Is Christianity an evil religion?

Is christianity good or evil?


  • Total voters
    38
Dr. No said:
Which isnt evil at all
Then you don't know any Filipino agnostics. Those I've encountered seem to hate a lot and don't have much of a desire to learn anything about what they fear.

Of course, that doesn't make Filipino agnosticism, or Christianity for that matter, evil in and of themselves. It could be that the representatives just don't know how to present their issues.
 
Persian Mithraism goes back as early as 600BC, I think. The confusion is that both Roman and Persian Mithraism call themselves by the name but are two different religions.
 
Wheres the option for christianity is not evil but some of the people who practise it are?
 
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?

When it comes to history, nobody is entirely correct. ;)

however the idea that Jesus is purely a composite of other figures, that I don't agree with.

I'm not saying Jesus was purely a composite of other figures in the sense that he never existed (even if it may be a possibility), but rather his "grandness" was taken from other figures. That's not a problem though because stories and myths about past prophets were taken from others as well so it's not as if this only applies to Jesus as if his history is full of falsehoods.

Jesus was a man who wanted to share his own personal beliefs about everything as many others tried to do as well. His beliefs were the most convincing and had the most positive messages so he slowly gained a following and as it grew bigger, his apostles were able to branch it out to tremendous degrees. And when that happened, that's how all these awesome stories were created. For someone who created a new way of thought, Jesus cannot be seen as a normal being because it's well, uninteresting, and interesting and mystical things get people's attentions easier.

That's the only real thing I'm talking about here -- the stories and history which were created a good many years AFTER the real doings, and death, of Jesus happened, which allows plenty of time to make him appear more magical than his human-self was; and that's where all the stories about him link to past prophets. So basically, his teachings and the like are all good and I'm all for it, it's just that the history about him is a bit shady.

- N
 
If you're going to reject Christ on account of potentially inaccurate historiography, what about other figures of the ancient world - Alexander, Caesar, and so forth?
 
Neildo said:
I'm not saying Jesus was purely a composite of other figures in the sense that he never existed (even if it may be a possibility), but rather his "grandness" was taken from other figures. That's not a problem though because stories and myths about past prophets were taken from others as well so it's not as if this only applies to Jesus as if his history is full of falsehoods.

Jesus was a man who wanted to share his own personal beliefs about everything as many others tried to do as well. His beliefs were the most convincing and had the most positive messages so he slowly gained a following and as it grew bigger, his apostles were able to branch it out to tremendous degrees. And when that happened, that's how all these awesome stories were created. For someone who created a new way of thought, Jesus cannot be seen as a normal being because it's well, uninteresting, and interesting and mystical things get people's attentions easier.

That's the only real thing I'm talking about here -- the stories and history which were created a good many years AFTER the real doings, and death, of Jesus happened, which allows plenty of time to make him appear more magical than his human-self was; and that's where all the stories about him link to past prophets. So basically, his teachings and the like are all good and I'm all for it, it's just that the history about him is a bit shady.
When put in that light, I'd have to say I agree with you completely. I have no more arguments for you. ;)

I have found no definitive answer to the date question, however, the four gospels (after comparing all the sources and averaging them) appear to definitely have been written before the advent of the Roman Mithra cult, which Okinrus correctly identified as having been confused with the much earlier Persian worship of the Sun God Mithras(Sol Invictus). Roman=Mithra(Invictus), Persian=Mithras(Sol Invictus).

That aside, I am still waiting for at least some kind of response from Medicine Woman so I can at least judge where she stands on this matter. If she doesn't want to confront it, that's fine, but at least let me know so I'm not wasting my time.
 
Just for the hell of it, here's a list of dates compiled the bible historian F.F. Bruce(a little too conservative for my taste but very well educated):

MATTHEW: Shortly after 70 AD
MARK: 64 to 65 AD
LUKE: Shortly before 62 AD (perhaps later)
JOHN: 90 to 100 AD
ACTS: 65 AD (perhaps later)
ROMANS: 57 AD (perhaps later)
I & II CORINTHIANS: 54 to 56 AD
GALATIANS: 48 AD
EPHESIANS: 60 AD
PHILIPPIANS: 60 AD
COLOSIANS: 60 AD
I & II THESSALONIANS: 50 AD
PHILEMON: 60 AD
REVELATION: 90 to 100 AD
 
If you're going to reject Christ on account of potentially inaccurate historiography, what about other figures of the ancient world - Alexander, Caesar, and so forth?

The thing about Jesus though is that he's such a -- if not THE most there is -- prolific figure yet other than the Bible, good luck being able to find any information on him from his time. Odd, no? It's as if he appeared out of nowhere and was forgotten without a trace until many years later, after his death, stories about him finally surface -- which is only the New Testament. And with such a huge gap in time between the life and death of Jesus and when stories were finally written about him, good luck trying to be accurate.

- N
 
Interesting argument, except that he's referred to in the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian of the time.
 
tiassa said:
Do you really think that's an equal comparison?

There's a book called The Case for Christ, in which Lee Strobel interviews twelve scientists in varying fields to determine the historical accuracy of the Gospels. For example, he has a crime scene investigator discuss the horros of the crucifixion. Some of the interviews are essentially pointless - he interviews a psychiatrist to determine if Christ was sane. Since the psychiatrist is a Christian, there's almost no way he could disagree with that proposition and retain his faith. Anyways, he discusses how the historical record for Christ follows him much more closely than those for Alexander.

But to answer your question, no. My point was, to disqualify the Gospels as a historical source, however flawed, simply because they weren't written during Jesus' life would also require disqualifying other historical sources.
 
Medicine Woman, I'm going to keep bringing this thread to the top until you confront the issue, or at least say that you're not willing to do so.

If you do respond, I don't want to see references to some of the profoundly debunked books and sources you've been listing to support your views, (ie:holy blood, holy grail. Give me a break), the Priory of Scion was a hoax and everyone knows it. Real, scholarly evidence is what I'm looking for here.
 
The thing about Jesus though is that he's such a -- if not THE most there is -- prolific figure yet other than the Bible, good luck being able to find any information on him from his time. Odd, no? It's as if he appeared out of nowhere and was forgotten without a trace until many years later, after his death, stories about him finally surface -- which is only the New Testament. And with such a huge gap in time between the life and death of Jesus and when stories were finally written about him, good luck trying to be accurate. - N

Interesting argument, except that he's referred to in the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian of the time.

Heh, Josephus lived from 37 AD to around 100 AD. He never lived during the time of Jesus; only a good many years after his death.

As I say again, is it not odd that there are no historical references in regards to Jesus around his time? Everything is many years AFTER his death. Nothing even during the year of his death or before hand.

Although yes, I did make the mistake of saying "only the New Testament" which I should have said "mainly" instead of "only". However, that is still many years after the death of Jesus -- no history during the time of his death or while he lived.. everything written about him is many years after his death. Quite odd to have no history written about Jesus in his timeframe especially considering how important of a figure he is. All his fame came many years after he died all from the mythical stories that were written by his Apostles.

- N
 
Neildo: How is 37AD so long after the death of Christ, and how do you figure that the desciples/apostles were so long after His death. He was 33 when he was crucified.
Thanks. pmt
 
Halcyon said:
Medicine Woman said:
*************
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.
*************
M*W: "A brief resume of the main points made by Robertson and other leading commentators underlines the fact that many of the most sacred parts of the Jesus story are identical to those from other ancient religions."

"Robertson says: 'Like Christ, and like Adonis and Attis, Osiris and Dionysus also suffer and rise again. To become one with them is the mystical passion of their worshippers. They are all alike in that their mysteries give immortality. From Mithraism Christ takes the symbolic keys of heaven and assumes the function of the virgin-born Saoshayant, the destroyer of the Evil One. . ."."

"In fundamentals, therefore, Christism is but paganism reshaped.:

"The Christian myth grew by absorbing details from pagan cults. . . Like the image of the child-god in the cult of Dionysus, he was pictured in swaddling clothes in a basket manger. He was born in a stable like Horus -- the stable-temple of the Virgin goddess Isis, queen of heaven. Again like Dionysus, he turned water into wine; like Aesculapius, he raised men from the dead and gave sight to the blind; and like Attis and Adonis, he is mourned and rejoiced over by women. His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a rock-tomb. . .".

"There is not a conception associated with Christ that is not common to some or all of the Savior cults of antiquity."

[Robertson, J.M., Pagan Christs, Barnes & Noble, NY, NY, 1993 (one-volume abridgement of 1903 work).]

"In the mysteries of Mithra, the initiates partook of a ceremony that was so reminiscent of the Christian 'Lord's Supper' that it proved an embarrassment to the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. According to Justin, the Mithraic 'mystai' ate bread and drank water (perhaps a mixed cup of water and wine) at an initiatory mean -- in diabolical imitation, he hastily adds, of the Christian Eucharist."

[Meyer, Marvin W. (ed.), The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1987.]

"Commonly regarded as one of Christianity's chief rivals during the Roman Empire, Mithraism, together with the cult of SOL INVICTUS, furnished Christianity with certain symbols and practices that remain alive today."

"Mithras (or Mithra) was a Persian god, usually depicted straddling a bull and killing it with a sword. From the dying bull issued the seed of life for the world, and hence the god's act became the symbol of REGENERATION. Before his religion spread into the Roman world in the first century BC, Mithras had been worshipped throughout the Persian Empire, where he represented a savior-king with solar symbolism similar to Apollo's. A Persian prophecy placed him as reigning last in a series of 7,000-year periods (each symbolized by one of the seven visible planets), followed by an apocalypse and renewal of the world. Not surprisingly, this prophecy became blended with early Christians' views of the Second Coming of Christ."

"Because of its baptismal ritual and the initiates' communal meal, which resembled the Christian Eucharist, some early Christians perceived Mithraism as a threat. Justin said that the Mithraic ceremonial meal of bread and water was inspired by demons, and TERTULLIAN also commented on it. Nevertheless, it is not coincidental that Christ's birth is celebrated on December 25, first celebrated as the birthday of Mithras."

"Mithraic religion faded after the time of CONSTANTINE the Great, although it enjoyed a brief revival during the time of the Pagan emperor JULIAN THE APOSTATE before his death in 363. After he abandoned Christianity, Julian underwent a Mithraic initiation."

[Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics, by Chas S. Clifton, Barnes & Noble, NY, NY, 1992, pp 96-97]

"The idea of celebrating the Nativity on December 25 was first suggested early in the fourth century, a clever move on the part of Church fathers, who wished to eclipse the December 25 festivities of a rival pagan religion, Mithraism, that threatened teh existence of Christianity."

"It is important to note that for two centuries after Christ's birth, no one knew, and few peoople cared, exactly when he was born. Birthdays were uninportant; death days counted. Besides, Christ was divine and his natural birth was deliberately played down. In fact, the Church even announced at one point that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ's birthday "as though He were a King Pharoah."

"On December 25, pagan Romans, still in the majority, celebrated Natalis Solis Invicti, "Birthday of the Invincible Sun God," Mithras. The Mithras cult originated in Persia and rooted itself in the Roman world in the first century BCE. By the year 274 CE, Mithraism was so popular with the masses that Emperor Aurelian proclaimed it as the official state religion. In the early 300s, the cult seriously threatened Christianity, and for a time, it was unclear which faith would emerge victorious."

"Church fathers debated their options."

"It was well known that Roman patricians and plebians alike enjoyed festivals of a protracted nature. The Church, then, needed a December celebration."

"Thus, to offer converts an occasion in which to be pridefully celebratory, the Church officially recognized Christ's birth. And to offer head-on competition to the sun worshippers' popular feast, the Church located the Nativity on December 25. The mode observance would be characteristically prayerful: a Mass; in fact, Christ's Mass. As one theologian wrote in the 320s: 'We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but becasue of him who made it.' Although centuries later, social scientists would write of the psychological power of group celebrations -- the unification of ranks, the solidification of collective identity, the reinforcement of common objectives -- the principle had long been intuitively obvious."

"The celebration of Christmas took permanent hold in the Western world in 337, when the Roman emperor Constantine was baptized, uniting for the first time the Crown and the Church. Christianity had become the official state religion in 313. And in 354, Bishop Liberius of Rome reiterated the importance of celebrating not only Christ's death but also his birth."

"Saint Francis of Assisi popularized the Christmas 'crib' or 'creche' in his celebration of the Nativity in Greccio, Italy, in 1223. Francis used wooden figures of Mary, Joseph, the infanat, sheep and shepherds, starting a tradition still popular to this day."

"The period of time leading up to Christmas -- from the SUnday nearest November 30 until Christmas Eve -- is known as 'Advent,' Latin 'adventis,' [which means] 'coming,' and was first celebrated in the late fourth century. At one time, Advent was observed by strict fastingm prayer, and meditation, but now it must compete with Christmas parties and shopping."

[Sacred Origins of Profound Things: The Stories Behind the RItes and Rituals of the World's Religions, by Charles Panati, Penguin Books USA, Inc, NY, NY, 1996]
 
Medicine Woman said:
From Mithraism Christ takes the symbolic keys of heaven and assumes the function of the virgin-born Saoshayant, the destroyer of the Evil One. . .
Sorry, Mithras was born from a rock. In fact, there is no existing image or reference to the birth of Mithras that contains any female element.

Medicine Woman said:
His resurrection took place, like that of Mithra, from a rock-tomb. . .".
Once again, sorry. Mithras never died. To put it shortly, he killed a bull, it pleased the Sun, the sun took him up into heaven(Notice theological differences here? Jesus rose to heaven by his own power.) where Mithras and the Sun shook hands, sat down and feasted on the Bull Mithras had just slain. There was no interval for his death between these events.

Medicine Woman said:
"In the mysteries of Mithra, the initiates partook of a ceremony that was so reminiscent of the Christian 'Lord's Supper' that it proved an embarrassment to the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. According to Justin, the Mithraic 'mystai' ate bread and drank water (perhaps a mixed cup of water and wine) at an initiatory mean -- in diabolical imitation, he hastily adds, of the Christian Eucharist."

(Clauss, p. 108-109). "In the case of these analogies, there can be no question of imitation in either direction. The offering of bread and wine is known in virtually all ancient cultures, and the meal as a means of binding the faithful together and uniting them to the deity was a feature common to many re-ligions" (p. 109).

In the one similarity, there is no significance, because it is a similarity shared between many religions.

Medicine Woman said:
"Commonly regarded as one of Christianity's chief rivals during the Roman Empire, Mithraism, together with the cult of SOL INVICTUS, furnished Christianity with certain symbols and practices that remain alive today."

hah! Mithraism was a male only cult with only two social classes of interested members: Soldiers and Middle Managers. The idea of Mithraism rivaling christianity orginated with the unscholarly opinion of Ernest Renan in 1923. It was an unfounded idea. Reasonably, how well do you think a faction with such a small percentage of the population in membership could come anywhere close to rivaling what christianity was?

Medicine Woman said:
"Mithras (or Mithra) was a Persian god,
Nope, Mithra was the Persian God, Mithras was the Roman one.
Medicine Woman said:
Before his religion spread into the Roman world in the first century BC, Mithras had been worshipped throughout the Persian Empire, where he represented a savior-king with solar symbolism similar to Apollo's.
Nope, the connection may be idly debated among some, but any mithraic scholar will tell you that the similarities between the two religions ends with the name.

Medicine Woman said:
"Because of its baptismal ritual and the initiates' communal meal, which resembled the Christian Eucharist, some early Christians perceived Mithraism as a threat.
Already addressed that.

Medicine Woman said:
Nevertheless, it is not coincidental that Christ's birth is celebrated on December 25, first celebrated as the birthday of Mithras."
First of all, the date of Christmas has no bearing on Christian Theology. Second, the date is the birth of the Sun, Sol Invictus, who is NOT Mithras. Sol is the one who raised Mithras up to heaven for the feast. Thirdly, the feast day was most definitely NOT pre-christian! It came about by the declaration of Emporer Aurelian in 274 CE. Christians began to take a leaning towards this festival, and church doctors decided to solemnize the Nativity on that day. If the christians were going to party, why not give them justification for doing so while keeping them from falling into apostasy, eh? The point is that the date is inconsequential to the foundation of christian ideals, which is what we're debating here. the date didn't influence christian ideals, it didn't pre-date christian ideals, all in all it appears to be a purely politically motivated maneuver by the church and, like I said, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

It's interesting to note that the topic you wrote most about here has nothing to do with the topic at hand;
Halcyon said:
How is this mystery cult going to influence the foundation of a religion that was founded before itself?

Is this matter settled?

Find old copies of The Journal For Mithraic Studies, any volume.
The Origins Of Mithraic Mysteries by David Ulansey, Oxford University Press
Mystery Metaphor and Doctrine in the Mysteries of Mithras', L'erma di Bretschneider
The Roman Cult Of Mithras, The God and His Mysteries, Manfred Clauss
 
Halcyon said:
*************
M*W: As far as I am concerned, this topic is done. I cited references I had on hand for you. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about the religion of Mithraism. My passion is to debunk the lies of Christianity, wherever they may have originated, and not to argue over other religions.
 
Medicine Woman said:
My passion is to debunk the lies of Christianity, wherever they may have originated
Oh but that is exactly what we're arguing about. In an attempt to debunk Christianity, you've listed The cult of Mithraism as an influence on their doctrine and foundation. This topic we've discussed has MUCH value in regards to the argument you're trying to make. For if your view is that Christianity is a composite of other religions making it bunk, and the evidence you acquired to support your view is bunk(As we've established), then that makes the premise of your argument BUNK.

You just threw the evidence you had for your opinion on the table, and it was misinformation. It was corrected, and in it's corrected form, it has no bearing and offers no support whatsoever to your argument. If that is the foundation of your argument on this particular topic, then it has been shown that you are wrong, the opinions you've stated are wrong, and that you are in effect doing nothing more than perpetuating a cycle of misinformation. your opinions can no longer be taken seriously because(since you've ended this dialogue so quickly without offering any counter-arguments to support your claims) you have shown that you have no scholarly evidence to support them.

If that is where you truly want to leave the situation, then barring a rebuttal form you, I will be adding you to my blocked list tonight after I get off of work. If that is where you leave this, then you have nothing of value to offer by way of serious scholarly debate or discussion, and so it would be waste of time and energy to have to sort through all the unsupported(by evidence) claims that you leave as your mark in various threads.
 
Heh, Josephus lived from 37 AD to around 100 AD. He never lived during the time of Jesus; only a good many years after his death.

Neildo: How is 37AD so long after the death of Christ, and how do you figure that the desciples/apostles were so long after His death.

Err, I didn't mean to say Josephus was born a good many years after Jesus' death but rather when his writings about Jesus (to whom I was quoting) were a good number of years after his death. This was in response to me saying how is it not odd that there is no history written about Jesus during his life, but rather all the stories were written a good many years after his death. The person said there are writings about him by Josephus, but Josephus wasn't even alive while Jesus was, so that didn't answer my question.

Jesus was crucified in around 33 AD. Using Halycon's dates of:

MATTHEW: Shortly after 70 AD
MARK: 64 to 65 AD
LUKE: Shortly before 62 AD (perhaps later)
JOHN: 90 to 100 AD
ACTS: 65 AD (perhaps later)
ROMANS: 57 AD (perhaps later)
I & II CORINTHIANS: 54 to 56 AD
GALATIANS: 48 AD
EPHESIANS: 60 AD
PHILIPPIANS: 60 AD
COLOSIANS: 60 AD
I & II THESSALONIANS: 50 AD
PHILEMON: 60 AD
REVELATION: 90 to 100 AD

Everything written about Jesus was at least 15+ years after his death. There is NO recorded history about Jesus while he was still alive, or even shortly after his death. It's as if Jesus' Apostles used his death to further their agenda or something which is the reason for all the mystical stories and the odd coincedences of the stories of Jesus matching, or being taken from, history/stories of past religious prophets.

If everything about Jesus is true, which would make him one heck of a prolific figure, would you not think there would be some writings about him during his life and not FINALLY 15+ years after his death?

- N
 
The Spirit of Holiness inspired the writers of the Gospels to write the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 
Back
Top