S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
Japanese Americans were put in concentration camps during WWII, here in America.
- Status
N
NotTooSmart
Guest
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
yes, and they sued our government and were compensated. We apologized for our embarrassing and terrible behavior during that period. Whereas your church is still under the delusion that it’s infallible.
It offers no apology for the unfortunate souls it burned alive, the torment it dished out to so many people, and the stack of crimes its piled up throughout its horrendous history (right up to today) … all in the name of a loving Jesus.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I must make it known that by no means is Josie a bigot, PERIOD. To disagree with her conclusions about history or theology is one thing, to accuse someone of bigotry is a huge leap and uncalled-for. Josie has never even said anything, IMO, that remotely resembles bigotry? Let’s all be fair and stick to the arguments at hand and not get into name-calling or generalizations.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
John Paul II made several heart-felt apologies to the Jewish people as well as Protestant Christians in several European countries that he visited. He prayed at the sites of several Protestant martyrs and offered apologies there. He has also apologized in speeches, etc. Some posters around here may not be apologetic for the crimes of the Catholic Church against ethnic groups and non-Catholics but the Catholic Church herself actually has apologized.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I certainly won’t disagree with that … but our species has shown ourselves capable of untamed horror for a variety of reasons (not just religion).
Of course the way out of this is rational thinking. We’ll never stop being emotional animals (so we shouldn’t worry that one day we’ll all end up like Spock), but we have the gift of logic if we just allow ourselves to use and take advantage of it. It’s not just religion that creates problems, but religion is one of the most difficult positions to reason with.
What makes religious problems so particularly difficult to accept is the fact that religion, reasonably speaking, isn’t true, it’s just not … and people are killing, dying, and giving their lives over to myths. When we die there won’t be 72 virgins, or a Jesus waiting for us, or Peter standing by the pearly gates hanging out with Moses (and Buddha). There just won’t.
It’s Santa Claus for adults.
Sure, it’s a harsher reality … and I won’t pretend reality is better than myth (why else create a myth, I suppose, unless it’s better than reality). We can either continue to remain willfully blind of the facts, or rationalize them in irrational ways … or not. I’m just not one of those people who can do that.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well, Yankee, I can agree with you that violence is never justified religiously but I couldn’t disagree more with you about the atheist positions you take here, respectfully. I believe in Christ Jesus resurrected and I have a firm faith that He was a real man, died for my sins, and rose again. I do not view him as a mythical Zeus, Gilgamesh, or Santa Claus. He is not a whim or someone I believe in to make me feel better about life…not a crutch or a cushion to fall on…I truly believe in Him with all my heart. I’m sad that you don’t but I pass no judgment on you. We’re all on a religious path in life no matter what station of it we’re in…I hope your atheism will be a passing phase and that you’ll keep your heart open to the possiblity of Jesus.
I disagree with the Santa Tooth Fairy comparison. Jesus is a challenge, not a cushiony character. He challenges us to reject the world, to follow a difficult Gospel, to be born again and live as new creations. Christianity is demanding in that we are supposed to forgive our enemies–the most difficult task I’ve ever been given. It calls on us to turn the other cheek in conflicts, to visit the sick and prisoners, to undertake humilitation at times, and to give up so much. It’s not Santa Claus. Some feel-good corny Christians may take that approach, but they shouldn’t. The frills, the sights, smells, and sounds of worship can intoxicate and distract from the substance sometimes. I see that.
You mentioned the gift of logic, intellect, etc. I agree that it is a blessing, but I believe it is God-given. I happen to believe in human evolution and I am at odds with my brethren at some issues in here morally, birth control, etc. And I might very well be wrong on some of my opinions. I’m willing to be open to that. I don’t throw my common sense out the door to be a Christian. But I know that no matter how old the earth is, how tough it is, how it’s governed by science and what have you, that God is behind it. It is not random but logical, this planet and the natural world around us. Christianity is the only faith in which God comes to earth, takes on the flesh of His own creation, and knows what we go through, day in and day out. Christ is a God of empathy and understanding, intimacy and love. I encourage you to stay open-minded to it and know that He loves you. God bless!
J
josie_L
Guest
Gurney, this means a lot to me, thank you. Peace and blessings upon you, friend.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
The religious have this blasted tendency to make unusual (and unsupported) statements like: “we’re all on a religious path in life” (what does that substantively mean?), or I was once confused (inferring atheists are somehow confused because we acknowledge myths as fiction).
However, I also don’t say that religion was invented to allay our fears or create false comfort. I don’t know what the motives of the myth-makers were. I can speculate (and I have plenty of ideas), but that doesn’t really serve any purpose. It’s enough to show these stories are fictitious myths, and move on from there (with a reality premised on fact or at least viable theory).
The gospel is called challenging, but I don’t think it is. This tact is a common emotive appeal to I guess honor and a sort of instinctual warrior pride (for lack of a better term).
I heard a woman on Bill Maher one time defend Christianity, using the same class of argument. She said it’s not easy to stand willing to die for our faith, it’s not natural to put ourselves at risk for another person, or as you say it’s difficult to forgive an enemy. I’m sure it’s equally difficult for the Islamist to strap a bomb on his or her chest and commit suicide. However, I don’t see much honor in gullibility.
This sort of appeal might give the religious emotional zeal, but the only thing it proves is people can be convinced to do virtually anything, or believe the irrational, with the proper indoctrination technique.
The Santa Claus analogy was merely pointing to the mythological nature of religion; I obviously didn’t mean to say altruism helps us feel good (although it probably does in certain ways). As for the intoxicating effect of prayer (and its potential psychological value), I don’t dispute it (probably much like the benefits of meditation). Certainly involvement in religion provides a community of like minded friends, and good relationships are important for psychological stability (and there’s a marked relationship between psychological and physical health).
At any rate, as much as we can debate the intrinsic value of religion (and I don’t dispute there is some value in it) … it doesn’t make it anymore true.
Actually Christianity is the latest in a long series of myths where a god comes to earth, takes human form, dies, and rises again. It’s another in a long list of virgin birth motifs, and even the Eucharist was predicated by earlier mythology (if you don’t believe me study your own early Christian fathers like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr).
Irenaeus and Martyr explained the striking parallels between earlier Hellenic mythology and Christianity by saying these earlier religions copied Christianity, before Jesus was even born, as a form of diabolical pre-cognitive mockery (a logically absurd argument by any reasonable standard).
Judaism also suffers from remarkable parallels to earlier mythology (mostly Mesopotamian). It should also be noted that excellent recent studies done on the Exodus story shows the narrative is outside reasonable historical possibility (I’ll be glad to elaborate if you like, or you can study it).
The bottom line is the facts are clear, religion is not true
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Actually there is a difference between Christianity and Paganism. I would like to see actually quotes of the ECF that assert the claim that Christianity barrow ideas from early paganism.Actually Christianity is the latest in a long series of myths where a god comes to earth, takes human form, dies, and rises again. It’s another in a long list of virgin birth motifs, and even the Eucharist was predicated by earlier mythology (if you don’t believe me study your own early Christian fathers like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr).
Irenaeus and Martyr explained the striking parallels between earlier Hellenic mythology and Christianity by saying these earlier religions copied Christianity, before Jesus was even born, as a form of diabolical pre-cognitive mockery (a logically absurd argument by any reasonable standard).
Judaism also suffers from remarkable parallels to earlier mythology (mostly Mesopotamian). It should also be noted that excellent recent studies done on the Exodus story shows the narrative is outside reasonable historical possibility (I’ll be glad to elaborate if you like, or you can study it).
The bottom line is the facts are clear, religion is not true
I’ll quote you some article I read up in Catholic Answers which refutes your claims.
*There is a sharp contrast between the mythological character of pagan mystery religions and the historical character of the Gospels and the New Testament writings. In his study Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, Bruce Metzger writes:
Unlike the deities of the mysteries, who were nebulous figures of an imaginary past, the divine being whom the Christian worshiped as Lord was known as a real person on earth only a short time before the earliest documents of the New Testament were written. From the earliest times the Christian creed included the affirmation that Jesus “was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” On the other hand, Plutarch thinks it necessary to warn the priestess Clea against believing that “any of these tales [concerning Isis and Osiris] actually happened in the manner in which they are related.”
A glance at Mithraism demonstrates how different from Christianity the pagan mystery religions were. Mithras was originally a Persian god depicted as a bucolic deity who watched over cattle. Mithraism was not introduced to the West and the Mediterranean world until the first century at the earliest, where it eventually attracted Roman soldiers. Contemporaneous with Christianity, this second form of Mithraism was for men only.
By the time Mithraism became popular in the Roman Empire it had changed from a public religion for the many to a mystery religion meant for the elite. It took on a Greco-Roman quality and absorbed elements of astrology and Platonic philosophy. Although scholars distinguish between the earlier Persian Mithraism and the later Roman Mithraism, most popular works straining to connect Mithras to Jesus do not. This failure to distinguish between the two forms of Mithraism has often resulted in the assumption that Roman Mithraic beliefs also existed in the earlier, pre-Christian form. But the Mithraic beliefs and practices that Christianity is accused of “stealing” did not come into vogue until the end of the first century, far too late to shape the Gospels and their depiction of Jesus. David Ulansey, author of The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, writes:
The earliest physical remains of the cult date from around the end of the first century A.D., and Mithraism reached its height of popularity in the third century. In addition to soldiers, the cult’s membership included significant numbers of bureaucrats and merchants. Women were excluded. Mithraism declined with the rise to power of Christianity until the beginning of the fifth century, when Christianity became strong enough to exterminate by force rival religions such as Mithraism. (“The Cosmic Mysteries of Mithras,” at www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html)
The Roman Mithras is “born” from a rock; he is called “the rock-born god.” He was commonly depicted as naked, wearing a cap and holding a torch and a dagger. In the Persian legends, he was born of a virgin mother, Anahita (once worshiped as a fertility goddess), who swam in Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan, where Zoroaster/Zarathustra had left sperm four hundred years earlier. The central feat of Mithras’s life on earth was the capture and killing of a stolen bull at the command of the god Apollo, symbolizing the annual renewal of life in spring
James observed that Mithraism was not absorbed by Christianity but overcome by it, “because the Church was able to meet its adversary on the sure ground of historical fact.” Christianity went far beyond “the ancient seasonal drama with its polytheistic background” and offered initiates a “renewal of spiritual life and regeneration of outlook . . . to a degree unknown and unattainable in any rival system. Therefore, Christianity ultimately prevailed because it provided a different gift of life from that bestowed in the pagan cults.”
This is one answer to a question that critics either ignore or attempt to explain away with elaborate conspiracy theories: Why did Christianity not only survive the first, second, and third centuries but eventually thrive and spread globally, while all of the pagan mystery religions disappeared?
*.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Yankee,
The theology of paganism simularity is rather a weak argument. Let point out why.
The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, beliefs, or practices is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minial form, the pagan influence fallacy is subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on on its own history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.e., “No one should use this medicine because it was invented by drunkard and adullterer”).
Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (After this, therefore because of this) fallacies… “Some ancient pagans did or believe something millenia ago; therefore any parallel Christian practices and belief must be derived from that source.”
Frequently, a variant of this fallacy is committed to which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc" (Similar tto this therefore because of this’) fallacy.
…
With pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out that is, in fact, a fallacy. To help make this clear to a religious person committed to it, it may be helpful to illustrate with a cases of pagan influence fallacy could be committed against his position (ie… the practice of circumcision was practiced in the ancient world by a number of people including the Egyptian but a few Jews or Christians say it is divinely authorized use in Israel was an example of “pagan corruption”
I think you get the point.
if you still don’t get what pagan influence is a fallacious argument to discredit Christianity, then I’ll give you more example.
Robert Ingersoll wrote in his book “The Egyptian had a trinity. They worship Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of hears before the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were known.”
This statement is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead ---- pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isisi, and Horus were simply divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage or blood (not surprisingly, since Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figure the same myth cycle. They did not represent three persons of a single divine being (The Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim to Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There are no parallels.
The theology of paganism simularity is rather a weak argument. Let point out why.
The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, beliefs, or practices is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minial form, the pagan influence fallacy is subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on on its own history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.e., “No one should use this medicine because it was invented by drunkard and adullterer”).
Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (After this, therefore because of this) fallacies… “Some ancient pagans did or believe something millenia ago; therefore any parallel Christian practices and belief must be derived from that source.”
Frequently, a variant of this fallacy is committed to which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc" (Similar tto this therefore because of this’) fallacy.
…
With pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out that is, in fact, a fallacy. To help make this clear to a religious person committed to it, it may be helpful to illustrate with a cases of pagan influence fallacy could be committed against his position (ie… the practice of circumcision was practiced in the ancient world by a number of people including the Egyptian but a few Jews or Christians say it is divinely authorized use in Israel was an example of “pagan corruption”
I think you get the point.
if you still don’t get what pagan influence is a fallacious argument to discredit Christianity, then I’ll give you more example.
Robert Ingersoll wrote in his book “The Egyptian had a trinity. They worship Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of hears before the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were known.”
This statement is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead ---- pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isisi, and Horus were simply divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage or blood (not surprisingly, since Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figure the same myth cycle. They did not represent three persons of a single divine being (The Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim to Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There are no parallels.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
it’s improper to judge a thing based on its own history? Your kidding right
It’s not that I say since A therefore B. It doesn’t work that way. The only way this issue can be judged is looking at the statistical likelihood a certain thing is true.
For instance, earlier pagan mythology contained numerous stories virtually identical to the supernatural elements (and theme) of the New Testament narrative.
What’s more likely.
- A god-man, born of a virgin, who herself was visited by a celestial angel, and impregnated by the spirit of a god, rose from the dead (and all the other fantastic myths in the bible); or
- Another myth was created, adopted from a motif of earlier myths, and a bunch of gullible superstitious ancient people believed it & it became popular?
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Ultimately, all attempts to prove Christiantiy as pagan in origin fails. Christian or Judeo-Christian doctrines are neither borrowed from the pagan religions nor introduce from paganism after the conversion of Constantine. The pagan charge against Christianity is false and it is done without any serious scholarship. Historians will mock at people who made the same claim that Yankee and other Non-Believers point out.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
yes of course, if you’re brainwashed.
of course & it really was the tooth fairy who left that dollar under your pillow
OK … whatever you say
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
The argument “similis hoc ergo propter hoc” is a fallacies argument. The similarity between some Christian beliefs and stories does mean it have pagan origins. PERIOD. You are basically going off by your opinions on this matter without proper historical proof.it’s improper to judge a thing based on its own history? Your kidding right
It’s not that I say since A therefore B. It doesn’t work that way. The only way this issue can be judged is looking at the statistical likelihood a certain thing is true.
For instance, earlier pagan mythology contained numerous stories virtually identical to the supernatural elements (and theme) of the New Testament narrative.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Brainwashed? I once consider leaving the Catholic Church. Apparently, I have a choose to decide to leave the Catholic Church or not. If I was anything near brainwashed, I would not have some doubts. My affirmation of my faith is through prayer and reasoning.
History does not show that to be true.of course & it really was the tooth fairy who left that dollar under your pillow
No historian who studies Christianity will agree with your argument that Christianity is pagan in origin.OK … whatever you say
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
do you think because you found a Latin phrase on Google you’re smart all of a sudden
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
What’s more likely.
Name a pagan whose storyline matches that of Jesus Christ. There isn’t none. There have been other virgin births in paganism but none of it is similiar to the story of the Jesus.
Again, there is no historical proof to your argument. Most Professors in universities would mock you for making the claim.
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Nope. I found it in the Essential Catholic Survival Guide written by Catholic Answers Staff. Bad conclusion on your part.do you think because you found a Latin phrase on Google you’re smart all of a sudden
- Status