NationStates Jolt Archive

I wasn't sure if I should call this thread 'pagan influences in Christianity' or 'pagan origins of Christianity' because there are just so many. This has been a subject I've been interested in for a long time, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were.

To me, it seems as if there is very little that is original in the gospels. The Jesus story - plot, events, and even exact words - seems to be borrowed from contemporary and previous pagan religions in the Galilee area. Early Christians seem to have noticed it as well. Many of the Church Fathers wrote extensively trying to explain away the similiarities and influencecs, even going so far as to say that the devil did it.

So, I've set up a little poll. In addition to this, I'd like to hear from everyone:

1. If you think there are pagan influences, which ones effected Christianity the most and why.
2. If you don't believe there are any pagan influences, explain the similarities between the Jesus story and the host of pagan myths that were contemporary or earlier.

Compare Greek mythology to the Bible, and you'll see a LOT of similarities. As would you find from almost all other cultures in the world. It just means no matter what the religions are called, essentially, they are the same ideas.

Compare Greek mythology to the Bible, and you'll see a LOT of similarities. As would you find from almost all other cultures in the world. It just means no matter what the religions are called, essentially, they are the same ideas.

Yes, absolutely. The first thing that pops into my mind is Dionysus. He had 12 disciples (in some accounts), he turned water into wine, was executed by crucifixion (other accounts have him dismembered) and was a god in human form. What sticks out the most about Dionysus are a few maxims we find in the gospels. In the Bacchae (written around 600 years before the gospels) we have Dionysus saying "forgive them, they know not what they do." Jesus says an almost identical thing before his crucifixion. The maxim "many are called, but few are chosen" was also Bacchaic, and Plato uses it in one of his writings.

Before I forget, here is a wonderful site on just this issue:

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

I wasn't sure if I should call this thread 'pagan influences in Christianity' or 'pagan origins of Christianity' because there are just so many. This has been a subject I've been interested in for a long time, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were.

To me, it seems as if there is very little that is original in the gospels. The Jesus story - plot, events, and even exact words - seems to be borrowed from contemporary and previous pagan religions in the Galilee area. Early Christians seem to have noticed it as well. Many of the Church Fathers wrote extensively trying to explain away the similiarities and influencecs, even going so far as to say that the devil did it.

So, I've set up a little poll. In addition to this, I'd like to hear from everyone:

1. If you think there are pagan influences, which ones effected Christianity the most and why.
2. If you don't believe there are any pagan influences, explain the similarities between the Jesus story and the host of pagan myths that were contemporary or earlier.
Could we get a more clear definition of pagan?
I just need that cleared up before I vote.

Could we get a more clear definition of pagan?
I just need that cleared up before I vote.

You bet. Here is a definition that I yanked off google that sums up the way pagan is being used in this context:

a person who follows a polytheistic or pre-Christian religion (not a Christian or Muslim or Jew)

EDIT:

For these purposes we can also include non-Jewish monotheistic religions, such as Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrian influence on Christianity was huge, and I would hate to leave that out. Essentially any non-Jewish religious influence works.

The Christ story is almost exactly the same as the Krishna story, right down to the names of some of the towns. That's enough to suspect some degree of influence just by itself.

I think we're going to have one very bias poll as well as one very bias thread.

I think we're going to have one very bias poll as well as one very bias thread.

Just because virtually everyone so far who has voted acknowledges that there are pagan influences in the Jesus story doesn't make the poll biased per se. I left open options for both sides.

Now, if I made a poll that had two options like:

(First option) There are pagan influences in the Jesus story
(Second option) I'm a religious nut with no historical consciousness for thinking there are none

That would be a biased poll.

Personally I would love to hear some arguments against it from the Christian side.

Personally I would love to hear some arguments against it from the Christian side.

Archeological evidence!

Just because virtually everyone so far who has voted acknowledges that there are pagan influences in the Jesus story doesn't make the poll biased per se. I left open options for both sides.

Now, if I made a poll that had two options like:

(First option) There are pagan influences in the Jesus story
(Second option) I'm a religious nut with no historical consciousness for thinking there are none

That would be a biased poll.

Personally I would love to hear some arguments against it from the Christian side.

The poll is still a bit biased. Divine inspiration and pagan influences don't have to necessarily be mutually exclusive.

Yes, absolutely. The first thing that pops into my mind is Dionysus.
Yes, and the most important similarity is that they both died and were given a "second birth" or resurrected, with one version of the Dionysus myth that he was killed and his flesh eaten by Titans but his father Zeus took his heart and impregnated Semele, a mortal woman, with it so Dionysus could be born again.

This is all rooted in the Osiris archetype of death and rebirth along with rites that are derived from agriculture.

right now im wondering what christian idea or story might be original with the new testament

and why christianity was built around judaism

Archeological evidence!
Oh do provide some

right now im wondering what christian idea or story might be original with the new testament

and why christianity was built around judaism

I wonder why all three of the main religions believe in the exact samething.

Archeological evidence!
Well, that's more than a little vague for an answer.

I should have voted other, but the question did specify the "story," so I went with yes. Here's the thing. There probably was a rabbi named Yeshua during that basic period who was an itinerant preaching a radical form of Judaism, but that doesn't mean that the Yeshua who preached in Galilee was the Jesus that the early church fathers constructed in the Gospels. And there's little doubt that the legend of Jesus was indeed constructed rather than recorded.

Well, that's more than a little vague for an answer.

I should have voted other, but the question did specify the "story," so I went with yes. Here's the thing. There probably was a rabbi named Yeshua during that basic period who was an itinerant preaching a radical form of Judaism, but that doesn't mean that the Yeshua who preached in Galilee was the Jesus that the early church fathers constructed in the Gospels. And there's little doubt that the legend of Jesus was indeed constructed rather than recorded.

Oh I would love to hear this evidence. Most folks believe (including the muslims) that Jesus was infact a real person. If not then why the hell do the Muslims consider Jesus a prophet? Even Mohammad considered Jesus a prophet.

Archeological evidence!

Well, I'm convinced. I guess I'll go convert to Christianity now.

In all seriousness, this seems like a deliberately vague response. And I am willing to venture that there is far more archeological evidence that supports pagan influences in the Jesus story than there is against it. Keep in mind that evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus does not equal evidence against pagan influences in the Jesus stories. A historical Jesus figure is quite different from the Jesus myths.

For archeological evidence, I would cite all of the Dionysus and mother mosaics, such as the one found in "The House of Dionysus" in Cyprus, that are virtually identical to the later depictions of the Jesus "Madonna and Child." In addition, the earlier Dionysus being depicted as crucified on amulets, such as the plaster cast we find in the Museum in Berlin, is a solid piece of archeological evidence that demonstrates the pagan influences in Christianity.

Really I'm not sure if archeological evidence is the best place to search either way, since there are no skeletal remains or artifacts left by these godmen directly. Only artifacts left by the followers of these religions.

I'd like to remind once again that demonstrating that the Jesus story is "historically accurate" only validates the possibility of a historical Jesus. It isn't solid evidence for a Jesus, and it isn't evidence for the Jesus of faith in any way. For example, the fact that crucifixion existed (which we prove with the remains of those crucified and materials thereof) doesn't prove that Jesus existed, was crucified, and sure doesn't prove that he rose from the dead any more than crucifixion existing proves the things said about Dionysus were true.

the truth is this: Christian oppressors slaughtered many pagan cultures (Norske Pagans). It wouldn't be a surprise to me if they stole their culture too.

I wonder why all three of the main religions believe in the exact samething.
the exact same thing?

i dont think so

christianity bears little resemblance to judaism. islam is alike in concept only

they are the same only in the way that all relgions are the same.

I wonder why all three of the main religions believe in the exact samething.

1) If they believed the exact same thing they wouldn't be separate religions.

2) Because they took from the hebrews, who also had pagan influence.

Archeological evidence: Steles found in ancient Israel depicting a man and a woman, with wording in Hebrew, "YHWH and his Asherah", from Archeology Magazine, not sure what issue, my place is a mess, its around here somewhere.

Oh I would love to hear this evidence. Most folks believe (including the muslims) that Jesus was infact a real person. If not then why the hell do the Muslims consider Jesus a prophet? Even Mohammad considered Jesus a prophet.

As far as I know, Islamic knowledge of Jesus is based off of Christian knowledge of Jesus.

Well, that's more than a little vague for an answer.

I should have voted other, but the question did specify the "story," so I went with yes. Here's the thing. There probably was a rabbi named Yeshua during that basic period who was an itinerant preaching a radical form of Judaism, but that doesn't mean that the Yeshua who preached in Galilee was the Jesus that the early church fathers constructed in the Gospels. And there's little doubt that the legend of Jesus was indeed constructed rather than recorded.

Right. To clarify a bit, this is the dichotomy in history that we refer to as the "Historical Jesus" and the "Jesus of Faith."

The historical Jesus is the historical origin of the Jesus stories in the gospels. This could be a Rabbi named Yeshua, or it could be something else. It could even be multiple Rabbis that the figure was based on, or multiple Jewish rebels that gave the Jewish Rabbi/Rebel prototype for the story. The "Historical Jesus" is very vague, and there are a lot of shots at it.

The Jesus of faith is Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. Because we draw the historical jesus/jesus of faith dichotomy, it is easy to see that most of the academic world rejects the gospel Jesus as-is. The only ones who adhere to a gospel Jesus as-is tend to be those that follow the religion.

I too believe that some factual events and person/persons existed that the Jesuus story was based on. Thus, I believe in a historical Jesus. I don't think it is anything like the Jesus of faith, i.e. the gospel Jesus, that is packed full of pagan myth. Lots of myth develops around factual events and persons, and a lot of this is borrowed myth.

Also Mithraism bears mentioning.

Oh I would love to hear this evidence. Most folks believe (including the muslims) that Jesus was infact a real person. If not then why the hell do the Muslims consider Jesus a prophet? Even Mohammad considered Jesus a prophet.
what did mohammed know about anything?

Oh I would love to hear this evidence. Most folks believe (including the muslims) that Jesus was infact a real person. If not then why the hell do the Muslims consider Jesus a prophet? Even Mohammad considered Jesus a prophet.
Look carefully at what I wrote, Corneliu, and please don't take this as an attack. I respect the teachings of Jesus a great deal--I just don't believe in his divinity any longer.

Like I said, there probably was a rabbi named Yeshua at that time period, much like there was probably a king named Arthur (or some variant) in Britain in the 7th or 8th century CE. But their existence, and the stories that came after them, about them, are two far, far different things. Just as Arthur probably never pulled a sword from a stone, there's no reason to believe that Yeshua raised Lazarus from the dead. Those were embellishments, made by the people who came afterward to make the head of the new church (or new nation, in Arthur's case) larger than life.

If you want to look at the archaeological side of it, I highly recommend a book titled Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan. I just picked up Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman today, and it's fabulous so far. It's really opened up my understanding of the early church so far, and I'm only in the second chapter.

As far as I know, Islamic knowledge of Jesus is based off of Christian knowledge of Jesus.

It is and both took it mostly from the Essenes.

1) If they believed the exact same thing they wouldn't be separate religions.

2) Because they took from the hebrews, who also had pagan influence.

Archeological evidence: Steles found in ancient Israel depicting a man and a woman, with wording in Hebrew, "YHWH and his Asherah", from Archeology Magazine, not sure what issue, my place is a mess, its around here somewhere.
you just stepped beyond my knowlege, what is that and what does it prove?

Like I said, there probably was a rabbi named Yeshua at that time period, much like there was probably a king named Arthur (or some variant) in Britain in the 7th or 8th century CE. But their existence, and the stories that came after them, about them, are two far, far different things. Just as Arthur probably never pulled a sword from a stone, there's no reason to believe that Yeshua raised Lazarus from the dead. Those were embellishments, made by the people who came afterward to make the head of the new church (or new nation, in Arthur's case) larger than life.



Josephus chronicled 19 (or so, going by memory) separate Yeshuas who claimed to be messiah (military saviour) during the time period the gospels were supposed to have taken place in. There were as many Jesus' in Roman occupied Israel as there are today in Mexico.

Nearly every culture at the time of early Christianity had politics of conquest and coincidental slaughter, so no one should be up in arms about Christians killing northern pagans unless they want to point the finger right back at them for crushing rome, eventually invading North America, etc, etc. It's all a waste of time anyway as it's far enough into the past to be beyond remembrance or reparation.

As for the matter of Christianity being a "rip-off" of other faiths, well, that's what every existing faith out there is. Until you find some dimwit in a cave worshipping a potato, I don't think anyone in the world will have claim to the "original".

the truth is this: Christian oppressors slaughtered many pagan cultures (Norske Pagans). It wouldn't be a surprise to me if they stole their culture too.

That reminds me of a shrine to Brigit in Ireland (I could be mistaken on location) that suppossedly had a flame burning that never went out. The Church took it and turned it into a church. Early Christians did this too; they took Mithraeums, the underground catacombs used to worship Mithras, and converted them into places to worship Jesus. Quite convienent, because those who practiced the religion surrounding Mithras at the time also practiced communion and baptism. So the Christians were able to make use of the single altar for communion, as well as the baptismals. And thus, we get wonderful Mithraic influences on Christianity like the ones found in the gospels. An example:

This is an inscription to Mithras found in a Mithraeum later converted into a Christian place of worship. Keep in mind, this was part of a Mithraic liturgy, and would have been common in Mithraism long before Jesus:

"He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

And here we see the pagan influence in the gospels:

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.(John 6:53)

the exact same thing?

i dont think so

christianity bears little resemblance to judaism. islam is alike in concept only

they are the same only in the way that all relgions are the same.

Actually, they do believe in the same thing. If you read both the Koran and the Bible, you'll see similarities between the two.

Also you must remember that the three religions stem from the same family back in the old testiment. You can see the split there.

The difference between Muslims and Christians is that the Muslims believe him to be a prophet and the Christians consider him the savior of man. The Jews rejected Jesus because they were expecting a warrior and not someone who believed in peace. What the Jews got was Ghandi in a sense.

In regards to the Lord's supper; Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded the event. In regards to Luke, he was a historian and the first rule of any historian is to look for original sources of information. Among this is first hand accounts of people who were actually present.

I just picked up Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman today, and it's fabulous so far. It's really opened up my understanding of the early church so far, and I'm only in the second chapter.

That suppossed to be a very good book, I almost bought it the other day myself.

the truth is this: Christian oppressors slaughtered many pagan cultures (Norske Pagans). It wouldn't be a surprise to me if they stole their culture too.

Not quite. In the case of the Norse, the Norse themselves began to adopt the religion, and there was a major civil war over it.

There's never really a case of one culture "stealing" that of another. For one, culture is an immaterial set of beliefs and customs, and can be replicated indefinitely. It's simply a case of adoption. Cultures, and religions, evolve out of one another.

Josephus chronicled 19 (or so, going by memory) separate Yeshuas who claimed to be messiah (military saviour) during the time period the gospels were supposed to have taken place in. There were as many Jesus' in Roman occupied Israel as there are today in Mexico.
and so, when you look at it, just WHICH jesus was it, if any. and did ANY of his actual sayings get into the new testment or was it all made up by taking bits and pieces of stuff that was common at the time

as if george washington was made up in bit and pieces of all the founding fathers.

what did mohammed know about anything?

Oh I don't know. Rumor has it he received the Koran from an angel by the name of Gabriel. Gabriel also happens to be the angel who told Mary that she was going to bear the Savior of Man. Jesus is mentioned in the Koran.

Well, at least Jews can admit that there's heavy Pagan influence in Judaism.

Doesn't matter anyway ... In the Upanishads, Brahman is not only the principle and creator of all there is, but is also the sum totality of the universe and its phenomena.

Accordingly, no matter who you are or what you do or how you believe (Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc), you *are* Hindu. Neat, eh?

Look carefully at what I wrote, Corneliu, and please don't take this as an attack. I respect the teachings of Jesus a great deal--I just don't believe in his divinity any longer.

That's your choice. Believe what you will. I honestly don't care if you do or not. I do believe in his divinity and I would gladly die for it too.

Actually, they do believe in the same thing. If you read both the Koran and the Bible, you'll see similarities between the two.

Oh wait, so if I read The Bacchae and note the ton of similiarites between Dionysus and Jesus, does that mean Hellenists and Christians believe the same thing? Jesus is just Dionysus in a different mask, it seems.

Or how about if I read the Baghavad-Gita and note the similiarites between Krishna and Jesus? Many Hindus have incorporated Jesus into their set of deities, and believe that Jesus was an incarnation of Krishna. Do Christians and Hindus believe the same thing, too? They sure are similiar.

In regards to the Lord's supper; Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded the event. In regards to Luke, he was a historian and the first rule of any historian is to look for original sources of information. Among this is first hand accounts of people who were actually present.

The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added to the texts during canonization. Nowhere in the texts does it state that a single one of these people wrote anything. The gospels are anonymous, and their attributed, pseudopigraphic authors were given to them by Christian leaders no earlier than the second century.

And no, there are no "first hand accounts" of people who were actually present. For a first hand account to be valid, it has to be told from frist person. If someone writes a book and says "50 people saw it too" that does not mean that there are 50 first hand accounts. There is only one, and that is only IF the person who writes the book is available to give an account. In the case of the gospels, which are anonymous, there are no first hand accounts.

That's your choice. Believe what you will. I honestly don't care if you do or not. I do believe in his divinity and I would gladly die for it too.
That's fine, and I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise. Every man's decisions about faith are personal ones, the most personal ones they can possibly make, and I wouldn't interfere with yours in any way, shape or form. I only mentioned that in my post to let you know where I'm coming from, that I have an immense love for and respect for Jesus's teachings regardless of whether they're divine in origin or not.

Actually, they do believe in the same thing. If you read both the Koran and the Bible, you'll see similarities between the two.

Also you must remember that the three religions stem from the same family back in the old testiment. You can see the split there.

The difference between Muslims and Christians is that the Muslims believe him to be a prophet and the Christians consider him the savior of man. The Jews rejected Jesus because they were expecting a warrior and not someone who believed in peace. What the Jews got was Ghandi in a sense.

In regards to the Lord's supper; Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded the event. In regards to Luke, he was a historian and the first rule of any historian is to look for original sources of information. Among this is first hand accounts of people who were actually present.

lets start with christianity vs judaism.

they are not the same religion or the same god.

the jews dont have a trinity. they have ONE god with ONE aspect. christianity has one god with 3 parts. all of which act independantly of each other.

jews have all sorts of rules and regulations on how to live your life, christians reject almost all of them. they dont even have the same sabbath

moslems might think of jesus as a prophet but christians think of him as GOD. moslems reject the rules and regulations of christianity, they dont even have the same sabbath.

Doesn't matter anyway ... In the Upanishads, Brahman is not only the principle and creator of all there is, but is also the sum totality of the universe and its phenomena.

Accordingly, no matter who you are or what you do or how you believe (Muslim, Christian, Atheist, etc), you *are* Hindu. Neat, eh?

I know, darn Hindus. They're worse than the Mormons baptising people after they die. Instead of getting you to convert, you're already in, and there isn't jack you can do about it. :p

And in general, yes, less Jews have a problem with admitting pagan influences than Christians. I have no problem admitting pagan influences myself. I think this is probably because Jews have traditionally been a more educated demographic than Christians and we actually emphasize secular study as a mitzvah too.

Obviously there are pagan influences in the Jesus story and the gospels, just like there are pagan influences in the rituals and holidays.

Jesus is clearly cast in the mold of sacrificed gods, including Dionysos, Adonis, and others, whose myths follow the pattern of slow, torturous, sacrificial death by suspension from a tree-like object followed after three days by resurrection and ascension to the upper spiritual realm in a reborn, divine form.

Jesus, before his death, is cast in the model of the teaching god who travels the world, showing human beings the right way to live. All the father-gods, including Zeus, Odin, and several Celtic deities were believed to have done this either at the beginning of civilization or, more significantly, at a time when people were backsliding or following an evil path.

The vague cannibal symbolism of the sacrament is another common tradition of ancient pagan religions. It's an interesting take on the reverse symbolic cannibalism of the actual animal sacrifices that were made -- in those, the lamb stood in for a human intercessor with the gods; the Christian sacrament reverses this and refers to the human intercessor as "the lamb of god."

I think the only question is when these influences came in. They were certainly present in Jesus's religion -- Judaism -- in Jesus's time. The story of Moses is a "hero's progress" story, influenced by the cultures that enslaved the Hebrews, such as Babylon and Egypt, both of which have deities/culture heroes who were found as babies floating down a river, who were raised by royalty and later had their true identities proven, who spent years in visionary hermitage, who parted waters and performed other miracles. So were pagan influences injected into the stories told about Jesus contemporary with a historical ministry?

Or were they put in during the first 1000 years of Christianity, when the religion was spreading into the pagan cultures of Europe? That's where many of the ritual and holiday pagan influences come from. Plus, Christianity was spread by Rome, which had a long tradition of not wiping out local cultures as long as they were obedient to Roman rule.

Probably, it was both.

Oh I don't know. Rumor has it he received the Koran from an angel by the name of Gabriel. Gabriel also happens to be the angel who told Mary that she was going to bear the Savior of Man. Jesus is mentioned in the Koran.
does that mean you believe that mohammed is a prophet of god and that he brought the word of god to the world and that we should all be living in submission to the will of god (islam)

Josephus chronicled 19 (or so, going by memory) separate Yeshuas who claimed to be messiah (military saviour) during the time period the gospels were supposed to have taken place in. There were as many Jesus' in Roman occupied Israel as there are today in Mexico.

I don't know how many different Jesus that Josephus chronicled, but I do remember that he kept pretty detailed records of messianic claimants, and there were a ton. In any case, this is a perfect example of the "historical Jesus"

The historical Jesus could be these dozens of messianic figures that were wrapped into one story and prototype to create the Jesus myth, or Jesus of faith. Remember, the term "historical Jesus" is used to mean the historical origin of the myth, it doesn't have to actually be a single guy named Jesus with historical import.

does that mean you believe that mohammed is a prophet of god and that he brought the word of god to the world and that we should all be living in submission to the will of god (islam)

Allah and the good I worship are one and the same. I do believe that Mohammad was a prophet and I do believe in the Koran. I just subscribe to the Christian Religion because it was how I was raised.

I also believe that the Koran is correct in that the three major religions are intertwined.

you just stepped beyond my knowlege, what is that and what does it prove?

YHWH is the Hebrew written name for god (you may recognise the latin translation of Jehova). Asherah was the name of a north Sumerian goddess (pagan). They have been found depicted as husband and wife in numerous locations prior to the Babylonian exile. This shows that to the lay people at least, there was no hard and fast dividing line between the Hebrews tribal god and the neighboring pagan cultures. Although quite what that proves is not much since even Christians and Jews will admit that, and that that was why the prophets were pissed.

However, to find the pagan origins of Judaism you only need to look at the first chapter in Genesis. What is Elohim? Well El was the sky god in Sumerian religion, and the -im ending in Hebrew denotes plural, thus Elohim means those of the Sky god. Ever wonder why God keeps refering to "we", because it was taken from an earlier polytheistic myth, although modern Christians would have you think it was refering to God and his angels. In, I believe its Lebanon, an ancient city named Ugarit has been found, in their cuneiform tablets one of their gods is named YHWH and he is one of "the 50 sons of EL". Ugarit predates Israel and Judea. Just look at the first line in Genesis, Gods moving over the surface of the water, the Hebrew word for the water in Genesis is tehom, written THM. THM is also how Sumerians wrote the primordial saltwater abys of water as well, but they added a T at the end, anyone ever heard of Tiamat? So the people of El are moving over Tiamat. The Hebrews may have interpretted it different but they got most everything from an earlier writing. Look at the battle depicted in the Sumerian writing of Enuma Elish, the son of El is fighting Tiamat. People speak of a source gospel for various other Gospels called a Q gospel, but this hints at a Q Genesis. Don't even get me started on Noah's ark and the epic of Gilgamesh.

I think this is probably because Jews have traditionally been a more educated demographic than Christians and we actually emphasize secular study as a mitzvah too.

Exactly. I remember studying the solar system and whatnot in yeshiva ketana and talking about Newton and physics, not firmament and Creation.

I never quite understood why Christians haven't picked up on the Jewish ability to know about physics, history, fossil records, science, and secular socialism while still being able to study the Divine. I mean ... does proving the Universe to be more than 6,000 years old suddenly make God a lie? They seem to think so.

Allah and the good I worship are one and the same. I do believe that Mohammad was a prophet and I do believe in the Koran. I just subscribe to the Christian Religion because it was how I was raised.

I also believe that the Koran is correct in that the three major religions are intertwined.
thats very enlightened of you

of course we should all live in submission to the will of god

or i would if i believed in god anyway.

The vague cannibal symbolism of the sacrament is another common tradition of ancient pagan religions. It's an interesting take on the reverse symbolic cannibalism of the actual animal sacrifices that were made -- in those, the lamb stood in for a human intercessor with the gods; the Christian sacrament reverses this and refers to the human intercessor as "the lamb of god."

Actually the form of communion practiced by early Christians, and outlined in the gospels, is almost identical to that practiced by the followers of Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, and Mithras. In each, bread represented or actually became the body of the deity, while wine represented or actually became the blood of the deity.

I think we see more of a parallel to the symbolic cannabalism of the contemporary pagan religions than we do to the animal sacrifice practiced in other pagan religions or in Judaism.

I think the only question is when these influences came in. They were certainly present in Jesus's religion -- Judaism -- in Jesus's time. The story of Moses is a "hero's progress" story, influenced by the cultures that enslaved the Hebrews, such as Babylon and Egypt, both of which have deities/culture heroes who were found as babies floating down a river, who were raised by royalty and later had their true identities proven, who spent years in visionary hermitage, who parted waters and performed other miracles. So were pagan influences injected into the stories told about Jesus contemporary with a historical ministry?


I think the pagan influences in Judaism were older and mostly unrelated to those that came later in Christianity. The only religion I can think of that significantly impacted both of them was Zoroastrianism. Other than that, you would be hard pressed to find the influences of Asherah or Baal worship (that you would find in Judaism) in Christianity, or the influences of Mithras (that you would find in Christianity) in Judaism. This may have been because those older religions (like Baal worship) were mostly fading away and Judaism had become more codified, while Christianity was new, vulnerable, and shared a region with newer contemporary religions.

Actually, they do believe in the same thing. If you read both the Koran and the Bible, you'll see similarities between the two.

Also you must remember that the three religions stem from the same family back in the old testiment. You can see the split there.

The difference between Muslims and Christians is that the Muslims believe him to be a prophet and the Christians consider him the savior of man. The Jews rejected Jesus because they were expecting a warrior and not someone who believed in peace. What the Jews got was Ghandi in a sense.

In regards to the Lord's supper; Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded the event. In regards to Luke, he was a historian and the first rule of any historian is to look for original sources of information. Among this is first hand accounts of people who were actually present.

The Jews rejected Jesus because he didn' fulfill their prophecies, the Gentiles accepted Jesus because they didn't have a clue about Hebrew writings and because mystery churches were the rave throughout the empire. The Christians also did anoying things like quote psalms as prophecy (which they still do sometimes). These were songs composed in King David's honor. They are no more prophetic then the Beatle's "Helter Skelter". The Jews knew this. The Germans and the Greeks did not.

YHWH is the Hebrew written name for god (you may recognise the latin translation of Jehova). Asherah was the name of a north Sumerian goddess (pagan). They have been found depicted as husband and wife in numerous locations prior to the Babylonian exile. This shows that to the lay people at least, there was no hard and fast dividing line between the Hebrews tribal god and the neighboring pagan cultures. Although quite what that proves is not much since even Christians and Jews will admit that, and that that was why the prophets were pissed.

However, to find the pagan origins of Judaism you only need to look at the first chapter in Genesis. What is Elohim? Well El was the sky god in Sumerian religion, and the -im ending in Hebrew denotes plural, thus Elohim means those of the Sky god. Ever wonder why God keeps refering to "we", because it was taken from an earlier polytheistic myth, although modern Christians would have you think it was refering to God and his angels. In, I believe its Lebanon, an ancient city named Ugarit has been found, in their cuneiform tablets one of their gods is named YHWH and he is one of "the 50 sons of EL". Ugarit predates Israel and Judea. Just look at the first line in Genesis, Gods moving over the surface of the water, the Hebrew word for the water in Genesis is tehom, written THM. THM is also how Sumerians wrote the primordial saltwater abys of water as well, but they added a T at the end, anyone ever heard of Tiamat? So the people of El are moving over Tiamat. The Hebrews may have interpretted it different but they got most everything from an earlier writing. Look at the battle depicted in the Sumerian writing of Enuma Elish, the son of El is fighting Tiamat. People speak of a source gospel for various other Gospels called a Q gospel, but this hints at a Q Genesis. Don't even get me started on Noah's ark and the epic of Gilgamesh.


very interesting! thank you.

However, to find the pagan origins of Judaism you only need to look at the first chapter in Genesis. What is Elohim? Well El was the sky god in Sumerian religion, and the -im ending in Hebrew denotes plural, thus Elohim means those of the Sky god. Ever wonder why God keeps refering to "we", because it was taken from an earlier polytheistic myth, although modern Christians would have you think it was refering to God and his angels.

Actually I've always heard Christians claim that the "we" refers to the Trinity. Ironically, the Talmud does say that pagans would use that verse to demonstrate a plurality of God or multiple Gods, and that it does refer to God and the angels.

Its true that many names for the Jewish God were borrowed from paganism. El, Adonai, etc. I would keep in mind, however, that plural suffixes in Hebrew don't always make the word plural. Elohim doesn't necessarily refer to multiple deities, although it may have at some point. An example of this would be chaim. It has a plural suffix, but it is a word that is still singular in meaning - life.

Exactly. I remember studying the solar system and whatnot in yeshiva ketana and talking about Newton and physics, not firmament and Creation.

I never quite understood why Christians haven't picked up on the Jewish ability to know about physics, history, fossil records, science, and secular socialism while still being able to study the Divine. I mean ... does proving the Universe to be more than 6,000 years old suddenly make God a lie? They seem to think so.In all fairness, most christians arent young-earthers. Most of them, even in the US, have little difficulty making religion and science mesh. The problem is with the loud ones who can't make the connection.

Actually, they do believe in the same thing. If you read both the Koran and the Bible, you'll see similarities between the two.

Also you must remember that the three religions stem from the same family back in the old testiment. You can see the split there.

The difference between Muslims and Christians is that the Muslims believe him to be a prophet and the Christians consider him the savior of man. The Jews rejected Jesus because they were expecting a warrior and not someone who believed in peace. What the Jews got was Ghandi in a sense.

In regards to the Lord's supper; Matthew, Mark, and Luke recorded the event. In regards to Luke, he was a historian and the first rule of any historian is to look for original sources of information. Among this is first hand accounts of people who were actually present.

The Hebrews had origin myths for nearly all of the neighboring peoples, not only the Arabs, did you know the story of Lot and his daughters was a smear on the neighboring Amorites(no Bible with me atm, I believe thats the right people). Muslim knowledge of Jesus descends from the Essenes (the people who stowed the Dead Sea scrolls) they have no knowledge beyond what they garnered from them. Why do you think the Muslim and Christian accounts of the end times don't match?

All those Gospels were written about 70 years after the supposed "passion". Like I said Josephus (a contemporary historian to the supposed event) chronicles about 19 separate Jesui who were put to death as rebels or pretender meshiahs. So yah not hard for people to write about that. As for Mathew and Mark both detailing the last supper, its not hard considering it was a Passover.

In all fairness, most christians arent young-earthers. Most of them, even in the US, have little difficulty making religion and science mesh. The problem is with the loud ones who can't make the connection.
Yeah Agreed. I am probably one of the louder agnostic/athiest voices on here. And god knows my past with the priesthood. But for the most part I can mesh with most christians and relize most are actualy trying to work it all out like everyone else

Honestly I really just have problems with anyone that does not have some "flex" in their belief system

I

and so, when you look at it, just WHICH jesus was it, if any. and did ANY of his actual sayings get into the new testment or was it all made up by taking bits and pieces of stuff that was common at the time

as if george washington was made up in bit and pieces of all the founding fathers.

Yes, and Josephus was highly condemning of all of these Jesus' actions (except one, but that is a point of contention with historians, I'll go into it if the conversation goes there) he was a Roman supporter and a life long Jew.

In all fairness, most christians arent young-earthers. Most of them, even in the US, have little difficulty making religion and science mesh. The problem is with the loud ones who can't make the connection.
It's more like "won't" than "can't".

I don't know how many different Jesus that Josephus chronicled, but I do remember that he kept pretty detailed records of messianic claimants, and there were a ton. In any case, this is a perfect example of the "historical Jesus"

The historical Jesus could be these dozens of messianic figures that were wrapped into one story and prototype to create the Jesus myth, or Jesus of faith. Remember, the term "historical Jesus" is used to mean the historical origin of the myth, it doesn't have to actually be a single guy named Jesus with historical import.

I agree, Jesus is like Robin Hood; an amalgramation.

It's more like "won't" than "can't".
Fair enough. I was one of them for long enough.

I agree, Jesus is like Robin Hood; an amalgramation.

Robin Hood had a cooler hat though.

very interesting! thank you.

Your welcome.

Robin Hood had a cooler hat though.

I hear Robin Hood wore tefillin too.

Actually the form of communion practiced by early Christians, and outlined in the gospels, is almost identical to that practiced by the followers of Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, and Mithras. In each, bread represented or actually became the body of the deity, while wine represented or actually became the blood of the deity.

I think we see more of a parallel to the symbolic cannabalism of the contemporary pagan religions than we do to the animal sacrifice practiced in other pagan religions or in Judaism.
Yes, this is correct. In my statement, though, I was thinking more about the symbolic language used to describe the sacrament than its historical cultural origins. The symbolism of a mutual interaction with the gods or divine spirits through an act of communal eating is so ancient as to be nearly universal. We see this pattern in the rituals you describe, in the Christian sacrament, in many ancient and contemporary cultures' symbolic funerary cannibalism. It's not just a matter of marking an important event with a feast. It is the act of achieving union with the divine through physical combination -- you are what you eat, and in this case, you are eating the god and thus becoming more like the god, filled with the essence of the god at least temporarily.

I really don't think such a ritual is strictly demanded or needed by Christian theology. Rather, I think this kind of sacramental meal, this very literal take on communion, was such a staple of ancient cultures that perhaps it was de rigeur -- you couldn't have a religion without it. I find it interesting that it persists to this day in the Christian culture that has evolved, supposedly so far from its pagan culture roots.


I think the pagan influences in Judaism were older and mostly unrelated to those that came later in Christianity. The only religion I can think of that significantly impacted both of them was Zoroastrianism. Other than that, you would be hard pressed to find the influences of Asherah or Baal worship (that you would find in Judaism) in Christianity, or the influences of Mithras (that you would find in Christianity) in Judaism. This may have been because those older religions (like Baal worship) were mostly fading away and Judaism had become more codified, while Christianity was new, vulnerable, and shared a region with newer contemporary religions.
The reason I brought it up is that I think the culture that Christianity came from was already used to being influenced by neighboring pagan cultures. I was thinking of the actual writers of the gospels. The thing we must remember is that these people were writing stories. From the amount of sex and violence and supernaturalism in the Bible, I think it's clear they wanted them to be "good" stories, i.e. the kind that would keep an audience interested and be remembered and repeated. It's no wonder they would borrow the literary forms of the great -- and popular -- pagan stories that were already classics -- i.e. big hits.

As for direct cultural influences, I think Christianity is as influenced or more influenced by European paganism than by Near/Middle Eastern paganism, just because it rose to power in pagan Europe.

Because of this, I think the Christian stories that show a Near/Middle Eastern pagan influence are probably the oldest -- particularly the parts of the Jesus biography that mirror sacrificial god myths. If we accept that there was a historical Jesus, we can also posit, quite plausibly, that such (completely fictional) stories could have been spread by fans of a very famous rabbi or prophet. Such tales were also told about various kings and pharaohs and prophets other than Jesus. It was not uncommon for exceptional people to be unofficially, partially deified in those days.

Actually I've always heard Christians claim that the "we" refers to the Trinity. Ironically, the Talmud does say that pagans would use that verse to demonstrate a plurality of God or multiple Gods, and that it does refer to God and the angels.

Its true that many names for the Jewish God were borrowed from paganism. El, Adonai, etc. I would keep in mind, however, that plural suffixes in Hebrew don't always make the word plural. Elohim doesn't necessarily refer to multiple deities, although it may have at some point. An example of this would be chaim. It has a plural suffix, but it is a word that is still singular in meaning - life.

Yes the Christians say that too, and of course the talmud says that, they're not stupid, those verses are a gaping hole and they need to plug there defences.

Perhaps the ancient Hebrews didn't have a singular for a life, I sort of remember the Jehovah's witnesses translating it as "soul", and therefore it would be the same word for singular and plural, but I could be wrong. If you are dfinitely right then how would they say "lives", as in more then one life?

Robin Hood had a cooler hat though.

Did Jesus buy a hat?

Did Jesus buy a hat?

He didn't buy it. No sir.
http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Jesus.Crown.of.Thorns.jpg

Yes the Christians say that too, and of course the talmud says that, they're not stupid, those verses are a gaping hole and they need to plug there defences.

Perhaps the ancient Hebrews didn't have a singular for a life, I sort of remember the Jehovah's witnesses translating it as "soul", and therefore it would be the same word for singular and plural, but I could be wrong. If you are dfinitely right then how would they say "lives", as in more then one life?

I know nefesh is translated to soul and life on different accounts. I'm not sure if there is a different word, chaim may be applicable both ways. I've noticed a lot of ambiguities in Hebrew like that, where the same word can be singular or plural (or anything else) depending on context rather than a grammatical rule like a suffix.

He didn't buy it. No sir.
http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Jesus.Crown.of.Thorns.jpg
But he did buy a nice bike

http://www.aestheticeye.net/images/show_images/spirits2/scott.jpg

He didn't buy it. No sir.
http://www.ruggedelegantliving.com/a/images/Jesus.Crown.of.Thorns.jpg

Snazzy.

But he did buy a nice bike

http://www.aestheticeye.net/images/show_images/spirits2/scott.jpg

You win an intarnet.

<snip>
All those Gospels were written about 70 years after the supposed "passion". Like I said Josephus (a contemporary historian to the supposed event) chronicles about 19 separate Jesui who were put to death as rebels or pretender meshiahs. So yah not hard for people to write about that. As for Mathew and Mark both detailing the last supper, its not hard considering it was a Passover.
This posits an interesting scenario that assumes there was no single historical Jesus. I personally usually work on the assumption that there could have been such a person, but if there was not, then could the new religion that became Christianity have arisen from a dispute over the meaning of the messiah prophecy? There were so many messiah claimants, especially during the Roman period -- there could easily have been disupte among Jews over whether the prophecy had ever been fulfilled and over what would be required to fulfill it. Why should we assume that only one prophet ever proposed that the messiah could be a spiritual savior rather than a socio-political one? If this teaching was an available, minority, dissenting view of the meaning of the messiah, then a new religion could have evolved out of several prophets/visionaries sermons over time.

But he did buy a nice bike

http://www.aestheticeye.net/images/show_images/spirits2/scott.jpg
I just wanted an excuse to show Jesus playing a guitar.
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/54000/54467sYBx_w.jpg

Like Radiohead said, "Anyone can play guitar."

You win an intarnet.
Wonder if me can ebay teh interweb ... I should quick ... me is drunk and tends to loose stuff

I just wanted an excuse to show Jesus playing a guitar.
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/54000/54467sYBx_w.jpg

Like Radiohead said, "Anyone can play guitar."
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/jarvism/2005/07/05/jesus.jpg

By the way anyone see this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2566269671806009973

This posits an interesting scenario that assumes there was no single historical Jesus.

I actually subscribe to that idea myself. I think the Jesus myth was based on the messiah prototype, the rebel leaders, common contemporary myths, and the dozens of false messiahs of the time period.

By the way anyone see this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2566269671806009973
I hearby give the interweb which I just won to you

I hearby give the interweb which I just won to you
Cool! I'm trying to collect all the internets.

This posits an interesting scenario that assumes there was no single historical Jesus. I personally usually work on the assumption that there could have been such a person, but if there was not, then could the new religion that became Christianity have arisen from a dispute over the meaning of the messiah prophecy? There were so many messiah claimants, especially during the Roman period -- there could easily have been disupte among Jews over whether the prophecy had ever been fulfilled and over what would be required to fulfill it. Why should we assume that only one prophet ever proposed that the messiah could be a spiritual savior rather than a socio-political one? If this teaching was an available, minority, dissenting view of the meaning of the messiah, then a new religion could have evolved out of several prophets/visionaries sermons over time.
they certainly fought over it. there were many competing versions of christianity floating around when they decided they needed a big meeting to discuss it. the tenets of christianity as prescribed in the apostles creed were decided by committee.

I'd have to say that the only religion that did not influence some sect of christanity is the Cthulhu Mythos.

I actually subscribe to that idea myself. I think the Jesus myth was based on the messiah prototype, the rebel leaders, common contemporary myths, and the dozens of false messiahs of the time period.

ive come to the conclusion also. that there was no one historical jesus, that the IDEA of the son of god came well before the idea that his name was jesus and that he lived a specific life at a specific time.

there are a few things that i find compelling.

the first is the obvious one that the details of jesus's personal life are all made up. there was no census, no star, no slaughter of the innocents. no one noticed that some executed guy had risen from the dead.

the other is that the earlier the writings the less the writer comments on the life of jesus or anything he said or uses his saying/parables to illustrate a theological point (as we do today) Paul is utterly uninterested in the life of the man he never knew. peter never uses his intimate knowlege of jesus as leverage to win an argument. james is supposed to be his brother but his epistle only mentions some visit with the prophets nothing like "well when jesus and i were boys...

ive come to the conclusion also. that there was no one historical jesus, that the IDEA of the son of god came well before the idea that his name was jesus and that he lived a specific life at a specific time.

there are a few things that i find compelling.

the first is the obvious one that the details of jesus's personal life are all made up. there was no census, no star, no slaughter of the innocents. no one noticed that some executed guy had risen from the dead.

the other is that the earlier the writings the less the writer comments on the life of jesus or anything he said or uses his saying/parables to illustrate a theological point (as we do today) Paul is utterly uninterested in the life of the man he never knew. peter never uses his intimate knowlege of jesus as leverage to win an argument. james is supposed to be his brother but his epistle only mentions some visit with the prophets nothing like "well when jesus and i were boys...Another good book to check out is Gospel Fictions by Randel Helms. Deals with the reasons that a lot of the Jesus stories wound up the way they did.

This posits an interesting scenario that assumes there was no single historical Jesus. I personally usually work on the assumption that there could have been such a person, but if there was not, then could the new religion that became Christianity have arisen from a dispute over the meaning of the messiah prophecy? There were so many messiah claimants, especially during the Roman period -- there could easily have been disupte among Jews over whether the prophecy had ever been fulfilled and over what would be required to fulfill it. Why should we assume that only one prophet ever proposed that the messiah could be a spiritual savior rather than a socio-political one? If this teaching was an available, minority, dissenting view of the meaning of the messiah, then a new religion could have evolved out of several prophets/visionaries sermons over time.

And it did. Amen.

Incidently, anyone ever notice that the word for truth in Hebrew "Amen", is close to Amon an Egyptian god, of the people they had come out from being slavery under? Note that it is also close to Aten, the monotheism that was put in place by Pharoah Aknaten (sp) that was later deposed. Just speculation, I've never looked into this, but who knows?

I actually subscribe to that idea myself. I think the Jesus myth was based on the messiah prototype, the rebel leaders, common contemporary myths, and the dozens of false messiahs of the time period.

they certainly fought over it. there were many competing versions of christianity floating around when they decided they needed a big meeting to discuss it. the tenets of christianity as prescribed in the apostles creed were decided by committee.
I was thinking about why Christianity became a whole new religion instead of a sect of Judaism. I'm thinking that a dispute over what the messiah was supposed to be and what he was supposed to accomplish could have become an irreconcilable difference. It really is based on fundamental concepts of the relationship between god and man. The nationalistic messiah implies a god-hero specific to a certain ethnic/cultural group that is in conflict with other groups. The god in this case is a tribal god specific to the ethnic/culture group -- emphasis on the *group*. The spiritual messiah implies a supernatural transformative agent that either causes or teaches spiritual evolution/liberation. There is nothing particularly ethnic/cultural about such a concept, and it also implies an individual experience that each person must go through themselves. This takes emphasis off the group. It's easy to see how a spiritual messiah soon ceases to be pointing to Hebrew cultural identity. It's also easy to see why it would appeal to non-Hebrews.

When you stop emphasizing the Hebrew-ness of the messiah, it becomes easier for Roman and other pagans to see themes they can buy into in the Jesus story, thus opening the way for further mutation through cultural influences. The later converts bring their own cultural traditions and spiritual assumptions with them, taking the new religion further away from the parent culture.

I'd have to say that the only religion that did not influence some sect of christanity is the Cthulhu Mythos.
That's what you think. ;)

And it did.
Possibly, if we assume that the careers of a specific prophet/teacher and his disciples were not the foundational origin -- or at least the original topic -- of the books now known as the gospels.

The no-single-Jesus scenario is entirely reasonable and plausible.

The yes-single-Jesus scenario is also reasonable and plausible. History is chock-full of extraordinary individuals who set massive effects into motion. I see no reason to dismiss out of hand the possibility that there was a single person whose teachings were used after his death to found a religion.

I think the only unreasonable and implausible scenario is the one that takes the Bible as literal history. There may have been a historical Jesus. I do not think he is accurately depicted in the Bible.

Oh I would love to hear this evidence. Most folks believe (including the muslims) that Jesus was infact a real person. If not then why the hell do the Muslims consider Jesus a prophet? Even Mohammad considered Jesus a prophet.

Because Islam was strongly influenced by Christianity.

Pagan influences in Christianity are many, but as far as they specifically impact the Jesus story, my guess is that they mainly influence the imagery, like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. They impact the ideology, too, probably contributing a good deal of the anti-materialism. Most of the rest is just radical Pharisaic Judaism with a personality cult.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Pagan/index.html

This site is about accusations by Muslims against Christianity, but it deals with the same issues. See esp. the "Savior Myths" section.

Also-
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/156
Scroll down a bit to "Why an Unoriginal Jesus" and "Independent nature of similar stories" and then keep reading.

A few quick thoughts- stories that are similar to the life of Christ came about because they reflect a need for the savior that all people have. The life of Christ was the fulfillment of all of this, not a story created by them.

The articles are better, though. Read them.

Any questions- lukeharriman@gmail.com

...also, the people who would have created the life of jesus based on these myths later were tortured and died for these stories, and never said they were false. doesn't make much sense to die for something you know is not true.

...also, the people who would have created the life of jesus based on these myths later were tortured and died for these stories, and never said they were false. doesn't make much sense to die for something you know is not true.

Anyone for Cool-Aid? I hear they make great Cool-Aid in Waco.

I wonder why all three of the main religions believe in the exact samething.

Because before Christianity juadism was the most influencial religion of the time there where jewish communities as far away as gaul (france) christianity came along with a better message of forgivness so the pagan who where getting sick of having to sacrifice everyweek joined up.

Im a christian but there is a huge Pagan influence in the church think about all those mass conversions in the 500 to 1100 centuries, kings forced there pagan followers to be christian thus contaminating the church why do you think the catholic church has saints for things like rain and sunshine because of the pagans of the time belived in Gods that had control over rain and sunshine.

Even today Christians seem to worship some of there saints as if they where gods themselves.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Pagan/index.html

This site is about accusations by Muslims against Christianity, but it deals with the same issues. See esp. the "Savior Myths" section.

Also-
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/156
Scroll down a bit to "Why an Unoriginal Jesus" and "Independent nature of similar stories" and then keep reading.

A few quick thoughts- stories that are similar to the life of Christ came about because they reflect a need for the savior that all people have. The life of Christ was the fulfillment of all of this, not a story created by them.

The articles are better, though. Read them.

Any questions- lukeharriman@gmail.com

Tell you what, given the lack of brevity, you may as well have posted a link to the bible. I'm familiar with a good deal of that stuff already, but don't feel like reading it all again to see what your getting at. Just post a supported comment man.

Something that bugs me about Christian propaganda is how they put exclamation points where the reader won't feel an exclamation point, ie "the pagans didn't know that Jesus was true, little did they know the word was the one true word! Even though they knew it not, He was among them!" I made this sentance up, but see if you can spot this habit.

...also, the people who would have created the life of jesus based on these myths later were tortured and died for these stories, and never said they were false. doesn't make much sense to die for something you know is not true.

This is a common misconception. Christianity was not illegal nor were Christians persecuted en masse during the time that it took Christianity to develop. The ones who were persecuted may have been devout believers of these myths, but they were not early enough in the history of the development of the Jesus myth to have taken part in it. In essence, they were second and third generation Christians rather than the first generation that solidified the myths.

You also have to keep in mind that the line between myth and fact was blurred then. There was no problem with a pagan in the first century creating a myth then believing that it was true with enough faith to die for it. Histories and events were not recorded with the accuracy or stress on objective truth that they are today.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Pagan/index.html

This site is about accusations by Muslims against Christianity, but it deals with the same issues. See esp. the "Savior Myths" section.

To begin, I would just like to give you a friendly warning against apologetics. Apologetics, by their very nature, are apart from academia and scholarship. Often times apologists and apologist websites like this try to wrap their arguments up in scholarship, but it is still apologetics. The two are exclusive. If you're interested in learning about history, theology, etc. I would suggest a source that is not an apologetic one.

Now, what I found interesting on this first website is that they cite somebody (?) who sets down these two methods for determining if a myth has been borrowed in a culture. Here it is:

1. Establish the historical possibility of influence
2. Demonstrate the existence of parallels of the correct nature

This person that the author of the website cites goes on to state that these requirements must also meet a "suitable set of criteria." However, the author fails to actually cite what this criteria is, which I thought was fairly absurd. In any case, lets use these two methods to see if we have pagan influences in the Jesus story:

1. Is there a historical possibility of influence in the Jesus myth from the cult of Dionysus? Why, yes. It was widely established throughout the Galilee area, and the Jews had been through a period of Hellenization that lasted almost four centuries.
2. Are there parallels of the correct nature? The gospels quote a text about Dionysus, The Bacchae, word for word ("Forgive them, they know not what they do"). This seems to meet the criteria, as a word for word quotation in the gospels of a pagan text can hardly be called a coincidence or insufficient.

It looks like by the very methods and criteria on this website we can demonstrate that there are pagan influences in the Jesus myth.

Your apologist website also seems to flat out lie. When it refers to the decree to celebrate Jesus' birthday on Dec 25, it states, "It's not clear that it was deliberately set to the same day as the birthday of Sol Invictus." In actuality, it is quite clear. It was a decree set deliberately for the purpose of winning pagan converts.

I could go on and on. Its really quite lengthy, but for the most part it is reptative and ranting. If there was a central thesis, it would be along the lines of an argument from ignorance fallacy, "there isn't strong evidence for borrowing, therefore it didn't happen."

And is there a reason that Christain apologists have to type every other sentence in bold, and CAPITALIZE words for added emphasis, with incorrect and unnecessary punctuation? Have they not been to school? Havn't they been taught to write an article?

Also-
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/156
Scroll down a bit to "Why an Unoriginal Jesus" and "Independent nature of similar stories" and then keep reading.

At least this one was written well enough to read all the way through. I'll comment on a few things:

The freshman college student walked into his first class of Comparative Religions 101. He had come to the university prepared—or so he thought—for whatever college might throw at him. After all, he was a faithful Christian, and had been reared by dedicated Christian parents who, throughout his upbringing, had taught him about the unique, heaven-sent, virgin-born, miracle-working, resurrected-from-the-dead Son of God that he revered, served, and loved. His Bible class teachers, and the ministers to whose sermons he had listened for the past eighteen years, similarly had reinforced in his mind the concept that there was no one in the entire history of the world quite like Jesus Christ. In fact, truth be told, the young student had grown up thinking that no one even came close to resembling, or imitating, the carpenter’s son from Nazareth.

This young student, however, was about to receive the shock of his life. Practically the first day of class, the professor began to recite a slew of similar stories about various “saviors” of other religions from the past—many of whom, supposedly, also were born of virgins, were able to perform miracles, were crucified to save mankind, and were resurrected after their deaths. This freshman was ill prepared to hear his professor suggest that the story of Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind is not totally unique. In fact, he was completely astonished as he watched the professor document the fact that stories with similar heroes had circulated decades—and even centuries—before Jesus of Nazareth was born. As he saw what he believed to be the uniqueness of His Lord essentially evaporate before his very eyes, the young man began to wonder: Had he been taught incorrectly? Was Jesus really the unique Son of God, or was He simply one among many characters of the past who claimed to be a unique, personal savior but who, in the end, was not? Who were these other allegedly “unique saviors”? Were they as distinctive as they, or their followers, claimed? And how do such claims impact the Bible’s teachings about, and a person’s individual faith in, Jesus Christ as the Son of God?

These first two paragraphs are probably the most accurate things in the entire article. Yes, if you go to school, and you take a comparative religions class, or a history class, or a class on the New Testament, or any other such religious or historical thing that relates, you will learn that there are pagan influences in the Jesus myth. In fact, I still have textbooks outlined from basic, intro-level world history classes and required reading for Yale Divinity that state the same thing. The pagan origins in the Jesus myth are simply historical facts.

Further investigation into the history of Christian apologetics manifests something even more startling. The earliest apologists not only recognized that the story and teachings of Jesus bore striking similarities to ancient mythological accounts, but even emphasized these similarities in an attempt to get pagans to understand more about Jesus and His mission. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) set forth an argument in his First Apology that was intended to put Christ at least on an equal playing field with earlier mythological gods.

This is an inaccurate rendering of Justin Martyr's intentions when he wrote about pagan religions in comparison to Christianity in his First Apology. To begin, this seems to underemphasize it. Justin Martyr not only stated that Christianity and these religions were the same, but he stated that they directly influenced one another.

Justin Martyr did not, as the author of this website claims, "welcome the similiarites" nor did he emphasize them. He admitted the influence, and then he came up with a brilliant excuse known as diabolical mimmicry. He claimed that the devil did it. He wanted to distance himself from these similiarites as much as he could, and this was how he intended to do it. This is a far cry from what the author of this website claimed about Justin Martyr.

I have an entire article dedicated to Martyr's First Apology on my website. Feel free to check it out.

Augustine refuted the argument by suggesting that Plato had read the prophet Jeremiah and then conveniently incorporated Jeremiah’s teachings into his own.

Here is another interesting tidbit. This was in reference to the borrowed teachings of Plato in the gospels. Aparantly the argument is from St. Augustine, and it states that Plato read the book of Jeremiah, and thus incorporated Jeremiah's teachings into his own teachings. So the gospels didn't really borrow from Plato, but from Jeremiah. Does this hold any weight?

Not really, because the borrowed teachings of Plato in the gospels don't exist in Jeremiah. Plato wrote, in Phaedo, "Many are called, few are chosen." The gospels quote this exactly, word for word. It is found nowhere in Jeremiah. If Augustine stated what this apologist author claimed, it certainly wasn't a refutation. Because Jeremiah had no influence on Plato or on the gospels in this respect, this is the false cause fallacy.

A few quick thoughts- stories that are similar to the life of Christ came about because they reflect a need for the savior that all people have. The life of Christ was the fulfillment of all of this, not a story created by them.

This is essentially the idea of the last website you posted. Their entire argument could be summed up as "the pagan christs are the result of a need for a christ." Ironically, the last website did a better job of demonstrating the pagan influences in the Jesus myth than developing support for that thesis.

It is a common claim among Christians, but it has yet to be supported. Its on par with Martyr's diabolical mimmicry. And without support, you, and this last website, also commit the false cause fallacy.

If I have more time I'll give a more thorough analysis of the last article. The things above are just what I noticed skimming through it.

I said I'd do it, and here it is. This is my commentary on the apologist link below posted given by Raving Republicans.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/156

Consider, for example, Dionysus, a well-known, mythological god...

It was nice and honest of them to admit that Dionysus was the offspring of God (Zeus) and a female woman, that Dionysus descended to hell and conquored death, that he raised the dead, and that he was called the redeemer. They even went on to quote Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's book (which I have) to demonstrate all of the pagan influences of Dionysus on the Jesus myth. They even go on to talk about all of these other pagan influences.

However, the website avoids specific references. It fails to mention that the gospels quote pagan sources word for word, and that the Jesus story has many of the exact same events as the pagan myths.

More importantly, it fails to address a single one of these. Reading through this article I was shocked to find that it doesn't even attempt to explain what caused these individual influences. Here is what it does claim:

Early Christians could see obvious—yes, even welcome—similarities between the story of Jesus and the accounts of mythological, pagan gods.

The apologists’ point, of course, was two-fold: (1) men of the past had searched for a unique savior-god and, finding none, resorted to inventing him and bestowing upon him certain distinct characteristics; and (2) that Savior—who, although in the past had been endowed with unique traits of their own feeble creation—actually had come!

So, this website claims that apologists (Like Justin Martyr as this article cites, that I commented on in a previous post) saw these things. Okay, thats true. They saw pagan influences and admitted them. It claims that they welcomed them - thats untrue. They tried extremely hard to refute them, and were extremely threatened by them. Every apologist claimed that the influences were demonic and negative.

Keep in mind that the apologists didn't see similarities or coincidences, as this article would have you believe. They admitted that they were linked, and that one influenced the other. Their excuse was - the devil did it! Now, the website went on to its next point:

Why would anyone want to claim that the story of Jesus is unoriginal or plagiaristic? There probably are several answers that could be offered to such an inquiry. Due to space restrictions, however, we would like to concentrate on only two. First, it is a simple fact that those who do not believe in God, and who consequently accept a completely naturalistic view of the origin of the Universe and its inhabitants, must find some way to explain the uniqueness of Christ and the uniqueness of the system of religion He instituted.

Wait a minute. Up until this point, the website has admitted that the Jesus story is not unique. They even cited noted apologists, who admitted that the Jesus story was not unique. How did they suddenly draw the conclusion that the Jesus story was unique? And are they really claiming that people are pointing out that the Jesus story is not unique because they are Atheists that don't believe in God? This single paragraph demonstrates the fallacy of the internal contradiction and the fallacy of poisoning the well. And it continues:

It is not difficult to see why an evolutionist would believe it to be inevitable that the story of Jesus originated from earlier, primitive stories. In fact, to say that the story of Jesus “evolved” from older, more primitive stories is to assert nothing more than what the theory of evolution already teaches in every other area of human existence.

Ah ha, this is a great way to get Christians who are questioning the purity of the gospels to believe again. Link the influences of pagan myths in the Jesus story with evolution. Oh no, we know that no God-fearing person belives in evolution. The article continues to imply that if you believe in pagan influences in the Jesus myth, you're an evolutionist, and thus a naturalistic Atheist. And the article continues by dotting strange, unsupported, and untrue claims:

It is not Christ’s historicity that is at stake here (see, for example, Butt, 2000); unbelievers and infidels of every stripe have long acknowledged His existence.

Well, no, Jesus' historicity is at stake. You see, in history (and I've said this in one of the earlier posts) we draw a dichotomy between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. The historical Jesus is the source that the Jesus myth, the Jesus of faith, is based upon. While a source existed for the Jesus of faith, or "Christ", the academic community does not accept the existence of "Christ." Simply a historical source for the "Christ" mythos.

The truth of the matter is that many stories over the course of history resemble that of Jesus of Nazareth in one way or another.

WTF - I thought they just said that the Jesus story was unique? Okay okay, I'll stop. I've already pointed out the internal contradiction here.

Additionally, however, it can be argued that the similarities we have listed (and, indeed, many others just like them) are only similarities, not exact parallels. It further can be argued that Jesus’ story, even though it seems similar to some others, is not exactly the same and, in fact, differs substantially in the minute details. For example, Krishna allegedly was crucified via an arrow through his arms, while Jesus was nailed to the cross. Confucius offered the negative form of the so-called “golden rule” (“Do not do to others”), while Jesus stated the positive (“Do unto others”). Dionysus’ mother, Persophone, reportedly had intercourse with Zeus, while Mary was a virgin. This line of reasoning possesses some merit, because it certainly is true that none of the ancient stories sounds exactly like Christ’s.

This paragraph has a number of problems to it. To begin, it is a mistake, lie, or whatnot that there is nothing exactly like the pagan myths in the Jesus story. There are many things that are identical, thus proving beyond a doubt pagan iinfluence.

The Bacchae, a religious text and play about Dionysus, was written 600 years before Jesus. In it, Dionysus states, "Forgive them, they know not what they do."

In Luke ch 23, Jesus says the exact same thing, word for word. "Forgive them, they know not what they do."

Another example would be part of the Mithraic liturgy, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation."

We see the same in John 6:53, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

In addition, there are direct parallels between the stories. Jesus was born of a virgin, Zoroaster was born of a virgin. Jesus had 12 disciples, so did Zoroaster and Dionysus. Jesus raised a dead man, so did Dionysus. I could go on and on with exact parallels. Even Martyr and the apologists listed on this website listed exact parallels.

Furthermore, who ever said that they have to be exactly the same anyway? They only have to be reasonably similiar to demonstrate that one influenced the other. This is an example of the strawman fallacy.

People around the world—due to a “universal frame of mind”—independently concocted stories that revolved around a god dying and then rising again.

For one, we aren't talking about people around the world. We're talking about pagan religions that developed side by side. Is it more reasonable to think that the same plots, same events, and even the exact same sayings and words developed independently of one another, or is it more reasonable to say that these neighboring religions borrowed from one another?

How, then, did the instinct to worship God lead to the concoction of numerous stories about a virgin-born savior-god who dies as a sacrifice for mankind’s wrongdoings? First, it started with the idea of sacrifice...Humans also understood that some type of atoning sacrifice was required to absolve them of sin.

What we see here is a misunderstanding of scripture. The Jewish scriptures do not teach that an atonement sacrifice is necessary. Rather, they teach that animal sacrifice was one of many ways to make atonement. Prayer and repentence were other ways. So was monetary donation, good deeds, and offerings of grain. There were numerous, non-sacrificial ways to make atonement. Christians have overlooked these and continued to push the doctrine that sacrifice is necessary, when the Torah doesn't actually teach this.

The Torah does, however, expressly forbid human sacrifice. It also states that one man cannot atone for the sins of another. Psalm 146 states expressly that there is no salvation in the son of man - the most frequent title Jesus used for himself.

When will Christians stop misrepresenting our Jewish Torah?

Men and women of ages past knew all too well God’s commandments regarding atonement by blood.

Alright, this website continues by claiming that the pagan savior myths developed due to God's commandments of sacrifice that were first given to Cain and Abel. Because Cain and Abel knew about sacrifice, they passed it on to everyone, who eventually turned it into these pagan god-men myths that shadowed Jesus. Am I the only one that thinks this sounds absurd?

For one, the Torah never states that God gave Cain and Abel commands to sacrifice. Of course, they knew how, but even Cain didn't seem to know how to do it properly. It also never states that they passed it on to all of humanity. In fact, the Torah seems to exclude sacrifices to the priesthood at a later point. What the Torah actually teaches on sacrifice seems to conflict with the Christian author's analysis.

Yet even though the sacrifice of infants fulfilled the sinless aspect of a perfect sacrifice, it was lacking in other areas.

Yes, this Christian apologist website compares Jesus' execution to infant sacrifice. What is really sick is that this Christian apologist actually states that infant sacrifices fulfilled the sinless criteria for a sacrifice.

And that pretty much sums the article up. The author's praise for infant sacrifice seems to be a good note to end on. It really lets you know where the minds of Christians are - the sacrifice of human innocents.

You bet. Here is a definition that I yanked off google that sums up the way pagan is being used in this context:



EDIT:

For these purposes we can also include non-Jewish monotheistic religions, such as Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrian influence on Christianity was huge, and I would hate to leave that out. Essentially any non-Jewish religious influence works.
Ok, I just wanted to be clear.
Then that is a definiate 'yes'.
Doesnt change my faith, but I mean come on! All one has to do is read to see influences as conversion adaptations.
Cultural holdovers and what not.

I see that I was right that this is a bias thread.

You also have to keep in mind that the line between myth and fact was blurred then. There was no problem with a pagan in the first century creating a myth then believing that it was true with enough faith to die for it. Histories and events were not recorded with the accuracy or stress on objective truth that they are today.

Church of Scientology….cough….Hubbard….cough….science fiction writer….

Yes, absolutely. The first thing that pops into my mind is Dionysus. He had 12 disciples (in some accounts), he turned water into wine, was executed by crucifixion (other accounts have him dismembered) and was a god in human form. What sticks out the most about Dionysus are a few maxims we find in the gospels. In the Bacchae (written around 600 years before the gospels) we have Dionysus saying "forgive them, they know not what they do." Jesus says an almost identical thing before his crucifixion. The maxim "many are called, but few are chosen" was also Bacchaic, and Plato uses it in one of his writings.

Before I forget, here is a wonderful site on just this issue:

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

You could even go back further than that, to Sumeria. The body of Christ and the blood of Christ; resurrection, sacrifice, and other similarities can be found in similarities to the Sumerian stories of Dumuzi and Inanna.

To quote Huey from the Boondocks.

"Christmas is a pagan holiday, and Jesus probably hates you for celebrating it."

lets start with christianity vs judaism.

they are not the same religion or the same god.

the jews dont have a trinity. they have ONE god with ONE aspect. christianity has one god with 3 parts. all of which act independantly of each other.

jews have all sorts of rules and regulations on how to live your life, christians reject almost all of them. they dont even have the same sabbath

moslems might think of jesus as a prophet but christians think of him as GOD. moslems reject the rules and regulations of christianity, they dont even have the same sabbath.

It’s always been about the same God. Where the teeth gnashing and frothing begins is the arguing over who has the correct testament of that God. Even the Ba’Hai state that their prophet brings the last testament of God. The Judaic religion stated that another would come and every religion after that seeking their own vision, stated that their’s was the last and true testament. It’s always been about the God of Abraham and Moses though, all the way through. God doesn’t change because of the perspective of the faithful, the faithful change from the perspective they have taken to worship God.

The Bruce

does that mean you believe that mohammed is a prophet of god and that he brought the word of god to the world and that we should all be living in submission to the will of god (islam)

The Islamic concept of submission never translates very well into English. It is more of a Taoist submission to the Universe when taken in the correct context.

Exactly. I remember studying the solar system and whatnot in yeshiva ketana and talking about Newton and physics, not firmament and Creation.

I never quite understood why Christians haven't picked up on the Jewish ability to know about physics, history, fossil records, science, and secular socialism while still being able to study the Divine. I mean ... does proving the Universe to be more than 6,000 years old suddenly make God a lie? They seem to think so.

For that matter it’s a mystery how Islam, a religion that at first embraced science and scholarly pursuits, decided to have a complete about face and become fundamentalist with a near Amish approach to technology.

This is a common misconception. Christianity was not illegal nor were Christians persecuted en masse during the time that it took Christianity to develop. The ones who were persecuted may have been devout believers of these myths, but they were not early enough in the history of the development of the Jesus myth to have taken part in it. In essence, they were second and third generation Christians rather than the first generation that solidified the myths.

You also have to keep in mind that the line between myth and fact was blurred then. There was no problem with a pagan in the first century creating a myth then believing that it was true with enough faith to die for it. Histories and events were not recorded with the accuracy or stress on objective truth that they are today.


I entirely agree that there is a general misconception by most people when thinking of Christians being persecuted by Romans as being thrown to the lions in the coliseum. And the historian knows that the great Colosseum would not even be built until after the sacking of Jerusalem, during the second Jewish revolt, in the second century. However, this does NOT mean that the persecution did not occur, your misconception is that the first Christian persecutions didn’t start until then.

The conditions in Rome during the second half of the first century were with Roman commentators like Caecilius calling Christianity a "religion of lust," Tacitus styled the religion "a pernicious superstition" and Christians "a class of men loathed for their vices" the notorious Emperor Nero, who we all know has detested by other Romans, blamed the Christians for the burning of Rom in 64 A.D., which many Romans blamed Nero himself for, and surprising that you forgot to think of it.

Tacitus wrote about that event:
Therefore to scotch the rumour [that Nero had burned the city himself], Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.

It is evident from his language that Tacitus held no love for Christianity and it is clear that Nero was ‘picking’ on an easy target to waylay the blame, similar to Hitler’s use of the Jews to misdirect hatred away from himself. Aversion of Christians was common to many Romans of the time, and it was easy to make the Romans citizenry to not only look the other way to actually want to persecute Christians.

Forms of execution used by the Romans (under Nero, 64-68 A.D.) included systematic murder, crucifixion, and the feeding of Christians to lions and other wild beasts. Tacitus' Annals XV.44 record: "...a vast multitude, were convicted, not so much of the crime of incendiarism as of hatred of the human race. And in their deaths they were made the subjects of sport; for they were wrapped in the hides of wild beasts and torn to pieces by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set on fire, and when day declined, were burned to serve for nocturnal lights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

all beliefs are built on fulfilling what came before. christianity is no exception. at the very root core of baha'i, islam, christianity, and judaism, is the ancient egyptian kemmet, and the monotheologising of aknaton.

the concept to the trinity, used so convincingly to misconstrue what recorded texts of christs teachings we have, did not appear in christianity prior to its encounter with celtic druidism and their triple gods.

indigenous beliefs are the most valid, being build upon learning from the land where people live how to live on and with that land and holding everything and every place sacred.

there are no MORAL 'rights of conquest' for ANY belief. only horribly unfortunate fiate accompli.

=^^=
.../\...

You could even go back further than that, to Sumeria. The body of Christ and the blood of Christ; resurrection, sacrifice, and other similarities can be found in similarities to the Sumerian stories of Dumuzi and Inanna.


It is always interesting to me that Abraham himself came from the Sumerian city of Ur. Not a coincidence I think, but neither is a indicative of pagan influence, it is simply a fact that no one lives in a vacuum.

all beliefs are built on fulfilling what came before. christianity is no exception. at the very root core of baha'i, islam, christianity, and judaism, is the ancient egyptian kemmet, and the monotheologising of aknaton.

That is true, I suppose, to a certain extent. Much within Christianity comes from what was before. Like Christmas, etc. There is nothing in Christianity that would reject truth, wherever it was found. To put it another way, simply having pre-Christian origins does not mean that Christians had to reject a concept as untruth.


the concept to the trinity, used so convincingly to misconstrue what recorded texts of christs teachings we have, did not appear in christianity prior to its encounter with celtic druidism and their triple gods.

Then you would probably have a hard time explaining the Apostle Paul's consistent referral to the trinity. Have to disagree with your apparently wild statement there.


indigenous beliefs are the most valid, being build upon learning from the land where people live how to live on and with that land and holding everything and every place sacred.

Then those poor chaps in the Amazon jungles that worship wild spirits and follow crude and cruel practices (pretty much whatever the Shaman says) is the most valid belief? Can't agree with you on that on.

This is a common misconception. Christianity was not illegal nor were Christians persecuted en masse during the time that it took Christianity to develop.

Are you saying that when Nero was persecuting the Christians, that Christianity was not growing?

And are you saying that when Paul (formerly Saul) was persecuting the Christians, that they were not spreading the Gospel as they fled (like it says in Acts of the Apostles)?

Wasn't it either the Jewish leaders or the Roman leaders that put many of the Apostles themselves to death?



You also have to keep in mind that the line between myth and fact was blurred then. There was no problem with a pagan in the first century creating a myth then believing that it was true with enough faith to die for it. Histories and events were not recorded with the accuracy or stress on objective truth that they are today.

The letters by John suggest that he was clearly not writing about myth, but fact.
The only way you can support your assertion is by claiming that the early writings are inaccurate, wildly inaccurate.

If you consider yourself good at apologetics, then you had better supply some good arguments instead of plain assertions.

I was thinking about why Christianity became a whole new religion instead of a sect of Judaism. I'm thinking that a dispute over what the messiah was supposed to be and what he was supposed to accomplish could have become an irreconcilable difference. It really is based on fundamental concepts of the relationship between god and man. The nationalistic messiah implies a god-hero specific to a certain ethnic/cultural group that is in conflict with other groups. The god in this case is a tribal god specific to the ethnic/culture group -- emphasis on the *group*. The spiritual messiah implies a supernatural transformative agent that either causes or teaches spiritual evolution/liberation. There is nothing particularly ethnic/cultural about such a concept, and it also implies an individual experience that each person must go through themselves. This takes emphasis off the group. It's easy to see how a spiritual messiah soon ceases to be pointing to Hebrew cultural identity. It's also easy to see why it would appeal to non-Hebrews.

When you stop emphasizing the Hebrew-ness of the messiah, it becomes easier for Roman and other pagans to see themes they can buy into in the Jesus story, thus opening the way for further mutation through cultural influences. The later converts bring their own cultural traditions and spiritual assumptions with them, taking the new religion further away from the parent culture.
what i wonder, since im a NO jesus (as oppposed to the one jesus or many jesus) theorist, is what is the true origin.

was it groups of jews who, having been exposed to greek thought for centuries, greekified judaism. taking the messiah idea and turning that messiah into "LOGOS" the son of god and then from there to the "real person" of jesus adding in common area myths about the way the son of god would have lived in the world

or

was it groups of "greeks" who, having been exposed to judaism for centuries, decided that monotheism was superior to polytheism (or realized that monotheism underlay polytheism in many ways) and they judified greek religion leaving in the common area myths and just pasting them over the base of jewish belief.

polytheists were much more flexible than jews were in accepting and adapting whatever beliefs were floating around. even to the extent of worshipping alternate gods in the temples dedicated only to certain ones.

It’s always been about the same God. Where the teeth gnashing and frothing begins is the arguing over who has the correct testament of that God. Even the Ba’Hai state that their prophet brings the last testament of God. The Judaic religion stated that another would come and every religion after that seeking their own vision, stated that their’s was the last and true testament. It’s always been about the God of Abraham and Moses though, all the way through. God doesn’t change because of the perspective of the faithful, the faithful change from the perspective they have taken to worship God.

The Bruce
we SAY its the same god but it seems to me to be a polite fiction since christianity claims to come from judaism.

but the jews have one god eternal and unchanging. the christians have 3, the father son and holy spirit. do jews believe in the son of god or the holy spirit as being co-equals to god the father, different but the same in some extremely mysterious way?

i dont think so

neither do the moslems

I was really into this topic... it was looking really promising.
Then Corneliu made some sarcastic, vague comments rather than saying anything constructive, and I just became completely uninspired.
If that's the sort of answers the other side is going to give, I'm not going to bother wasting my time in debate/discussion.
Excellent topic, though. :)

Are you saying that when Nero was persecuting the Christians, that Christianity was not growing?

And are you saying that when Paul (formerly Saul) was persecuting the Christians, that they were not spreading the Gospel as they fled (like it says in Acts of the Apostles)?

Wasn't it either the Jewish leaders or the Roman leaders that put many of the Apostles themselves to death?

Christianity growing and the first stages of Christianity developing are two different things. You seem to have created a strawman here. Christianity has virtually always been growing.

And no, works like Acts, the Gospels, and the Epistles are not histories. They are of the genre we refer to as "lives." They are embelleshed stories about the events made to glorify the heros. They aren't accurate accounts by their very natures.

A good example that would demonstrate this and answer your point above is when the Christian texts describe Jewish persecution of Christians. This was written as a polemic against Judaism. We actually have no real record of this happening. We especially have no record of Pharisees doing it, and yet we have the historical inaccuraces of the polemic accusing against the Jews.

The letters by John suggest that he was clearly not writing about myth, but fact.
The only way you can support your assertion is by claiming that the early writings are inaccurate, wildly inaccurate.
If you consider yourself good at apologetics, then you had better supply some good arguments instead of plain assertions.

What part of the letters of John suggest this? During that time period, there was no myth/fact dichotomy. Historians and authors had no problem weaving myth into their stories, letters, and accounts. That is why, like I stated above, they are lumped into the genre of "lives" rather than "histories."

They are reconized as being wildly inaccurrate already. Thats why they aren't considered or studied as ancient histories, like we study Herodotus. The only persons who don't question their accuracy are the ones who adhere to the religion. Surprise surprise.

Thou shalt not steal... unless it is to fill a Bible with stories.

That reminds me of a shrine to Brigit in Ireland (I could be mistaken on location) that suppossedly had a flame burning that never went out. The Church took it and turned it into a church.

Yes. 'Syncretism', they call that... you keep the meat of the invaded religion as the base for your invading religion 'mask'.

Brigid (Brigid, etc.) is especially amusing because she was one of the Celtic gods, and later, like most of the Celtic mythology, became a 'fairy'.

(Another good example, slightly 'Christianised', is Morgana le Fey (Morgana, the Fairy... effectively), from the Arthurian legends... derived from the root of Morrigan - one of three goddesses of war).

Obviously there are pagan influences in the Jesus story and the gospels, just like there are pagan influences in the rituals and holidays.

Jesus is clearly cast in the mold of sacrificed gods, including Dionysos, Adonis, and others, whose myths follow the pattern of slow, torturous, sacrificial death by suspension from a tree-like object followed after three days by resurrection and ascension to the upper spiritual realm in a reborn, divine form.

Jesus, before his death, is cast in the model of the teaching god who travels the world, showing human beings the right way to live. All the father-gods, including Zeus, Odin, and several Celtic deities were believed to have done this either at the beginning of civilization or, more significantly, at a time when people were backsliding or following an evil path.

The vague cannibal symbolism of the sacrament is another common tradition of ancient pagan religions. It's an interesting take on the reverse symbolic cannibalism of the actual animal sacrifices that were made -- in those, the lamb stood in for a human intercessor with the gods; the Christian sacrament reverses this and refers to the human intercessor as "the lamb of god."

I think the only question is when these influences came in. They were certainly present in Jesus's religion -- Judaism -- in Jesus's time. The story of Moses is a "hero's progress" story, influenced by the cultures that enslaved the Hebrews, such as Babylon and Egypt, both of which have deities/culture heroes who were found as babies floating down a river, who were raised by royalty and later had their true identities proven, who spent years in visionary hermitage, who parted waters and performed other miracles. So were pagan influences injected into the stories told about Jesus contemporary with a historical ministry?

Or were they put in during the first 1000 years of Christianity, when the religion was spreading into the pagan cultures of Europe? That's where many of the ritual and holiday pagan influences come from. Plus, Christianity was spread by Rome, which had a long tradition of not wiping out local cultures as long as they were obedient to Roman rule.

Probably, it was both.

Mmmm, reverse symbolic cannibalism.... have I told you today, just how much you rock?

Actually the form of communion practiced by early Christians, and outlined in the gospels, is almost identical to that practiced by the followers of Osiris, Dionysus, Tammuz, and Mithras. In each, bread represented or actually became the body of the deity, while wine represented or actually became the blood of the deity.

I think we see more of a parallel to the symbolic cannabalism of the contemporary pagan religions than we do to the animal sacrifice practiced in other pagan religions or in Judaism.



I think the pagan influences in Judaism were older and mostly unrelated to those that came later in Christianity. The only religion I can think of that significantly impacted both of them was Zoroastrianism. Other than that, you would be hard pressed to find the influences of Asherah or Baal worship (that you would find in Judaism) in Christianity, or the influences of Mithras (that you would find in Christianity) in Judaism. This may have been because those older religions (like Baal worship) were mostly fading away and Judaism had become more codified, while Christianity was new, vulnerable, and shared a region with newer contemporary religions.

I'd be looking more at early Sumer (An) for the most basic parallels (the 'nature' of god, and the origins of flood and fall stories)... although the little holidays in Egypt and Babylon probably didn't hurt.

The letters by John suggest that he was clearly not writing about myth, but fact.

Who is this 'John' of which you speak?

Mmmm, reverse symbolic cannibalism.... have I told you today, just how much you rock?
Thank you, honey. :)

FYI for those who might be wondering, "reverse symbolic cannibalism" in the sacrament is where you're pretending to eat a guy while pretending that you're eating a sandwich-meat animal which you would be pretending is the guy you're pretending to eat, if you were eating it. This is how religion makes people nuts.

I see that I was right that this is a bias thread.

An informed thread.

the truth is this: Christian oppressors slaughtered many pagan cultures (Norske Pagans). It wouldn't be a surprise to me if they stole their culture too.

If they were Christian to begin with, why would stealing their culture have any more of an impact on the fundamentals of their beliefs? How could someone who already believes that Jesus is the Son of God conquer a territory (The belief of religious superiority may have led him to conquer in the first place.) and absorb the belief that Jesus is the Son of God?

You make several excellent points here. I will just pull out a few that struck me particularly, which I'd like to add to or comment on:


Originally Posted by Raving Republicans
Why would anyone want to claim that the story of Jesus is unoriginal or plagiaristic? There probably are several answers that could be offered to such an inquiry. Due to space restrictions, however, we would like to concentrate on only two. First, it is a simple fact that those who do not believe in God, and who consequently accept a completely naturalistic view of the origin of the Universe and its inhabitants, must find some way to explain the uniqueness of Christ and the uniqueness of the system of religion He instituted.
Wait a minute. Up until this point, the website has admitted that the Jesus story is not unique. They even cited noted apologists, who admitted that the Jesus story was not unique. How did they suddenly draw the conclusion that the Jesus story was unique? And are they really claiming that people are pointing out that the Jesus story is not unique because they are Atheists that don't believe in God? This single paragraph demonstrates the fallacy of the internal contradiction and the fallacy of poisoning the well. And it continues:
As you point out, the most glaring flaw in this material is the way the author vascillates between admitting the Jesus story is not unique and then trying to prove that it actually is unique.

But I got hung up on two notions in the above quoted paragraph, which to my mind, invalidate it as an argument right from the start:

FIRST, how does it follow that (A) a person who does not believe in the Jesus myth does not believe in god (Jews and Muslims might have something to say about that), and (B) a person who does not believe in "God" necessarily takes a "naturalistic" (by which I suppose he means not mystical) view of the world (are we to suppose that polytheists are secularists)?

SECOND, why does the author assume that a person who does not believe in God would feel any need to explain anything at all about Christ?

Quote:
Raving Republicans:
It is not difficult to see why an evolutionist would believe it to be inevitable that the story of Jesus originated from earlier, primitive stories. In fact, to say that the story of Jesus “evolved” from older, more primitive stories is to assert nothing more than what the theory of evolution already teaches in every other area of human existence.
Tropical Sands:
Ah ha, this is a great way to get Christians who are questioning the purity of the gospels to believe again. Link the influences of pagan myths in the Jesus story with evolution. Oh no, we know that no God-fearing person belives in evolution. The article continues to imply that if you believe in pagan influences in the Jesus myth, you're an evolutionist, and thus a naturalistic Atheist.
I agree with your critique of this. I'd also like to take exception to this notion that the pre-Christian stories are "primitive." Judaism is not a primitive religion. The religions of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Babylonians were also not primitive. I have never yet come across a well developed, established religion that is based on "primitive" thinking or is "primitive" in its expression. I'm not sure whether this author's remark is based on religious prejudice, or on a common misconception that equates evolution with "progress."


Raving Repulicans:
Yet even though the sacrifice of infants fulfilled the sinless aspect of a perfect sacrifice, it was lacking in other areas.
Tropical Sands:
Yes, this Christian apologist website compares Jesus' execution to infant sacrifice. What is really sick is that this Christian apologist actually states that infant sacrifices fulfilled the sinless criteria for a sacrifice.

And that pretty much sums the article up. The author's praise for infant sacrifice seems to be a good note to end on. It really lets you know where the minds of Christians are - the sacrifice of human innocents.
This just goes to show the lengths to which these apologists will go to claim that theirs is an "original" idea that other people (apparently too primitive to grasp it fully) were simply groping towards for thousands of years before Jesus came along. Talk about post hoc ergo propter hoc. First, according to this author, Christianity insists on (symbolic) blood sacrifice, therefore blood sacrifice is integral to religion, therefore *earlier* religions also insisted on blood sacrifice. Let's ignore the fact that there is a difference between a sacrifice and an offering as well as the well documented fact that only some pagan gods were worshipped with sacrifices, and in fact, not all were worshipped with blood offerings (i.e. cooked meat) at all.

Second, this author assumes that, because Christianity focuses on a certain concept of sin that means that sin is at the heart of all religions (thus the need for a "sinless sacrifice"), and, therefore, all *earlier* religions also were focused on sin and on finding "sinless" sacrifices. Let's ignore the fact that many of the non-Abrahamic religions contain no concept of "sin" at all, and that even among those who do refer to "sin" (such as the pagan Romans) the definition of sin is far different from what Christians think of as sin.

Bottom line: What these people believe is not the model of what human beings are capable of believing, therefore they cannot legitimately use their religious beliefs to "explain" the religious beliefs of others.

what i wonder, since im a NO jesus (as oppposed to the one jesus or many jesus) theorist, is what is the true origin.

was it groups of jews who, having been exposed to greek thought for centuries, greekified judaism. taking the messiah idea and turning that messiah into "LOGOS" the son of god and then from there to the "real person" of jesus adding in common area myths about the way the son of god would have lived in the world

or

was it groups of "greeks" who, having been exposed to judaism for centuries, decided that monotheism was superior to polytheism (or realized that monotheism underlay polytheism in many ways) and they judified greek religion leaving in the common area myths and just pasting them over the base of jewish belief.

polytheists were much more flexible than jews were in accepting and adapting whatever beliefs were floating around. even to the extent of worshipping alternate gods in the temples dedicated only to certain ones.
I don't really care whether there was a Jesus or not. It's an interesting historical detail, but I don't think it should affect the content of the Christian religion much.

As to your scenarios (both excellent, btw), knowing what little I do know about the intellectual traditions of Judaism, I would bet that the shift from nationalist messiah to LOGOS came from the greekification of Judaism (or at least of certain Jewish scholars) in academic debate over the scriptures. Later, when the new religion was developing, and becoming less identifiably Hebrew, then we might see greater influence from the judification of greek religion, and Greeks and Greek-influenced Romans looked for ways to get into the new religion and reconcile it with their own culture.

That would be my speculation.

That is true, I suppose, to a certain extent. Much within Christianity comes from what was before. Like Christmas, etc. There is nothing in Christianity that would reject truth, wherever it was found. To put it another way, simply having pre-Christian origins does not mean that Christians had to reject a concept as untruth.

<snip>

Then those poor chaps in the Amazon jungles that worship wild spirits and follow crude and cruel practices (pretty much whatever the Shaman says) is the most valid belief? Can't agree with you on that on.
What do you mean by this remark? What "crude and cruel practices"? What do you know about shamans or shamanism or about the religions of "poor chaps" in jungles? Man, could you be any more Victorian?

I admit it, you touched a nerve with that one. That disrespectful, condescending tone, the assumption that such people are ignorant or deluded to believe what they believe, really pushes my buttons. Plus, I happen to be an animist -- i.e. someone who believes in "wild spirits," though the spirits I commune with are native to the streets of cities like New York and Boston. I would really love to hear what crude and cruel practices I get strong-armed into by shamans.

So, now that you know you waved a red flag in front of a bull, would you like to explain yourself? You can start by reconciling the reference to accepting truth from pagan religions in your first paragraph, to the condescending dismissiveness in your last paragraph.

Jeez. I can't believe no one's realized that the real place Christianity got it's values from was from The Holy Text of the Cozisaidso.

Ahem.

And George said, And a woman shall give birth to a child, and the child shall become a king among kings, and he shall be killed for the wisdom that he spreads. And it will engender a series of debates on Nation States. The stuff about virginity and resurrection was added later to jazz the story up.

Seriously though, if you're looking for pagan influences in Christian holidays, look at La Dia de los Muertos.

Who is this 'John' of which you speak?

I don't know who they were talking about, but I've heard a few guesses...

John brother of James son of Zebedee (the name sake).

Mary Magdalene, the possible female apostle.

And most recently, and the most fun, in the latest edition of Biblical Archaeology Review, Ben Witherington wrote in his column that perhaps it was Lazarus himself and he explains why it could be; he wasn't an apostle so not all of the stories of the other gospels should be in the John version AND explaining why it would be a particularly 'spiritual' gospel compared to the others (having been touched by death...), and how the author is called the Beloved Disciple in the gospel and Lazarus was called "the one whom you love has fallen sick" from John 11:3.

;)

im still reading through the "pagan origins of the christ myth" site

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_after_Jesus_scholarship.html

the site author has a very readable discussion of the origins of the new testament, who wrote it, who decided what is in it, what other christian groups and writings there are that arent included in the bible

here's a sample quote

Many scholars guess these gospels existed before 150 AD—but scholarly or not, a guess is still a guess. Smart people like you want to know the evidence. What is the evidence?

First, except for a thing called "P52," a tiny mid-second century fragment maybe from John, there are no gospel manuscript fragments till about 200 AD (and no complete Gospels till the fifth century).

What's more, the Apostolic Fathers, guys like Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius were Christians alive in the late first and early second century. We still have copies of stuff they wrote. And here's the thing—they do not quote, or even mention, the gospels. In fact no Christian quotes or mentions our modern gospels until the middle of the second century AD.

In other words, there is no evidence our modern picked-by-Catholic- priests-in-the- fourth-century gospels existed before 150 AD! And if our four modern picked-by-Catholic- priests-in-the- fourth-century gospels did exist within 120 years of Jesus' death, there is absolutely zero evidence they contributed to Christian belief or worship before 150 AD. Wow.

7-11 video tapes?
The books in our New Testament were chosen by Catholic officials in the fourth century AD—the modern list of twenty-seven books was first published in 367 AD. For 1,500 years after that, pretty much everyone thought the four gospels were accurate histories of Jesus' life.

So you can imagine how surprised modern believing scholars were when they first set out to write a comprehensive history of Jesus' life by combining the details in each of the four gospels. They made gospel parallels—the text of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in columns, side-by-side—and discovered the gospels disagree with each other. Oops.

And I don't mean the Gospels disagree in the sense Luke and Matthew give Jesus' genealogy and Mark doesn't. I mean they disagree in the sense that Luke and Matthew give genealogies with different people on them.

Leading reasonable people to believe they can't both be true. Don't you hate it when that happens?

the bolding is mine for those who cant be bothered to read the whole thing but wonder what im yakking about

im still reading through the "pagan origins of the christ myth" site

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_after_Jesus_scholarship.html

the site author has a very readable discussion of the origins of the new testament, who wrote it, who decided what is in it, what other christian groups and writings there are that arent included in the bible

here's a sample quote


the bolding is mine for those who cant be bothered to read the whole thing but wonder what im yakking about
I have never understood why some people can't accept that the Bible and the gospels are just stories that some people made up. I mean, I know that my religion is all about metaphors. Why do some Christians need their religion to be history? What possible difference can it make to the religious precepts if the resurrection is just symbolic?

Every religion influences every other religion it comes into contact with, even if only in little ways.

Tropical Sands:

A while ago, or somwhere, you asked when Christians would quit misrepresenting the Jewish Old Testament. Well, I was quick-reading this site:

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/tr...holarship.html

and spotted the following sidebar:

Have you maybe noticed the "Jewish" Old Testament isn't the book modern Jews use? That's because the books of Christian Old Testament were also picked not by Jews but by orthodox Roman Catholic clergy. Who'd 'a thunk it?

Those wacky Catholic clergy -- they just edited and rewrote a bunch of stuff and ascribed it to the Jews. No wonder Christians have so little idea of what Jews believe.

Those wacky Catholic clergy -- they just edited and rewrote a bunch of stuff and ascribed it to the Jews. No wonder Christians have so little idea of what Jews believe.
it is so odd to me that christians think they came from judaism but they cant be bothered to find out what jews believe and how judaism works

I have never understood why some people can't accept that the Bible and the gospels are just stories that some people made up. I mean, I know that my religion is all about metaphors. Why do some Christians need their religion to be history? What possible difference can it make to the religious precepts if the resurrection is just symbolic?
Probably because if one believes that the Bible is the literal Word of God it must be 100% true and accurate on all levels, since omniscience requires inerrance. Unfortunately many who believe this don't realize that the Greek and Hebrew languages of the ancient days were highly metaphorical, nor that something can be "true" in a symbolic sense and not be literally accurate. The biblical Jesus speaks in parables after all.

Those wacky Catholic clergy -- they just edited and rewrote a bunch of stuff and ascribed it to the Jews. No wonder Christians have so little idea of what Jews believe.
I was under the impression that the Christian (or at least Catholic) Old Testament is the Septuagint, written and compiled by Jewish scholars between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, which predates the Masoretic texts that Jews use today by about a thousand years, so the Catholics in the 4th century CE could not have had access to that, nor had the Dead Sea Scrolls been discovered at that point.

Other - There are political (religious political) influences in the story of Jesus, and the Gospels.

I wasn't sure if I should call this thread 'pagan influences in Christianity' or 'pagan origins of Christianity' because there are just so many. This has been a subject I've been interested in for a long time, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were.

To me, it seems as if there is very little that is original in the gospels. The Jesus story - plot, events, and even exact words - seems to be borrowed from contemporary and previous pagan religions in the Galilee area. Early Christians seem to have noticed it as well. Many of the Church Fathers wrote extensively trying to explain away the similiarities and influencecs, even going so far as to say that the devil did it.

So, I've set up a little poll. In addition to this, I'd like to hear from everyone:

1. If you think there are pagan influences, which ones effected Christianity the most and why.
2. If you don't believe there are any pagan influences, explain the similarities between the Jesus story and the host of pagan myths that were contemporary or earlier.

I hate essay questions.

There are a great many Pagan influences. It's a question of where to begin. We can start with Holidays. Christmas (most obvious)- not Christ's actual birthdate (this is unknown, though there are many surmises). Christmas is the time of the Winter Solstice, a pagan celebration of the return of the sun. Easter - the died eggs are pagan symbols of fertility dedicated to the Goddess Ostara (they even get the name Easter from her). Most of the saints and demons are really one pagan deity or another pulled into the faith to attract pagans. Many churches were built over pagan sites and if you look closely at the carvings in many churches, you will see pagan themes. And before you protestants out there start saying this is Catholicism and not Christianity (an really arrogant stance on your parts), remember this, Protestantism is just a reaction to Catholicism and a reverse influence is just as much an influence as a positive one. You still celebrate Christmas and Easter at the pagan times.

Other - There are political (religious political) influences in the story of Jesus, and the Gospels.
waht kind of politics are you thinking of?

I hate essay questions.

There are a great many Pagan influences. It's a question of where to begin. We can start with Holidays. Christmas (most obvious)- not Christ's actual birthdate (this is unknown, though there are many surmises). Christmas is the time of the Winter Solstice, a pagan celebration of the return of the sun. Easter - the died eggs are pagan symbols of fertility dedicated to the Goddess Ostara (they even get the name Easter from her). Most of the saints and demons are really one pagan deity or another pulled into the faith to attract pagans. Many churches were built over pagan sites and if you look closely at the carvings in many churches, you will see pagan themes. And before you protestants out there start saying this is Catholicism and not Christianity (an really arrogant stance on your parts), remember this, Protestantism is just a reaction to Catholicism and a reverse influence is just as much an influence as a positive one. You still celebrate Christmas and Easter at the pagan times.

Well thanks for taking the time to respond even though you hate essay questions. You get an A :cool:

it is so odd to me that christians think they came from judaism but they cant be bothered to find out what jews believe and how judaism works

Which Jews still sacrifice in the temple that was destroyed in 70AD or still follow the pre-B.C., daily customs? Which Gospels or epistles even bother to mention the destruction of the Temple? How many of the NT books must have been written before the first Jewish revolt, nonetheless the second Jewish revolt, since they seem to pay so little attention to either of them?

Perhaps, as the Talmud was compiled as a contemporary of the NT and not its predecessor, the question itself is nonsensical?


But that link you posted about supposed manuscript history absolutely stinks. If you want to start reading early manuscripts and their age etc., this is a good place to start:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/newtestament.html

Alright, where to start.


First off, Crucifixion. No Christian I know has ever claimed that Christ was the only person to be crucified. It was, in fact, a fairly popular way of killing people at the time; the Romans really liked it, and they borrowed it from earlier cultures. So saying Baccus was also crucified proves nothing.

Now, on the age of the Gospels. The Christian Gospels date closer to the source than any other major religious document. That is, the earliest fragments we have are from around 150 AD (two generations after Christ, who died somewhere around 33-40 AD)... they may actually be closer, but we have no way of accurately dating within 150 years. The closest source document Islam has is dated to somewhere around 400 years after the fact. Hindu documents have an even larger spread, as does Buddha's.

In fact, the Gospels are dated closer to the source than most ancient history documents, such as Plato.


Now, as to whether Christ existed as an actual person: that's pretty much a given in most circles (outside of Nationstates forums, apparantly)


So, were there influences on Christianity from outside Cultures? Later on, for sure. Much of the Catholic liturgy is highly reminiscent of ancient pagan worship. On the original source documents, accurately translated? No, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the Gospels, translated properly (or better yet, read in the original Greek) were written about an actual man who actually believed He was the Son of God and who actually died on the cross.

If you look at early Christianity, it doesn't make sense if it was all a fabrication. Many, many people were killed for their Christian beliefs between the years 100-350AD. The early Christian fathers had absolutely nothing to gain (at the time) by spreading lies about Christ.

This isn't true later on... once Christianity bacame the state religion of Rome (Catholicism) under Constantine Christianity began to warp as paower-hungry men set up ways to seperate the Gospels from what they wanted people to believe. The Pope, Intervening Saints, Rosary, confession, purgatory, etc, was all added after the fact (and yes, much of that does mirror Roman religion, and consequently Greek religion)

My two cents.

Alright, where to start.


First off, Crucifixion. No Christian I know has ever claimed that Christ was the only person to be crucified. It was, in fact, a fairly popular way of killing people at the time; the Romans really liked it, and they borrowed it from earlier cultures. So saying Baccus was also crucified proves nothing.

Well no, if the argument was "Dionysus/Bacchus was crucified too, so therefore the Jesus myth must have borrowed that aspect." However, the story of Dionysus was almost identical to Jesus in many aspects, that is only one of them. Dionysus had 12 disciples, he was born of a virgin and God, turned water into wine, was crucified, rose again. Exact, word-for-word sayings in the gospels are stolen out of the writings by Euripides and Plato about Dionysus. The evidence that the gospels borrowed from the Dionysus myth is just astounding.


Now, on the age of the Gospels. The Christian Gospels date closer to the source than any other major religious document. That is, the earliest fragments we have are from around 150 AD (two generations after Christ, who died somewhere around 33-40 AD)... they may actually be closer, but we have no way of accurately dating within 150 years. The closest source document Islam has is dated to somewhere around 400 years after the fact. Hindu documents have an even larger spread, as does Buddha's.

What source? Your entire argument assumes that there was a single man who was the source to all of this. The formation of the Jesus mythos could have began much, much earlier than the date given by the Jesus myth itself. And not only do the fragments of texts date to hundreds of years after their suppossed authorship, no early Christian sources mention these gospels. In addition, the gospels don't contain the names of the authors anywhere. The authorship, i.e. matt, mark, luke, and john, gets attributed to them much later than their actual use. They are highly suspect. An early dating, if you can even consider it such, doesn't get them around that.

Now, as to whether Christ existed as an actual person: that's pretty much a given in most circles (outside of Nationstates forums, apparantly)

I've mentioned this in an earlier post, I'll state it again. In history, we draw a dichotomy between the "Historical Jesus" and the "Jesus of Faith." Now, virtually no one except Christians believe in the Jesus of Faith, i.e. the gospel Jesus, the Jesus myth. Most circles do believe in the Historical Jesus.

However, what most anthropologists, theologians, and historians believe about the Historical Jesus is radically different than what the gospels teach. The very term Historical Jesus is used to denote the origin of the Jesus of Faith, the gospel Jesus. It doesn't even have to be a single person. It simply has to be the origin of the story.

So the next time you pick up a book and hear the term "Historical Jesus", which most circles do affirm as existing, you will know what it means. It certainly does not mean the "Christ" you're referring to.


So, were there influences on Christianity from outside Cultures? Later on, for sure. Much of the Catholic liturgy is highly reminiscent of ancient pagan worship.

The central practices of the early Catholic liturgy can be found in the gospels, such as communion. Like I posted previously, the gospel of John quotes a Mithraic liturgy over communion almost word for word.

If you look at early Christianity, it doesn't make sense if it was all a fabrication. Many, many people were killed for their Christian beliefs between the years 100-350AD. The early Christian fathers had absolutely nothing to gain (at the time) by spreading lies about Christ.

People still join cults today. It doesn't make sense that Mormons were persecuted or killed, or that the number of early Christian sects who did not believe in a physical Jesus (like the Gnostics) were also persecuted and killed. People often die for things they have faith in. This does not validate the things that they have faith in as being true, however. It simply proves that people believed it.

And all early Christian leaders had a lot to gain. They had the exact same things to gain that cult leaders today can gain. During that time period especially, being a religious figure or healer was a lucrative business. They could go anywhere, establish communities, and be taken care of. They could afford luxuries like getting an education, books to read, and paper to write on. Most importantly, they got absolute power and authority over new members of the religion. They had everything to gain.

Which Jews still sacrifice in the temple that was destroyed in 70AD or still follow the pre-B.C., daily customs? Which Gospels or epistles even bother to mention the destruction of the Temple? How many of the NT books must have been written before the first Jewish revolt, nonetheless the second Jewish revolt, since they seem to pay so little attention to either of them?

Perhaps, as the Talmud was compiled as a contemporary of the NT and not its predecessor, the question itself is nonsensical?


But that link you posted about supposed manuscript history absolutely stinks. If you want to start reading early manuscripts and their age etc., this is a good place to start:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/newtestament.html
those early christian writings pages are a good place to read the apocrypha. ive been there many times.

im not sure what your point about the jews is? that we dont need to know anything about jewish thought and theology now because it has changed somewhat ovoer the years? i think that studying both ancient and current jewish practice should be part of every christians education. surely its as important as the history of christianity (since as christians we believe it is an integral part of christian history much like understanding the origins of the united states is aided by an understanding of european history)

what didnt you like about my link? those pages are written in a very accessible style and have given me so many links to so much research that i wish i had started there months ago.

I wasn't sure if I should call this thread 'pagan influences in Christianity' or 'pagan origins of Christianity' because there are just so many. This has been a subject I've been interested in for a long time, and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were.

To me, it seems as if there is very little that is original in the gospels. The Jesus story - plot, events, and even exact words - seems to be borrowed from contemporary and previous pagan religions in the Galilee area. Early Christians seem to have noticed it as well. Many of the Church Fathers wrote extensively trying to explain away the similiarities and influencecs, even going so far as to say that the devil did it.

So, I've set up a little poll. In addition to this, I'd like to hear from everyone:

1. If you think there are pagan influences, which ones effected Christianity the most and why.
2. If you don't believe there are any pagan influences, explain the similarities between the Jesus story and the host of pagan myths that were contemporary or earlier.

I tend to think that much of the Bible has pre-christian, pagan origins.
Or rather, that both Christianity and other religions attempt to address some of the same stories/truths.

On the other hand, you could also make a case that the mythology of Kennedy was influenced by the myths of Lincoln.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm

Sometimes, history holds weird repititions and coincidences.

Who is this 'John' of which you speak?


1 John 1

1The one who existed from the beginning[a] is the one we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is Jesus Christ, the Word of life. 2This one who is life from God was shown to us, and we have seen him. And now we testify and announce to you that he is the one who is eternal life. He was with the Father, and then he was shown to us. 3We are telling you about what we ourselves have actually seen and heard, so that you may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.
4We are writing these things so that our[b] joy will be complete.

The way I read this, it looks like John (whoever that was) was trying to establish his testimony about ''what we ourselves have actually seen and heard''. That doesn't sound like he was trying to construct a myth. He would either be lying or telling the truth as he understood it.

I tend to think that much of the Bible has pre-christian, pagan origins.
Or rather, that both Christianity and other religions attempt to address some of the same stories/truths.

On the other hand, you could also make a case that the mythology of Kennedy was influenced by the myths of Lincoln.
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/linckenn.htm

Sometimes, history holds weird repititions and coincidences.

Interesting point. Futher, as JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis have pointed out, the fact that many myths do have much in common with the Christian story does not mean that the Christian story is wrong, but that humans who created the pagan myths have something of the 'remnants of the act of creation' within them, and that these remnants have contributed to a remarkable similarity with the Christian story. They have said that the similarity points to a desire in mankind for a most excellent 'love story' or fantasy, a desire placed there by none other than the creator and the hero of the 'love story'.

What do you mean by this remark? What "crude and cruel practices"? What do you know about shamans or shamanism or about the religions of "poor chaps" in jungles? Man, could you be any more Victorian?

I was referring to first hand accounts from missionaries who have lived in places like Africa, South America, Asia, in animistic tribes, stoneage cultures, etc. Some of these people have lived there for 30 years or more. They know what they are talking about. Of course, they could have some sort of conspiracy, but I doubt it, since some are Catholic, some Protestant, and many of them don't see things the same way. But they all seem to have plenty of stories of animistic practices that cause fear and pain.



I admit it, you touched a nerve with that one. That disrespectful, condescending tone, the assumption that such people are ignorant or deluded to believe what they believe, really pushes my buttons. Plus, I happen to be an animist -- i.e. someone who believes in "wild spirits," though the spirits I commune with are native to the streets of cities like New York and Boston. I would really love to hear what crude and cruel practices I get strong-armed into by shamans.

I remember one story about how children with diarrhea get treated by being wrapped in blankets and left in the midday sun. They are suffering from a sickness caused by an evil spirit, and they needed such treatment to 'sweat the evil out of them'. Of course, many of them suffer and die from dehydration.
Not all of the shaman practices cause pain and death, it seems, but they frequently appear to attempt to control the people through fear of evil.

I have no intention of being disrespectful of pagans. In my world view, a person does not get respect because of how much he knows, or how much ability he has, but because he is 'created in the image of God'.


So, now that you know you waved a red flag in front of a bull, would you like to explain yourself? You can start by reconciling the reference to accepting truth from pagan religions in your first paragraph, to the condescending dismissiveness in your last paragraph.

That's perhaps your problem....the assumption that I have being 'condescendingly dismissive'. I certainly believe that pagan religions are false, because they do not take us to the truth, however, I accept that pagan religions have truth in them. Being Christian does not make me more intelligent, or worthy of respect, or better in that sense. But I believe that true Christianity will lead to the ultimate Truth that exists in the universe, and thus brings one to a better position. I suspect you believe the same about your religion.

If memory from World History serves correctly, Christian mythos is codified into the new testament under Constatine (I believe). Before then, so far as I know, there are many, diverse, versions of the same story. Obviously, whether or not the stories themselves have some basis in the truth (I don't think so, but I really don't care either way), they were influenced by the men writing them.

Obviously these men would have been influenced by the Roman polytheism, the many cultures that Rome had conquered, and by the phillosophers of the classical era. All of those ideas would have been added (not uncommon to the Romans at all. In fact, the Romans had the bad habit of adding a few gods from every culture they took over... I suppose in helped to keep the locals happy.) to a synthesis of ideas.

That could be one of the reasons that the bible is so interesting as a phillosophical sumnation of an era. If it weren't so damn dull, that is.

Now, as to whether Christ existed as an actual person: that's pretty much a given in most circles (outside of Nationstates forums, apparantly)

Also outside of the circle of people called "historians". The fact that many people indeed believe this does not make it true - nor false for that matter.

those early christian writings pages are a good place to read the apocrypha. ive been there many times.

im not sure what your point about the jews is? that we dont need to know anything about jewish thought and theology now because it has changed somewhat ovoer the years? i think that studying both ancient and current jewish practice should be part of every christians education. surely its as important as the history of christianity (since as christians we believe it is an integral part of christian history much like understanding the origins of the united states is aided by an understanding of european history)

what didnt you like about my link? those pages are written in a very accessible style and have given me so many links to so much research that i wish i had started there months ago.

My point was that post-Jewish Revolt Judaism is a contemporary of Christianity, it is not older that Christianity. The Talmud (both of them) were compiled after the fall of Jerusalem, Jesus never practiced anything like it. Temple era Judaism is the faith that Jesus came from and referred to when the NT talks about it. Learning what Judaism does now is interesting from an intellectual point of view, but it is unrelated to Christianity development anymore as it is unconnected. Archaeological studies of the lost practices of Judaism from pre-revolt times IS studied by archaeologists as well as Christian theologians. The Essenes, for example, are thought to have had a significant influence on John the Baptist. And the Qumran caves (location of the Dead Sea scrolls) have revealed a horde of pre-Christian manuscripts that confirm which OT books were in use during Jesus time and I find it all fascinating.

As to the link, let’s just say that it’s a little too ‘motivated’ to present it’s case and leave it at that. As to the Mithra talk though…

An old-Iranian god of light, contracts and friendship. He also maintains the cosmic order. Sometimes mentioned as the son of Ahura Mazda, he assists him in his struggle against the forces of evil, represented by Angra Mainyu. Mithra was born from a rock (or a cave). He fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slayed it before he ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to humanity.

With the emerging of Zoroastrianism, he was reduced to the status of Yazata. In the Avesta he was portrayed as having ten thousand ears and eyes, and he rides in a chariot pulled by white horses. In the 4 century BCE his popularity rose and again he held a high position in the Persian pantheon. Eventually his cult spread beyond Iran and Asia Minor and gradually became a mystery cult. The ascetic religion of Mithraism (to which only men were allowed) became increasingly popular among the Roman soldiers around 100 CE and at that time Mithra was known in Rome as 'Deus sol invictus' ("the unconquered sun"). Even the Roman emperor Commodus was initiated into Mithra's cult. When Constantine the Great was converted to Christianity in 312 CE, Mithraism started to decline and after a temporary revival under Julius the Apostate (331-363) the cult disappeared for good.

Mithra was worshipped in Mithraea, artificially constructed caves that represented his birth-cave. The ceiling looked like the starry sky and at the sides benches where placed for the ritual meals. In the center of the Mithraea was a niche which held a relief of the god, dressed in Phrygian clothing (short tunic and cloak, long trousers and a hat with a curled tip), who kills a bull. The Mithraea were spread all over the Roman empire and some 50 of these caves still exist in Rome today.

He is also known as Mitra in the Indian Veda.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mithra.html

Isn’t it interesting that Mirtha is so much more “Christlike” now than he was even just a few short years ago? His followers must still be redefining their doctrines and practices, or so it would seem, to be so flexible from his early beginnings in Persia. It’s also interesting that Mirtha must have stolen the pagan winter festival holidays and the Spring time holidays and customs, etc., like the pagans accuse Christianity of doing…

If memory from World History serves correctly, Christian mythos is codified into the new testament under Constatine (I believe). Before then, so far as I know, there are many, diverse, versions of the same story. Obviously, whether or not the stories themselves have some basis in the truth (I don't think so, but I really don't care either way), they were influenced by the men writing them.

yeah christian mythos was "codified" under constantine. what a mild word that is. it was "codified" by killing massive numbers of christians who were suddenly "heretics", then it "blossomed" by banning pagan religions, closing temples and, eventually, killing anyone who wasnt a roman christian.

this is from the "pagan origins of the christ myth" website
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/triumph_over_other_Christianities.html


Constantine and social Darwinism: Crushing non-Roman Christianities
Picking sides It was tough to be a pagan in the fourth century. It was also tough to be a Christian believing in a non-Roman theology. The emperor took sides.

In 317 Constantine's Roman Christian sectarians in Carthage filled the well outside the main Donatist [non-Roman Christian] church with the bodies of their Christian opponents.


[I]n late antiquity, both secular and ecclesiastical authorities repeatedly destroyed unedifying texts, in well advertised ceremonies, ... that is, in great bonfires at the center of the town square. Copyists were discouraged from replacing them by the threat of having their hands cut off.

MacMullen, Ramsay, Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (1997), pg. 4




In 333 AD Constantine issued edicts against "Arius, wicked and impious," forbidding his teaching and even outlawing owning the Arian version of the New Testament.
"Whoever hides them [Arian's version of the New Testament] shall be condemned to death."


Constantine didn't kid around about stuff like that. At least you knew where you stood.



In 382, in Egypt, celebrating Easter on the day set aside by the local non-Roman Christian sect was punishable by death.
In 383, in Spain, Urbanica was stoned to death and her bishop Priscillian was executed for their non-Roman Christian beliefs.
St. Augustine describes the sectarian struggles in North Africa, in which believers had their eyes torn out and one bishop had his hands and tongue cut off. [Augustine, Epistles 44.7]


if you are offended by his breezy style, just read the blue quotes down the right side.

As to the link, let’s just say that it’s a little too ‘motivated’ to present it’s case and leave it at that. As to the Mithra talk though…

to defend my link...

while the guy has an agenda... showing the pagan origins of the christ myth in a readable style... it is his collection of quotes that i really like. many of the older sources, including some books written in the 1800s can be found online in whole or in part. it gives anyone the chance to check up on him and see if what he is saying is representative of what his source said.

i wish you had provided a link to the jewish stuff. its interesting to me too.

the thing about mithra and all the pagan religions that existed in the roman empire and before is that they are almost completely lost to us. not only was there a general book burning as soon as christianity took over, (including the destruction of temples and defacing of monuments) but many of the deepest mysteries were never written about. it was a grievous sin for any member who had been sealed into the rites of whatever mystery it was to ever talk about it.

the sources used to figure out a sect like mithraism tend to be rants against them by christian scholars or a tiny bit of info here and there stuck into non christian works that were about something else. or excavations of those caves that still exist in rome today.

it is so odd to me that christians think they came from judaism but they cant be bothered to find out what jews believe and how judaism works
It's hardly surprising. First of all, it's a common human failing not to want to share credit for an idea. Second, transcendental evangelistic religions have a vested interest in not only being the only "right" idea but also in having gained it direct from the "source" (whatever they may think that is). Acknowledging that it was learned from something/someone else might undermine the dramatic power of their message -- not radical enough, not new enough, not magical enough.

Probably because if one believes that the Bible is the literal Word of God it must be 100% true and accurate on all levels, since omniscience requires inerrance. Unfortunately many who believe this don't realize that the Greek and Hebrew languages of the ancient days were highly metaphorical, nor that something can be "true" in a symbolic sense and not be literally accurate. The biblical Jesus speaks in parables after all.
Yes, and this is my single biggest frustration with Bible literalists. Their own religious icon/leader/spiritual savior worked with symbolism. But they can't wrap their brains around that and instead take every single one of his *symbols* and insist that it must have really happened exactly as described and anyone who says different is "anti-Christian." What kind of "tell us more, Brian" thoughtless slavishness is this? Are these the same people who think kids can't tell the difference between cartoons and reality? There are so many rude words one can use to describe this sort of thing -- for polite company, I've settled on calling it "medieval peasant thinking."

Don't get me wrong. I say let people believe anything they like. If they want to genuflect in front of some book, I won't stop them. But it's when they start giving me the hairy eyeball because I'm not genuflecting to their book that we start having a problem.


I was under the impression that the Christian (or at least Catholic) Old Testament is the Septuagint, written and compiled by Jewish scholars between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, which predates the Masoretic texts that Jews use today by about a thousand years, so the Catholics in the 4th century CE could not have had access to that, nor had the Dead Sea Scrolls been discovered at that point.
My point was that the Catholic fathers did not go to Jewish rabbis and ask them what Jewish books they should use to give appropriate background to the Christian Bible. No, they just ransacked this other religion on their own, cherry-picking the bits they liked best. (Irony: And then they accused the Protestants of doing the same thing to them and fought wars over it.)

Obviously, any Christian who has read only the Christian Bible cannot accurately claim to know any thing about Jewish beliefs, history, or tradition based on the Christian Old Testament.

I am choosing to write the following post in a tone of angry over-reaction. I have a reason for doing that, which I describe at the end.

I was referring to first hand accounts from missionaries who have lived in places like Africa, South America, Asia, in animistic tribes, stoneage cultures, etc. Some of these people have lived there for 30 years or more. They know what they are talking about. Of course, they could have some sort of conspiracy, but I doubt it, since some are Catholic, some Protestant, and many of them don't see things the same way. But they all seem to have plenty of stories of animistic practices that cause fear and pain.
First hand accounts of missionaries. You mean the ones who were there to wipe out indigenous religions by replacing them with Christianity? Do you also mean the ones who went there during the times when these "stoneage cultures" were under colonial rule by British, French, and Dutch powers, so famous for their egalitarian and racially tolerant policies? When was that, like 100 years ago? Because there are missionaries in those places right now -- alongside anthropologists, other researchers, various NGOs, and numerous documentary filmmakers -- who tell very different stories. According to the information amassed over the 20th century -- both "accounts" and actual video records of the people involved -- there is nothing crude or cruel about animist/shamanist religions. There's also nothing particularly "stoneage" about them, either. Unless you include Thailand, Japan and Korea among your catalogue of "stoneage" cultures -- those countries are among the leading centers of animist religions today. Shamans do a booming spiritual business in all of them. Tell us how their citizens are cowed by the fear and pain of animistic practices. Shinto, the most organized of animist religions, is the official religion of Japan where it is administered by both clerical priests who conduct rituals and shamans (miko) who commune with spirits. Tell us how "stoneage" life in Tokyo is.

Then continue and tell us how Chinese Taoists, Indian yogis, and the majority of Buddhists also live in fear of shamanistic oppression, as all of these religions/mystical practices are direct outgrowths of animist shamanism, according to current cultural anthropology and comparative religious studies. And then tell us all about the oppressive fear and pain suffered by Native North Americans, Native South Americans, the people of Oceania/Australia, etc, etc. You're basing your entire statement on out-dated and biased reports of people who, once upon a time, viewed these other religions as the enemy and described them as such. The class has moved on since then. You should try to catch up.

I remember one story about how children with diarrhea get treated by being wrapped in blankets and left in the midday sun. They are suffering from a sickness caused by an evil spirit, and they needed such treatment to 'sweat the evil out of them'. Of course, many of them suffer and die from dehydration.

And of course, there's no such thing as a Christian who is ignorant of medicine. There's no such thing as Christians who believe in prayer over doctors to this very day.

And when did these supposed stories occur? Was it during a time when Christians from advanced countries used arsenic as medicine, or fed their children laudanum to keep them from crying? Or was it when advanced Christian nations treated mental illness with painful restraint, ice water baths, and lobotomies? Or maybe it was when the modern Christian nation of the USA isolated leprosy patients in colonies in Hawaii where they were left to live and die with their disease because other communities were afraid of them. Or maybe it was when the modern, advanced medicine of Christian nations promoted thalydomide to prevent nausea during pregnancy, thus causing numerous babies to be born deformed.

Or maybe it happened yesterday, while modern Christians were distracted by an ongoing debate as to whether retarded people are really possessed by demons.

To point to a misguided practice and use that as "proof" that a religion is oppressing people is a typical tactic of the racist and elitist colonial powers that sought to subjugate the very cultures you are talking about. This is just more Victorian-era propaganda.

Not all of the shaman practices cause pain and death, it seems, but they frequently appear to attempt to control the people through fear of evil.

You clearly know nothing about shamanism or animism. I recommend the following to educate yourself (randomly selected starting points; there is a wealth of information about animism and shamanism from many different sources):

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/shaman.html
(very good descriptive overview with links to further sites and a bibliography)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/heather.hobden1/shaman.htm

http://buryatmongol.com/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/shinto.htm

I have no intention of being disrespectful of pagans. In my world view, a person does not get respect because of how much he knows, or how much ability he has, but because he is 'created in the image of God'.

Yet dispite your intentions, you succeeded in showing a profound lack of respect for pagans in the form of a lack of thought about what you choose to say about them.

Rather than simply acknowledge that you were only quoting Christian missionary sources (which cannot help but be biased) and that you actually have no information about real animism or real shamanism, you instead tried to defend your offensive remarks by citing an inflammatory apocryphal tale about babies with diarrhea left to die in the sun by crude and cruel shamans. Way to show respect there, pal.

That's perhaps your problem....the assumption that I have being 'condescendingly dismissive'. I certainly believe that pagan religions are false, because they do not take us to the truth, however, I accept that pagan religions have truth in them. Being Christian does not make me more intelligent, or worthy of respect, or better in that sense. But I believe that true Christianity will lead to the ultimate Truth that exists in the universe, and thus brings one to a better position. I suspect you believe the same about your religion.
In practical application, all this disclaimer accomplishes is to let you put down my beliefs while claiming that you respect me and them.

The bottom line is you don't know anything about my beliefs, so kindly do not try to use them to promote your own faith. If your religion is so wonderful and true, you shouldn't need to sell it by painting my religion as "crude and cruel."

Now, as to why I am taking such a vehement tone: It is because animists/shamanists to this day are struggling for both cultural and physical survival under hostile regimes. Most notably, the Buryat Shamanist Association of Mongolia is advocating for human rights for animists against anti-religious oppression by the Chinese government. They are in a similar predicament as the Tibetans -- who also have a native animist/shamanist religion known as Bon, btw. Recent reports are also emerging of Islamic oppression of indigenous animists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the former Russian "Stans." Animists are standing right next to Christians as victims of atrocities in the religiously motivated civil war in Darfur, Sudan, right now. This is a current and ongoing human rights issue, so when I hear this kind of Victorian-era ignorance being spouted, I am motivated to take it down, and not pull my punches when doing so.

Either educate yourself, or kindly leave my beliefs out of your propaganda.

EDIT: Actually, I'd rather you just leave my beliefs out of your propaganda, whether you bother to learn anything about them or not.

<snip>

well said!

its a common conceit that "primitive" people are stupid. that they live in horrifyingly strange societies based on superstition and ignorance.

there are no stupid humans. there are no primitive socieities. there are just different beliefs and practices and different levels of technology/science.

well said!

its a common conceit that "primitive" people are stupid. that they live in horrifyingly strange societies based on superstition and ignorance.

there are no stupid humans. there are no primitive socieities. there are just different beliefs and practices and different levels of technology/science.
Thanks, Ashmoria -- though I don't know if I'd go so far as to say there are no stupid humans, but then I'm a notorious cynic.

I am choosing to write the following post in a tone of angry over-reaction. I have a reason for doing that, which I describe at the end.

No problems. This issue is obviously close to your heart.


First hand accounts of missionaries. You mean the ones who were there to wipe out indigenous religions by replacing them with Christianity? Do you also mean the ones who went there during the times when these "stoneage cultures" were under colonial rule by British, French, and Dutch powers, so famous for their egalitarian and racially tolerant policies? When was that, like 100 years ago?

No, I mean the workers that are doing all sorts of good works among the tribal groups today in places like Iryan Jaya, Papua New Guinea, Chad, Ethiopia, the Amazon jungle. Some of these people actually willing convert from animist religions to Christianity. Sure there are the 'rice Christians' and the missionaries who are not caring for the best interests of the people, but there are some really good ones out there who have devoted their lives, sacrificed careers, family life, etc. to care for people who are frequently suffering from poor health or lack of food or hygene or education.


Because there are missionaries in those places right now -- alongside anthropologists, other researchers, various NGOs, and numerous documentary filmmakers -- who tell very different stories. According to the information amassed over the 20th century -- both "accounts" and actual video records of the people involved -- there is nothing crude or cruel about animist/shamanist religions.

That doesn't necessarily agree with what I have both heard and read. And don't talk about reporters. We all know how notoriously wrong they can really get things. And then there is this lecturer I once had in human evolution. He got to live in the Amazon for a year with a tribe. He didn't believe in all their spirits and rituals, but he certainly was convinced that their religion was not improving their lives. I don't ever remember him calling their religious practices cruel or crude, but he would often tell of how lives were often lost simply because the shaman was giving some concoction that was more like poison than medicine.



There's also nothing particularly "stoneage" about them, either. Unless you include Thailand, Japan and Korea among your catalogue of "stoneage" cultures -- those countries are among the leading centers of animist religions today. Shamans do a booming spiritual business in all of them. Tell us how their citizens are cowed by the fear and pain of animistic practices. Shinto, the most organized of animist religions, is the official religion of Japan where it is administered by both clerical priests who conduct rituals and shamans (miko) who commune with spirits. Tell us how "stoneage" life in Tokyo is.

You seem to be confusing the terms. Animist does not equal stoneage. A stoneage culture can have just about any religion, including Christianity. I'm not referring to developed civilisations like that of Japan. Japan may have some animistic religions, but they are not stoneage.

Stonage simply means that they use the same tools to survive in which people thousands of years ago have also used. It does not imply a lack of intelligence, but a lack of development. I have never implied that these people were any less intelligent than you or I. Their education system, if they have one, is often about e.g. how to survive in the jungle and how to avoid offending the spirits, rather than reading or writing. They excel in survival, and would be far better at it in the jungle than me.




Then continue and tell us how Chinese Taoists, Indian yogis, and the majority of Buddhists also live in fear of shamanistic oppression, as all of these religions/mystical practices are direct outgrowths of animist shamanism, according to current cultural anthropology and comparative religious studies. And then tell us all about the oppressive fear and pain suffered by Native North Americans, Native South Americans, the people of Oceania/Australia, etc, etc. You're basing your entire statement on out-dated and biased reports of people who, once upon a time, viewed these other religions as the enemy and described them as such. The class has moved on since then. You should try to catch up.

How would you know? You consider yourself some sort of authority on these matters, it seems. Have you been there? Have you talked to the people that have lived in these cultures. Or have you been reading a particular set of books about that topic? Do I have to tell you yet again that I have based my impressions on people who have lived among stoneage animists?

What I find quite interesting is to hear accounts of people who have been animists but have converted to Christianity. They usually say that their former life was steeped in fear of evil spirits. Not sure about the animists that you might find on the streets of New York or Tokyo.


And of course, there's no such thing as a Christian who is ignorant of medicine. There's no such thing as Christians who believe in prayer over doctors to this very day.

I keep saying that being Christian does not mean greater intelligence or a better knowledge of medicine. You are making irrelevant points, taking offense at something I have never said.


And when did these supposed stories occur? Was it during a time when Christians from advanced countries used arsenic as medicine, or fed their children laudanum to keep them from crying? Or was it when advanced Christian nations treated mental illness with painful restraint, ice water baths, and lobotomies? Or maybe it was when the modern Christian nation of the USA isolated leprosy patients in colonies in Hawaii where they were left to live and die with their disease because other communities were afraid of them. Or maybe it was when the modern, advanced medicine of Christian nations promoted thalydomide to prevent nausea during pregnancy, thus causing numerous babies to be born deformed.

Actually, I have friends that live in such cultures today. And more of these stories happen right now, every day.


Or maybe it happened yesterday, while modern Christians were distracted by an ongoing debate as to whether retarded people are really possessed by demons.

Does that mean you don't believe in demons or the spirit world? Just what form of animist are you?


To point to a misguided practice and use that as "proof" that a religion is oppressing people is a typical tactic of the racist and elitist colonial powers that sought to subjugate the very cultures you are talking about. This is just more Victorian-era propaganda.

If it was the exception, I suppose I would be in error. My impression was that it was more widespread than that, and frequently found in places like Africa, Asia, and the Americas.


You clearly know nothing about shamanism or animism.

Either that or I simply have a different opinion than you.


I recommend the following to educate yourself (randomly selected starting points; there is a wealth of information about animism and shamanism from many different sources):


Educate myself, or adopt your opinions?


Yet dispite your intentions, you succeeded in showing a profound lack of respect for pagans in the form of a lack of thought about what you choose to say about them.


Nonesense. You are simply adding more to my words and taking offense at it.


Rather than simply acknowledge that you were only quoting Christian missionary sources (which cannot help but be biased) and that you actually have no information about real animism or real shamanism, you instead tried to defend your offensive remarks by citing an inflammatory apocryphal tale about babies with diarrhea left to die in the sun by crude and cruel shamans. Way to show respect there, pal.

Actually that 'tale' was from a close personal friend who worked in a maternity hospital for a year in Tanzania, some time in the late 1990's. Just goes to show how wrong you have got things.


In practical application, all this disclaimer accomplishes is to let you put down my beliefs while claiming that you respect me and them.

Once again, nonesense. You don't accept my beliefs. You think my beliefs are false. Does that mean I should get all offended about you putting down my beliefs?


The bottom line is you don't know anything about my beliefs, so kindly do not try to use them to promote your own faith. If your religion is so wonderful and true, you shouldn't need to sell it by painting my religion as "crude and cruel."

If my religion is true, I don't need to promote it. In fact, I wasn't trying to promote it. It doesn't need to be sold. And if you can't handle criticism of your religion, perhaps there is something wrong with your religion.


Now, as to why I am taking such a vehement tone: It is because animists/shamanists to this day are struggling for both cultural and physical survival under hostile regimes. Most notably, the Buryat Shamanist Association of Mongolia is advocating for human rights for animists against anti-religious oppression by the Chinese government. They are in a similar predicament as the Tibetans -- who also have a native animist/shamanist religion known as Bon, btw. Recent reports are also emerging of Islamic oppression of indigenous animists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the former Russian "Stans." Animists are standing right next to Christians as victims of atrocities in the religiously motivated civil war in Darfur, Sudan, right now. This is a current and ongoing human rights issue,

That's quite interesting. Then I am sympathetic towards your cause. I certainly believe in one's freedom of religious belief and practice (to a point, obviously something like human sacrifices are out of the question). And I know that religious persecution is quite severe in many places. But your cause is hardly helped by your vehemence, to be honest with you.



so when I hear this kind of Victorian-era ignorance being spouted, I am motivated to take it down, and not pull my punches when doing so.

You can call my point of view whatever you like, but that does not make you more right than me. I am simply seeing things from a Christian perspective (of course not the only one) and you are seeing things from yours. Why get all worked up about it?


Either educate yourself, or kindly leave my beliefs out of your propaganda.

That's the thing, see, you don't have any copyright over your beliefs. I have a right to speculate over your beliefs, just as you have been doing over mine.


EDIT: Actually, I'd rather you just leave my beliefs out of your propaganda, whether you bother to learn anything about them or not.

Do you really think that my posts are propaganda? I wonder how many others feel the same way? And I thought I was just presenting my view point. I mean that sincerely. What does it take, I wonder, to ensure that people do not see one's posts as propaganda? To write less convincingly, or something?

I don't know who they were talking about, but I've heard a few guesses...

John brother of James son of Zebedee (the name sake).

Mary Magdalene, the possible female apostle.

And most recently, and the most fun, in the latest edition of Biblical Archaeology Review, Ben Witherington wrote in his column that perhaps it was Lazarus himself and he explains why it could be; he wasn't an apostle so not all of the stories of the other gospels should be in the John version AND explaining why it would be a particularly 'spiritual' gospel compared to the others (having been touched by death...), and how the author is called the Beloved Disciple in the gospel and Lazarus was called "the one whom you love has fallen sick" from John 11:3.

;)

You know Magdalene was what she WAS, not her NAME, yes?

The reason I asked about John, is that there seems to be an assumption by some people, that the "Gospel of John" was written by thesame author as the letters, and that both have the same author as Revelation - despite the fact that we are talking about a period of history where most people were lucky to make it through their thirties... and the author of Revelation would have had to have been something like a hundred years old, to have been close to present at the life/death of Jesus.

If you look at early Christianity, it doesn't make sense if it was all a fabrication. Many, many people were killed for their Christian beliefs between the years 100-350AD. The early Christian fathers had absolutely nothing to gain (at the time) by spreading lies about Christ.


You have to realise, of course... Christianity is NOT the only religion in the universe, and Christians are neither the ONLY, nor the FIRST (by a HELL of a long way) people to be persecuted for their religion.

And yet - Christianity assumes ALL those other religions are fabrications, yes? ALL those people died for lies, but Christians wouldn't?

No problems. This issue is obviously close to your heart.

Wow. You start so nicely, but from what follows, below, it seems you are one arrogant SOB. How would you feel if I dismissed everything you know about your religion as nothing but opinion, as you do to me here? Everything I said to you about my religion is a fact, easily checkable, starting with the links I provided you, yet you have the nerve to tell me that you know more about my religion than I do, based solely on the uncorroborated personal anecdotes of a few of your personal friends who happen to be missionaries or connected with the Christian church -- i.e. biased sources.

No, I mean the workers that are doing all sorts of good works among the tribal groups today in places like Iryan Jaya, Papua New Guinea, Chad, Ethiopia, the Amazon jungle. Some of these people actually willing convert from animist religions to Christianity. Sure there are the 'rice Christians' and the missionaries who are not caring for the best interests of the people, but there are some really good ones out there who have devoted their lives, sacrificed careers, family life, etc. to care for people who are frequently suffering from poor health or lack of food or hygene or education.

Lots of people are willing to change religions. Catholics become Anglicans. Lutherans become Baptists. Jews take to Jesus, and Christians convert to Islam. Are they all being horribly oppressed by the religions they give up?

And when precisely did I ever say that there are no sincere Christians working hard to help people in the third world? I was criticizing your insulting and ignorant comments. In fact, I challenged you by citing reports by modern missionaries who do not put down the animists or shamans they deal with the way you do.

And I'd like very much to know how poverty is proof that they are oppressed by shamans? Don't the Chrisitians in those countries suffer similar conditions? Once again, you are trying to equate animism with what's wrong with those countries. The religion of the people has nothing to do with their food supply or lack of hospitals.

That doesn't necessarily agree with what I have both heard and read. And don't talk about reporters. We all know how notoriously wrong they can really get things. And then there is this lecturer I once had in human evolution. He got to live in the Amazon for a year with a tribe. He didn't believe in all their spirits and rituals, but he certainly was convinced that their religion was not improving their lives. I don't ever remember him calling their religious practices cruel or crude, but he would often tell of how lives were often lost simply because the shaman was giving some concoction that was more like poison than medicine.

When did I say anything about talking to reporters? I cited Christian missionaries, anthropologists and researchers (such as epidemiologists, sociologists, geneticists, etc, conducting field research), NGOs (i.e. various aid and health agencies), and documentary filmmakers -- these are either academic filmmakers collecting academic data or professional documentarians who produce films for commercial release. Put all these groups together, and you have 1000s of accounts from 100s of sources from all over the world collected over several decades, all interacting with these cultures for various different reasons, having various different viewpoints -- and all saying the same thing. Animists live perfectly normal lives and have no different problems than followers of any other religion in the world. Plus we have, thanks to the filmmakers, accounts from the animists themselves. Plus, we have the ability to go visit animist cultures and see for ourselves -- in fact every American Christian who has ever visited Japan has done just that.

Compare this to your one lecturer in evolution -- not even a relevant specialty -- who expresses a negative opinion about a religion he doesn't believe in, on the basis of non-expert observation of conditions in just one place. Did your lecturer happen to tell you if there actually was a clinic available to these people? And as I said before -- how is ignorance of medicine or preference for "magical" treatments a fault of animism? There are plenty of Christians who prefer prayer to medicine, too. Are they oppressed by their shamans?

You seem to be confusing the terms. Animist does not equal stoneage. A stoneage culture can have just about any religion, including Christianity. I'm not referring to developed civilisations like that of Japan. Japan may have some animistic religions, but they are not stoneage.

Stonage simply means that they use the same tools to survive in which people thousands of years ago have also used. It does not imply a lack of intelligence, but a lack of development. I have never implied that these people were any less intelligent than you or I. Their education system, if they have one, is often about e.g. how to survive in the jungle and how to avoid offending the spirits, rather than reading or writing. They excel in survival, and would be far better at it in the jungle than me.
The only thing more astonishing than your ignorance is how proud you are of it. So proud that you didn't even bother to look at the links I provided, did you?

Japan does not have "some animistic religions." It has Shinto. Shinto is the official religion of Japan. At least 84% of Japanese citizens practice Shinto. Shinto is an animist religion. Japan is an officially animist nation. That is fact -- not opinion -- which you would have learned had you bothered to look at the link about Shinto that I provided.

And as for your pathetic attempt to backpedal from your use of "stoneage" -- anyone with any reading comprehension can see that you used "stoneage" to characterize animist cultures as primitive and undeveloped, and you continue to do so in this supposed clarification of yours. "Their education system, if they have one, is often about e.g. how to survive in the jungle and how to avoid offending the spirits, rather than reading or writing." Give me a break. :rolleyes:

How would you know? You consider yourself some sort of authority on these matters, it seems. Have you been there? Have you talked to the people that have lived in these cultures. Or have you been reading a particular set of books about that topic? Do I have to tell you yet again that I have based my impressions on people who have lived among stoneage animists?

What I find quite interesting is to hear accounts of people who have been animists but have converted to Christianity. They usually say that their former life was steeped in fear of evil spirits. Not sure about the animists that you might find on the streets of New York or Tokyo.
Apparently, I know more about it than you do. I listen to more authorities than just my personal friends. I especially don't just take the word of people whose sole purpose in going to other countries is to try to get people to switch religions. I read -- with skepticism -- every account and authority I can find because animist cultures are experiencing social and political pressures nowadays. I keep up with this because I happen to be a member of a group that is dealing with oppression in other countries, and I'm interested because -- did I happen to mention this? -- I am an animist. When you talk to me about animism, you are getting a first-hand account about animism, since you value first-hand accounts so much.

As for these negative stories of converts you're so interested by -- no shit, they didn't enjoy animism -- they converted to another religion, didn't they? How many Christians switch religions because they don't like their original churches anymore? How many every year? Thousands. Now pull your head out of your Bruarong-knows-best cloud for a minute and take a look at the millions of animists alive in the world today and tell me where is the fear, where is the oppression, where are all the people dying of it, where are all these shamans that supposedly bully everyone? Millions of animists, my friend. Out of a population of millions, I'll bet there are just as many animists who feel oppressed by spirits as there are Christians who quit their churches because they don't like being told that if they do this or that they'll go to hell.

Your favorite convert-stories do not paint a portrait of an entire religion.

I keep saying that being Christian does not mean greater intelligence or a better knowledge of medicine. You are making irrelevant points, taking offense at something I have never said.

So you say -- between insults against my religion.

Actually, I have friends that live in such cultures today. And more of these stories happen right now, every day.

What, you have friends who live in modern Christian cultures like the USA or Europe and more stories of ignorance, superstition and mis-information causing bad medical treatment happen there right now, every day? If you say so.

Does that mean you don't believe in demons or the spirit world? Just what form of animist are you?

What, are you now trying to imply that if I don't fit your model of a scared-shitless stoneager, then I'm not an animist? You know perfectly well that I was drawing a legitimate comparison between superstitious animists and superstitious Christians.

If it was the exception, I suppose I would be in error. My impression was that it was more widespread than that, and frequently found in places like Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

Either that or I simply have a different opinion than you.

Educate myself, or adopt your opinions?

Nonesense. You are simply adding more to my words and taking offense at it.
To all of these incredibly insulting remarks, I have only two responses:

1) I gave you facts about animism, not opinions. I gave you links to checkable references for those facts -- the University of Virginia (which provided yet more links), Religious Tolerance Consultants of Ottowa (a private Canadian organization), plus a link to a modern shamanist organization in Mongolia where you could have found claims of fact that you could have further checked yourself if you liked -- or if you were really motivated to prove yourself right and me wrong. You have given us nothing but vague anecdotes of personal friends, with no facts that could be checked or verified in any way. I'm not the one peddling "opinion" here.

2) I heard a story on the news once about a little boy who was beaten to death by his own parents and a Christian pastor during an exorcism because they thought he was possessed. Obviously, this is no exception and proves that Christianity oppresses its followers with fear of spirits and the painful practices of pastors who try to control their people with fear of evil. That is the bottom-line gist of what you have said about my religion, tossed back to you. Wow, it turns out the same prejudiced crap can be used against any religion, and easily too. Doesn't make it any more true about animism than it is about Christianity, though.

Actually that 'tale' was from a close personal friend who worked in a maternity hospital for a year in Tanzania, some time in the late 1990's. Just goes to show how wrong you have got things.

See above. Your "close personal friend" is not a source for truth about my religion. Kindly stop using your personal, un-evidenced anecdotes to blacken the reputation of my religion.

Once again, nonesense. You don't accept my beliefs. You think my beliefs are false. Does that mean I should get all offended about you putting down my beliefs?

If my religion is true, I don't need to promote it. In fact, I wasn't trying to promote it. It doesn't need to be sold. And if you can't handle criticism of your religion, perhaps there is something wrong with your religion.

When did I ever put down your beliefs? You used a fictious, totally unsupported, negative characterization of my religion to highlight how right you think yours is, and I called you on it. And rather than apologize for offending me, you're actually trying to tell me that I don't know anything about my own religion. Did I already call you an arrogant SOB? Well, I just did it again. And that's an insult of you and your rudeness towards me, not of your religion.

That's quite interesting. Then I am sympathetic towards your cause. I certainly believe in one's freedom of religious belief and practice (to a point, obviously something like human sacrifices are out of the question). And I know that religious persecution is quite severe in many places. But your cause is hardly helped by your vehemence, to be honest with you.

You can call my point of view whatever you like, but that does not make you more right than me. I am simply seeing things from a Christian perspective (of course not the only one) and you are seeing things from yours. Why get all worked up about it?

Yeah, I can tell you give an enormous crap. I'm worked up about this because people like you running around accusing animists of killing their children because they're afraid of spirits is what hurts the cause of religious freedom and tolerance. I decline to tone down or apologize for my vehemence on this issue. I assure you that I am just as vehement for other groups facing oppression and bigotry -- so if you happen to say such ignorant and insulting things about other people, you can expect to hear from me on that, too.

That's the thing, see, you don't have any copyright over your beliefs. I have a right to speculate over your beliefs, just as you have been doing over mine.

Well, when someone speculates ignorantly about my beliefs, I offer them accurate information along with my complaints. I don't just toss out negative anecdotes and then bitch when my opponent calls me on it. I've given you accurate information about animism. If you want to prove that your negative version is the true one, then do so -- prove it -- with facts. You can't. Your remarks are not just speculation; they are false and they are defaming. Do you think I'm just going to let you defame my religion without challenge? I don't think so.

Do you really think that my posts are propaganda? I wonder how many others feel the same way? And I thought I was just presenting my view point. I mean that sincerely. What does it take, I wonder, to ensure that people do not see one's posts as propaganda? To write less convincingly, or something?
You want to know how to avoid propaganda accusations? Nothing easier. All you have to do is back up what you say with actual facts. Not anecdotes. Facts. And if you claim to be describing a whole religion, you'd better have more than a few personal friends to tell us about. And if someone else presents facts that prove you wrong, accept it, admit it, and drop it, in that order.

That doesn't sound like he was trying to construct a myth. He would either be lying or telling the truth as he understood it.

And that, perhaps, is the telling line.

Firstly - because we really do NOT know WHO the author of the text was (even Eusebius pointed out that the five 'texts of John' seemed to have been written by AT LEAST two different authors (John, the Apostle and John, the Presbyter). Gnostic authors (like Ptolemy and Heracleon) claim that the author(s) of the Gospel, etc... was/were gnostic(s). Even the other scripture seems to argue against the John of the aposltes, as being the possible author of the John Gospel text... it is an educated theological piece, and yet (that) John is elsewhere referred to as uneducated.

Second - If John was just telling the story 'as he understood it'... that is no guarantee of it's literal truth. If I see someone fall from a window, but do NOT see their assailant, my testimony would describe an accident or suicide, not a murder.

No, I mean the workers that are doing all sorts of good works among the tribal groups today in places like Iryan Jaya, Papua New Guinea, Chad, Ethiopia, the Amazon jungle... ...but there are some really good ones out there who have devoted their lives, sacrificed careers, family life, etc. to care for people who are frequently suffering from poor health or lack of food or hygene or education.


It is worth noticing, perhaps, that despite their 'poor hygeine', one of the things our 'missionary' cultures HAVE done, is bring many 'primitive' cultures the gifts of firearms, murder, personal greed, and new diseases like HIV, or most famously, syphillis.


I don't ever remember him calling their religious practices cruel or crude, but he would often tell of how lives were often lost simply because the shaman was giving some concoction that was more like poison than medicine.


The exact same thing has been done in the name of Christ. I have known christian denominations let infants die, when blood transfusions could have saved them...


What I find quite interesting is to hear accounts of people who have been animists but have converted to Christianity. They usually say that their former life was steeped in fear of evil spirits.


Whereas, of course, Christianity has no spirits, and no malign influences, demons or devils?

Hypocrisy.

I’ve heard a lot about the early Christians taking on aspects of the Mithras cult. It was much the same way the Romans absorbed the Eutruscan and Greek cultures.

When it comes to the study of religion I’ve even read about the theory of Jesus spending many of the lost years, 1-30, in the Far East where he was taught Buddhism and eastern philosophies. There are a lot of scholars that point out similarities from the teachings of Jesus and Buddhist teachings. A number of other scholars have published accounts of Jesus escaping the Crucifixion (feigning death with the help of Luke the physician) and going east to live out his life there. “Jesus lived in India” and “The Original Jesus: the Buddhist Sources of Christianity” by Holger Kirsten are among the more famous books on the subject. There are a lot of documented works about this. It would be very interesting to live in those times and be on the inside to know the truth of what really happened.

I’ve heard a lot about the early Christians taking on aspects of the Mithras cult. It was much the same way the Romans absorbed the Eutruscan and Greek cultures.

When it comes to the study of religion I’ve even read about the theory of Jesus spending many of the lost years, 1-30, in the Far East where he was taught Buddhism and eastern philosophies. There are a lot of scholars that point out similarities from the teachings of Jesus and Buddhist teachings. A number of other scholars have published accounts of Jesus escaping the Crucifixion (feigning death with the help of Luke the physician) and going east to live out his life there. “Jesus lived in India” and “The Original Jesus: the Buddhist Sources of Christianity” by Holger Kirsten are among the more famous books on the subject. There are a lot of documented works about this. It would be very interesting to live in those times and be on the inside to know the truth of what really happened.
its not like mithras was the only pagan religion active when christianity was forming. there were dozens of pagan cults, dozens of mysteries that were active. there was lots of borrowing and lots of similar ideas going on. to think that christianity came up with almost the exact same stories all on their own is a bit far fetched.

i dont buy that whole "jesus went to india" stuff one little bit. where would he get the money for THAT? the carpentry business must have been verrrrrry lucrative. besides there is no biblical evidence for it and no need for it to have happened.

since alexander the great made it all the way to india on his war of conquest, the ideas could have drifted to gallilee easier than a carpenter could drift over to india.

one of the books of the apocrypha has thomas being sent on a mission to india to preach the gospel. if youre interested you can find it at that http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ that dubya posted. i think it is called acts of thomas

its not like mithras was the only pagan religion active when christianity was forming. there were dozens of pagan cults, dozens of mysteries that were active. there was lots of borrowing and lots of similar ideas going on. to think that christianity came up with almost the exact same stories all on their own is a bit far fetched.

i dont buy that whole "jesus went to india" stuff one little bit. where would he get the money for THAT? the carpentry business must have been verrrrrry lucrative. besides there is no biblical evidence for it and no need for it to have happened.

since alexander the great made it all the way to india on his war of conquest, the ideas could have drifted to gallilee easier than a carpenter could drift over to india.

one of the books of the apocrypha has thomas being sent on a mission to india to preach the gospel. if youre interested you can find it at that http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ that dubya posted. i think it is called acts of thomas

I’ve always been dubious about the stories of Jesus in India too, but I’m not willing to dismiss them out of hand, until I have more information. Whether or not Jesus died on the cross is to some a bigger conspiracy story than Kennedy’s assassination.

I think that there has been a lot of interesting work on the comparisons of Christianity to Buddhism, and some even more speculative works on whether or not Jesus actually died on the Cross or not (references to people on the cross longer than Jesus was and were still alive and then healed back to health). But without a lot more knowledge of Aramaic, 20 years to devote to pursuing it personally, access to places where All American good looks doesn't get an AK pushed in your face, and a lot of luck; it’s really hard to say one way or the other. We really know so very little of what really happened in that time and place, with many of the Biblical accounts even conflicting with each other.

The Bruce

Wow. You start so nicely, but from what follows, below, it seems you are one arrogant SOB. How would you feel if I dismissed everything you know about your religion as nothing but opinion, as you do to me here? Everything I said to you about my religion is a fact, easily checkable, starting with the links I provided you, yet you have the nerve to tell me that you know more about my religion than I do, based solely on the uncorroborated personal anecdotes of a few of your personal friends who happen to be missionaries or connected with the Christian church -- i.e. biased sources.

I have never claimed to know more about animism than you do. I'm not defending Victorian attitudes to the 'natives'. Like I said before, I am simply presenting my point of view, based on the impressions that I have.

Besides, from what I know of animism, it isn't a single religion. There is quiet a lot of variety, so when you say that you are an animist, it is hardly fair to claim to speak for all of animism.


Lots of people are willing to change religions. Catholics become Anglicans. Lutherans become Baptists. Jews take to Jesus, and Christians convert to Islam. Are they all being horribly oppressed by the religions they give up?


I realize that. I even know some people who have converted from Christianity to animism. I wasn't using conversion to point out the 'superiority' of Christianity, nor as a sign of oppression. But I was interested in what the converts had to say about their former life.


And when precisely did I ever say that there are no sincere Christians working hard to help people in the third world? I was criticizing your insulting and ignorant comments. In fact, I challenged you by citing reports by modern missionaries who do not put down the animists or shamans they deal with the way you do.

And I am not defending Christianity and all of it's mistakes. Neither do I feel like taking up your challenge. You seem too upset about it to have a reasonable conversation. I will be reading your links though. Thanks for them.


And I'd like very much to know how poverty is proof that they are oppressed by shamans? Don't the Chrisitians in those countries suffer similar conditions? Once again, you are trying to equate animism with what's wrong with those countries. The religion of the people has nothing to do with their food supply or lack of hospitals.

I am not equating animism with poverty. In fact, I have already distinguished between animism and 'stoneage'.


When did I say anything about talking to reporters? I cited Christian missionaries, anthropologists and researchers (such as epidemiologists, sociologists, geneticists, etc, conducting field research), NGOs (i.e. various aid and health agencies), and documentary filmmakers -- these are either academic filmmakers collecting academic data or professional documentarians who produce films for commercial release. Put all these groups together, and you have 1000s of accounts from 100s of sources from all over the world collected over several decades, all interacting with these cultures for various different reasons, having various different viewpoints -- and all saying the same thing. Animists live perfectly normal lives and have no different problems than followers of any other religion in the world. Plus we have, thanks to the filmmakers, accounts from the animists themselves. Plus, we have the ability to go visit animist cultures and see for ourselves -- in fact every American Christian who has ever visited Japan has done just that.

You will always find enough voices to claim whatever you wish, of course. And you seemed to have assumed that I consider animism the worst kind of religions out there (I don't).

What we need to distinguish between is harm to people that arises directly from their religion, and the harm that comes to them when their religion is not followed as it was meant to be. For example, an Islamic suicide bomber causes harm because of what he believes, while an Islamic rapist causes harm in spite of what he believes.



Compare this to your one lecturer in evolution -- not even a relevant specialty -- who expresses a negative opinion about a religion he doesn't believe in, on the basis of non-expert observation of conditions in just one place. Did your lecturer happen to tell you if there actually was a clinic available to these people? And as I said before -- how is ignorance of medicine or preference for "magical" treatments a fault of animism? There are plenty of Christians who prefer prayer to medicine, too. Are they oppressed by their shamans?

The lecturer wanted to live with a culture that was as 'untouched' by western civilization as possible. So, no, there wasn't any clinic available.

And I do believe in the power of God, so praying to him does make sense, although that doen't necessarily mean not using the available medicine. The Christians who are oppressed by 'shamans' would be those who go to such churches where the leaders of those churches are controlling the people and perhaps taking their money. Abuses happen in every religion. But does the abuse occur because of the ideals, or in spite of them--that is the question.


The only thing more astonishing than your ignorance is how proud you are of it. So proud that you didn't even bother to look at the links I provided, did you?

I will get to them.



Japan does not have "some animistic religions." It has Shinto. Shinto is the official religion of Japan. At least 84% of Japanese citizens practice Shinto. Shinto is an animist religion. Japan is an officially animist nation. That is fact -- not opinion -- which you would have learned had you bothered to look at the link about Shinto that I provided.


What made you think that I was claiming this detail as mere opinion?


And as for your pathetic attempt to backpedal from your use of "stoneage" -- anyone with any reading comprehension can see that you used "stoneage" to characterize animist cultures as primitive and undeveloped, and you continue to do so in this supposed clarification of yours. "Their education system, if they have one, is often about e.g. how to survive in the jungle and how to avoid offending the spirits, rather than reading or writing." Give me a break. :rolleyes:

There was no backpedaling, just an attempt to bring some clarity into a conversation that is a bit too emotional for my liking. As for my quote, it came out of some reading over some Aborigine cultures in outback Australia and northern Queensland, made by the people themselves.


Apparently, I know more about it than you do. I listen to more authorities than just my personal friends. I especially don't just take the word of people whose sole purpose in going to other countries is to try to get people to switch religions. I read -- with skepticism -- every account and authority I can find because animist cultures are experiencing social and political pressures nowadays. I keep up with this because I happen to be a member of a group that is dealing with oppression in other countries, and I'm interested because -- did I happen to mention this? -- I am an animist. When you talk to me about animism, you are getting a first-hand account about animism, since you value first-hand accounts so much.

Fair enough. You probably do know more about animism than I do. I have no problems with that. You have already demonstrated that you appear to know quite a lot about your subject. However, you have also demonstrated how easily you get offended by what you have imagined to be insults.


As for these negative stories of converts you're so interested by -- no shit, they didn't enjoy animism -- they converted to another religion, didn't they? How many Christians switch religions because they don't like their original churches anymore? How many every year? Thousands. Now pull your head out of your Bruarong-knows-best cloud for a minute and take a look at the millions of animists alive in the world today and tell me where is the fear, where is the oppression, where are all the people dying of it, where are all these shamans that supposedly bully everyone? Millions of animists, my friend. Out of a population of millions, I'll bet there are just as many animists who feel oppressed by spirits as there are Christians who quit their churches because they don't like being told that if they do this or that they'll go to hell.

You do have a point there. However, the shamans that I referred to were in cultures where they have virtually supreme control. In most modern cultures, I suppose there it is likely to be as much abuse through power in just about any religion, although I am only guessing at that one.


Your favorite convert-stories do not paint a portrait of an entire religion.

Perhaps. You are really upset about that convert thing, aren't you. Why is that?


To all of these incredibly insulting remarks, I have only two responses:

1) I gave you facts about animism, not opinions. I gave you links to checkable references for those facts -- the University of Virginia (which provided yet more links), Religious Tolerance Consultants of Ottowa (a private Canadian organization), plus a link to a modern shamanist organization in Mongolia where you could have found claims of fact that you could have further checked yourself if you liked -- or if you were really motivated to prove yourself right and me wrong. You have given us nothing but vague anecdotes of personal friends, with no facts that could be checked or verified in any way. I'm not the one peddling "opinion" here.

I have all along only presented my impression, my point of view, my opinion. You are entitled to challenge it. Indeed, I like challenges. I don't like conversations where the challengers 'fly off the handle'' at supposed insults.


2) I heard a story on the news once about a little boy who was beaten to death by his own parents and a Christian pastor during an exorcism because they thought he was possessed. Obviously, this is no exception and proves that Christianity oppresses its followers with fear of spirits and the painful practices of pastors who try to control their people with fear of evil. That is the bottom-line gist of what you have said about my religion, tossed back to you. Wow, it turns out the same prejudiced crap can be used against any religion, and easily too. Doesn't make it any more true about animism than it is about Christianity, though.

You do have a point there.


See above. Your "close personal friend" is not a source for truth about my religion. Kindly stop using your personal, un-evidenced anecdotes to blacken the reputation of my religion.

I was presenting my impression, not trying to destroy your religion, or any other animist religion.


When did I ever put down your beliefs? You used a fictious, totally unsupported, negative characterization of my religion to highlight how right you think yours is, and I called you on it. And rather than apologize for offending me, you're actually trying to tell me that I don't know anything about my own religion. Did I already call you an arrogant SOB? Well, I just did it again. And that's an insult of you and your rudeness towards me, not of your religion.

Not fictitious. But if you want an apology from me for insults, then you have one. I apologize to you for any insult that I have caused you. And in the future, I will be more careful about making my posts seem like I am putting down animism to make Christianity look better. I was not intending to do this, but because it was taken that way, I shall be more careful to avoid this in the future.


Yeah, I can tell you give an enormous crap. I'm worked up about this because people like you running around accusing animists of killing their children because they're afraid of spirits is what hurts the cause of religious freedom and tolerance. I decline to tone down or apologize for my vehemence on this issue. I assure you that I am just as vehement for other groups facing oppression and bigotry -- so if you happen to say such ignorant and insulting things about other people, you can expect to hear from me on that, too.

If you really want to help your cause, try to keep your emotions more under control. You will be far more convincing, and you might even make some friends in the process.


Well, when someone speculates ignorantly about my beliefs, I offer them accurate information along with my complaints. I don't just toss out negative anecdotes and then bitch when my opponent calls me on it. I've given you accurate information about animism. If you want to prove that your negative version is the true one, then do so -- prove it -- with facts. You can't. Your remarks are not just speculation; they are false and they are defaming. Do you think I'm just going to let you defame my religion without challenge? I don't think so.


Fair enough, fair enough.


You want to know how to avoid propaganda accusations? Nothing easier. All you have to do is back up what you say with actual facts. Not anecdotes. Facts. And if you claim to be describing a whole religion, you'd better have more than a few personal friends to tell us about. And if someone else presents facts that prove you wrong, accept it, admit it, and drop it, in that order.

Right, facts. Only the facts seem to be saying all sorts of different things. Which should one believe?

I see that I was right that this is a bias thread.
Would it not stand to reason that for you to argue from your POV, you would be doing so as per bias?
Do you think it's unfair that a person should express a POV?
Further, is it less fair for those people to qualify their POV with FACTS instead of rhetoric and misinformation?

You know Magdalene was what she WAS, not her NAME, yes?

I’m under the impression that her name means "Mary of Magdala." Magdala was a town two miles north of Tiberias, along the lakeshore of Lake of Tiberias. In Hebrew I believe it was known as Migdal. What are you saying it means if it doesn't mean that and do you have any sources that say it means something else? I believe the name of the town means “tower” but other than that I’m at a loss and know very little about it, I'm interested in seeing other ideas about what it means, but I never even knew it was controversial.

The reason I asked about John, is that there seems to be an assumption by some people, that the "Gospel of John" was written by thesame author as the letters, and that both have the same author as Revelation - despite the fact that we are talking about a period of history where most people were lucky to make it through their thirties... and the author of Revelation would have had to have been something like a hundred years old, to have been close to present at the life/death of Jesus.

I agree that there were likely at least two Johns, perhaps a John of the Gospel (who never calls himself John in the Gospel), the letters, and the book of Revelation. So up to three, perhaps 2 (letters and Revelation - or letters and gospel going together - or Gospel and Revelation going together but then I'd have to give up my pet favorite that the Gospel wasn't John at all...). I still like the Lazarus idea for the Gospel and the apostle idea for Revelation, and a third for the epistles, but that's neither hear nor there, I'll change my mind with the evidence as need be ;)

I’ve always been dubious about the stories of Jesus in India too, but I’m not willing to dismiss them out of hand, until I have more information. Whether or not Jesus died on the cross is to some a bigger conspiracy story than Kennedy’s assassination.

I think that there has been a lot of interesting work on the comparisons of Christianity to Buddhism, and some even more speculative works on whether or not Jesus actually died on the Cross or not (references to people on the cross longer than Jesus was and were still alive and then healed back to health). But without a lot more knowledge of Aramaic, 20 years to devote to pursuing it personally, access to places where All American good looks doesn't get an AK pushed in your face, and a lot of luck; it’s really hard to say one way or the other. We really know so very little of what really happened in that time and place, with many of the Biblical accounts even conflicting with each other.

The Bruce

its so frustrating to realize that there were lots of other writings and other points of view that got purged after the "paulines" won the battle for religious supremacy. who knows WHAT got lost due to the fears of small men. i would love to know what was in the alternate new testaments that got supressed.

not to mention the pagan rites that are all but lost to us forever. not just because of their writings being supressed but also because they werent ever written down. no one wrote the ancient equivalent of "the secret rituals of freemasonry".

not to mention the tragic loss of the works held in the library at alexandria

I’m under the impression that her name means "Mary of Magdala." Magdala was a town two miles north of Tiberias, along the lakeshore of Lake of Tiberias. In Hebrew I believe it was known as Migdal. What are you saying it means if it doesn't mean that and do you have any sources that say it means something else? I believe the name of the town means “tower” but other than that I’m at a loss and know very little about it, I'm interested in seeing other ideas about what it means, but I never even knew it was controversial.


Actually, the Magdala (Migdal) thing, was where I was headed with that. Many people seem to assume Magdalene was some kind of surname.

The only 'controversy' (apart from that simple fact) that I know of, is that it seems unclear quite WHICH 'Magdala' she might have been from... the Talmud has two Magdalas, and it is possible that Magdala was actually 'Magadan'... which might have been another name for the same place, or another place nearby.

I'm inclined to accept the common 'Magdala'... because the Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus actually went there, so there is, at least, some continuity. But - I do find myself wondering about the relevence of the meaning 'tower', to the name...


I agree that there were likely at least two Johns, perhaps a John of the Gospel (who never calls himself John in the Gospel), the letters, and the book of Revelation. So up to three, perhaps 2 (letters and Revelation - or letters and gospel going together - or Gospel and Revelation going together but then I'd have to give up my pet favorite that the Gospel wasn't John at all...). I still like the Lazarus idea for the Gospel and the apostle idea for Revelation, and a third for the epistles, but that's neither hear nor there, I'll change my mind with the evidence as need be ;)

It is a commonly accepted concept that the Gospel of John was the work of at LEAST two authors... because the very end, just does not 'fit' with the rest. Many suspect the same author may have penned the FIRST letter of John, although, there seems to be less certainty over the other two.

The Revelation just doesn't seem to 'fit' with the style of the Gospel of John... so, if it IS 'connected' to John, it is likely that it was penned by someone 'following' John, rather than being written, or even dictated, by the same author as the Gospel. It was certainly not UNHEARD OF for scribes to write 'in the name' of their patrons.

I'm inclined to believe at least 3 different authors. The second and third epistles seem similar enough to be one author...

The Gospel and the first epistle COULD be one author... although I'm not convinced.

The Gospel maybe has one author, with some latter editing.

Revelation, I don't think is even written by anyone of the same or next generation. I think it is more likely to have been penned by someone 'of the school of' the original author, whether or not 'he' was 'John'.

I have never claimed to know more about animism than you do. I'm not defending Victorian attitudes to the 'natives'. Like I said before, I am simply presenting my point of view, based on the impressions that I have.

You certainly acted like you thought you knew more about it than me. I gave you facts, you handed me back un-evidenced anecdotes and told me to go learn about my own religion. This is the first post in which you have acknowledged that you don't know all about animism. You are now trying to backpedal from your original offensiveness. As to Victorian attitudes, that's not something you need to defend or not defend. I have characterized your comments as Victorian, and I consider that a valid characterization of those comments, and I am not softening it or backpedaling from it. You may either ignore this characterization, or embrace it, or disavow the comments, as you please.

Besides, from what I know of animism, it isn't a single religion. There is quiet a lot of variety, so when you say that you are an animist, it is hardly fair to claim to speak for all of animism.

You're the one who has been defaming animism in its entirety. It's only since I came back with facts about animist religions that now you are trying to parcel out your offensive remarks to individual animist religions. Defamation is defamation, whether it is about a group of religions or a single religion out of that group, and I will speak out against it, no matter who it is about. As for my qualifications, the fact that I am an animist only bolsters the fact that I have bothered to do the research necessary to make statements about it. You haven't. Therefore, I am more qualified to speak up for the group than you are to denigrate it.

I realize that. I even know some people who have converted from Christianity to animism. I wasn't using conversion to point out the 'superiority' of Christianity, nor as a sign of oppression. But I was interested in what the converts had to say about their former life.

Another attempt to backpedal. You claimed convert anecdotes as proof of oppression under animism. Kindly acknowledge specifically that a few individuals do not paint a picture of an entire religion. Please do this now.

And I am not defending Christianity and all of it's mistakes. Neither do I feel like taking up your challenge. You seem too upset about it to have a reasonable conversation. I will be reading your links though. Thanks for them.
You don’t feel like taking up my challenge because you can’t. You have no evidence to back up your offensive remarks, but I have plenty of evidence to contest and disprove them. You should retract your remarks now.

I am not equating animism with poverty. In fact, I have already distinguished between animism and 'stoneage'.
Only after you were called on this particular insult. This is just another attempt at backpedaling -- an especially lame one, considering that you earlier tried to say you didn’t mean “stoneage” as an insult -- you meant it in the sense of ignorant, uneducated, and primarily concerned with running in the jungle, but oh, no, not an insult -- yet here you are equating “stoneage” with poverty -- not a positive characterization. As you are using it, “stoneage” is insulting and inaccurate, and you should stop saying it.

You will always find enough voices to claim whatever you wish, of course. And you seemed to have assumed that I consider animism the worst kind of religions out there (I don't).
You mean you think there are worse religions than one you have accused of oppressing people and causing the death of babies? Do yourself a favor, retract the false accusations you made against animism and resolve never to do it again to any one else. Otherwise, you may be in for even more vehement accusations of defamation from people who have cause to be even angrier than me.

What we need to distinguish between is harm to people that arises directly from their religion, and the harm that comes to them when their religion is not followed as it was meant to be. For example, an Islamic suicide bomber causes harm because of what he believes, while an Islamic rapist causes harm in spite of what he believes.
And now you are comparing animists to terrorists? If we keep this up much longer you'll be describing how Hitler was instructed by shamans. You are clearly accusing animism of not just being a false religion (in your opinion) but of actually being an oppressive system that has the goal of harming people. That is an accusation for which you have no proof because it is false. I'm asking you to retract it.

The lecturer wanted to live with a culture that was as 'untouched' by western civilization as possible. So, no, there wasn't any clinic available.

Kindly acknowledge specifically that this lecturer was only expressing a negative personal opinion and that this story was nothing but an anecdote for which you have no documentation or proof of any kind.

And I do believe in the power of God, so praying to him does make sense, although that doen't necessarily mean not using the available medicine. The Christians who are oppressed by 'shamans' would be those who go to such churches where the leaders of those churches are controlling the people and perhaps taking their money. Abuses happen in every religion. But does the abuse occur because of the ideals, or in spite of them--that is the question.

And here you are, working your way right back towards the offensive accusations you started out with -- implying that animism's ideals promote abuse-- just like with your terrorist reference. This is not an "opinion," this is an accusation, and it's defamatory. Bottom line: You have zero evidence that animism is any more prone to abuse than any other religion, but I have plenty of evidence that it is not. You are not only wrong on your facts, you are ethically wrong to keep pushing these accusations, even indirectly.

I will get to them.
Doing at last what you should have done at first.

What made you think that I was claiming this detail as mere opinion?
I didn't think you were claiming as opinion. You were in fact, dismissing this fact because of your ignorance -- deliberate ignorance, since I had already provided you with the facts.

There was no backpedaling, just an attempt to bring some clarity into a conversation that is a bit too emotional for my liking. As for my quote, it came out of some reading over some Aborigine cultures in outback Australia and northern Queensland, made by the people themselves.
And once again, you are trying to use unevidenced, unsupported anecdotes about a few people to characterize an entire religion. Where are these stories? Who tells them? Who publishes them? How many Australians were surveyed? Do such stories even exist? You give us nothing -- no facts, no evidence, nothing.

Fair enough. You probably do know more about animism than I do. I have no problems with that. You have already demonstrated that you appear to know quite a lot about your subject. However, you have also demonstrated how easily you get offended by what you have imagined to be insults.
Let me explain something very clearly: If you say that you think animism is a false religion and that animists worship, at worst, evil things, and at best, lies promulgated by their religious leaders -- that’s an insulting, ignorant, and unfair thing to say, but it is just an opinion. It’s an opinion that a lot of people express about a lot of different religions, including yours.

But that is not what you’ve been saying. You have been saying that shamans oppress their people, poison their people with concoctions instead of medicine, and that animists kill their own children by following the dictates of their religion, whose goal is to control them through fear. Those are not opinions -- those are accusations. You have no proof of them -- none whatever. They are untrue and defamatory, and the more you push them, the closer they get to slander and, since this is in writing, libel. You should retract all such statments immediately and never repeat them.

You have further persistently tried to associate animism with primitive, poverty-stricken, uneducated, and unhealthy living conditions. The facts of how animism is distributed around the world and through various societies proves that there is no such correlation. Such statements are nothing but insults. If you wished to be a decent fellow, you would retract such statements, too.

You do have a point there. However, the shamans that I referred to were in cultures where they have virtually supreme control. In most modern cultures, I suppose there it is likely to be as much abuse through power in just about any religion, although I am only guessing at that one.
And here you are doing exactly what I have been complaining about all along, including immediately above. Show me any evidence of cultures where shamans have “virtually supreme control.” You can’t, because there is none. Animist shamans are no more likely to be bullies or corrupt than practitioners of any other religion, including Christianity. I also enjoy the way you imply that there may well be no abuse through power at all in your religion. “Only guessing” indeed. Would you like me to provide you with evidence of that one, too?

Perhaps. You are really upset about that convert thing, aren't you. Why is that?
What upsets me is that you are (A) declaring that a few individuals account for an entire religion, and (B) giving us only anecdotes without any facts to back them up. Where are these stories for us to read? Where are the official reports about abuses within animism? Where are the statistics? Where are the sources whose backgrounds and credentials can be checked? You have given us none. And you never will, because there are none.

I have all along only presented my impression, my point of view, my opinion. You are entitled to challenge it. Indeed, I like challenges. I don't like conversations where the challengers 'fly off the handle'' at supposed insults.
As I said above, you are not expressing opinions. You are making accusations of abuses, even killings. This is defamation. You should retract all such remarks.

You do have a point there.
Thanks for noticing. Now, will you use this point to reconsider the remarks you have been making about animism?

I was presenting my impression, not trying to destroy your religion, or any other animist religion.
See above. You are entitled to any opinion you like. You are not entitled to make defamatory accusations against a religion.

Not fictitious. But if you want an apology from me for insults, then you have one. I apologize to you for any insult that I have caused you. And in the future, I will be more careful about making my posts seem like I am putting down animism to make Christianity look better. I was not intending to do this, but because it was taken that way, I shall be more careful to avoid this in the future.
I maintain that your statements are fictitious because you have no evidence to back them up, while I have presented evidence that shows them to be false.

Thank you for your apology. I will be happy to accept it as soon as you attach the necessary retractions as well.

If you really want to help your cause, try to keep your emotions more under control. You will be far more convincing, and you might even make some friends in the process.
Don’t trouble yourself about my social life. I have no trouble at all making friends among people who don’t defame others and don’t try to paint someone who is a vehement advocate for truth and rights as over-emotional. As for people who do those things against others, if my behavior alienates them, then my behavior is entirely appropriate.

Fair enough, fair enough.
Fair enough for you to continue to ignore? Or are you going to reconsider your remarks and retract those that are defamatory? You don't have to. You can have this fight with me on lots of fronts, if you prefer.

Right, facts. Only the facts seem to be saying all sorts of different things. Which should one believe?
Well, we could start with the facts that exist. I have presented mine, and if you want more, I can give you more. Let’s look at them. Let’s investigate the sources and their agendas. Let’s put them to the test.

And then let’s do the same with your facts -- oh, wait -- you don’t have any facts. You only have unsupported personal anecdotes from un-named sources. No facts, no evidence, no proof. Oh, well.

I'd like to apologize for sort of hijacking this thread with my argument with Bruarong. It's just that he is making such outrageous accusations against animism, that I can't just let it pass (I'd be this heated over it even if he wasn't attacking my own religion).

I'd like to take a shot at bringing this back to the topic by asking the following of Bruarong and anyone else who cares to answer:

If you really think that another religion (such as animism) is so corrupt that it boils down to just a bunch of shamans (by which is apparently meant "charlatans") oppressing and controlling ignorant, uneducated people in undeveloped conditions to such an extent that they allow their own children to be killed, how can you then claim that you find truth in all religions? What possible "truth" can you be finding in a religion about which you have such a negative opinion?

I would like to know how such prejudice can be reconciled with the pagan influences on Christianity which we are supposed to be discussing here.

If you really think that another religion (such as animism) is so corrupt that it boils down to just a bunch of shamans (by which is apparently meant "charlatans") oppressing and controlling ignorant, uneducated people in undeveloped conditions to such an extent that they allow their own children to be killed, how can you then claim that you find truth in all religions?

A bunch of charlatans oppressing and controlling ignorant, uneducated people in undeveloped conditions sounds more like various forms of Christianity than various Animistic religions. Seems like if that was a statement to describe Southern Baptists or Evangelicals in the US, or Christian missionaries abroad, it would be right on the money.

Most native shamans provide very necessary roles in their communities. They may be the only doctors available, the only source of 'psychology' per se, marriage counsel, political arbiters, etc. I think shamans in Third World native conditions provide a more valuable resource to their communities than Christian leaders do in the US, other First World countries, or as missionaries.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

A bunch of charlatans oppressing and controlling ignorant, uneducated people in undeveloped conditions sounds more like various forms of Christianity than various Animistic religions. Seems like if that was a statement to describe Southern Baptists or Evangelicals in the US, or Christian missionaries abroad, it would be right on the money.

Most native shamans provide very necessary roles in their communities. They may be the only doctors available, the only source of 'psychology' per se, marriage counsel, political arbiters, etc. I think shamans in Third World native conditions provide a more valuable resource to their communities than Christian leaders do in the US, other First World countries, or as missionaries.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Thanks, and naturally, I agree with you.

Shamans are not clergy or priests or leaders in the sense that monotheist clergy can be. They do not define morals or give spiritual instruction to others. Shamans are individuals who have mystical experiences and who learn traditional techniques of using those experiences and the insights they gain from them to benefit others. But there is no ordained position they occupy in their respective religions. Each shaman stands as an individual and must build his own reputation as a healer or spiritual intercessor. A very skilled healer and/or a very charismatic shaman may be looked up to in the community, but they don't run their religions. So this idea of shamans controlling people in a thrall of fear is just not the way it works.

I'm not such an idealist that I would claim it's impossible that there may be some false shamans who go about trying to control people just like any other cult leader in the world. There are crooks and ego-trippers everywhere. But to say that a few individual reports of negative experiences is a reflection on an entire religion is simply ridiculous. As you point out, what about all the charlatans and fear-mongers in Christianity and other religions? And to use such stories as a basis for accusations of serious, even fatal, abuses -- and to offer not one shred of evidence to back up these accusations -- is beyond ridiculous -- it's close to malicious.

I'd like to apologize for sort of hijacking this thread with my argument with Bruarong. It's just that he is making such outrageous accusations against animism, that I can't just let it pass (I'd be this heated over it even if he wasn't attacking my own religion).

I'd like to take a shot at bringing this back to the topic by asking the following of Bruarong and anyone else who cares to answer:

If you really think that another religion (such as animism) is so corrupt that it boils down to just a bunch of shamans (by which is apparently meant "charlatans") oppressing and controlling ignorant, uneducated people in undeveloped conditions to such an extent that they allow their own children to be killed, how can you then claim that you find truth in all religions? What possible "truth" can you be finding in a religion about which you have such a negative opinion?

I would like to know how such prejudice can be reconciled with the pagan influences on Christianity which we are supposed to be discussing here.

Personally, I think if you look at the Old and New Testaments, and you don't automatically accept them as the literal and inerrant word of god, it's actually fairly easy to spot where the Hebrew religion started as animistic, and the elemental/animist influences that have permeated throughout ever since. (Obviously, this depends on exactly HOW you define animism... I've seen dozens of different, almost irreconcilable 'definitions').

But, of course, it's only other people's animism that is 'bad'...

I'd like to apologize for sort of hijacking this thread with my argument with Bruarong.
Hey, i LOVE watching you destroy people's BS here. Truly. I GREATLY admire your intellect and talent, so if i may, i'd like to excise myself from the idea of being of the offended.
*bows*

Hey, i LOVE watching you destroy people's BS here. Truly. I GREATLY admire your intellect and talent, so if i may, i'd like to excise myself from the idea of being of the offended.
*bows*

It is official. Muravyets rocks, and rolls, all night, baby.

It is official. Muravyets rocks, and rolls, all night, baby.
RAmen to that! *bows*
Of course, both of y'all do.

RAmen to that! *bows*
Of course, both of y'all do.

Ah, you are no slouch yourself, my friend... but, Muravyets has proved to be quite the formidable adversary, of late. :)

Compare Greek mythology to the Bible, and you'll see a LOT of similarities. As would you find from almost all other cultures in the world. It just means no matter what the religions are called, essentially, they are the same ideas.

Just because religions may have similarities, it doesn't mean they have the same ideas. Christianity tells you to pray for those who abandon christianity. Islam tells you to kill those who abandon islam.

Originally Posted by Straughn
RAmen to that! *bows*
Of course, both of y'all do.
Ah, you are no slouch yourself, my friend... but, Muravyets has proved to be quite the formidable adversary, of late. :)
You two little darlings! Get over here. It's time to really hijack this thread, pagan style, all night long, baby. :fluffle:

And I salute you both in return -- two strong, intelligent, witty, amusing warriors on the right side of every issue. Every time I see your names, I think, "Oh yeah, this is gonna be fun," and I tune right in.

It's nice to have a little dose of agape between blood baths. :)

Just because religions may have similarities, it doesn't mean they have the same ideas. Christianity tells you to pray for those who abandon christianity. Islam tells you to kill those who abandon islam.
Multiland, I agree with you on a lot of things, but you need to be careful here. I've just spent 3 days (and counting) fighting with Bruarong because of accusations he made against animism. If you are going to say this about Islam as a religion you need to provide proof from Islamic texts. We can't rely just on the bad news out of Islamic nations lately, because those nations are in a lot of trouble on a lot of fronts, and it is extremely difficult to tell if in fact, Islam is being corrupted by false teachers and cultists. I frankly think that it is, to disastrous effect, and I know of nothing in Islamic scriptures that says what you are saying. If you have proof, present it. Otherwise, you are doing pretty much what I complain of with Bruarong.

Also, this is off topic. My fight with Bruarong is off topic. This thread's topic is interesting enough, and it's about Christianity and pagan influences. It is not about Islam at all.

You two little darlings! Get over here. It's time to really hijack this thread, pagan style, all night long, baby. :fluffle:

And I salute you both in return -- two strong, intelligent, witty, amusing warriors on the right side of every issue. Every time I see your names, I think, "Oh yeah, this is gonna be fun," and I tune right in.

It's nice to have a little dose of agape between blood baths. :)

Ah, such flattery.

I'd like to take this opportunity to tell you not to flatter me so.

I'd LIKE to do that... but, I won't.... *sigh*....*bask*... :D

I consider myself honoured, to be considered among the ranks of such luminaries. :)

Multiland, I agree with you on a lot of things, but you need to be careful here. I've just spent 3 days (and counting) fighting with Bruarong because of accusations he made against animism. If you are going to say this about Islam as a religion you need to provide proof from Islamic texts. We can't rely just on the bad news out of Islamic nations lately, because those nations are in a lot of trouble on a lot of fronts, and it is extremely difficult to tell if in fact, Islam is being corrupted by false teachers and cultists. I frankly think that it is, to disastrous effect, and I know of nothing in Islamic scriptures that says what you are saying. If you have proof, present it. Otherwise, you are doing pretty much what I complain of with Bruarong.

Also, this is off topic. My fight with Bruarong is off topic. This thread's topic is interesting enough, and it's about Christianity and pagan influences. It is not about Islam at all.

Fair enough - partly. I will provide a link. But I used islam an example in a RELEVANT post... do you just like arguing with people? :)

The link (includes sura number) from a PRO-islam website: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544134

... I frankly think that it is, to disastrous effect, and I know of nothing in Islamic scriptures that says what you are saying. If you have proof, present it. Otherwise, you are doing pretty much what I complain of with Bruarong.


This is not my conversation but I am stunned that you would say this, flabbergasted even that you could say that. Unbelievable. How many Qur'an verses did I quote to you just the other day about how apostasy was the carnal sin of Islam, and you remember none of it like it didn't happen?

Okay, the Hadith then... Regarding the unforgivable offense of converting away from Islam:

Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

But here, we have a Muslim rebuking another for 'burning' an apostate.
Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Now isn't that so much more generous and kind?

This is not my conversation but I am stunned that you would say this, flabbergasted even that you could say that. Unbelievable. How many Qur'an verses did I quote to you just the other day about how apostasy was the carnal sin of Islam, and you remember none of it like it didn't happen?

Okay, the Hadith then... Regarding the the unforgivable offense of converting away from Islam:

Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

But here, we have a Muslim rebuking another for 'burning' an apostate.
Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Now isn't that so much more generous and kind?

Bukhari is NOT the Qu'ran. What a muslim does, or some muslims do, in the NAME of Islam, is not equal to 'Islam'.

Bukhari is NOT the Qu'ran. What a muslim does, or some muslims do, in the NAME of ISlam, is not equal to 'Islam'.

If you are going to claim the Hadith is NOT Islam, then neither is the Talmud Judaism?

Personally, I think if you look at the Old and New Testaments, and you don't automatically accept them as the literal and inerrant word of god, it's actually fairly easy to spot where the Hebrew religion started as animistic, and the elemental/animist influences that have permeated throughout ever since. (Obviously, this depends on exactly HOW you define animism... I've seen dozens of different, almost irreconcilable 'definitions').

But, of course, it's only other people's animism that is 'bad'...
So, back to the topic. :)

Yes, animism is difficult to define because it is not an organized, codified religion. It is a spiritual philosophy/world-view that is expressed through many localized religions. Animist religions do not have scriptures or liturgies or formalized forms of rituals. There is no clergy or leadership. Animism isn't even really all that concerned with gods, per se. It's all about immediate, personal, often impromptu interactions with spirits of many kinds, and everyone has these interactions; they are part of regular daily life.

It's important to remember that the big, ancient, pagan religions were not animist. They were much more concerned with morals and laws and maintaining social order over large populations. Their gods controlled the natural world but they were not actually the rain or lightning or animals themselves. They had divine hierarchies and elaborate myth cycles that animists tend to skip. And, most important, they had big, expensive temples and professional clergy who were literate, controlled their society's recordkeeping and treasure stores, and who ritualistically interacted with the gods for the people. They set the model for organized religion as we know it. This is the real influence on the early church and on the Testaments, imo.

That said, animism is a spiritual belief that carries on in people's private and domestic lives regardless of what their religion might be. Consider Irish Catholics and their fairy folk, Eastern European Jews and their dybbuks, the Italians/Spanish/Greeks with their stregas, the Slavs with their Hammer Film Studios Archive of folk traditions. Anywhere the Bible gets really weird -- demons, magic, etc -- you might find animistic influences from cultures. I personally think the Christianity may have become more influenced by animism as it moved into Europe, where the main pagan religions were much more animistic.

However, any time you read the wild, crazed vision of a prophet, you are reading the words of a shaman -- one who has left his mundane self and experienced an ecstatic vision of the divine and then come back to tell us about it. That's what makes a shaman. It's also what makes a visionary prophet. The difference is really just where he comes from, and what he does with his vision.

If you are going to claim the Hadith is NOT Islam, then neither is the Talmud Judaism?

Talmud, and Midrash are not Judaism. The central core, the one text which MUST be applied, is Torah. That is NOT to say that Talmud and midrash are not important... but they are 'commentary'. They are 'opinion'... Strong opinion, perhaps, and arguably justified, but they just are not Torah.


Similarly, the central text of Islam, is the Qur'an.

You COULD make an argument for Hadith Qudsi, since it is, in effect, argued to be more a 'report', than a commentary. But fiqh and tafsir are extrapolations... commentary. Important to some Muslims perhaps, maybe 'important' to all (although, not necessarily equally weighted by all)... but not equal to the Qur'an.

Fair enough - partly. I will provide a link. But I used islam an example in a RELEVANT post... do you just like arguing with people? :)

The link (includes sura number) from a PRO-islam website: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544134
Good effort. Unfortunately, your link brings us to a fatwa. This is not a scriptural source. Fatwas are nothing more than one man's opinion expressed as an order and claiming some scriptural authority to do so. Anyone can issue a fatwa. It is a failing of Islamic religious organization, imo, that there is not more regulation of this. There is no way to tell that this fatwa was not issued by one of the false leaders/cultists I mentioned. Do you think this is impossible in Christianity? I refer you to the Reverend Phelps and his God Hates Fags church, which he is pleased to call Baptist. He claims plenty of scriptural authority. Does he fairly represent Christianity? I don't think so.

...

Your entire objection is a red herring. I identified my quote as Hadith, and you quoted it yourself, me calling it Hadith, you know that I didn't claim it to be from the Qur'an itself. As to it being equal to the Qur'an or not is irrelevant, Muhammad authored it.

In the Qur’an, we are not told what that punishment is. However, we find in Bukhari's Hadith, that the punishment is death. There is no ambiguity about this. Muhammad clearly taught that apostates are to be put to death.

So what exactly is your objection? Am I teaching a falsehood about Islam? Has Islam ever, in it's entire history, held that Apostasy wasn't a capital punishment? No, it has not. The fact remains, turning from Islam necessitates that the apostate be asked to convert back or die.

Good effort. Unfortunately, your link brings us to a fatwa. This is not a scriptural source. Fatwas are nothing more than one man's opinion expressed as an order and claiming some scriptural authority to do so. Anyone can issue a fatwa. It is a failing of Islamic religious organization, imo, that there is not more regulation of this. There is no way to tell that this fatwa was not issued by one of the false leaders/cultists I mentioned. Do you think this is impossible in Christianity? I refer you to the Reverend Phelps and his God Hates Fags church, which he is pleased to call Baptist. He claims plenty of scriptural authority. Does he fairly represent Christianity? I don't think so.

Muhammad 47: 34 is a sura. From the koran. Check it out.

So, back to the topic. :)

Yes, animism is difficult to define because it is not an organized, codified religion. It is a spiritual philosophy/world-view that is expressed through many localized religions. Animist religions do not have scriptures or liturgies or formalized forms of rituals. There is no clergy or leadership. Animism isn't even really all that concerned with gods, per se. It's all about immediate, personal, often impromptu interactions with spirits of many kinds, and everyone has these interactions; they are part of regular daily life.

It's important to remember that the big, ancient, pagan religions were not animist. They were much more concerned with morals and laws and maintaining social order over large populations. Their gods controlled the natural world but they were not actually the rain or lightning or animals themselves. They had divine hierarchies and elaborate myth cycles that animists tend to skip. And, most important, they had big, expensive temples and professional clergy who were literate, controlled their society's recordkeeping and treasure stores, and who ritualistically interacted with the gods for the people. They set the model for organized religion as we know it. This is the real influence on the early church and on the Testaments, imo.

That said, animism is a spiritual belief that carries on in people's private and domestic lives regardless of what their religion might be. Consider Irish Catholics and their fairy folk, Eastern European Jews and their dybbuks, the Italians/Spanish/Greeks with their stregas, the Slavs with their Hammer Film Studios Archive of folk traditions. Anywhere the Bible gets really weird -- demons, magic, etc -- you might find animistic influences from cultures. I personally think the Christianity may have become more influenced by animism as it moved into Europe, where the main pagan religions were much more animistic.

However, any time you read the wild, crazed vision of a prophet, you are reading the words of a shaman -- one who has left his mundane self and experienced an ecstatic vision of the divine and then come back to tell us about it. That's what makes a shaman. It's also what makes a visionary prophet. The difference is really just where he comes from, and what he does with his vision.

Agreed on the prophets... and the Hebrews and early Christians were not afraid to admit that their 'spiritual' needs WERE being met by 'spirits', some bad, and some good. God is a spirit, apparently... but that is far from the only 'spirit' influence documented.

Personally, with regards to animism, I like an idea I once heard, about animism being 'a philosophy, not a religion'... since, as you say, we all encounter our reality everyday, and animism is IN that interaction, not above or around it.

Now - I agree with you that the 'temple' era pagans were not strictly animist... but, those temple era faiths grew from even earlier beliefs (the seminal faiths, so to speak) and some of those were re-packaged OTHER temple-faiths, but SOME of them had a history that DID reach back to animist and or elemental roots. The Hebrew scripture claims that kind of root, if you read between the lines, but I believe they came by it dishonestly... since I think their 'animist' scripture was largely lifted from earlier Sumer scriptures, and even Sumer was 'temple faith'... so we have to go back before THAT, to find the animist elements underlying the Hebrew scripture.

I'm inclined to believe ALL religions can be traced back to 'animist' or 'elementalist' roots, and that the 'temple' stage is a natural evolution... not of animism, but of societies. Animism is king while societies have personal faith, and live from hand to mouth, but once you can 'afford' a priest caste, there is political motivation to remove 'god' from the hands of the Joes and Joannes, and find a history and a 'ritual' to be the 'proper' approach to god.

This is not my conversation but I am stunned that you would say this, flabbergasted even that you could say that. Unbelievable. How many Qur'an verses did I quote to you just the other day about how apostasy was the carnal sin of Islam, and you remember none of it like it didn't happen?
<snip>
I stayed out of this argument because actual Muslims were handling it much better than I could have. My hope is that you will post some references (as you are apparently ready to do) and that Muslims or other experts familiar with the sources will respond to them.

I will say this though: It is my position that you cannot blame a religion for the actions of people who are not following it correctly. If a religion actually demands that its followers kill people, then you might have an argument, but it has not been proven that Islam does that. All that is proven -- and too well, unfortunately -- is that many Muslims advocate violence, but it is not proven that they are not themselves heretics or even blasphemers against their own religion. Of course, they will say they are not, but it is not really up to them to judge, is it? They must be judged by an impartial comparison of what they do to what their scriptures say they should be doing. Their version of the scriptures cannot be used as a definitive source. We must also look to the versions claimed by Muslims who condemn such violence and make our judgment from the whole.

Muhammad 47: 34 is a sura. From the koran. Check it out.
I will. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

"... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; ..." (Al-Maidah 5:32)

"If you renounced the faith, you would surely do evil in the land, and violate the ties of blood. Such are those on whom God has laid His curse, leaving them deaf and sightless.... Those who return to unbelief after God's guidance has been revealed to them are seduced by Satan and inspired by him… (Sura 47:23-28)

Your entire objection is a red herring.


In other words, that avenue became unprofitable for you, so let's shut it down, quick?


I identified my quote as Hadith, and you quoted it yourself, me calling it Hadith, you know that I didn't claim it to be from the Qur'an itself. As to it being equal to the Qur'an or not is irrelevant, Muhammad authored it.


Sorry, are you claiming Mohammed was the author of Bukhari's hadith?


In the Qur’an, we are not told what that punishment is. However, we find in Bukhari's Hadith, that the punishment is death. There is no ambiguity about this. Muhammad clearly taught that apostates are to be put to death.

So what exactly is your objection? Am I teaching a falsehood about Islam? Has Islam ever, in it's entire history, held that Apostasy wasn't a capital punishment? No, it has not. The fact remains, turning from Islam necessitates that the apostate be asked to convert back or die.

I don't know if you are deliberately skipping over things here... the Qur'an is held to be the literal word of god... the hadith are not so held.

You deliberately conflate the teachings of Bukhari, with the divine revelation of Allah, as though the two were equal, or of equal value.

The second thing you skip over, is that - as with any other faith - Islam is 'of the world'. Most Muslims, even if they accept a text like Bukhari, accept it as being OF a time, OF a place... a temporal document. They accept that Bukhari may claim 'death is the price'... but they may NOT accept that THAT price is right HERE and NOW.

In other words, that avenue became unprofitable for you, so let's shut it down, quick?

That's exactly what you did. I quoted the Hadith and it "became unprofitable for you, so you tried to shut it down, quick..."

Sorry, are you claiming Mohammed was the author of Bukhari's hadith?

Muslim scholars classify hadith relating to Muhammad as follows:

What Muhammad said
What Muhammad did
What Muhammad approved in others' actions.


I don't know if you are deliberately skipping over things here... the Qu'ran is held to be the literal word of god... the hadith are not so held.

I do know that you are deliberately trying to downplay the accepted teachings of Islam, the Hadith.

You deliberately conflate the teachings of Bukhari, with the divine revelation of Allah, as though the two were equal, or of equal value.

Never once did I do that, you on the other hand deliberately make stuff up to continue a strawman.

The second thing you skip over, is that - as with any other faith - Islam is 'of the world'. Most Muslims, even if they accept a text like Bukhari, accept it as being OF a time, OF a place... a temporal document. They accept that Bukhari may claim 'death is the price'... but they may NOT accept that THAT price is right HERE and NOW.

Right. It's about time you pulled you head out of the sand and looked at the laws of the Muslim run countries in the world, apostasy is still a capital punishment crime everywhere from Saudi Arabia, to Afghanistan.

Muhammad 47: 34 is a sura. From the koran. Check it out.

First, let me throw out a disclaimer:

The Qur'an can only, truly, be read in the original Arabic form. The instant we translate it, we cease to be able to TRUTHFULLY call it the "literal word of Allah", if we so believed it to be so. Humans are fallible, and translations are never more than approximations.

That said - The Sura you cite (Muhammad 047:034) reads as follows (in the Yusufali translation)

"Those who reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, then die rejecting Allah,- Allah will not forgive them".

Which means - 'apostates that DIE apostate, will not be forgiven by Allah'.


What is it you think that 'justifies'?

"... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; ..." (Al-Maidah 5:32)

"If you renounced the faith, you would surely do evil in the land, and violate the ties of blood. Such are those on whom God has laid His curse, leaving them deaf and sightless.... Those who return to unbelief after God's guidance has been revealed to them are seduced by Satan and inspired by him… (Sura 47:23-28)

Anyone can pick lines from verses, taking those verses out of context, and try to claim a link between those lines, and a meaning behind that link.

But, you haven't even done that. You've just thrown out some random phrasings, and hoped something would stick.

Anyone can pick lines from verses, taking those verses out of context, and try to claim a link between those lines, and a meaning behind that link.

But, you haven't even done that. You've just thrown out some random phrasings, and hoped something would stick.

You don't have an argument or legitimate objection. You have zero evidence to back up your claim from the Qur’an or the Hadith or the sharia law of modern states, none of them are on your side. You lose, game over, try again tomorrow.

That's exactly what you did. I quoted the Hadith and it "became unprofitable for you, so you tried to shut it down, quick..."


What are you talking about?

You cited a hadith as an authority on Islam, and I pointed out that it is not THE authority. You cited it as representative words, and I showed that it is not THE representative word.


Muslim scholars classify hadith relating to Muhammad as follows:

What Muhammad said
What Muhammad did
What Muhammad approved in others' actions.


Well done. Was there a point to this?


I do know that you are deliberately trying to downplay the accepted teachings of Islam, the Hadith.


On the contrary, you are trying to make them more important than they are... you are trying to make the words of Bukhari equate to the words of Allah.


Never once did I do that, you on the other hand deliberately make stuff up to continue a strawman.


It isn't a strawman. If you continue to hold that Bukhari is DEFINITIVE, when I've clearly shown you it is secondary, then you ARE attempting to hold the scripture and the commentary as equal.


Right. It's about time you pulled you head out of the sand and looked at the laws of the Muslim run countries in the world, apostasy is still a capital punishment crime everywhere from Saudi Arabia, to Afghanistan.

And Catholics rape altar-boys?

It's not a matter of 'heads in the sand'... it's a matter of you viewing the actions of SOME Muslims, as being representative of what Islam IS.

The Saudi government may hold a different view of Islam to my Muslim friends... and my Muslim friends may be a perfect example of 'submission' to the word of Allah... which is the 'truer' follower of Islam?

You don't have an argument or legitimate objection. You have zero evidence to back up your claim from the Qur’an or the Hadith or the sharia law of modern states, none of them are on your side. You lose, game over, try again tomorrow.

What are you talking about?

Explain the 'connection' between your Sura verses... and explain WHY your 'connection' is relevent.

You failed to cite your verses in context, and you failed to make ANY point... all you did was quote two Suras, out of context.

That is NOT 'an argument'.

Put up, my friend... or shut up.

...
The Saudi government may hold a different view of Islam to my Muslim friends... and my Muslim friends may be a perfect example of 'submission' to the word of Allah... which is the 'truer' follower of Islam?


When you are forced to start using the age-old: "my friend the so-and-so says," you know you've already lost.

What are you talking about?

Explain the 'connection' between your Sura verses... and explain WHY your 'connection' is relevent.

You failed to cite your verses in context, and you failed to make ANY point... all you did was quote two Suras, out of context.

That is NOT 'an argument'.

Put up, my friend... or shut up.

My argument is from the Hadith, already quoted, from the Qur'an, already quoted, and from references to modern State laws you can check for yourself. You have, some 'friends that you know' on your side.


Checkmate, you lose

Agreed on the prophets... and the Hebrews and early Christians were not afraid to admit that their 'spiritual' needs WERE being met by 'spirits', some bad, and some good. God is a spirit, apparently... but that is far from the only 'spirit' influence documented.

Personally, with regards to animism, I like an idea I once heard, about animism being 'a philosophy, not a religion'... since, as you say, we all encounter our reality everyday, and animism is IN that interaction, not above or around it.

Now - I agree with you that the 'temple' era pagans were not strictly animist... but, those temple era faiths grew from even earlier beliefs (the seminal faiths, so to speak) and some of those were re-packaged OTHER temple-faiths, but SOME of them had a history that DID reach back to animist and or elemental roots. The Hebrew scripture claims that kind of root, if you read between the lines, but I believe they came by it dishonestly... since I think their 'animist' scripture was largely lifted from earlier Sumer scriptures, and even Sumer was 'temple faith'... so we have to go back before THAT, to find the animist elements underlying the Hebrew scripture.

I'm inclined to believe ALL religions can be traced back to 'animist' or 'elementalist' roots, and that the 'temple' stage is a natural evolution... not of animism, but of societies. Animism is king while societies have personal faith, and live from hand to mouth, but once you can 'afford' a priest caste, there is political motivation to remove 'god' from the hands of the Joes and Joannes, and find a history and a 'ritual' to be the 'proper' approach to god.
Good points. I agree with you and those academics who say animism was the first religion (though it could have been manism (ancestor veneration), a kind of specialized animism). Certainly, if there is not a belief in spirits, how can there be a concept of gods or of our own souls?

Temple worship/organized religion is much more about social identity than it is about spiritual experience. There remains a gap between you and your god, which is never bridged. Mr. Ancient Greek drops off his offering at the temple, drops a coin in the box, says a little prayer, and goes his way, maybe buying a good luck charm for his kitchen on the way out. Meanwhile, the priests take his goat into the inner sanctum. He never even sees it get roasted, much less participate in the ritual of sending its soul to the gods. How does he know if it ever makes it? Does he even really care? But one thing he does know is that he is part of the social scheme; he has done the same thing as all his neighbors and has participated in the really important ritual, which is the one that reaffirms social norms and cements social unity.

Likewise with Christianity. With few exceptions, worship is impersonal and only passively participatory. The priests do all the work and all the talking. Until Martin Luther, the rituals weren't even conducted in a language the worshippers could understand. They were very much like Mr. Ancient Greek leaving the priests to deal with god for them, and like him, they depended on those church rituals as public expressions of their communal cohesiveness. (This is why church corruption is such a destructive force.)

Also, like Mr. Ancient Greek, Christians often retain their own little rituals at home. Harvest homes, spring and fall cleaning rituals, blessing new ships with wine, leaving copper pennies in the corners of houses (something I see in every New England apartment I've been in). Such things are dismissed by organized religion as mere superstition, but many of them are actually survivals of the rituals, offerings, and adjustments that animists make when interacting with the spirits that surround them all the time. You see this in Judaism and Islam, too.

I find it interesting that, as Protestantism broke the ritual language barrier and put god back into the hands of the people, as it were, we see some churches develop right back into distance-keeping rituals like in the Catholic church, while many others diverge into two directions, both away from temple/church ritual. On the one hand, we have Puritan-based denominations which I think are almost Talmudic in the way they originally emphasized small groups of people studying and debating the scriptures, intellectually. And on the other hand we have denominations that are much closer to animistic spirituality -- your dance and music oriented churches like the Shakers, Quakers, all of what used to be called "Holy Rollers," right up to your snake-handling churches, which frankly, are nearly indistinguishable from voudoun. Their whole point is to commune directly with the divine spirit.

It's also interesting that even in the most steadfast temple/church oriented traditions, the kind of direct spiritual experience of god that informs prophets and visionary saints is still individualistic. It doesn't come from the formal rituals. The visions come direct from god to the visionary, with no priest or ritual in between.

"... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; ..." (Al-Maidah 5:32)

"If you renounced the faith, you would surely do evil in the land, and violate the ties of blood. Such are those on whom God has laid His curse, leaving them deaf and sightless.... Those who return to unbelief after God's guidance has been revealed to them are seduced by Satan and inspired by him… (Sura 47:23-28)
Where is there a kill order in any of this?

First, let me throw out a disclaimer:

The Qur'an can only, truly, be read in the original Arabic form. The instant we translate it, we cease to be able to TRUTHFULLY call it the "literal word of Allah", if we so believed it to be so. Humans are fallible, and translations are never more than approximations.

That said - The Sura you cite (Muhammad 047:034) reads as follows (in the Yusufali translation)

"Those who reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, then die rejecting Allah,- Allah will not forgive them".

Which means - 'apostates that DIE apostate, will not be forgiven by Allah'.


What is it you think that 'justifies'?
Yeah, like he said.

According to this translation, it sounds like an ecouragement for apostates to return to the fold, not any instructions for what others should do about apostates. No kill order here.

My argument is from the Hadith, already quoted, from the Qur'an, already quoted, and from references to modern State laws you can check for yourself. You have, some 'friends that you know' on your side.


Checkmate, you lose
Not quite checkmate, DG.

You have failed to answer the objection that the Hadith, although often taken together with the Qur'an, are not actually part of it and are not of equal importance or authority. In fact, I recall some debate -- I think, though maybe I'm wrong, that it was in your own thread in which you tried to prove that Muslims don't really worship god, only nobody would cooperate with you -- in which actual Muslims explained at length that it is just as possible to have a false and heretical Hadith as it is to have a false and heretical fatwa. This is because, in Islam, the Qur'an is the revealed word of god, while the Hadith and other books are the words of men commenting or elaborating on their own reading of the Qur'an. From what I understood of what those Muslims were telling us, the Hadith are valid only to the extent they are in harmony with the teaching of the Qur'an. Therefore, you cannot cite them as proof of what the Qur'an says.

(Oh, and fatwas, btw -- they don't mean a damn thing, scripturally.)

BTW, Multiland and Dubyagoat, I will be quite disappointed if you get this thread locked by hijacking it into an Islam bashing thread, after I troubled myself to apologize for my distracting little side fight.

Do you have anything to say about pagan influences on Christianity at all?

When you are forced to start using the age-old: "my friend the so-and-so says," you know you've already lost.

That's not even related to what I said, and you know you know it.

The point is, you are claiming that SOME 'representatives' of Islam are truly representative of Islam. I'm saying that ain't so, and that I have met people that convince me I'm not wrong.

Do you have no Muslim friends?

I notice you carefully avoided answering the question in the post.

It saddens me that you simply (repeatedly) flee from every element of the debate that doesn't help your case.

My argument is from the Hadith, already quoted, from the Qur'an, already quoted, and from references to modern State laws you can check for yourself. You have, some 'friends that you know' on your side.


Checkmate, you lose

You have yet to present an actual argument from the Qur'an.

I refuse to dignify this kind of response further, until you do.

Good points. I agree with you and those academics who say animism was the first religion (though it could have been manism (ancestor veneration), a kind of specialized animism). Certainly, if there is not a belief in spirits, how can there be a concept of gods or of our own souls?

Temple worship/organized religion is much more about social identity than it is about spiritual experience. There remains a gap between you and your god, which is never bridged. Mr. Ancient Greek drops off his offering at the temple, drops a coin in the box, says a little prayer, and goes his way, maybe buying a good luck charm for his kitchen on the way out. Meanwhile, the priests take his goat into the inner sanctum. He never even sees it get roasted, much less participate in the ritual of sending its soul to the gods. How does he know if it ever makes it? Does he even really care? But one thing he does know is that he is part of the social scheme; he has done the same thing as all his neighbors and has participated in the really important ritual, which is the one that reaffirms social norms and cements social unity.

Likewise with Christianity. With few exceptions, worship is impersonal and only passively participatory. The priests do all the work and all the talking. Until Martin Luther, the rituals weren't even conducted in a language the worshippers could understand. They were very much like Mr. Ancient Greek leaving the priests to deal with god for them, and like him, they depended on those church rituals as public expressions of their communal cohesiveness. (This is why church corruption is such a destructive force.)

Also, like Mr. Ancient Greek, Christians often retain their own little rituals at home. Harvest homes, spring and fall cleaning rituals, blessing new ships with wine, leaving copper pennies in the corners of houses (something I see in every New England apartment I've been in). Such things are dismissed by organized religion as mere superstition, but many of them are actually survivals of the rituals, offerings, and adjustments that animists make when interacting with the spirits that surround them all the time. You see this in Judaism and Islam, too.

I find it interesting that, as Protestantism broke the ritual language barrier and put god back into the hands of the people, as it were, we see some churches develop right back into distance-keeping rituals like in the Catholic church, while many others diverge into two directions, both away from temple/church ritual. On the one hand, we have Puritan-based denominations which I think are almost Talmudic in the way they originally emphasized small groups of people studying and debating the scriptures, intellectually. And on the other hand we have denominations that are much closer to animistic spirituality -- your dance and music oriented churches like the Shakers, Quakers, all of what used to be called "Holy Rollers," right up to your snake-handling churches, which frankly, are nearly indistinguishable from voudoun. Their whole point is to commune directly with the divine spirit.

It's also interesting that even in the most steadfast temple/church oriented traditions, the kind of direct spiritual experience of god that informs prophets and visionary saints is still individualistic. It doesn't come from the formal rituals. The visions come direct from god to the visionary, with no priest or ritual in between.

Excellent post.

I think you miss one detail... the 'priests' market their access to God... it isn't so much that people don't WANT direct access, it's more that they buy into the idea that someone else can propiate better, for them, than they could for themselves. This is what I was saying earlier... once you can 'afford' a priest caste, they have to make their job 'essential'... so they tell you they are the 'best' access (or even, the ONLY access) to your spirits, so you'll feed and clothe them, and let them get on with what 'they do'.

BTW, Multiland and Dubyagoat, I will be quite disappointed if you get this thread locked by hijacking it into an Islam bashing thread, after I troubled myself to apologize for my distracting little side fight.

Do you have anything to say about pagan influences on Christianity at all?

I'd be quite disappointed, myself. This was quite a promising thread until the amateurish Islam-bashing started...

Good points. I agree with you and those academics who say animism was the first religion (though it could have been manism (ancestor veneration), a kind of specialized animism). Certainly, if there is not a belief in spirits, how can there be a concept of gods or of our own souls?
Not "spirits" (plural) but "spirit". An eternal immortal spirit, in contrast to earthly life that is mortal. The earliest myth is that of the hunter, painted on cave walls in places like Dordogne, France, that portrays a relationship between hunter and hunted. We have to ask: what is the significance of the cave? These are not caves they lived in, but caves they specifically went to apart from their homes to paint on the walls, in pitch black, lit only by a flickering torch, a story of life and death. These are caves like they buried their own dead in, where no illumination has ever reached. We have to wonder, what is the significance of the theme of life and death? A passage through a dark and hollow place, with an exit on the other end into the light? What does that do to a person, to traverse that? And can we see a similar theme passed down in later myth? (*psst* the answer is yes.)

Gotta wonder. *whistles innocently*

Not quite checkmate, DG.

You have failed to answer the objection that the Hadith, although often taken together with the Qur'an, are not actually part of it and are not of equal importance or authority. In fact, I recall some debate -- I think, though maybe I'm wrong, that it was in your own thread in which you tried to prove that Muslims don't really worship god, only nobody would cooperate with you -- in which actual Muslims explained at length that it is just as possible to have a false and heretical Hadith as it is to have a false and heretical fatwa. This is because, in Islam, the Qur'an is the revealed word of god, while the Hadith and other books are the words of men commenting or elaborating on their own reading of the Qur'an. From what I understood of what those Muslims were telling us, the Hadith are valid only to the extent they are in harmony with the teaching of the Qur'an. Therefore, you cannot cite them as proof of what the Qur'an says.

(Oh, and fatwas, btw -- they don't mean a damn thing, scripturally.)

Your posts and GnI's objections are already completely debunked and without merit in this issue. Neither of you have produced a single argument from the Qur'an, or a Hadith or a modern Sharia law that says Apostasy is NOT a capital punishment crime, but instead, all of your posts are trying to change the topic from what it is. It is checkmate, or you have to bring forth new arguments or evidences.

From my own posts, in this very thread:
First the Qur’an, this verse here tells us when it is okay to take a human life:
"... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; ..." (Al-Maidah 5:32)

Second verse here tells us that an Apostate does evil in the land…
"If you renounced the faith, you would surely do evil in the land, and violate the ties of blood. Such are those on whom God has laid His curse, leaving them deaf and sightless.... Those who return to unbelief after God's guidance has been revealed to them are seduced by Satan and inspired by him… (Sura 47:23-28)
Thus you are justified in killing them (from the requirements of the first verse).

Then into the Hadith, which teaches how to conduct oneself as Muslim:
Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Here we are advised not to ‘burn them,’ because that is Allah’s punishment, but only to kill them.
Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

Checkmate, game over, your side loses. Present the Islamic evidence that my posit is wrong or simply dismiss it as something you choose not to accept despite all the evidence you haven't addressed outside of trying to change the topic.


I notice you carefully avoided answering the question in the post.

It saddens me that you simply (repeatedly) flee from every element of the debate that doesn't help your case.

It saddens me that you simply (repeatedly) flee from the topic on hand from every element of staying on topic because it doesn't help your case of re-inventing what you think Islam should be vs., what it really is.

Has either solid history or fanciful myth ever existed in a cultural vacuum?

To me, the very question posed by the poll is slightly oxymoronic.

No tale - factual or fanciful - has ever been uninfluenced by its surroundings.

Your posts and GnI's objections are already completely debunked and without merit in this issue.


I think, perhaps, 'debunked' means something other than what you think it means.


Neither of you have produced a single argument from the Qur'an, or a Hadith or a modern Sharia law that says Apostasy is NOT a capital punishment crime,


And, you have not produced a single piece of evidence from the Qur'an, hadith or madern Sharia law that proves you are NOT a leprachaun.

You are looking for a 'negative evidence'.

In effect, you are making a claim, and suggesting that logically it MUST be true (regardless of it's own evidentiary support) unless it can be EXPRESSLY denied by the source you are attacking.

It's not a valid strategy, because it is not logical.

but instead, all of your posts are trying to change the topic from what it is.


The 'topic' is "Pagan Influences in Christianity". Your little Muslim-hate-rampage is OFF-topic.

It is checkmate, or you have to bring forth new arguments or evidences.


Not at all. All I have to do, is show that your 'evidences' are not true, which I have done.

Indeed... all I actually NEED to do, is show that your allegations are merely QUESTIONABLE, in order to show they are not as 'concrete' as you pretend.


From my own posts, in this very thread:
First the Qur’an, this verse here tells us when it is okay to take a human life:


That isn't what it says, at all.

Are you incapable of reading what is written, or is this deliberate obfuscation.

Read the text: "whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men". It doesn't say it is good, or even okay to kill, it just says that a 'just' death is an individual crime, RATHER THAN a crime against ALL humanity.

Disingenuous much?


Second verse here tells us that an Apostate does evil in the land…

Thus you are justified in killing them (from the requirements of the first verse).


That isn't what the first verse says, though... the first verse is NOT an 'instruction to kill' those that 'do mischief' in the land... it is not a 'requirement', as you keep, falsely, suggesting.

"If we can hit this bullseye, all the dominos will fall like a house of cards...checkmate".


Then into the Hadith, which teaches how to conduct oneself as Muslim:
Bukhari, volume 9, #17


I like the way you 'explain' the purpose of 'hadith'. Because, of course, no one else knows, right?

Of course, you still refuse to allow that hadith are personal interpretation. You are comparing the Pope's memoirs with the Gospel according to Mark.


Here we are advised not to ‘burn them,’ because that is Allah’s punishment, but only to kill them.
Bukhari, volume 9, #57


Again - ONE hadith, by one author. Who, as you may have noticed from the name, is NOT Allah.

Hadith are NOT the Qur'an.


Checkmate, game over, your side loses. Present the Islamic evidence that my posit is wrong or simply dismiss it as something you choose not to accept despite all the evidence you haven't addressed outside of trying to change the topic.


Your posit has yet to be even SUGGESTED as 'proved right'. You seem to be under the misapprehension that spewing vitriol counts as an unassailable argument.


It saddens me that you simply (repeatedly) flee from the topic on hand from every element of staying on topic because it doesn't help your case of re-inventing what you think Islam should be vs., what it really is.

You accuse me of reinventing Islam? Because, of all sins, I am describing a version that holds to 'submission' to Allah, and holds to the Qur'an as the only literal word of Allah?

You certainly acted like you thought you knew more about it than me. I gave you facts, you handed me back un-evidenced anecdotes and told me to go learn about my own religion. This is the first post in which you have acknowledged that you don't know all about animism. You are now trying to backpedal from your original offensiveness. As to Victorian attitudes, that's not something you need to defend or not defend. I have characterized your comments as Victorian, and I consider that a valid characterization of those comments, and I am not softening it or backpedaling from it. You may either ignore this characterization, or embrace it, or disavow the comments, as you please.

Simply supplying a bunch of links does equal evidence. For all I know, you could have written the material in those links yourself.

As for my 'offensiveness', I maintain that it was nothing more than my impression on animism, and not an attempt offend you. My point of view. You have asked me to keep my point of view to myself, or alter it so that it no longer offends you. But that is hardly fair. I'm sure that you have points of view that offend others, and I dare say you are vocal with them from time to time.


You're the one who has been defaming animism in its entirety.

I did not defame animism. (As if my little point of view could do that anyway.) I raised some examples to show how I came by those impressions. A link like this one http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter07.htm tends to confirm my point of view with comments like these:

''Unlike a witch, whose power is internal and may be used unconsciously, a sorcerer uses the external power of magical rites and paraphernalia to consciously inflict harm on others. Because of his hostile intent, the sorcerer is the most feared person in animistic society. He has a repertoire of techniques for accomplishing his evil purposes. Stevens describes sorcery as "evil magic, involving the learned use of objects or words . . ." (Stevens 1989, 214). While a witch may be allowed to undo the harm he has done by reversing the magic and making restitution for the suffering of the victim, the sorcerer is so feared and hated that he may be killed upon detection. Both of these practitioners injure people, one consciously and the other unconsciously.''

And how about a quote from one of your own links: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/heather.hobden1/shaman.htm

''Shamans were involved in all aspects of life, and their successors now specialize in many different professions. Shamans had great influence over the rest of the people, and we have just seen that this power did not only stem from the fact that people were inclined to be afraid of offending someone they believed capable of casting a spell and laying a curse upon them. Shamans and astronomer-priests were able to dominate society to the extent that people were willing to sacrifice, not only their possessions, not only prisoners and slaves, but themselves and even their children at the demands of their priests for the fulfilment of calendar rituals. By using shamanic techniques, those after power, no matter how irrational and damaging their intentions, are able to sway a mass of followers in blind obedience to their will.''

You were right. I should have read your links a while ago.


It's only since I came back with facts about animist religions that now you are trying to parcel out your offensive remarks to individual animist religions. Defamation is defamation, whether it is about a group of religions or a single religion out of that group, and I will speak out against it, no matter who it is about. As for my qualifications, the fact that I am an animist only bolsters the fact that I have bothered to do the research necessary to make statements about it. You haven't. Therefore, I am more qualified to speak up for the group than you are to denigrate it.

No, you were trying to make my comments seem directed at animism in general, while I was specifically referring to some types of animism found in 'stoneage' cultures.


Another attempt to backpedal. You claimed convert anecdotes as proof of oppression under animism. Kindly acknowledge specifically that a few individuals do not paint a picture of an entire religion. Please do this now.

Sure, I have no problem acknowledging that a few individuals do not paint a picture of an entire religion, or of religion in general. But I would have said this all along if you had asked.



Only after you were called on this particular insult. This is just another attempt at backpedaling -- an especially lame one, considering that you earlier tried to say you didn’t mean “stoneage” as an insult -- you meant it in the sense of ignorant, uneducated, and primarily concerned with running in the jungle, but oh, no, not an insult -- yet here you are equating “stoneage” with poverty -- not a positive characterization. As you are using it, “stoneage” is insulting and inaccurate, and you should stop saying it.

Then if you have a better term, perhaps hunters and gatherer cultures. How about that one? And I did say that some Christians live in similar conditions, so that poverty is obviously not a sign of an evil religion.


You mean you think there are worse religions than one you have accused of oppressing people and causing the death of babies? Do yourself a favor, retract the false accusations you made against animism and resolve never to do it again to any one else. Otherwise, you may be in for even more vehement accusations of defamation from people who have cause to be even angrier than me.


You don't think a religion where evil is worshipped to be worse than animism (e.g. Satanism). At least the animism that I have read and heard about seems to involve a desire for peace and happiness of some sort.

I have no fear of your vehement accusations or your anger. Interestingly how like intimidation this appears to be.


And now you are comparing animists to terrorists? If we keep this up much longer you'll be describing how Hitler was instructed by shamans. You are clearly accusing animism of not just being a false religion (in your opinion) but of actually being an oppressive system that has the goal of harming people. That is an accusation for which you have no proof because it is false. I'm asking you to retract it.


No there was no comparison between animists and terrorists. It was an example, and by it I never meant anything other than what it said. Some religions cause harm because of the beliefs, while others cause harm in spite of their beliefs. Why must you take that to mean that I think animism is like the worst forms of Islam? I'm beginning to think that you have a persecution complex.


And here you are, working your way right back towards the offensive accusations you started out with -- implying that animism's ideals promote abuse-- just like with your terrorist reference. This is not an "opinion," this is an accusation, and it's defamatory. Bottom line: You have zero evidence that animism is any more prone to abuse than any other religion, but I have plenty of evidence that it is not. You are not only wrong on your facts, you are ethically wrong to keep pushing these accusations, even indirectly.


Ethically wrong. What does that mean? Do you mean ethically insensitive? Anyway, when my opinion of animism is that it is a false religion, am I being any less sensitive than any animist who thinks that Christianity is a false religion?



I didn't think you were claiming as opinion. You were in fact, dismissing this fact because of your ignorance -- deliberate ignorance, since I had already provided you with the facts.


I read your links. Perhaps you can explain how Shinto is such a peaceful religion that it tried to conquer all of Asia and Australia in an attempt of 'peace'. And not only that, how many Australian and English and American solders who survived the war came back with horrific stories of torture by the Japanese solders, far worse than the Nazis or the Italian Fascists. I'm not a racist, so I don't think cruelty is in their genes. Was it a product of Shinto? I don't know, but it would be interesting to see how you could explain it.


Let me explain something very clearly: If you say that you think animism is a false religion and that animists worship, at worst, evil things, and at best, lies promulgated by their religious leaders -- that’s an insulting, ignorant, and unfair thing to say, but it is just an opinion. It’s an opinion that a lot of people express about a lot of different religions, including yours.


Part of what we do here on NS is express opinion. If you can't handle opinions, you should not be here.


But that is not what you’ve been saying. You have been saying that shamans oppress their people, poison their people with concoctions instead of medicine, and that animists kill their own children by following the dictates of their religion, whose goal is to control them through fear. Those are not opinions -- those are accusations. You have no proof of them -- none whatever. They are untrue and defamatory, and the more you push them, the closer they get to slander and, since this is in writing, libel. You should retract all such statments immediately and never repeat them.

I did not say that animists kill their own children. Or if I did, kindly provide the quote of mine. If you think my opinion is untrue, than that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.


You have further persistently tried to associate animism with primitive, poverty-stricken, uneducated, and unhealthy living conditions.

No I have not. You are persistently trying to read my posts that way.



And here you are doing exactly what I have been complaining about all along, including immediately above. Show me any evidence of cultures where shamans have “virtually supreme control.” You can’t, because there is none.

I suppose you have read your own links?


Animist shamans are no more likely to be bullies or corrupt than practitioners of any other religion, including Christianity. I also enjoy the way you imply that there may well be no abuse through power at all in your religion. “Only guessing” indeed. Would you like me to provide you with evidence of that one, too?


Of course there is abuse just about wherever there is power, and Christianity is no exception. That is what I meant by religions other than animism, i.e. including Christianity, that have their share of abuse.



I maintain that your statements are fictitious because you have no evidence to back them up, while I have presented evidence that shows them to be false.


Would you be satisfied with links?
http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Default.htm
http://religion-cults.com/Ancient/Animism/Animism.htm

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/whychristianity.html which states:
''Probably the oldest religious tradition is that of Animism, found mostly among the so-called "primitive" peoples of the world such as the Native American cultures. Animism teaches that the world is populated by a myriad of spirit beings that can be appeased and manipulated through ritual and magic. Animism is a large part of the Wiccan belief system and occurs commonly in occult and spiritism circles. It is also a large factor in the belief in "luck." The major weakness of animistic religion is that it is basically non-ethical.''


And animism in Zambia http://www.actionintl.org/action/content/view/223/212/

''Animism is a belief system through which reality is perceived. This belief system assumes that the seen world is related to the unseen; an interaction exists between the divine and the human, the sacred and the profane, the holy and the secular. Personal spiritual beings and impersonal spiritual forces everywhere are thought to be shaping what happens in the animists? world. Animists live in continual fear of those powers.''



Don’t trouble yourself about my social life. I have no trouble at all making friends among people who don’t defame others and don’t try to paint someone who is a vehement advocate for truth and rights as over-emotional. As for people who do those things against others, if my behavior alienates them, then my behavior is entirely appropriate.


It's not your social life that I was referring to, but your campaign for the rights of the oppressed. You would help your cause by not threatening people with with anger and vehement accusations, but offering sound arguments without aggression.


Fair enough for you to continue to ignore? Or are you going to reconsider your remarks and retract those that are defamatory? You don't have to. You can have this fight with me on lots of fronts, if you prefer.


I've not wish to fight you at all. I'm not here for fights. In fact, if you persist in this sort of discussion, I may as well tell you now that I don't know if I will bother replying to your next post. I am interested in learning, and I am quite happy to learn your opinions, so long as you are prepared to give me reasons for your opinions. But fighting is mostly pointless, as far as I can see.


Well, we could start with the facts that exist. I have presented mine, and if you want more, I can give you more. Let’s look at them. Let’s investigate the sources and their agendas. Let’s put them to the test.

Now that approach makes more sense.

...snip...
...snip...
...snip...

*reading through, looking for actual content, none found*

Nice hyperbole dismissal you have there, too bad you still haven't addressed the issue from the Qur'an, Hadith or Sharia law...

http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Chapter07.htm[/url] tends to confirm my point of view

Would you be satisfied with links?
http://missiology.org/animism/AnimisticBook/Default.htm
http://religion-cults.com/Ancient/Animism/Animism.htm

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/whychristianity.html

And animism in Zambia http://www.actionintl.org/action/content/view/223/212/

I realise one has to assess the material, rather than instantly dismiss 'evidence'... but, apart from the one link you cite that was 'given to you' by the poster you are debating with... EVERY source you cite about animism, is a 'christian' site. Hardly the most objective route to wisdom... one has to HOPE that is not the total extent of your research into animism.

*reading through, looking for actual content, none found*

Nice hyperbole dismissal you have there, too bad you still haven't addressed the issue from the Qur'an, Hadith or Sharia law...

How rude.

I have clearly shown why your interpretations are false... and I mean clearly.

You avoid the issue, you refuse to answer questions you don't like, your argument is based on incorrect understanding and you WILL NOT accept any correction.

On top of that, you, my friend, are unacceptably rude.

If you can make an effort to correct the worst of your excesses, I may deign to respond to you. With the current level of your game, and your inability to come CLOSE to meeting a single one of my debate points, I think we are done here.

Several times I have restated the case, and addressed the issue... and, several times, you have resorted to disingenuousness, diversion and duplicity. For the time being, you may consider yourself ignored

I realise one has to assess the material, rather than instantly dismiss 'evidence'... but, apart from the one link you cite that was 'given to you' by the poster you are debating with... EVERY source you cite about animism, is a 'christian' site. Hardly the most objective route to wisdom... one has to HOPE that is not the total extent of your research into animism.

It's called balance. Muravyets gave me his/her sites and I also read sites on the other side of the argument.

Excellent post.

I think you miss one detail... the 'priests' market their access to God... it isn't so much that people don't WANT direct access, it's more that they buy into the idea that someone else can propiate better, for them, than they could for themselves. This is what I was saying earlier... once you can 'afford' a priest caste, they have to make their job 'essential'... so they tell you they are the 'best' access (or even, the ONLY access) to your spirits, so you'll feed and clothe them, and let them get on with what 'they do'.
Good point.

Not "spirits" (plural) but "spirit". An eternal immortal spirit, in contrast to earthly life that is mortal. The earliest myth is that of the hunter, painted on cave walls in places like Dordogne, France, that portrays a relationship between hunter and hunted. We have to ask: what is the significance of the cave? These are not caves they lived in, but caves they specifically went to apart from their homes to paint on the walls, in pitch black, lit only by a flickering torch, a story of life and death. These are caves like they buried their own dead in, where no illumination has ever reached. We have to wonder, what is the significance of the theme of life and death? A passage through a dark and hollow place, with an exit on the other end into the light? What does that do to a person, to traverse that? And can we see a similar theme passed down in later myth? (*psst* the answer is yes.)

Gotta wonder. *whistles innocently*
A) When I said spirits and gods (plural) I was trying to be inclusive of all religious viewpoints, but if you prefer to deny the existence of polytheists in the world, then I guess that's what you'll do.

B) No kidding about them caves. What's your point? That they were waiting for Jesus way back then? No other religions ever existed but yours; everything else was just prep work? :rolleyes:

...
B) No kidding about them caves. What's your point? That they were waiting for Jesus way back then? No other religions ever existed but yours; everything else was just prep work? :rolleyes:

Exactly right...

John 1 1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Your posts and GnI's objections are already completely debunked and without merit in this issue. Neither of you have produced a single argument from the Qur'an, or a Hadith or a modern Sharia law that says Apostasy is NOT a capital punishment crime, but instead, all of your posts are trying to change the topic from what it is. It is checkmate, or you have to bring forth new arguments or evidences.

From my own posts, in this very thread:
First the Qur’an, this verse here tells us when it is okay to take a human life:
Originally Posted by DubyaGoat
"... whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; ..." (Al-Maidah 5:32)

I'm sorry but I'm not buying that this is a kill order. I see what you are trying to say. You're saying that "mischief in the land" describes apostasy and that it lists it next to murder as crimes for which execution is just and not itself murder. But I don't see this as a justification for the issuing of kill-order fatwas willy-nilly. The Bible has plenty of verses that condone killing people for this or that, but is that a justification for Christians to stone adulterers or kill witches? No, they must still live under the law and, so far as I am aware, Islamic law provides for hearings, trials and defenses. Instead of pulling this one verse out of context, we should be looking at it in the context of other verses that also tell Muslims what to do about enemies or unbelievers.

Second verse here tells us that an Apostate does evil in the land…
"If you renounced the faith, you would surely do evil in the land, and violate the ties of blood. Such are those on whom God has laid His curse, leaving them deaf and sightless.... Those who return to unbelief after God's guidance has been revealed to them are seduced by Satan and inspired by him… (Sura 47:23-28)
Thus you are justified in killing them (from the requirements of the first verse).
This is only a description of and admonition to apostates. It says nothing about how they should be treated by others. No kill order justification here.

Then into the Hadith, which teaches how to conduct oneself as Muslim:
Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Here we are advised not to ‘burn them,’ because that is Allah’s punishment, but only to kill them.
Bukhari, volume 9, #57
Narrated Ikrima, "Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's messenger forbade it, saying, "Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
It has already been pointed out to you several times that these are not the Qur'an and are not religious instructions of the same value or authority as the Qur'an. They are the words of human beings and are as susceptible to falsehood and corruption as their authors. All this proves is that there are many Muslims who do whatever they want and point to out-of-context verses from the Qur'an to claim justification. Christians do that, too.

Checkmate, game over, your side loses. Present the Islamic evidence that my posit is wrong or simply dismiss it as something you choose not to accept despite all the evidence you haven't addressed outside of trying to change the topic.

<snip>

It saddens me that you simply (repeatedly) flee from the topic on hand from every element of staying on topic because it doesn't help your case of re-inventing what you think Islam should be vs., what it really is.
The topic is PAGAN INFLUENCES ON CHRISTIANITY. Read the title bar if you don't believe me. If you want to attack Islam, go back to your own thread.

Exactly right...

John 1 1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh? Guy X thinks this today, since Christianity started, therefore other guys were also thinking it way back, before Christianity started. It becomes retroactively true?

You know what, DG, I'm not going to take as true what your religion says about what people were doing before your religion existed. All you are saying here is that you think other religions are false. We already knew that about you. It adds nothing to this conversation. Why don't you look back over what others have already said in this thread and comment on that?

This is only a description of and admonition to apostates. It says nothing about how they should be treated by others. No kill order justification here.

It has already been pointed out to you several times that these are not the Qur'an and are not religious instructions of the same value or authority as the Qur'an. They are the words of human beings and are as susceptible to falsehood and corruption as their authors. All this proves is that there are many Muslims who do whatever they want and point to out-of-context verses from the Qur'an to claim justification. Christians do that, too.

Qur’an Quotes continue
Imran 3:90-91

Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow [ever more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance [of other sins] shall not be accepted for it is they who have truly gone astray.

Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth and die as deniers of the truth - not all the gold on earth could ever be their ransom. It is they for whom grievous

Qur’an Nisa, 4:88-89
How, then, could you be of two minds about the hypocrites, seeing that Allah [Himself] has disowned them because of their guilt Do you, perchance, seek to guide those whom Allah has let go astray - when for him whom Allah lets go astray thou canst never find any way?

They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of Allah; and if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succour,


The topic is PAGAN INFLUENCES ON CHRISTIANITY. Read the title bar if you don't believe me. If you want to attack Islam, go back to your own thread.

I didn't attack Islam. You said another poster's point about apostasy being a capital crime in Islam was erroneous, and I then posted by pointing out that it was you who was in error. Then GnI jumped in screaming about how the Hadith was not the Qur'an, even though I clearly labeled it as such in my post. If the topic waylaid, it is not I who moved it there.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh? Guy X thinks this today, since Christianity started, therefore other guys were also thinking it way back, before Christianity started. It becomes retroactively true?

You know what, DG, I'm not going to take as true what your religion says about what people were doing before your religion existed. All you are saying here is that you think other religions are false. We already knew that about you. It adds nothing to this conversation. Why don't you look back over what others have already said in this thread and comment on that?

Colossians 1 15-20
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Simply supplying a bunch of links does equal evidence. For all I know, you could have written the material in those links yourself.

<snip>
I wil respond to your post in detail -- I have to look up those quotes from you that you requested, and the reply will need some composing -- but I need to address this one thing separately.

I made up this material myself? What, just for the occasion? I just whipped it up? I compiled all those links, statistics, and references? I wrote an academic article with notations and posted it to a University of Virginia project-specific database website? Just so I could lie to you? Maybe I made up that website, too, especial for the purpose. And at the same time, maybe I set up a bogus religious tolerance organization in Canada, and a bogus shamanist organization in Mongolia, too, for a total of three organizations whose bona fides could be checked, just because I really, really wanted to screw with your little brain. And I did it all in half a week. Wow, I must be the most amazing web-master ever.

This is the single most lame-ass attempt to dismiss evidence I have ever heard from anyone, about anything, anywhere, ever. With the very first sentence of your post, you destroyed your own credibility. Thanks for doing so much of my work for me. The detailed response I will post later today may be considered the eulogy for your dead argument.

...
This is the single most lame-ass attempt to dismiss evidence I have ever heard from anyone, about anything, anywhere, ever. With the very first sentence of your post, you destroyed your own credibility. Thanks for doing so much of my work for me. The detailed response I will post later today may be considered the eulogy for your dead argument.

:p

LOL, Omygoodness. That's a good one. I hope you don't mind if I quote this verbatim some day. *wipes laughter tear from my eye*

Qur’an Quotes continue
Imran 3:90-91

Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow [ever more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance [of other sins] shall not be accepted for it is they who have truly gone astray.

Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth and die as deniers of the truth - not all the gold on earth could ever be their ransom. It is they for whom grievous

Qur’an Nisa, 4:88-89
How, then, could you be of two minds about the hypocrites, seeing that Allah [Himself] has disowned them because of their guilt Do you, perchance, seek to guide those whom Allah has let go astray - when for him whom Allah lets go astray thou canst never find any way?
Not one of these quotes says anything at all about killing anybody.

They would love to see you deny the truth even as they have denied it, so that you should be like them. Do not, therefore, take them for your allies until they forsake the domain of evil for the sake of Allah; and if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever you may find them. And do not take any of them for your ally or giver of succour,

Okay, this one does talk about killing unbelievers "if they revert to [open] enmity," i.e. after the unbelievers initiate an attack against Muslims. I see nothing that justifies Muslims firing the first shot, as it were. I see nothing that justifies those extremists who claim that the mere existence of unbelievers is an attack on Islam. Nope, this says quite clearly that the unbelievers have to revert to [open] enmity (i.e. enemy-ness) first. I see no justification for kill orders here. In fact, I see an argument against executing apostates. According to this, they should be cast out of the community, but they should not be killed unless they attack Islam. So you could quote this verse if you wanted to argue that those who issue kill order fatwas are violating the principles of Islam.

I didn't attack Islam. You said another poster's point about apostasy being a capital crime in Islam was erroneous, and I then posted by pointing out that it was you who was in error. Then GnI jumped in screaming about how the Hadith was not the Qur'an, even though I clearly labeled it as such in my post. If the topic waylaid, it is not I who moved it there.
Not for nothing, DG, but the only time you're not attacking Islam is when you're either attacking someone else or singing your own religion's praises. Multiland started the attacks and you jumped right on, getting your boot in. You're not innocent of attacking just because you didn't start it.

Colossians 1 15-20
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
So say the Christians. Utterly irrelevant to anyone who is not a Christian. What your religion says about someone else's religion is not the measure of truth about that religion. The only people who care about this or buy into it at all are Christians who have an interest in declaring theirs to be the One True Faith(tm). As I said, it adds nothing to this debate, unless you'd like to use it to explain away the pagan influences on Christianity that have been discussed in this thread.

:p

LOL, Omygoodness. That's a good one. I hope you don't mind if I quote this verbatim some day. *wipes laughter tear from my eye*
Oh, wait for the actual funeral. It'll be a solid-gone gass, with stakes pounded through the corpse and its mouth stuffed full of garlic, and much rejoicing.

EDIT: I might not post it until tomorrow. I have to buy art supplies today and then go out for drinks with my mom (we have things to celebrate). And I'm going to try to do a quality job, so no rushing to press. :)

It's called balance. Muravyets gave me his/her sites and I also read sites on the other side of the argument.

Don't you see the problem, there?

You have decided there are 'two sides'?

The internal teachings of animism, and the Christian rebuttal?

Why not try to find a source external to BOTH interests... one that has less of an 'agenda'?

What you have is a representation of balance... but it is entirely subjective.

A) When I said spirits and gods (plural) I was trying to be inclusive of all religious viewpoints, but if you prefer to deny the existence of polytheists in the world, then I guess that's what you'll do.

B) No kidding about them caves. What's your point? That they were waiting for Jesus way back then? No other religions ever existed but yours; everything else was just prep work? :rolleyes:

I believe the point was, that Willamena was suggesting the whole Christ resurrection story... COULD actually just be a retelling of earlier Chthonic enlightenment concepts.

Pesonally, I think it has some of that, but much more of an agenda to finally put the concept of the 'sacred feminine' to the sword. (Adam, born of father and 'earth-mother' --- Jesus, born of father-with-mother-as-vessel --- Jesus, reborn of self/father... with earth-mother as vessel --- Christians, reborn of father alone).

I believe the point was, that Willamena was suggesting the whole Christ resurrection story... COULD actually just be a retelling of earlier Chthonic enlightenment concepts.

Pesonally, I think it has some of that, but much more of an agenda to finally put the concept of the 'sacred feminine' to the sword. (Adam, born of father and 'earth-mother' --- Jesus, born of father-with-mother-as-vessel --- Jesus, reborn of self/father... with earth-mother as vessel --- Christians, reborn of father alone).
You're right. I could easily have misread Willamena's post.

Willamena, I beg your pardon.

Now I wonder if I'm also misunderstanding Dubyagoat? (I really would like to be.)

PS: Yes, I agree that there is very much an agenda towards eliminating a concept of a divine feminine. I don't think that can be denied, but I am very much up in the air about why it happened. There are a number of different possible motivations. It's very complicated. Feel like getting into it?

...
Not for nothing, DG, but the only time you're not attacking Islam is when you're either attacking someone else or singing your own religion's praises. Multiland started the attacks and you jumped right on, getting your boot in. You're not innocent of attacking just because you didn't start it.

Quoting is not attacking. Just because you don't like what they are saying does not = me attacking them.

BTW: perhaps you would understand it better once you realize the way it is taught. Apostasy (a Muslim changing faith) is the equivalent of treason to Allah, treason is always an attack and always a capital punishment crime.

So say the Christians. Utterly irrelevant to anyone who is not a Christian. What your religion says about someone else's religion is not the measure of truth about that religion. The only people who care about this or buy into it at all are Christians who have an interest in declaring theirs to be the One True Faith(tm). As I said, it adds nothing to this debate, unless you'd like to use it to explain away the pagan influences on Christianity that have been discussed in this thread.

*bolded by me for emphasis of relevant point. Yes, that's right.

Oh, wait for the actual funeral. It'll be a solid-gone gass, with stakes pounded through the corpse and its mouth stuffed full of garlic, and much rejoicing.

EDIT: I might not post it until tomorrow. I have to buy art supplies today and then go out for drinks with my mom (we have things to celebrate). And I'm going to try to do a quality job, so no rushing to press. :)

No rush, I was refering to your poetic pose, not your position per-se, but the pose and the flow, it was art ;)

I put other, because basically, the old and new testiment stole nearly the whole story from various other places.

Quoting is not attacking. Just because you don't like what they are saying does not = me attacking them.

BTW: perhaps you would understand it better once you realize the way it is taught. Apostasy (a Muslim changing faith) is the equivalent of treason to Allah, treason is always an attack and always a capital punishment crime.
I don't object to what they are saying at all. What I object to is your interpretation of what their words mean and the conclusions you draw from them, which never amount to anything but a blanket condemnation of Islam from which you will brook no exceptions. I call that an attack, but maybe that's just me -- and GnI, and all the Muslims on the forums, and a few others... You don't have to care what we think, but we're still going to say it.

EDIT: I should clarify that, to me, it is an attack because you so often post your remarks without provocation. For instance, this thread has nothing to do with Islam and is not about comparing Christianity to Islam, so why did it need to come up in this thread? Even if Multiland started it, why did you have to continue it? This topic was spun off of your thread (I think; wasn't it?). You can easily spin this Islam topic into a separate thread from here if you want to pursue it. You don't have to make this thread be about your views of Islam.

I don't intend to endlessly pursue my fight with Bruarong about animism in this thread. The upcoming post will be my last word to him on the issue in this thread. If he wants to start a new thread attacking animism, he may, but it's not the topic of *this* thread.

*bolded by me for emphasis of relevant point. Yes, that's right.

Could you be more specific, please? How do these verses explain away the apparent pagan influences? 'Splain, Lucy.

No rush, I was refering to your poetic pose, not your postion per-se, but the pose and the flow, it was art ;)
Thank you. I hope you will enjoy the style of the post to come just as much, even if you don't agree with it. :)

Potential Pagan influences in Judaism:

-The ancient Egyptians did not eat black pigs because the god Set, the god of evil and chaos, had taken the form of a black pig in one of his battles with Horus, Osiris' successor. The taboo against pigs may have continued to this day in Judaism and Islam. They also did not eat certain types of fish (Set had also taken the form of a fish and a fish had eaten Osiris' phallus after he was torn to pieces and scattered across Egypt; I've forgotten what types of fish they were), and animals that had to do with the gods.

-References to giants, angels seducing mortal women, and demi-god heroes can be found in the Bible.

-The Egyptians circumcised their boys (I think they also circumcised their girls, but I don't remember).

-YHVH appears as a flame numerous times, and an "eternal flame" is kept burning over the ark where the Torah scrolls are kept in modern synagogues. This is a potential Zoroastrian influence.

-The scapegoat ritual was carried out by the Greeks, Hittites, Canaanites, and various others.

You're right. I could easily have misread Willamena's post.

Willamena, I beg your pardon.


Willamena is a unique individual, with a very special 'path' to the truth. She is also, by and large, one of the Army of Light (as I call them). She's good people.


Now I wonder if I'm also misunderstanding Dubyagoat? (I really would like to be.)


I wish I could believe it to be so.


PS: Yes, I agree that there is very much an agenda towards eliminating a concept of a divine feminine. I don't think that can be denied, but I am very much up in the air about why it happened. There are a number of different possible motivations. It's very complicated. Feel like getting into it?

A 'quicky'? Or a thread of it's own?

The 'quicky' response is - women have power, and the only way for men to control that power, is to 'devalue' women, and own them.

You're right. I could easily have misread Willamena's post.

Willamena, I beg your pardon.

Now I wonder if I'm also misunderstanding Dubyagoat? (I really would like to be.)

PS: Yes, I agree that there is very much an agenda towards eliminating a concept of a divine feminine. I don't think that can be denied, but I am very much up in the air about why it happened. There are a number of different possible motivations. It's very complicated. Feel like getting into it?
i have no idea why it happened. whats interesting to me is that it couldnt be eliminated, only tamed.

so the old goddesses become saints.

the veneration of mary is very strong in countries like ireland and mexico. in some areas the devotion to mary is stronger than the devotion to jesus. mary comes as an apparition all over the world.

the irish goddess Brighid become st bridget.

even without a goddess precursor there are many highly venerated female saints. many catholic girls are named after these saints and are raised with the stories of their lives.

the worship of goddesses never went away, its just hidden.

...
Could you be more specific, please? How do these verses explain away the apparent pagan influences? 'Splain, Lucy.

Even before the creation of Judaism, before Abraham had children, there was a ‘high priest to God most high,’

Genesis 14 18-19
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.


Hebrews 5 1-6
Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.

This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.

No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father. "
And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

Hebrews 8 1-6
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

All things before, or after, are either for or against Christ Jesus, the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. What ‘religion’ was Melchizedek? Where did he originate? The important point is that that Christ is the culmination of this progression and all, or any, other priests (men or women, not trying to be sexually exclussive) but all ‘right’ priests before that, pagan or otherwise, fill the role as a gap measure. The promise fulfilled, the desire quenched is Christ Jesus. The God given desire to worship and have companionship with God is driven by and achieved by Christ. The previous priests were mirrors, a reflection of the true kingdom in Heaven, or else they were false deceivers and not followers of God at all…

I wil respond to your post in detail -- I have to look up those quotes from you that you requested, and the reply will need some composing -- but I need to address this one thing separately.

I made up this material myself? What, just for the occasion? I just whipped it up? I compiled all those links, statistics, and references? I wrote an academic article with notations and posted it to a University of Virginia project-specific database website? Just so I could lie to you? Maybe I made up that website, too, especial for the purpose. And at the same time, maybe I set up a bogus religious tolerance organization in Canada, and a bogus shamanist organization in Mongolia, too, for a total of three organizations whose bona fides could be checked, just because I really, really wanted to screw with your little brain. And I did it all in half a week. Wow, I must be the most amazing web-master ever.

I think you missed my point. The point was that just posting links to websites shows that there is someone out there that shares your particular point of view, not that the point of view that you share with the author of the website must be right. The same applies to me. I am obviously not to silly to think that you could have typed up all those websites just to provide me some reading. (However, you could have been a contributor, you know, way before we have been having this little discussion.)

Once again, it doesn't really matter if you were the author of those sites, or one of the chiefs in the religious tolerance organisations, the point is that the fact that those sites exist is hardly hard cold facts for your arguments.

Personally, I tend to think that discussions need not use links to provide persuasive arguments. The arguing should be done by you and me, with links simply to provide additional reference material. I would rather we presented our arguments and províde some good reasons for them rather than hoping that putting links in our posts will 'prove' our points.


This is the single most lame-ass attempt to dismiss evidence I have ever heard from anyone, about anything, anywhere, ever. With the very first sentence of your post, you destroyed your own credibility. Thanks for doing so much of my work for me. The detailed response I will post later today may be considered the eulogy for your dead argument.

It looks like you have no intention of having a calm and reasonable argument, free of personal insults. I suspect I shall not bother replying to anything flamatory, although I will try to read your posts, and perhaps reply to the sensible points you make, although I make no promises. But in the interests of a sensible argument, will you not consider having a sensible and rational argument?

Willamena is a unique individual, with a very special 'path' to the truth. She is also, by and large, one of the Army of Light (as I call them). She's good people.
Yes, you are right, and I was definitely wrong about her.

I wish I could believe it to be so.

Me too, but...

A 'quicky'? Or a thread of it's own?

The 'quicky' response is - women have power, and the only way for men to control that power, is to 'devalue' women, and own them.
I think it can stand as part of this thread. The divine feminine concept was definitely a part of ancient pagan religions and later monotheism definitely tried to purge it, with limited success, as pointed out by Ashmoria. I think that's an interesting wrinkle in the pagan influences question.

I agree with you that there is definitely a social drive to control and limit women, as if free women can somehow damage things magically, just by being uncontrolled. But that's hardly limited to Christianity. The ancient Egyptians were remarkable for their fair treatment of women -- property rights, divorce rights, equal pay for equal work (which we can't even get now :mad: ), etc. But the Greeks and Romans were definitely not known for it. I think that there is a definite pattern of purging converted societies of the rituals and symbols that honored goddesses as part of the elimination of pagan religions, but I wonder if that also accounts for the political and social limitations placed on women themselves? Could that also be an influence from formerly pagan cultures like Greece and Rome?

In some parts of the world, though not all, the transfer of wealth was associated with or memorialized by the exchange of women between families. Nowadays, this survives as treating women like property. I have no idea what it originally meant, but it certainly predates male-centered monotheism.

Finally, in pagan Europe, there were few such political/social limitations on women, and the woman=wealth thing was scattered spottily about the continent, but there were and continue to be many folk rituals to protect from the supposed magical power of women -- everything from nearly universal menstruation taboos up to the elaborate and quite dramatic taboos that Russians attach to the braiding and unbraiding of women's hair. And this in cultures in which women were free to travel as they pleased, work as they pleased, sleep with whomever they pleased, and even equal to men in their ability to become leaders of society, queens, priestesses, and warriors.

I personally believe that the more recent the history, the more the denigration of the divine feminine is part of a divisive effort to establish heirarchical order and control by assigning rigid social roles to people. But why women in particular must be so controlled is, I think, a very complex question that speaks to how ancient people really thought about women and, thus, what it is that the monotheisms are actually influenced by or reacting against. The historical evidence is contradictory. Therefore, I think, there must be some evidence that we are missing about the ancient world.

Don't you see the problem, there?

You have decided there are 'two sides'?

The internal teachings of animism, and the Christian rebuttal?

Why not try to find a source external to BOTH interests... one that has less of an 'agenda'?

What you have is a representation of balance... but it is entirely subjective.

Well, you do have a good point, but when I was having a look around, I had trouble finding any sites that were neither for animism or against it. There are encyclopeadia-like sources such as Wikipaedia, but don't tell me that much. So the most information seems to come from sites that are either promoting animism, or Christian sites that seem to be there to prove information for Christians about animism.

If you have any suggestions, Grave, I would be happy to have a look at them.

Even before the creation of Judaism, before Abraham had children, there was a ‘high priest to God most high,’

Genesis 14 18-19
Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,
"Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.


Hebrews 5 1-6
Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.

This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.

No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron was. So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father. "
And he says in another place,
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

Hebrews 8 1-6
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

All things before, or after, are either for or against Christ Jesus, the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek. What ‘religion’ was Melchizedek? Where did he originate? The important point is that that Christ is the culmination of this progression and all, or any, other priests (men or women, not trying to be sexually exclussive) but all ‘right’ priests before that, pagan or otherwise, fill the role as a gap measure. The promise fulfilled, the desire quenched is Christ Jesus. The God given desire to worship and have companionship with God is driven by and achieved by Christ. The previous priests were mirrors, a reflection of the true kingdom in Heaven, or else they were false deceivers and not followers of God at all…

As a curiousity... Melchizedek might not be the best argument in this case... where do YOU think he originated? And 'which religion'?

A) When I said spirits and gods (plural) I was trying to be inclusive of all religious viewpoints, but if you prefer to deny the existence of polytheists in the world, then I guess that's what you'll do.

B) No kidding about them caves. What's your point? That they were waiting for Jesus way back then? No other religions ever existed but yours; everything else was just prep work? :rolleyes:
LOL :)

I was referring to the earliest religions, as you did.

Well, you do have a good point, but when I was having a look around, I had trouble finding any sites that were neither for animism or against it. There are encyclopeadia-like sources such as Wikipaedia, but don't tell me that much. So the most information seems to come from sites that are either promoting animism, or Christian sites that seem to be there to prove information for Christians about animism.

If you have any suggestions, Grave, I would be happy to have a look at them.

But, even if you have two sources.... one that promotes animism, using an inside knowledge, so to speak - and one that believes animism to be idol-worship, of no value, and tantamount to demonic influence... which of THOSE two source types do you THINK is going to give a more 'realistic' vision of what animism is?

Let me put it to you in different terms... if I want to know about Christianity, and I have ONLY two types of sources to choose from... should I read the Christian site dedicated to spreading the word, or the Islamic site dedicated to disproving the 'cult' of Christianity?

But, even if you have two sources.... one that promotes animism, using an inside knowledge, so to speak - and one that believes animism to be idol-worship, of no value, and tantamount to demonic influence... which of THOSE two source types do you THINK is going to give a more 'realistic' vision of what animism is?

Let me put it to you in different terms... if I want to know about Christianity, and I have ONLY two types of sources to choose from... should I read the Christian site dedicated to spreading the word, or the Islamic site dedicated to disproving the 'cult' of Christianity?

The simple answer is both. Of course both sources could be incorrect, but one should try to decipher the truth by using comparison, rather than 'taking the plunge' with one of them, wouldn't you say?