too
|
|
|
Posts:
217
Registered:
10/8/08
|
|
|
Posts:
2,904
Registered:
9/11/08
|
|
(9 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 2, 2009 8:53 PM
|
|
Christianity has adopted rituals and pagan beliefs in its religion. You dont' see the problems with Judaism and Islam as much. Christianity also sounds similar to hinduism, buddhism and taoism. The druids and celtics were once pagans and then accepted christianity without being forced.Ireland was the only nation that accepted it without violence except for recent events.
|
|
|
Posts:
90
Registered:
8/31/09
|
|
(10 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 3, 2009 4:27 PM
|
Davidajm seriously, you need to do your research, i am right. also i said greek before mentioning celtic and norse.
chicken nuggets i agree with you completely.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,634
From:
Middle Earth
Registered:
1/31/01
|
|
(11 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 4, 2009 5:13 AM
|
You sound very much like I did as a teen, (only when I was a teen gramar was important and I used good grammar).I thought simlar thoughts, had by that age delved into what resources I could find in those days dealing with Paganism vs Christianity. Back in the fifties and early sixties, most of the books on true Paganism were not on shelves, especially in my state which was controlled by the Archbishopric of Boston, and which had a ban kist on all media, reading materials, etc, and they did not allow anything which contradicted Church teachings into the state. Talk about Nazism, yes I agree...and to tell you the truth, my viewpoint has not changed over these long years I have been alive. When I see Christian rallies with all that hand waving, and rock concerts for Christ, I think mind control.
To me , any thinking person who has done any reading at all on comparative religions, and the history particularly of the Christian churches suppression and oppression of rival religions and their followers, can see that Christianity is fabricated, a hodge podge of myths and mores, blended together from borrowed themes , all of which are man's silly attempts to explain the unknown. From Wotan to Jesus to Osiris to Mithras...all are mythologies, none more plausible or valid than any other.
--
Things are real only after one has learned to agree on their realness.
(Don Juan Matus)
|
|
|
Posts:
6,971
Registered:
4/11/02
|
|
(12 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 4, 2009 6:39 AM
|
chelsi
I went to college as a religious history major after leaving political science
You are spouting mostly nonsense. I am sorry but that is the case.
Christianity has no roots in Celtic culture. When Christianity came about the Romans had not yet even invaded Britian and had no appreciation for the Celtic paganism they encountered, further at this time and for the next several centuries afterward Christianity was an outlawed religion in the Roman empire.
"2. true but when they tried to convert them into christianity they used ALOT of influence from them. IE: hercules was the first jesus-like idol. he was a son of a god whom had sinned and took on other's problems and took the blame for them (saveing his mother from hera's rath, etc.),"
The problem with this statement is that you are talking about Hercules. Hercules has NOTHING at all to do with either the Norse or Celtic religions which you are claiming had an influence on Christianity. Hercules was from the ancient Greeks.
"i can't remember the religion right now but the one middle eastern religion with the famouse bible came before judaism, as they are the same as christianity and catholicism as in only the details seperate them, the message is still the same. jewish people just dont believe jesus christ is their savior. "
My guess here is you are talking about the Enuma Elish, which has many similarities with the OT although few if any with the NT of Christianity.
--
"It's interesting to note that there was little or no media focus on the 9-11 terrorists during the Bush administration and therefore no public outrage." - Whitehall
|
|
|
Posts:
217
Registered:
10/8/08
|
|
(13 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 4, 2009 9:06 AM
|
Chelsi,,
In case you hadn't noticed, I HAVE done my research and can furnish evidence in support of any claim I make.
Can you?
You claimed that one could not get a Catholic bible in English until 1920. I provided you with links to English bibles older, even much older, than that including ones printed in the USA, which you could actually still buy today.
Rock solid evidence that you were wrong. And the same goes for most of the stuff you posted.
So YOU come up with decent evidence for YOUR claims.
If you cannot I shall simply conclude that you, like Chicken and Lakota, simply don't have a clue what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Posts:
90
Registered:
8/31/09
|
|
(14 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 4, 2009 12:45 PM
|
Lakota, I agree completely,
davidajm, stop. its obvious you didnt because all the stuff your saying hasnt been proven, actually has proven not to be true. and if you were telling the truth you would have used the obvious choices to prove your case like the fact that we have found noah's ark and you can see it on nasa's website.
forgot your id name, your also wrong so why dont you just stop lol
i only want CREDIBLE people on this forum, and i dont care if you agree with me or not, but be credible for crying outloud
|
|
|
Posts:
217
Registered:
10/8/08
|
|
(15 of 25)
Re: Christianity vs. History
Oct 5, 2009 4:58 AM
|
Chelsi,
We have a saying in the UK,
"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
Your BS about the bible has been comprehensively demolished by the solid cast-iron proof that there were Catholic bibles in English 300 years before you claimed.
You've now just been off on a rant because I asked if you had any evidence. I take this generally to mean people don't have any evidence and are just cross because they have been found out, because their credibility has been damaged.
I'm afraid you have not damaged my credibility at all because you have not provided ANY evidence to challenge it.
PS We have definitely NOT found Noah's ark anywhere and I am pretty damn sure we won't because that particular story is certainly a myth.
|
|
|
|
|
