"Scholars have found that over 75% of rites and ceremonies practiced by the Roman Catholic church are of pagan origin..."

[KofC660]

We make a mistake when we assume that everything the pagans did was evil simply because pagans did it. Many pagans also gave thanks to their gods before they ate, should we not give thanks because it’s “pagan”? Many pagans had a ceremony marking the union of a man and a woman for family life, should we not have marriage because it’s “pagan”?

Don’t forget:

Hitler was evil, Hitler liked dogs, therefore it’s evil to like dogs.

You are exactly right, this argument is entirely reductio ad absurdum.

 

[estesbob]

WOW!!! That must be the 10,000 time that trash has been posted here. Could you perhaps give us some sources the back up this rant? In the past no one has been able to. For instance I believe there is no basis for the comments made linking Church practices with Mithraism. Can you give a source for this claim.

Of course we should all realize that coming up with a History of protestanism is verey easy. . After 1,500 years Luther and other men decided that what had been practiced since the beginning of Christianity was wrong and discovered previously unkown doctrines allowing for , among other things, for Luther and Henry the VII to marry their girlfriends,

The origin of the Catholic Church
last page but a great read, you must agree

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Thank you Marty

 

[Dancelittleewok]

The origin of the Catholic Church
last page but a great read, you must agree

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

Thank you Marty

Early martyrs were so “attractive” to the Roman Empire that they were put to death–yes death–for their beliefs of Christianity. If the Roman Empire and “paganized” Christianity are one in the same, then it makes no sense to put to death someone whom believes the exact same things you do.

Let me get this straight: So the early martyrs (whom were apparently secretly pagan) were put to do death by pagans (whom you claim seemed to be following the same practices)? It doesn’t make any sense, man…

 

[Vigis]

Why should you do the research?

Because you want to know the truth perhaps (no matter which way it falls), because you want to see if there is any truth to what I have said, because you are not afraid of finding out if you were taught the right thing or not, because that is what Christians are meant to do (ask questions), because you want to, it might be interesting.

Pick one and go with it.

Frankly I dont have any responsibility to back up any argument, because I didnt really make one in the first place (I was actually responding to someones flippant remarks about a particular time in history and suggesting that they read up on the part of history that they being so flippant about). It really makes no difference to me what you choose to believe, Im just saying that there may be more to it than you thought.

Didnt they say that Luke stated this in his gospel?

Now tell me, was that written before or after the church changed the calander? (I think that you will find that it was before the calander was changed, which would on its own make it inaccurate)

I just had a look through the Gospel of Luke and cant find a mention of a month or day, I might be an idea to find out what particular verse that poster had in mind.

I use the term “The Church” generically, since each one believes in the same God and the same Christ (and have equally done terrible things). But I guess in this instance it would be the cathloic church I am refering to as it was pretty much the paramount church of the time.

But to get to what you were saying, bringing Hungary into the issue does nothing to void any argument of forceful conversions. Maybe they resisted longer than other cultures and their resistance was stronger, or maybe when it was time to convert the people in Hungary they decided to use less violent methods.

Mate how can you stand by something that you dont believes exists?

You dont believe that there is any contest over the date, so why the necessesity of the statment?

On your other point, I cant point out that celebrating Christs birth is wrong (I cant actually point out that we should celebrate his birth at all). As to the 25/12 issue, you have already stated that you dont believe its wrong. So even me saying that it is disrespecting the Father (as part of the Trinity) because man changed the date wouldnt matter, me saying that being decietful to others (lying) or damning people (he who is without sin) or even murder wouldnt matter. Because you dont believe this to be the case.

You dont see anything wrong, so how exactly can I point anything out?

Let me say this, I ask you to back up your statement/arguement or what ever you want to call it, but you did not. All that does is make it seem hollow.

Also, you did make an arguement. You made a statement that directly contradicted another person’s statement. That is an arguement.

I do want to know the truth, but that does not give you any excuse to abondon your responsibility to your arguement without a good reason.

It seems that you have failed to read the article to which someone posted a link to in post #25. I even told what post it was on. If you actually go and read it then you would see a very convincing arguement for December 25th.

I will tell you why. Even though I think the date to be trivial I prefer to celebrate it on the date that I was raised to celebrate it on. Though I may believe that the date is trivial I still maintain that Christ was born somewhere around December 25th. Let me give you an example of my reasoning. I think Oreos are the most delicious cookies that you can buy at the store even though that may be trivial I will stand by that statement and belief.

Hungary does void your arguement. If the Crusaders could do such a thrashing on the Moslems so quickly then they could have done the same much quicker on them. Their may be certain events that were conversion by the sword by the Catholic Church, but it not mass conversion to which you imply. \

One more thing. I asked for proof where changing Christ’s birhtday goes against his teachings. So far you have failed to back that up. Could you please back that up?

I have an open mind for you Elric. I will only come to accept your statement as truth only if you can back it up, and it disproves mine.

God speed.

Vigis

 

[strngrnrth]

The Isis argument is absurd because buy the time Jesus was born, the worship of Isis was fragmented and decaying. It took many forms, but all were declining and had been for a long time.
The Mithra argument is just silly. There were two cults of Mithra. The Persian one, which was older than Christianity but younger than the Jewish prophecies about Christ, saw Mithra as a man born of a rock who rowed the boat in which the sun rode. There is no evidence of any communal meal, sacrifice, death (never mind resurrection), companions, virgin, or any other Christian-sounding elements. It died out long before the Roman Empire started to grow. The second, which is first recorded in the mid- to late second century AD, was a small, strictly military, male-only cult, Its elements and practices were a closely kept secret. The soldiers were the most dreaded and shunned enemies of the Christians. Christians could not be persuaded to adopt Mithraic practices. Anyway, it first developed the communal meal and the ritual of baptism (by walking under a bleeding bull) and all the other Christianlike elements in the third to fifth centuries AD. By then, Christian practice was well-established, strongly suggesting it was the remaining Mithraists in the army who copied Christians.

 

[zackonattack]

Who cares what a bunch of lost “scholars” think about anything. There isn’t a single day of the year that doesn’t have some pagan festival attacked to it. It’s up to Christians make those days or cermonies sanctified and give them the christian interpretation. As far as ceremonies go, as long as they don’t go against refealted scripture who cares what “scholars” think. I mean look at what liberal “scholars” have done to the Word of God. It’s digusting and I for one, pay to attention whatsoever to these loonies.

Ceremonies, or festivals, are not what is important. What is important is DIVINE TRUTH.

Romans 14;1-8:

Romans 14
Do Not Pass Judgment on One Another
1As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mithra was the preferred god for soldiers.

Do you think the warlike soldiers would be drawn to a peace-loving religion like Catholicism?!?!?

I don’t think so!

 

[zackonattack]

Mithra was the preferred god for soldiers.

Do you think the warlike soldiers would be drawn to a peace-loving religion like Catholicism?!?!?

I don’t think so!

Don’t you think there are currently “peace loving” Catholics in the military? Unless you are a pacifist and condemn ANY soldier for fighting in ANY war, you would have to say yes to your question.

I actually lean heavily toward being a pacifist because of the absolute absurdity of war. I’ve often thought that all adults participating in war should be arrested for child abuse. Just look at what happens. The most innocent always are the ones to suffer. Look at the obscenity going on Dufar. Kids starving because the adults are out playing war and killing each other over politics. It is repulsive, war is!!!

 

[revmarty]

Oh, must I??? But, you see, I http://bestsmileys.com/nono/4.gifdon’t agree , actually.
Oh, my…http://bestsmileys.com/yawning/2.gifSame-old,http://bestsmileys.com/yawning/2.gif same-old…http://bestsmileys.com/sleeping/17.gif

I was about to post a wordy reply, but nahhh,

 

[Mannyfit75]

Don’t you think there are currently “peace loving” Catholics in the military? Unless you are a pacifist and condemn ANY soldier for fighting in ANY war, you would have to say yes to your question.

I actually lean heavily toward being a pacifist because of the absolute absurdity of war. I’ve often thought that all adults participating in war should be arrested for child abuse. Just look at what happens. The most innocent always are the ones to suffer. Look at the obscenity going on Dufar. Kids starving because the adults are out playing war and killing each other over politics. It is repulsive, war is!!!

I’m a Soldier. points location Second, not all Soldiers kill. There are Soldiers who do administrative work which does not involving killing.

Second, US Soldiers or Marines do not kill out of necessity. They fight mainly for self-defense. When offensive operations are taken, they do so because the target is hostile (eg. terrorists).

I do find some of your comments about generalizing soldiers or any service member offensive and extremely bias. I would be careful what you say about us.

For without us, there were be another terrorist attack far worst than the Sept 11, 2001 attack.

 

[NotWorthy]

Don’t you think there are currently “peace loving” Catholics in the military? Unless you are a pacifist and condemn ANY soldier for fighting in ANY war, you would have to say yes to your question.

Yes, but they would be the exception, rather than the norm. The ancient society didn’t look to lightly on the “sensitive man” like you see today. A peace-loving warrior would’ve been considered a wimp back then, if you asked me.

I actually lean heavily toward being a pacifist because of the absolute absurdity of war. I’ve often thought that all adults participating in war should be arrested for child abuse.

Wow, that’s a glowing recommendation for the brave people that fought the nazis in WWII, isn’t it? How many situations like Darfur have been settled by diplomats? I’m not promoting war, but I certainly see the need for it sometimes.

Oh, and I’m glad you never met my mom and dad, both marines.

Just look at what happens. The most innocent always are the ones to suffer. Look at the obscenity going on Dufar. Kids starving because the adults are out playing war and killing each other over politics. It is repulsive, war is!!!

It is sometimes the only option, unfortunately.

 

[revmarty]

Early martyrs were so “attractive” to the Roman Empire that they were put to death–yes death–for their beliefs of Christianity. If the Roman Empire and “paganized” Christianity are one in the same, then it makes no sense to put to death someone whom believes the exact same things you do.

Let me get this straight: So the early martyrs (whom were apparently secretly pagan) were put to do death by pagans (whom you claim seemed to be following the same practices)? It doesn’t make any sense, man…

When Jesus the head of the Body, asended to the father, shortly after the holy spirit showed up he moved upon the disciples normal everyday men in a mighty tremendous way so much so that when Peter a disciple of Jesus preached filled with the spirit 3000 people responded and where added to the Kingdom of God, and this became a trend 1000’s were being added to thew kingdom and the romans yes killed these true christians not Catholics, Christians but they continued to grow in number and so if you can’t feed them to the Lions, Join them, so the Romans being enemy’s of the Christian movement, embraced it so as to control it. makes sense, thank you

 

[Mannyfit75]

When Jesus the head of the Body, asended to the father, shortly after the holy spirit showed up he moved upon the disciples normal everyday men in a mighty tremendous way so much so that when Peter a disciple of Jesus preached filled with the spirit 3000 people responded and where added to the Kingdom of God, and this became a trend 1000’s were being added to thew kingdom and the romans yes killed these true christians not Catholics, Christians but they continued to grow in number and so if you can’t feed them to the Lions, Join them, so the Romans being enemy’s of the Christian movement, embraced it so as to control it. makes sense, thank you

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch was eaten by Lions. He called the Church of Jesus Christ Catholic. "Where the bishops are gather… where there is Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. He said this in 110 AD.

St. Ignatius was martyred for his faith in Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch is the disciple of St. John the Apostle.

They were Catholic Christians.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

When Jesus the head of the Body, asended to the father, shortly after the holy spirit showed up he moved upon the disciples normal everyday men in a mighty tremendous way so much so that when Peter a disciple of Jesus preached filled with the spirit 3000 people responded and where added to the Kingdom of God, and this became a trend 1000’s were being added to thew kingdom and the romans yes killed these true christians not Catholics, Christians but they continued to grow in number and so if you can’t feed them to the Lions, Join them, so the Romans being enemy’s of the Christian movement, embraced it so as to control it. makes sense, thank you

How do you know that these early Christians were not Catholics, eh? Have you read the works of the Early Church Fathers at all? When did Christianity changed into “pagan” Catholicism? Why would the Romans want to embrace something that they’d tried to snuff out?

 

[revmarty]

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of Antioch was eaten by Lions. He called the Church of Jesus Christ Catholic. "Where the bishops are gather… where there is Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. He said this in 110 AD.

St. Ignatius was martyred for his faith in Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch is the disciple of St. John the Apostle.

They were Catholic Christians.

Catholics are Christians I agree but do I have to be Catholic to be called a true Christian, because according to my understanding of the word of God a Christian is a person who is Christlike not Catholiclike if that were the case we would be called Cathians, hmm.

Bless you

MARTY

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Catholics are Christians I agree but do I have to be Catholic to be called a true Christian, because according to my understanding of the word of God a Christian is a person who is Christlike not Catholiclike if that were the case we would be called Cathians, hmm.

Bless you

MARTY

I think you’re putting a false dictonomy between Christians and Catholics. Have you read the Early Church Fathers???

 

[revmarty]

How do you know that these early Christians were not Catholics, eh? Have you read the works of the Early Church Fathers at all? When did Christianity changed into “pagan” Catholicism? Why would the Romans want to embrace something that they’d tried to snuff out?

YOU CAN’T BEAT THEM JOIN THEM, AN AS THE GOVERNMENT TAKE AWAY THERE THREAT FROM WITHIN, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE SOCIALLY DRIVEN NOT SPIRIT DRIVEN. THEIR PLAN (THE ROMANS) WORKED, PEOPLE BELIEVE MORE IN THE READINGS OF THEIR CHURCH FATHERS? THEN THEY DO THE BIBLE, WOW THOSE ROMANS WERE SMART…

 

[Mannyfit75]

Catholics are Christians I agree but do I have to be Catholic to be called a true Christian, because according to my understanding of the word of God a Christian is a person who is Christlike not Catholiclike if that were the case we would be called Cathians, hmm.

Bless you

MARTY

The fullness of Christianity is found in Catholicism. I do acknowledge Non-Catholic Christians as Christians but I never call them True Christians because True Christians be be Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. True Christians are those who have been baptized in Christ Jesus. We recognized Protestant baptism as long as it done in Trinitarian formula, I baptized you, In the Name of the Father, And of the Son, and Of the Holy Spirit."

Baptism zeals us in Christ and therefore makes us Christians.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

YOU CAN’T BEAT THEM JOIN THEM, AN AS THE GOVERNMENT TAKE AWAY THERE THREAT FROM WITHIN, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE SOCIALLY DRIVEN NOT SPIRIT DRIVEN. THEIR PLAN (THE ROMANS) WORKED, PEOPLE BELIEVE MORE IN THE READINGS OF THEIR CHURCH FATHERS? THEN THEY DO THE BIBLE, WOW THOSE ROMANS WERE SMART…

Hmm… I see you completely ignored my comment about your flawed logic. I guess you do not care about a serious scholarly discussion…How Sad…We can learn so much from each other… Maybe another time, when you are not blinded by your prejudices against everything Catholic…

In His love

A Catholic Deacon

 

[Mannyfit75]

YOU CAN’T BEAT THEM JOIN THEM, AN AS THE GOVERNMENT TAKE AWAY THERE THREAT FROM WITHIN, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE SOCIALLY DRIVEN NOT SPIRIT DRIVEN. THEIR PLAN (THE ROMANS) WORKED, PEOPLE BELIEVE MORE IN THE READINGS OF THEIR CHURCH FATHERS? THEN THEY DO THE BIBLE, WOW THOSE ROMANS WERE SMART…

Can you please refrain from using CAP locks, they are consider rude.