Satanic Counterfeits

[steg]

I can’t seem to find the thread where I was discussing this, so I’ll start a new one; new topic anyway.

The fact that practices that feature prominently in the church were in use long before it was a problem. I’ve heard say that the other religions had copied christianity, but this is certainly not what early apologists say… they admit the others were earlier, but claim that satan had counterfeited the ‘truth’ to fool the masses. I was asked to give names, and here are some: Justin Martyr, Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Lactantius.

 

[Eucharisted]

Most new religions have copied Christianity, but most old religions have not. That is, most religions after have copied, but most religions before have not. An example of the former is Islam. An example of the latter is Judaism.

Also, beware of the Appeal to Tradition fallacy and the Appeal to Novelty fallacy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I can’t seem to find the thread where I was discussing this, so I’ll start a new one; new topic anyway.

The fact that practices that feature prominently in the church were in use long before it was a problem. I’ve heard say that the other religions had copied christianity, but this is certainly not what early apologists say… they admit the others were earlier, but claim that satan had counterfeited the ‘truth’ to fool the masses. I was asked to give names, and here are some: Justin Martyr, Firmicus Maternus, Tertullian and Lactantius.

That some of the Fathers thought in that way is beyond question, as their writings show: Justin Martyr makes a great deal out of demons. If however we’re going to discuss the issue historically, reference to satan as a causal agent is best left out of discussion. Preternatural or supernatural beings - respectively: demons and angels, or god - however real in their own way, aren’t historical characters. Men can be interviewed, observed; they leave evidence of their activity behind them; they leave written or at least archaeological evidence of their activity. However real God, angels, or demons may be, they do none of these things. Which is why there are biographies of men, but not of God or of angels or demons. There is historical evidence for the activity of (say) Nero, but no historical evidence for any alleged infernal influence on his actions. Which is why Revelation 13.18, for example, is evidence not of what Nero did, but of what men thought of him.​

First: why does it matter which religion did what first ? There seems to be an assumption that if a non-Christian religion has something in it that is in some way like something in Christian faith, this somehow means that the Christian faith is somehow less true. I’ve bnever understood this kind of reasoning - or rather, illogic. For how does priority in time imply or mean or necessitate superiority in value (in this case, in truth-value)?

Why can’t the best have been “saved till last”, and come “in the fullness of time”, rather than being first in time ? I wish somebody would explain this idea to me

 

[Eucharisted]

Why can’t the best have been “saved till last”, and come “in the fullness of time”, rather than being first in time ? I wish somebody would explain this idea to me

Don’t sweat it. Most who hate Christianity don’t know what they’re talking about. Most, too, just want to seem cool. I guess when you’re a little guy who reminds people to do good and to shun evil, others think it’s ok to hate you.

 

[steg]

That some of the Fathers thought in that way is beyond question, as their writings show: Justin Martyr makes a great deal out of demons. If however we’re going to discuss the issue historically, reference to satan as a causal agent is best left out of discussion. Preternatural or supernatural beings - respectively: demons and angels, or god - however real in their own way, aren’t historical characters. Men can be interviewed, observed; they leave evidence of their activity behind them; they leave written or at least archaeological evidence of their activity. However real God, angels, or demons may be, they do none of these things. Which is why there are biographies of men, but not of God or of angels or demons. There is historical evidence for the activity of (say) Nero, but no historical evidence for any alleged infernal influence on his actions. Which is why Revelation 13.18, for example, is evidence not of what Nero did, but of what men thought of him.​

First: why does it matter which religion did what first ? There seems to be an assumption that if a non-Christian religion has something in it that is in some way like something in Christian faith, this somehow means that the Christian faith is somehow less true. I’ve bnever understood this kind of reasoning - or rather, illogic. For how does priority in time imply or mean or necessitate superiority in value (in this case, in truth-value)?

Why can’t the best have been “saved till last”, and come “in the fullness of time”, rather than being first in time ? I wish somebody would explain this idea to me

Thanks for sharing your thoughts…

I want to clear up soomething right quick… I just wanted to provide the sources for a point I was making in a earlier discussion. I was hearing contemporary apologists say that the other copied from christianity, and I had asserted the opposite, but didn’t have my notes to give the sources.

Historically, Hellenism influenced everything at that time, so there is going to be overlap and similarities… I mean, not only christians pray, right? So, there’s no real argument in bringing up practices, because it just doesn’t matter in the end. The issue (for me, at least) is when an apologist tries to reverse the facts, thats all.

We’re both faithful to our diety, love our diety and believe we’re going to better place after this life is over. I doubt we can disuade the other to believe otherwise, and thats okay. I have no beef with anyone, unless they step on my toes… then its on

Goddess protect you…
S