Is Christianity an evil religion?

[DoctorNO]

Is Christianity an evil religion? Please tell us why.

 

[Tiassa]

Christianity is no more stupid and evil than Filipino Agnosticism.

Please include that option in your poll so I can vote for it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Is Christianity an evil religion? Please tell us why.

*************
M*W: Christianity wasn't the religion of Jesus, Judaism was. Jesus may have had a more enlightened philosophy than mainstream Judaism accepted. The Jerusalem Church was probably the only true Christian church ever. Paul created the dying demigod savior, actually he stole it from the earlier Mithraism, so the whole idea of Jesus dying on a cross to save mankind from original sin is bullcrap. Well, still, bullcrap isn't evil, it's just nasty when you step in it. Christianity is evil because it's all a big LIE. People who tell lies are liars. People who believe those lies are fools.

 

[Katazia]

Anything that encourages people to believe that death is a gateway to a perfect and eternal paradise is perpetrating a diabolical fraud. To twist the ugliness and finality of death into something desirable is pure evil.

Kat

 

[DoctorNO]

Anything that encourages people to believe that death is a gateway to a perfect and eternal paradise is perpetrating a diabolical fraud. To twist the ugliness and finality of death into something desirable is pure evil.

Kat

But isnt the majority of religions are like that? For what good is a religion if it doesnt promise you eternal life? religion was invented to ease our fear for our mortality.

So are you saying that all religion are evil?

 

[DoctorNO]

Christianity is no more stupid and evil than Filipino Agnosticism.

Please include that option in your poll so I can vote for it.

Which isnt evil at all. Does that mean you have a very nice view of Christianity, tiassa?

 

[StarOfEight]

All religions produce atrocities, whether they're called inquistion, gulag, or plural marriage.

 

[Tiassa]

Which isnt evil at all. Does that mean you have a very nice view of Christianity, tiassa?

One of these days you'll actually come up with an answer.

Be sure to let me know, eh?

 

[Katazia]

Doc,

So are you saying that all religion are evil?

That must be the inevitable conclusion, so yes.

Kat

 

[Adstar]

Hi all

I am new here. this is my first post.

I am a follower of the Messiah Immanuel. (Jesus) i believe that for people to answer this question they need to know what "Christianity" is. I would like to offer a definition and allow you to decide if it is reasonable and logical.

Christian = A follower of the teachings of the Messiah Immanuel (Jesus)


So to find out what a true Christian is you need to find out what the teachings of the Founder are and these are recorded in the Bible within 5 sections called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts. So to answer the question with an informed decision one must go to the source.

I find that most peoples replies to questions like these come from their personal experiences of people who call themselves Christian or from their friends or parents experiences with a church or denomination. I think everyone would accept that a person who calls themselves a Christian and does not follow the teachings of the Messiah Immanuel (Jesus) is by definition a fake.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[robtex]

Are u meaning to say does Christinaity progate or encurage evil? I am having trouble understanding the question. A belief system in and of itself is incable of evil but the apprciation, celebration, demonstration and exercise of it can be evil....So i am wonderiing if you are really asking if Christainty encourages evil, inspires evil, presents ideas of evil ect ect...could you possible rephrase that question?

 

[Halcyon]

*************
M*W Paul created the dying demigod savior, actually he stole it from the earlier Mithraism, so the whole idea of Jesus dying on a cross to save mankind from original sin is bullcrap. QUOTE]

The bullcrap is your information. I'm no christian, so don't take me as standing up for it, but Mithraism had nothing to do whatsoever with the resurrection. Mithraism was a MYSTERY cult, and as such, very little is known about it. The benefits of having such a small amount of information available on the topic is not only knowing not what it all says, but also what it DOESN'T say. I'm going to assume, for the sake of this argument, that your comment is in reference to the belief held by the misinformed that Mithras died for humanity, on a cross, rose on the third day and ascended into heaven(Or some wild variation thereof, I've seen several variants.)

Mithra. Never. Died. Period.

Mithra was not born of a virgin. (The only references to his birth show him rising from a stone.) Shephards were not present at his birth. He did NOT halve twelve followers. Just about everything else you've probably read on the subject will most likely prove false.

You should appreciate knowing that the earliest known artifact from Mithraism is dated 90 CE. How is this mystery cult going to influence the foundation of a religion that was founded before itself?

Seriously, if this is they type of information you take in to form your opinions, one has to call into question the entirety of your argument; the majority of your facts being wrong.

This is a matter of historical fact. By historical fact I mean logical conclusions drawn from and supported by existing evidence. I DEFY you to come up with any shred of historical evidence providing otheriwse.

 

[Halcyon]

I DEFY you to come up with any shred of historical evidence providing otherwise.

Any luck yet, Medicine Woman?

 

[Neildo]

M*W: Christianity wasn't the religion of Jesus, Judaism was. Jesus may have had a more enlightened philosophy than mainstream Judaism accepted. The Jerusalem Church was probably the only true Christian church ever. Paul created the dying demigod savior, actually he stole it from the earlier Mithraism, so the whole idea of Jesus dying on a cross to save mankind from original sin is bullcrap. Well, still, bullcrap isn't evil, it's just nasty when you step in it. Christianity is evil because it's all a big LIE. People who tell lies are liars. People who believe those lies are fools.

*grins*

To Halcyon,

The only real proof, if it can be called that, we have of Jesus is the stories in the New Testament. As you say here, the earliest artifact from Mithraism is dated 90 CE. However, all those stories that are written about Jesus, are written quite a few years after that early artifact. Plenty of time to think up how to more glorify his life. Note, I am not saying Jesus didn't exist, just that quite a few things were made up and exaggerated about him. This has been done with EVERY past prophet of other religions. And the funny thing is that all the amazing stories about Jesus, they've happened to those past prophets before him. He may not be an exact copy of Mithrais, but he's a combination of various past figures. Surely you can't deny that being odd.

And uh, proof, uh, since it seems to be required, lemme go grab a quick link somewhere I guess (I get most of my information from various books, not the tends-to-be-whacky internet). Here:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html

- N

 

[P. M. Thorne]

I have to agree with ROBTEX; the question raises questions, among other things.

Halcyon: You might know that no matter what you say, someone will refute it. And this is what a forum if for, right? I say that Neildo is not entirely correct. What say you?

Tiassa also made a good point, I think. In any event, I am still not sure about the question.

pmt

 

[Halcyon]

N,
I agree with you completely. However, I was only arguing that there have been several falsehoods invented and applied to Mithraism to be used to discredit christianity by trying to show that christianity's central tenets were stolen from Mithraism. Medicine Woman will not be able refute that(legitimately, empirically, whatever). The spread of that misinformation has already gotten out of hand, the number of websites dedicated to it and personal belief systems being altered by it are growing by the day. And since I've noticed that it plays large role as part of the foundation for a lot the opinions and beliefs that she posted, I'm hoping it will give her cause to do a wholesale re-evaluation of what she considers to be true and hopefully strengthen her criteria for accepting information as truth.

Thank you for posting that link, it contains a lot of good information that a lot of people here could use to learn. I've always loved that site.

But yeah, I do agree with you, except for the part about finding it odd. It's common practice, I find it to be expected as the norm.

 

[Halcyon]

Halcyon: You might know that no matter what you say, someone will refute it. And this is what a forum if for, right? I say that Neildo is not entirely correct. What say you?

Well, no, she can't refute it. I'm afraid this is an argument of semantics, but the definition of refute is to prove to be false or erroneous. This being a forum, yes it's for discussion of ideas and opnions, but it's a forum who's community is rooted in the ideological principles of empirical science. It's members may fall inside or outside those parameters, or somewhere in between. When you state something here, no matter where you fall within those parameters, if you're going to be taken seriously, or if you're trying to establish a certain point of view as truth, or even simply having merit, if you want to be counted as a productive and contributing member, you need to back up what you say with evidence. Otherwise, what you say has no meaning. It's merely an opinion. Medicine Woman is trying market certain ideas as truth. Like Christianity's adaptation of Mithraism. There is simply no evidence to back up that claim. No, she cannot refute that.

That aside, what Neildo said about historical religious figures(including Jesus) being pumped up, this is certainly accepted, however the idea that Jesus is purely a composite of other figures, that I don't agree with. However, I'm pretty sure I misunderstood his statement there, and he might not have been implying that at all.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

I might have misunderstood too, Halcyon. Whether he was entirely right about the dates, I was not sure, but I would have to confirm that one way or the other, thus my reason for asking you what you had to say. I am not about to pop off about something that unfamiliar to me. Thank you for responding. Interesting reading.
pmt

 

[Halcyon]

As far as the dates, the reference I have in front of me dates the gospels between 70-100 CE and I have another reference at hand that says: mathew 41CE, Luke 56-58CE, Mark 60-65CE and John 98CE. So the jury's out for the moment on that one. It'll have to wait until tomorrow when I'm fresh from sleep and a little bit more willing to scrounge for the definitive answer to the date question. Surely, someone else will have it posted by then. I'm too tired, and I'm off to bed.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Halcyon, you are such a student. Me too. It is early rising tomorrow, and I would like to be conscious, so this will be my last post tonight.

Incidentally, (my pride showing here), I DO know what refute means, honestly. I was being a bit sarcastic. ...See, I do not think you can prove much of anything...and yet so many speak quite emphatically about things unproven.

The only reason I came back on here was to check something on your other post, which I will have for you tomorrow. Chow.