Is Christianity an evil religion?

[Neildo]

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

They were inspired to write the Word of God, but why still is there no historical record of Jesus, not until those God-inspired stories came out 15+ years after his death? Not even one person writing "Hey yeah, uh, there's this dude Jesus preaching love and people fear his following". Zip, zilch, nada. Nothing about Jesus until HIS followers wrote about him 15+ years after his death -- and most stories coming much later -- which remember, the longer of a time gap between what is written about, the less accurate it will be. And what stories did his Apostles write about him? Stories that, oddly, are quite similar to those of various past prophets. And that's the only history we have of him.

- N

 

[§outh§tar]

They were inspired to write the Word of God, but why still is there no historical record of Jesus, not until those God-inspired stories came out 15+ years after his death? Not even one person writing "Hey yeah, uh, there's this dude Jesus preaching love and people fear his following". Zip, zilch, nada. Nothing about Jesus until HIS followers wrote about him 15+ years after his death -- and most stories coming much later -- which remember, the longer of a time gap between what is written about, the less accurate it will be. And what stories did his Apostles write about him? Stories that, oddly, are quite similar to those of various past prophets. And that's the only history we have of him.

- N

Since they were inspired by God, can you say they had a choice of "when" to be inspired or "how", and whatnot? And with God, how is the gap between the ressurection of Christ and the writing of the gospels an issue? He doesn't have Alzheimers, you know..

 

[P. M. Thorne]

*************
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."

There are also similarities in some structures in Mexico with some in Egypt, Does this tell us that one is not legitimate?

"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. . .".

Christianity did allow some pagan ways to become entwined with the Christian religion; ie, Easter, Christmas tree, and others; however, on your other comparisons, I honestly do not see that they prove anything. Two people were inventing the telephone about the same time. Was one copying, or was it a coincidence? Also, if my memory serves me right, the sewing machine was being worked on by more than one party.

Let me just say that there have been several teachers of old, who tried to tell us a better way. Just because there is some embellishment, or superstition in a religion does not mean that we ought to toss out the whole idea of believing, right. Who gives a crap if there are some errors. We would be wise to give our best to the best and not quibble about things that matter so little. I say Christ did live, did teach, and was the Son of God, and that we would be wise to listen to the essence of his teachings.
Just my take on things, dear people.

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

Why would this surprise us? And Roberston means nothing to me. I have to wonder why it is so easy to take his words as gospel, to deny a much older and longer trusted gospel.

"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."

The last supper, after which we have patterned our communion service, was a Jewish tradition; (so, was someone mimicking the Jews?) and -for the record- I believe that when Christ said, "As oft as you do this....." he was saying just that, (speaking to his Jewish disciples), and not necessarily saying that gentiles should adapt the custom, but this impression of mine is not well-accepted.

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."

There are still denominations that do not believe in celebrating the natural birth of Jesus. They have a point, but I see no harm in celebrating Christmas, or using it to commemorate the birth of Jesus.

I am not getting into that other stuff, because I have heard it all before, but I did wish to make these comments. Nonetheless, it was good of you to share your sources. That took time. Further, I am not writing this to be contrary, but I honestly think that it should be assumed that there would be similarities. Man writes things the way man understands them, and the more modern, or agnotstic writers are understandably going to write things that suit their purpose. I think it will take far more than that to eliminate Christianity. And, of course, there is no power in this world that can deny the existance of God Almighty and make it stick.

Take care, Mickey.........pmt

 

[Neildo]

Since they were inspired by God, can you say they had a choice of "when" to be inspired or "how", and whatnot? And with God, how is the gap between the ressurection of Christ and the writing of the gospels an issue? He doesn't have Alzheimers, you know..

I suppose there's no problem of when the various scriptures were written.. *IF* one actually believes those writtings to be the direct Word of God. But if one doesn't..

And my point wasn't that God has Alzheimers, but more towards the memory of man. Look how long it took for someone to finally write about Jesus. If he was such an important figure, I'm sure other people would have written SOMETHING about him, even just a few words, but no, the only record of him is the Bible.. which is written a good many years after the death of Jesus, and that's where faulty memory can happen. Heck, some of the people that wrote about Jesus, such as the person who brought up Josephus, wasn't even alive during the years of Jesus! So all he has to rely on is mystical stories which again, oddly enough, all share great similiarities from stories of past prophets. That's where lots of doubt towards the authenticity of the real happenings of Jesus come in.

Something else I find odd with what you said up above is that the Bible is supposedly The Word of God, no? But now you say people had the choice of when and how they chose to be inspired and write what they wrote? That points towards everything NOT being The Word of God even moreso. As crazy as the claim would sound, at least saying God spoke directly to them during a nice afternoon of having tea and crumpets, makes everything written more authentic than having those people choose when to write The Word of God. Why? Because of the same fact of my issue with people waiting so long to finally record any happenings of Jesus.

Assuming God did actually speak down to various people and Jesus was really around and did his thing, to "have the choice of when and how" to write what the story-tellers wrote, means there are going to be many wild and outlandish ideas as well as much of the information being false for the simple fact of the writings taking place a good many years after the events. Remember, MAN wrote everything, NOT God even if it may all be "inspired" or actually be the Word of God. If God didn't write it himself, things aren't going to be completely accurate. If The Word of God is so important as well as the happenings of Jesus, people would have recorded things THEN AND THERE as it was happening, not many years after the account. That's the problem with the time gap.

- N

 

[P. M. Thorne]

-N: Notes were taken, and then collected later; some were probably during and some after. It is not at all unusual to write about a person some time after their demise. Those folks who followed Christ were poor. The poor in that day did not write as a rule. Think about it. Why would anyone write about Jesus. The Romans were not unaccustomed to heretics, which they considered Christ to be. Did they write about any others that said things strange to them...during that time. Why would you discount recordings simply because they are in the Bible. This is why they were put into the Bible. People do this because they wish to discount the Bible as a whole. History is erronous in many instances, even the history of the United States, so shall we simply thing that any writings about the writers are made up? Come on!

You are very correct that men wrote the books of the Bible. Of course there would be mistakes and some personalities showing through. Jesus was the Word! (according to the book of John)

 

[Neildo]

Why would you discount recordings simply because they are in the Bible. This is why they were put into the Bible. People do this because they wish to discount the Bible as a whole.

Oh, I'm not trying to discount the Bible as a whole or anything, just merely pointing out that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark. Okay, maybe not so rotten as fishy. Maybe not so fishy as odd. Basically, I just don't like when people take something as the Bible as 100% fact. And it's not because people take it as fact but rather UNPROOVABLE fact. And well, that's ignorant to the highest degree!

I don't discount anything I read, as crazy as the story may be, but I don't believe it as complete fact or even fiction. It's just ugh.. some people believe the Bible to be more true than some things they can actually go out and personally test to be true yet they still wouldn't believe that even if proof was in front of them. Yet with the Bible, because of the fear which it speaks if you're not a follower and what will happen, and because they have no knowledge of the Afterlife, they'd rather not gamble their soul so they believe it anyway. Real smart there, mm-hmm.

Notes were taken, and then collected later; some were probably during and some after. It is not at all unusual to write about a person some time after their demise. Those folks who followed Christ were poor. The poor in that day did not write as a rule. Think about it. Why would anyone write about Jesus. The Romans were not unaccustomed to heretics, which they considered Christ to be.

That is a good point and I hold that believe as well. However, there should have still been some written records, even something super minor, of Jesus during his time, not many years after, even by his Apostles at least. Most things written about Jesus is all second-hand and second-generation knowledge. Can I get a huge WTF in here?

Did they write about any others that said things strange to them...during that time.

Nope, and most dismissed Jesus as a whacko too so I doubt they'd write about him as well. However, 15+ (in most cases much more) years after his death until the first recorded history of Jesus? Even if nobody wrote about Jesus during his time, there should at least be some non-Apostle recordings of him after the Apostles began writting their works 15+ years after Jesus' crucification. It's one thing to have blind faith in the Almighty, but blind faith in Jesus too, who was at least a living person which means it's easier to prove his deeds and existance? We expect the "magical" stories which were written, 15, 50, 100+ years later to be true? Actually, it's not blind faith in Jesus, more like blind faith in that his Apostles kept everything true.

Eh, I'm basically just repeating myself now so I'll leave it at that. Just make sure to question everything you read, do, etc. If one isn't aware of the "why", they're just sheep, which unfortunately most are.

- N

 

[P. M. Thorne]

-N: Bless your heart. I am seventy years old, and I have heard it all before. Why does it disturb you so? Ask yourself that. Thinking others are morons in their last stage of regression does little for you. In any event, do not drown yourself in that stuff, okay?
>
pmt

 

[Neildo]

-N: Bless your heart. I am seventy years old, and I have heard it all before. Why does it disturb you so? Ask yourself that. Thinking others are morons in their last stage of regression does little for you. In any event, do not drown yourself in that stuff, okay?

Don't worry, I'm not drowning in this sort of stuff nor does people's lack of individuality bother me. People are free to do as they wish and if they choose to follow manipulated words of man and have false ideals of it being the true Word of God, so be it. I put that sort of stuff in the back of my mind except when in discussion mode, which is why it may seem like it bothers me a lot, which it doesn't. I'm just continuing to talk about that sort stuff since we keep responding back and forth to one another. That and with all the posting, I've kind of forgotten what the thread is about.

The only real thing I don't like when people blindly follow things is when they go out and accuse others of being wrong in their beliefs when all those other people are doing is the same as the other group. Each group has their own beliefs which are basically thoughts of other men claiming it all to be the Word of God in which neither group has any proof of it. So if neither group has any proof to their beliefs and both claim to be "the right way", it's silly to start n'yah n'yah n'yahing like little kids and go to war because of it.

If only those people would be a bit more humble in their beliefs, I'd have no problem with it. If people would quit condeming and basically stop talking shit to one another, I'd be cool with it. As I've said in other threads, nobody is any more right or wrong in their beliefs, so I have no problem with differing views. Just quit dictating to others as if your (in general) view is better than the next because you (in general) have no flippin idea of the truth, lol. Just.. be.. humble.

And lastly, what also bothers me is people's insecureness. If nobody is any more right or wrong in their spiritual beliefs, why even follow other people's beliefs? Because most people don't feel as if they're worthy enough to understand higher powers such as that. I don't blame them because we can't really understand it, but don't be insecure with yourself where you'll start following some other person's belief who doesn't know any better either. Because we cannot understand God, this is exactly why is should remain an inner-spiritiual quest. But eh, here we have billions of people following the beliefs of a select few men of various religions, which they blindly believe is the direct Word of God and such.

And I don't think you're a moron or anything of the sort, P.M. Thorne. I'm having fun with these discussions with ya.

- N

 

[takethewarhome]

Christianity in itself is not evil. It's a belief system.

Those who would tarnish it's name with misdeeds are the 'evil' ones.

 

[audible]

christianlity with it's dogma and holy book incites people to violence thus causing some people to do atrocities in it's name, therefore christianity is the direct cause of said atrocities.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Your poll is very lacking in options. I think that poll is evil!!!!!!

 

[Binary]

Is water evil? Christianity as used applies to a range of bodies in varied enviroments, which determine the way we regard them individually. Though storms cause the sea to rage or the river to flood, should one thirsty hate the cup?

 

[Thoreau]

I would vote but there is not an answer that correlates with my beliefs. I believe that its not Christianity itself that is "evil", but rather the actions of many of its believers.

In other words, I believe the religion itself to have good intention in the days of its founding... well, mostly. But its many of the followers that tend to misinterpret the Bible into a tool of hatred, bigotry and exclusion.

 

[Thoreau]

And just to clarify, the same applies to any other religion as well, not just Christianity.

 

[audible]

I would vote but there is not an answer that correlates with my beliefs. I believe that its not Christianity itself that is "evil", but rather the actions of many of its believers.

In other words, I believe the religion itself to have good intention in the days of its founding... well, mostly. But its many of the followers that tend to misinterpret the Bible into a tool of hatred, bigotry and exclusion.

If I told you to kill, if I coerced you to kill, if I did anything to incite you to kill, and then I died, and you still killed, who is the cause of the killing, I'm not asking who the killers is, who/what is the cause.

 

[Thoreau]

If I told you to kill, if I coerced you to kill, if I did anything to incite you to kill, and then I died, and you still killed, who is the cause of the killing, I'm not asking who the killers is, who/what is the cause.

Ok, good point. I didn't think of it like that.

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

Some people who profess to be christians ie. Fred Phelps, are evil but Christianity is not evil.

The message of Christianity is forgiveness. The sad fact is some people who say they are Christians do not act in a Christian manner.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Chistendom is evil. The Christian community/communities have risen up at regular intervals and committed unpardonable atrocities in the name of their god or savior, and/or with the blessings and encouragement of their religious leaders. Paramount among these sins was the obliteration of two entire "heathen" civilizations, but their treatment of Jews, Muslims, Africans and various other minorities--even other Christians when no outsiders are conveniently available to persecute--adds to their tally. I do not mean to elevate the Muslim world above Christendom. My disgust with Jewry is mitigated by their non-evangelical nature, which has prevented them from achieving the size and power of the Christian and Muslim peoples. Nonetheless based on what I have observed in my lifetime I have no doubt that a world with one billion Jews would be just as bloody as a world with one billion Christians or Muslims--especially if it were the same world.

It is difficult to avoid the inference that Christianity itself is the root of this evil. Like Judaism and Islam, it encourages a superior, intolerant, tribal attitude among its followers that is inconsistent with the advance of civilization and is in fact the motivation behind the atrocities committed by its followers.

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.

Five or six years ago there was a discussion of Josephus on SciForums. I had long accepted the conventional wisdom that regardless of the legends surrounding Jesus, he was a real historical figure. The writings of Josephus, despite their degree of separation, were the primary reason for this convention. I was told that these particular passages in Josephus's writings had been determined by modern forensics to be incontrovertible forgeries.

 

[Grantywanty]

Chistendom is evil. The Christian community/communities have risen up at regular intervals and committed unpardonable atrocities in the name of their god or savior, and/or with the blessings and encouragement of their religious leaders. Paramount among these sins was the obliteration of two entire "heathen" civilizations, but their treatment of Jews, Muslims, Africans and various other minorities--even other Christians when no outsiders are conveniently available to persecute--adds to their tally. I do not mean to elevate the Muslim world above Christendom. My disgust with Jewry is mitigated by their non-evangelical nature, which has prevented them from achieving the size and power of the Christian and Muslim peoples. Nonetheless based on what I have observed in my lifetime I have no doubt that a world with one billion Jews would be just as bloody as a world with one billion Christians or Muslims--especially if it were the same world.

It is difficult to avoid the inference that Christianity itself is the root of this evil. Like Judaism and Islam, it encourages a superior, intolerant, tribal attitude among its followers that is inconsistent with the advance of civilization and is in fact the motivation behind the atrocities committed by its followers.Five or six years ago there was a discussion of Josephus on SciForums. I had long accepted the conventional wisdom that regardless of the legends surrounding Jesus, he was a real historical figure. The writings of Josephus, despite their degree of separation, were the primary reason for this convention. I was told that these particular passages in Josephus's writings had been determined by modern forensics to be incontrovertible forgeries.

Throughout most of history pretty much everybody was religious. In the 20th century we started to have significant secular populations. We even had some regimes based on secular ideologies: these were rather violent and certainly compete if not surpass monotheist violence. To look back on history and say that religions are causal in violence must find confirmation since everybody was religious or pretended to be and religion was the way to reach people to get them all hot and bothered.

What signs do we have that secular society will not simply find new excuses for killing, war and violence and hatred?

 

[Hapsburg]

In general, no. However, it depends on what time period and what sect in particular you are looking at. For example, mediaeval Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy were pretty damn repressive and exploited people on a regular basis. In contrast, the modern incarnation of the Roman Catholic Church is largely humanitarian and advocates world peace.

Now, I do think that Christian theology is severely flawed, and, while not evil per se on the whole, certain verses in its holy books are certainly intolerant, unethical, and in some cases downright evil. For example, much of the old testament describes their god as committing acts which would today be called genocide, which is generally not a good thing, and the actions of Jesus in the new testament seemingly advocate treason against the Roman Empire, which is also not very good.