The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Interesting topic, allthough it's tiring that the same discussions I have had numerous times before all get repeated, not one excluded.
Let's get a few things straight.

1. Christianity is not based on any other culture or religion, similiarities can mean loads of things, but not that one religion stole from the other.

2. People that are born gay are also created by God, and it really depends on what christian you talk to wether or not a gay lifestyle is presumed wrong. ( www.godmademegay.com )

3. As in the real world, in the christian world there also nutcases, idiots and unkind people. These people often yell the loudest but do not display christianity.


I do agree that christianity is often target of jokes, insults and even flaming on ATS and I am not sure why.
I think it has to do with the fact that some people just only met the wrong kind of christians in their life.

Originally posted by saint4God
Hey, speaking of. Here's a link that suggests some of that is going on:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Errr... Mormons... yeeeeah...
While I respect anyone's right to worship how they wish,
I personally feel that devoting my reading time towards them
would be a waste. All real-life Mormons I've met have been very
nice, and typically very good business people, but I find the religion
itself to be suspect at best. I hope this doesn't sound bigoted,
I just don't have enough interest in mainstream religions which are
that new.

Originally posted by saint4God
Specifically, someone presents a website that goes into detail here:

www.helpingmormons.org...

I made it to the part about how the sun, moon, and stars were satanic symbols "since medieval times" and pretty much discounted it immediately.

I'm not sure if those links confirm or deny what I was saying about how no one here in the US worships Baal that I know of. And I'm sure the Mormons don't do it intentionally. Someone can just as easily make a case that Catholics worship the devil by taking a lot of stuff out of context.

Originally posted by thelibra
I made it to the part about how the sun, moon, and stars were satanic symbols "since medieval times" and pretty much discounted it immediately.

I agree that the sun, moon and stars aren't inherently satanic symbols...after all, according to Christianity, God created them right? But but, when you start sticking particular faces on them and including them in worship then that's when I start scratching my head. I used to think people worshipping all those other gods the Bible talks about were long gone but that was a bit naive of me I think. The names and belief systems keep popping up. Everything from holiday/holyday rituals to day of the week. If you don't think people worship Frigg's Day (Freya's Day), you should be here at my work on Fridays! But seriously, influence surrounds us and tries to bump us into various directions.

Originally posted by thelibra
I'm not sure if those links confirm or deny what I was saying about how no one here in the US worships Baal that I know of.

Me either, just mental caramel to chew on. I do think, as Ricky Ricardo says, they've "got some splainin' to do."

Originally posted by thelibra
And I'm sure the Mormons don't do it intentionally. Someone can just as easily make a case that Catholics worship the devil by taking a lot of stuff out of context.

I've read some, but didn't seem as convincing of an argument, candidly. Who knows? I don't know that much about Catholism except going to a friend's mass and who I've talked to. I will never claim to know another's heart.

Thanks for reviewing, all the best to ya.


This belongs in a house of God?

[edit on 1-4-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
I agree that the sun, moon and stars aren't inherently satanic symbols...after all, according to Christianity, God created them right? But but, when you start sticking particular faces on them and including them in worship then that's when I start scratching my head.

Well, put it like this...

To Protestants, as far as I know, it's fine to eat whatever you want, as long as you say grace first.
To Jews that follow the Kashrut, there are strictly prohibited foods, or foods that must not be combined.
To Hindus, you should always prepare an extra plate for Vishnu.
To Catholics, you should eat fish on Fridays.

So, does that mean every friday, people must prepare an extra plate of gifilte fish?

I think a large part of what makes a religious practice "evil" or not is the intent behind it. If a religious practice is meaningful to you, then it is holy in its own right, be it lighting the menora or a christmas tree. The Bible expressly forbids idolatry, yet Catholics use the crucifix in most aspects of The Church. Does that mean the Catholic church is a bunch of Satanists? No. It simply means that they have a different way of doing things than the other religions.

Some religions don't even acknowledge Satan, but tie positive and negative forces to the same divine source. Some don't even technically have a God.

Of course, certain intolerant religions take the stance that anything outside of its own beliefs is evil. That is, of course, their right, but it does not make their opinion true. I can suddenly take the notion that everyone would be much happier wearing a duck costume, and that anyone not wearing a duck costume is unhappy. And no matter how jovial and cheerful those who reject the Holy Mallard Apparel appear to be, I can remain utterly convinced that they are deeply hurting on the inside, and the only true happiness lies within a cloak of downy feathers. While I may be utterly convinced, it does not mean that it is true. In fact, the odds are pretty good that it's completely false.

Thus, when Christians tell me something is Satanic just because it has a particular symbol, then I feel like patting them on the head, giving them a glass of milk, and sending them off to bed. It's the same mentality as the duck costume.

Now if, on the other hand, they pointed to a group of people chanting "Hail Satan!" while emptying the contents of a baby's stomach onto a bloody pentagram, and accused them of being Satanists, I'd not only be inclined to agree, but the crowd doing the chanting would probably join in the agreement as well, because it would most likely be, in that case, that they actually are Satanists.

Originally posted by saint4God
I used to think people worshipping all those other gods the Bible talks about were long gone but that was a bit naive of me I think. The names and belief systems keep popping up. Everything from holiday/holyday rituals to day of the week. If you don't think people worship Frigg's Day (Freya's Day), you should be here at my work on Fridays!

Now I will not for a moment deny that Pagan influences aspects of modern life to this very day. Heck, look at the days of our week, like you said, and our Calendars, and the signs of the Zodiac, and our Planets, and many many other things. But Pagan does not equal Satanic. Christians can claim it all they want, and point to Bible passages, but it doesn't make it any more true. What it makes them is Pagans. And many Pagan religions do not acknowledge Satan any more than they acknowledge Jesus.

By the way, one of the reasons that Christian holidays coincide so closely with Pagan holidays is not because they happened anywhere near that timeframe (I believe I read somewhere, Jesus was actually born sometime in summer, years before the wise men arrived, but have nothing to back that up), but because it helped to assimilate the largely pagan populace into forgetting the old ways and learning new ones. Do you think it's mere coincidence that most Christian holidays happen on or within a day or two of equinoxes and solistaces (usually the biggest days of the year in pagan religions).

It is important to remember that the first European Christians were the ruling class: kings and whatnot. They did this in order to be allied to the Church, which was the single greatest political force at the time. The vast majority of the populace were allowed to retain their pagan ways and old customs, because...well...who cares what a bunch of serfs did anyway?

Then The Church decided that there was money and manpower to be made from the serfs. But you can't make a non-believer give to you, or work for you. From that point on, the assimilation began. Pagan temples were torn down and rebuilt into Cathedrals. Pagan holidays were turned into Christian holidays. Old beliefs were made into sins of the Church, and even that was not enough. They had to control the sexual practices of men and women as well, and dictate that.

If anything, it is the Church's influence--no, force--that is felt throughout the land to this day, and the Pagan influence barely more than a shadow of memory to be found in a trivia book. Every time a network television show is allowed to show someone being shot, but a breast is considered too taboo...every time you celebrate Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc...every time you say goodbye...every time you use a coin or a dollar bill...and too many other things to name, you are looking at the direct result of Christians imposing their ideology on the world.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by thelibra
I'm not sure if those links confirm or deny what I was saying about how no one here in the US worships Baal that I know of.

Me either, just mental caramel to chew on. I do think, as Ricky Ricardo says, they've "got some splainin' to do."

Unless they are actually changing "Hooray, Baal!" or something like that, they have no explaining to do. Their religious practices are their own to keep. And just you should not have to explain your desire to worship a dead carpenter, they should not have to explain why they like Lucky Charms to adorn their alters.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by thelibra
And I'm sure the Mormons don't do it intentionally. Someone can just as easily make a case that Catholics worship the devil by taking a lot of stuff out of context.

I've read some, but didn't seem as convincing of an argument...

(grins) I never said it was would be a rational arguement. I refer you to my duck analogy.

Christianity has many great ideals and rules for living. As do other religions.

BTW: Last time I checked, Christianity was the largest religion in the world..

Anyways, many people just hold personal grudges against a Religion, which a sad, sad thing.

I, however, am a proud Christian, and I put much faith into my God. Alot of this faith stems from the fact that I have seen my prayers and faith work. I have been given 'proof', if you will.

-wD

Originally posted by jake1997
Why are so many people soo anti christian?

Besides the fact that it is a pagan religion masquerading as monotheism.....Whose professed "saviour"is a composite figure comprised of various religions, and their SUn/SON myths. Such as Mithra (persian god the son of the sun whos birthday was Dec 25th(coincidence) Krishna, and others.

The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and "sons of God," most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom were crucified or executed.33a

Adad of Assyria
Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece
Alcides of Thebes
Attis of Phrygia
Baal of Phoenicia
Bali of Afghanistan
Beddru of Japan
Buddha of India
Crite of Chaldea
Deva Tat of Siam
Hesus of the Druids
Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34
Indra of Tibet/India
Jao of Nepal
Krishna of India
Mikado of the Sintoos
Mithra of Persia
Odin of the Scandinavians
Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
Salivahana of Bermuda
Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35)
Thor of the Gauls
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Xamolxis of Thrace
Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
Zoar of the Bonzes


www.truthbeknown.com...

Besides the fact that there is NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HIM AND HIS WORKS ACTUALLY EVER EXISTED.........

It (christianity)has single handedly been responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the past couple of millenia. IF we were to objectively judge Christianity on it's deeds as we usually do humans, The outcome would not be in Christianitys favour

Originally posted by WeBDeviL
BTW: Last time I checked, Christianity was the largest religion in the world..

Would that be before or after the population's of China and India Reached their current proportions?

``

If Christians
see a conspiracy to bash them...

It must have it's roots in the 'Mission of All Christians'

To Preach the 'WORD' to ALL the World

but then, not just satisified to preach and spread the Word,
a divine mission (a Christian Jihad?) to convert the unsaved
is passionately, almost fanatically, mandated of every Christian.

well, in my view, that is their Cross to Bear, as Christians'
chose to make a stand that will be ridiculed and dissed just
as their NewTestament writings say would happen to them.
~~~~~~~~~~~

for some. the fundamentalists in particular,
they go even further with their 'mission'
" To Preach the 'WORD' to ALL the World
and then The End shall come"

By, going about with an 'Apocalypse Agenda'-
to further the prospect for an Armageddon War
and the resulting 'Day-of-the-Lord', as prophecied
in the scriptures they believe-in.

~~~~~~

go-in-peace
(didn't Christians once say that?)

Originally posted by thelibra
I think a large part of what makes a religious practice "evil" or not is the intent behind it.

I'd like to think on this a while. I don't know why someone would perform a ritual/ceremony/practice based on a religion and it being okay because "well, I don't REALLY mean it that way". Actions speak louder than words. As you say later on with the blood spilling into a pentagram. How could you do that and say, "oh it's just a fun thing my forefathers did"?

Originally posted by thelibra
The Bible expressly forbids idolatry, yet Catholics use the crucifix in most aspects of The Church.

I don't know Catholic practices, but the crucifix is a picture of Jesus on the cross, not an object being worshipped, right? Idols aren't pictures of Christianity but an object of worship.

Originally posted by thelibra
Thus, when Christians tell me something is Satanic just because it has a particular symbol, then I feel like patting them on the head, giving them a glass of milk, and sending them off to bed. It's the same mentality as the duck costume.

I will assert there are people who pretend to know without knowing. I'm not saying I'm a pretender, nor do am I an expert however...

Originally posted by thelibra
Now if, on the other hand, they pointed to a group of people chanting "Hail Satan!" while emptying the contents of a baby's stomach onto a bloody pentagram, and accused them of being Satanists, I'd not only be inclined to agree, but the crowd doing the chanting would probably join in the agreement as well, because it would most likely be, in that case, that they actually are Satanists.

I'd received my education on what is and is not Satanic from a Satanist. I was at one time seriously considering the possibility of becoming one and went through a series of discussions with him. Also, not all Satanic cults use human sacrifices, just the more severe ones (according to him).

Originally posted by thelibra
Every time a network television show is allowed to show someone being shot, but a breast is considered too taboo...

What's up with that? I never did understand...

Originally posted by thelibra
every time you celebrate Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc...every time you say goodbye...every time you use a coin or a dollar bill...and too many other things to name, you are looking at the direct result of Christians imposing their ideology on the world.

Hold up again please. Ishtar and Hallow's Eve aren't Christian. Where are people getting this idea?

The rest, yes is Christian. Christ-mas, God Be With Ye (Goodbye), In God We Trust (on the money), is.

This is what I'm saying. Choose your alliance. Why do my holydays have to be muttled up with a bunch of stuff I don't believe? Likewise I'm sure my pagan counterparts would wish Christians wouldn't celebrate Pagan holidays. I'm familiar with the merger (though can appreciate how you've presented it) but let's wake up, shall we? It's two-thousand-freakin'-five. We should know what we're doing by now. Yet, let's run through the motions of doing what mom & pop of the 1400's did. Does this make sense to anyone? Tradition? Where in the Bible does it say assimilate cultures and just do whatever they do? (waits for pun verse)

Originally posted by thelibra
Unless they are actually changing "Hooray, Baal!" or something like that, they have no explaining to do.

I think if they're representing God and Christianity and yet give reason why they are not following their own scripture, then I think they do. Now my demand for explaination means nothing (obviously), but I'd gladly run through the things I believe and do because God is the God of truth and clarity, not deception. That trait is reserved for someone else. If a group wants to keep their secrets, then fine but don't call yourself Christian because that's the antithesis of what Christ commanded.

Originally posted by thelibra
Their religious practices are their own to keep. And just you should not have to explain your desire to worship a dead carpenter,

Why not? I have to explain all the time. Granted, some don't care, but others would like to know and I think they have the right to know. That whole 'denying ignorance' phrase we wave like a flag around here. By the way, he's not dead .

Originally posted by thelibra
they should not have to explain why they like Lucky Charms to adorn their alters.

If I see a sugary bowl of cereal at the altar on church this weekend, I'll be asking a lot of questions.

Sorry I didn't address the duck costume thing, but it appears to trivialize the issue. I think this stuff is important. I know, I know, it makes me look like a starch my underwear, but see too much 'night' vs. 'day' in this analogy.

[edit on 1-4-2005 by saint4God]

1wintermute1
Besides the fact that there is NOT ONE SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT HIM AND HIS WORKS ACTUALLY EVER EXISTED.........

It (christianity)has single handedly been responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the past couple of millenia. IF we were to objectively judge Christianity on it's deeds as we usually do humans, The outcome would not be in Christianitys favour

Both of these claims are pure nosense and completely unturn, the whole post and link are so full of supported lie, it is really not worth the effort to refute it. As the work nessassary to show a hunderd lies, would take quite a while.

1. No evidecne he existed? Well let think about that for 2 seconds, you have the written testomiys of eye wittnesses, the Gospels, The Early Church Fathers who knew Christ personlly, The picographs in Eyjpt when Christ came thourght town as a Christ and all the idol fell down in fround of him, The prophecy of the Hebrew texts, telling of the coming of the Messia, the fact of mardrdom, of thousands of Christians, by Pagans, supported by Roman documents, the warrant issued for Jesus of Nassarth, the Talmad, and Jew book of law stateing they killed him. The list is so long it is quite bit of work, the True Cross of Christ, which casts of demons, heal people of cancer, raises people from the dead, cures the blind. I have personlly seen it and witnessed some of these mirricles. When someone there is not any evideace for Christ, they are just wishing it away.

Here is more.
fly.hiwaay.net...

2. Christainty is a regelgion of Murder? Ha. Try Islam or worse Atheism.
Here are some numbers with sources.

Let see total deaths of the Crusades: They, could hardly be followers of Christ, but for argument sake:

Albegensian Crudade: 5 million
The Crusades: 5 million
Thrity year war: 8 million
Conquest for Americas (Spainish) 20 million: mainly disease
Now, not one of these can be related to the teachings of the Holy Bible, but rather people like you(somewhere) lying about it.

Now lets take a look at Godlessness in the 20 century alone: The we can see what happens when you throw that book in the trash as you suggested. Furthermore, even more would have did if it not be for Christians ending these wars. Let us remember the U.S was late and undesirous of entering into WWI or WWII. These killings below are only part of the hoped for totals:

The First and Second World Wars, Communist China and the Soviet Union -- which together account for maybe ¾ of all deaths by atrocity in the 20th Century.

First World War (1914-18): 15 000 000
U.S. War Dept. in Feb. 1924, amended by the Statistical Services Center, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9 000 000
Readers Companion to Military History, Cowley and Parker, eds. (1996)

Stalain: Davies, Norman (Europe A History, 1998): c. 50 million killed 1924-53, excluding WW2 war losses.

Hilter: Guiness World Records: 56.4M WWII (non-extermination, military deaths)
Hilter:: 20,946,000 democides Rummel (the killing of Jew, Polls, soviets in airraids, Homosexuals: Rummel: 220,000
Euthanasia of Handicapped Hugh G. Gallagher: 275,000, citing Breggin (in Century of Genocide, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)

Pol Pot Regime (also in "The Cambodian Genocide", Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, Samuel Totten, editor, 1997) estimates 1,671,000 (21%) killed out of a population of 7,890,000

Mao Zedong's regime ,People's Republic of China, (1949-1975): 40 000 000
Agence France Press (25 Sept. 1999) citing at length from Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism:

Tibet (1950 et seq.): 600 000

The war on the unborn:
Abortions:
29,247,142 legal abortions were performed in the United States, 1970-95. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47 No. SS-2)
Estimated abortions worldwide: 527M to 836M (1920-2000)

Murder rate:
USA 1960-96: 666,160 murders and (non-negligent) manslaughters (Statistical Abstract of the United States

Deaths from Gun Control:
This is just part of the known tally ...
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

If you add all of that up since the introduction of Atheism, you get over a Billion. We wont mention rape, human experiments, slave labor and so on. I noticed you forgot to mention the Koran, and the deaths from Islam. You don’t see Christians beheading people and praising God. It is unknow just how many million Christian's were martared by the Pagans, the opening day of the games, was 10,000 animals, and over 12,000 christains, in one day!, the colosum was built was a gutter system just for blood!

Plus, it was not meantioned, the the whole reason for the Crusadas, was to defended Europe from the slater of Islam.

Governments kill more of their own people than wars do, Wars kill more people then criminals do. Arm the masses. To protect ourselves from men like (somewhere). Lord have mercy on us all.

Both of your claims have been refuted, next lie please?

Originally posted by saint4God
I'd like to think on this a while. I don't know why someone would perform a ritual/ceremony/practice based on a religion and it being okay because "well, I don't REALLY mean it that way". Actions speak louder than words. As you say later on with the blood spilling into a pentagram. How could you do that and say, "oh it's just a fun thing my forefathers did"?

Well, there's a huge difference between the interpretation of a symbol, and performing an abomination and calling it "good intentions". I'm sure Hitler had very good intentions in his own mind when he had all those death camps opened. However, I dare anyone here to say it was actually a good thing for him to do.

Even the Swastika itself, now a pariah that is used as a reminder of horrific events, was not always such a terrible symbol. It used to be one of prosperity.

My point is that the primary difference is in symbols vs. actions. If someone is performing perfectly harmless, reasonable actions, but their symbols are questionable, that does not make them evil, it just means they should have chosen a less controversial representation. If their actions are evil, hower, then no symbol in the world will make it seem better.

To use an example, if there was an organization called "The 666 Club" with a pentagram as their symbol, devoted to caring for widows and orphans, and their actions consisted of nothing but benign acts, would they be evil, just because of the name or symbol they chose?

What if an organization called "The Christian's For a Better Tomorrow", with a dove and a cross as their symbol, was consisted of terrorists that raped, pillaged, and murdered minorities because they felt their victims weren't pure enough for God's forgiveness? Would they be good, just because of the name or symbol they chose?

You can not judge a book by it's cover. Only by its contents.

Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know Catholic practices, but the crucifix is a picture of Jesus on the cross, not an object being worshipped, right? Idols aren't pictures of Christianity but an object of worship.

The crucifix need not be worshipped to be in violation of the Bible's commandments. However, the amount of holy attention paid to it is indistinguishable from worship. Catholics bow before it, kneel before it, pray to it, kiss it, touch it, and treat it as if it were a piece of the Almighty himself. Yet it clearly says over, and over, and over in the Bible that this is strictly forbidden.

Exodus 20:4 - Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Leviticus 19:4 - Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 26:1 - Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 4:16 - Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

2 Kings 17:12 - For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing.

...and so on...

Originally posted by saint4God
I'd received my education on what is and is not Satanic from a Satanist. I was at one time seriously considering the possibility of becoming one and went through a series of discussions with him. Also, not all Satanic cults use human sacrifices, just the more severe ones (according to him).

I know, but I was grasping for the most shocking imagery that would be appropriate to post on this thread. Hopefully my initial statements in this post clarify the point.

Originally posted by saint4God
What's up with that? I never did understand...

Puratanism (which the U.S. was founded on) and Sexual Repression (which it was also founded on). In the UK they have Topless Darts in Space on standard network television. In the US you can't even get breasts with an extended cable package anymore.

Originally posted by saint4God
Hold up again please. Ishtar and Hallow's Eve aren't Christian. Where are people getting this idea?

I honestly can't remember if you're from the U.S. or not, but here, those are major Christian holidays (except possibly Halloween, which they seem to have forgot they took over). Easter, here, is supposed to celebrate the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Halloween (aka All Hallow's Eve, all Saints Day) was originally a harvest festival, later made into a day to honor dead saints. Christmas is supposed to be when Jesus was born. All have been amazingly commercialized to the point that now they mean Candy and Cards (Easter), Candy and Costumes (Halloween), and finally, Candy and Gifts (Christmas). Likewise, we now celebrate Saint Valentine's driving the snakes out of Ireland with Candy and Flowers...

...is it any wonder that 1/3 of all Americans are now obese?

Originally posted by saint4God
This is what I'm saying. Choose your alliance. Why do my holydays have to be muttled up with a bunch of stuff I don't believe?

They don't have to be. The beauty of Free Will is your ability to pick and choose what you want from a salad bar. History, however, will exist regardless of the choices of any one individual.

Originally posted by saint4God
...but let's wake up, shall we? It's two-thousand-freakin'-five. We should know what we're doing by now. Yet, let's run through the motions of doing what mom & pop of the 1400's did. Does this make sense to anyone? Tradition?

Well, there's a lot to be said for Tradition. 600 years is nothing in the space of 7,000 years of civilization and hundreds of millions of years of human existance. Take the Jews, for instance. Their traditions are the one thing that has kept them going, through catastrophe after genocide against them. At some point, look up "Falasha" on the web, and should you have the time, read their history. It's amazing how powerful the traditions of pre-Talmudic Judaism managed to survive in isolated conditions, in a land surrounded by muslims, completely cut off from any contact with other jews, for thousands of years.

Should they throw their traditions away just because it's now 2005? Was there a magic millenium clock that suddenly chimed out "tradition be damned, give me candy, or give me death!"...?

Originally posted by saint4God
Where in the Bible does it say assimilate cultures and just do whatever they do? (waits for pun verse)

Actually, I have no pun verse... I'm not sure it ever said to. I've read it so many times I don't remember, but I can't ever recall a verse saying to do this. I'm pretty sure it was a policy decided by the Church, during the great conversion of the masses.

Originally posted by saint4God
I think if they're representing God and Christianity and yet give reason why they are not following their own scripture, then I think they do.

They are following their interpretation of God and Christianity. Even within the same congregation of any sect, of any religion, if you asked people to define God, you will get a different answer for every sheep in the fold.

Originally posted by saint4God
Now my demand for explaination means nothing (obviously), but I'd gladly run through the things I believe and do because God is the God of truth and clarity, not deception. That trait is reserved for someone else. If a group wants to keep their secrets, then fine but don't call yourself Christian because that's the antithesis of what Christ commanded.

Ah, I don't actually recall Jesus saying you couldn't keep your precepts secret. I'm pretty sure most of what he said consisted of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and like, be nice..."

Additionally, per your reasoning, the Catholics must give up the claim of being Christian as well, as the Vatican keeps many many secrets.

Let's not forget the gnostic branch of Judaism, the Cabala, who keep secrets just as deep, yet they are still considered Jews.

Differing Interpretations do not mean a different God is followed, it just means that some people saw him through a different coloured pane of the Great Stained-Glass Window of Life.

Originally posted by saint4God
Why not? I have to explain all the time. Granted, some don't care, but others would like to know and I think they have the right to know.

This would contradict your earlier statement that your religion is for you, and not for the benefit of displaying it for others. If someone asks, you have the choice to explain or not, as you will. But you do not owe an explanation to anyone, except the one whom you follow, on the day you are judged.

Originally posted by saint4God
If I see a sugary bowl of cereal at the altar on church this weekend, I'll be asking a lot of questions.

I'd probably get kicked out for picking up the bowl and eating its contents.

Hey mr Donkey (another word for ass which I find ironic)

After I was able to get through your multiple spelling, and grammer (sic)errors, I think I was able to get the point of what you were saying.

Tell me one thing though......How did this turn into a rant about gun control?

Anyways as for your proof. There is no historical record of a person named Jesus. ALL THEOLOGICAL SCHOLARS AGREE ON THIS.

I believe there perhaps might be reference in two historians memoirs ( I forget their names) these however are still under scrutiny.

Since you didn't obviously read my link I will post it for you in full. Try to read and then get back to me. If you can deny any information given then I welcome it. Please good sir change my mind.


The Origins of Christianity and
the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
by Acharya S
Introduction
Around the world over the centuries, much has been written about religion, its meaning, its relevance and contribution to humanity. In the West particularly, sizable tomes have been composed speculating upon the nature and historical background of the main character of Western religions, Jesus Christ. Many have tried to dig into the precious few clues as to Jesus's identity and come up with a biographical sketch that either bolsters faith or reveals a more human side of this godman to which we can all relate. Obviously, considering the time and energy spent on them, the subjects of Christianity and its legendary founder are very important to the Western mind and culture.

The Controversy
Despite all of this literature continuously being cranked out and the significance of the issue, in the public at large there is a serious lack of formal and broad education regarding religion and mythology, and most individuals are highly uninformed in this area. Concerning the issue of Christianity, for example, the majority of people are taught in most schools and churches that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure and that the only controversy regarding him is that some people accept him as the Son of God and the Messiah, while others do not. However, whereas this is the raging debate most evident in this field today, it is not the most important. Shocking as it may seem to the general populace, the most enduring and profound controversy in this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed.

Although this debate may not be evident from publications readily found in popular bookstores1, when one examines this issue closely, one will find a tremendous volume of literature that demonstrates, logically and intelligently, time and again that Jesus Christ is a mythological character along the same lines as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian or other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths rather than historical figures2. Delving deeply into this large body of work, one uncovers evidence that the Jesus character is based upon much older myths and heroes from around the globe. One discovers that this story is not, therefore, a historical representation of a Jewish rebel carpenter who had physical incarnation in the Levant 2,000 years ago. In other words, it has been demonstrated continually for centuries that this character, Jesus Christ, was invented and did not depict a real person who was either the "son of God" or was "evemeristically" made into a superhuman by enthusiastic followers3.

History and Positions of the Debate
This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and the writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal that they were constantly forced by the pagan intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says, "And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5 Emperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."6 According to these learned dissenters, the New Testament could rightly be called, "Gospel Fictions."7

A century ago, mythicist Albert Churchward said, "The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology."8 In Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless states, "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates."9 Those who concocted some of the hundreds of "alternative" gospels and epistles that were being kicked about during the first several centuries C.E. have even admitted that they had forged the documents.10 Forgery during the first centuries of the Church's existence was admittedly rampant, so common in fact that a new phrase was coined to describe it: "pious fraud."11 Such prevarication is confessed to repeatedly in the Catholic Encyclopedia.12 Some of the "great" church fathers, such as Eusebius13, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of what "the Lord" said and did during "his" alleged sojourn upon the earth.14

The Proof
The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."

The Gnostics
From their own admissions, the early Christians were incessantly under criticism by scholars of great repute who were impugned as "heathens" by their Christian adversaries. This group included many Gnostics, who strenuously objected to the carnalization of their deity, as the Christians can be shown to have taken many of the characteristics of their god and godman from the Gnostics, meaning "Ones who know," a loose designation applied to members of a variety of esoteric schools and brotherhoods. The refutations of the Christians against the Gnostics reveal that the Christian godman was an insult to the Gnostics, who held that their god could never take human form.16

Biblical Sources
It is very telling that the earliest Christian documents, the Epistles attributed to "Paul," never discuss a historical background of Jesus but deal exclusively with a spiritual being who was known to all gnostic sects for hundreds to thousands of years. The few "historical" references to an actual life of Jesus cited in the Epistles are demonstrably interpolations and forgeries, as are, according to Wheless, the Epistles themselves, as they were not written by "Paul."17 Aside from the brief reference to Pontius Pilate at 1 Timothy 6:13, an epistle dated ben Yehoshua to 144 CE and thus not written by Paul, the Pauline literature (as pointed out by Edouard Dujardin) "does not refer to Pilate18, or the Romans, or Caiaphas, or the Sanhedrin, or Herod19, or Judas, or the holy women, or any person in the gospel account of the Passion, and that it also never makes any allusion to them; lastly, that it mentions absolutely none of the events of the Passion, either directly or by way of allusion."20 Dujardin additionally relates that other early "Christian" writings such as Revelation do not mention any historical details or drama.21 Mangasarian notes that Paul also never quotes from Jesus's purported sermons and speeches, parables and prayers, nor does he mention Jesus's supernatural birth or any of his alleged wonders and miracles, all which one would presume would be very important to his followers, had such exploits and sayings been known prior to "Paul."22

Turning to the gospels themselves, which were composed between 170-180 C.E.22a, their pretended authors, the apostles, give sparse histories and genealogies of Jesus that contradict each other and themselves in numerous places. The birthdate of Jesus is depicted as having taken place at different times. His birth and childhood are not mentioned in "Mark," and although he is claimed in "Matthew" and "Luke" to have been "born of a virgin," his lineage is traced to the House of David through Joseph, such that he may "fulfill prophecy."23 He is said in the first three (Synoptic) gospels to have taught for one year before he died, while in "John" the number is three years. "Matthew" relates that Jesus delivered "The Sermon on the Mount"24 before "the multitudes," while "Luke" says it was a private talk given only to the disciples. The accounts of his Passion and Resurrection differ utterly from each other, and no one states how old he was when he died.25 Wheless says, "The so-called 'canonical' books of the New Testament, as of the Old, are a mess of contradictions and confusions of text, to the present estimate of 150,000 and more 'variant readings,' as is well known and admitted."26 In addition, of the dozens of gospels, ones that were once considered canonical or genuine were later rejected as "apocryphal" or spurious, and vice versa. So much for the "infallible Word of God" and "infallible" Church! The confusion exists because the Christian plagiarists over the centuries were attempting to amalgamate and fuse practically every myth, fairytale, legend, doctrine or bit of wisdom they could pilfer from the innumerable different mystery religions and philosophies that existed at the time. In doing so, they forged, interpolated, mutilated, changed, and rewrote these texts for centuries.27

Non-Biblical Sources
Basically, there are no non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any known historian of the time during and after Jesus's purported advent. Walker says, "No literate person of his own time mentioned him in any known writing." Eminent Hellenistic Jewish historian and philosopher Philo (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), alive at the purported time of Jesus, makes no mention of him. Nor do any of the some 40 other historians who wrote during the first one to two centuries of the Common Era. "Enough of the writings of [these] authors...remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."28 Their silence is deafening testimony against the historicizers.

In the entire works of the Jewish historian Josephus, which constitute many volumes, there are only two paragraphs that purport to refer to Jesus. Although much has been made of these "references," they have been dismissed by all scholars and even by Christian apologists as forgeries, as have been those referring to John the Baptist and James, "brother" of Jesus. Bishop Warburton labeled the Josephus interpolation regarding Jesus as "a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too."29 Wheless notes that, "The first mention ever made of this passage, and its text, are in the Church History of that 'very dishonest writer,' Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...CE [Catholic Encyclopedia] admits... the above cited passage was not known to Origen and the earlier patristic writers." Wheless, a lawyer, and Taylor, a minister, agree that it was Eusebius himself who forged the passage.

Regarding the letter to Trajan supposedly written by Pliny the Younger, which is one of the pitifully few "references" to Jesus or Christianity held up by Christians as evidence of the existence of Jesus, there is but one word that is applicable - "Christian" - and that has been demonstrated to be spurious, as is also suspected of the entire letter. Concerning the passage in the works of the historian Tacitus, who did not live during the purported time of Jesus but was born two decades after his purported death, this is also considered by competent scholars as an interpolation and forgery.30 Christian defenders also like to hold up the passage in Suetonius that refers to someone named "Chrestus" or "Chresto" as reference to their Savior; however, while some have speculated that there was a Roman man of that name at that time, the name "Chrestus" or "Chrestos," meaning "useful," was frequently held by freed slaves. Others opine that this passage is also an interpolation.

As to these references and their constant regurgitation by Christian apologists, Dr. Alvin Boyd Kuhn says:

"The average Christian minister who has not read outside the pale of accredited Church authorities will impart to any parishioner making the inquiry the information that no event in history iis better attested by witness than the occurences in the Gospel narrative of Christ's life. He will go over the usual citation of the historians who mention Jesus and the letters claiming to have been written about him. When the credulous questioner, putting trust in the intelligence and good faith of his pastor, gets this answer, he goes away assured on the point of the veracity of the Gospel story. The pastor does not qualify his data with the information that the practice of forgery, fictionizing and fable was rampant in the early Church. In the simple interest of truth, then, it is important to examine the body of alleged testimony from secular history and see what credibility and authority it possess.

"First, as to the historians whose works record the existence of Jesus, the list comprises but four. They are Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius and Josephus. There are short paragraphs in the works of each of these, two in Josephus. The total quantity of this material is given by Harry Elmer Barnes in The Twilight of Christianity as some twenty-four lines. It may total a little more, perhaps twice that amount. This meager testimony constitutes the body or mass of the evidence of 'one of the best attested events in history.' Even if it could be accepted as indisputably authentic and reliable, it would be faltering support for an event that has dominated the thought of half the world for eighteen centuries.

"But what is the standing of this witness? Not even Catholic scholars of importance have dissented from a general agreement of academic investigators that these passages, one and all, must by put down as forgeries and interpolations by partisan Christian scribes who wished zealously to array the authority of these historians behind the historicity of the Gospel life of Jesus. A sum total of forty or fifty lines from secular history supporting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, and they completely discredited!"30a

Of these "references," Dujardin says, "But even if they are authentic, and were derived from earlier sources, they would not carry us back earlier than the period in which the gospel legend took form, and so could attest only the legend of Jesus, and not his historicity." In any case, these scarce and brief "references" to a man who supposedly shook up the world can hardly be held up as proof of his existence, and it is absurd that the purported historicity of the entire Christian religion is founded upon them.31 As it is said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; yet, no proof of any kind for the historicity of Jesus has ever existed or is forthcoming.

The Characters
It is evident that there was no single historical person upon whom the Christian religion was founded, and that "Jesus Christ" is a compilation of legends, heroes, gods and godmen. There is not adequate room here to go into detail about each god or godman that contributed to the formation of the Jewish Jesus character; suffice it to say that there is plenty of documentation to show that this issue is not a question of "faith" or "belief." The truth is that during the era this character supposedly lived there was an extensive library at Alexandria and an incredibly nimble brotherhood network that stretched from Europe to China, and this information network had access to numerous manuscripts that told the same narrative portrayed in the New Testament with different place names and ethnicity for the characters. In actuality, the legend of Jesus nearly identically parallels the story of Krishna, for example, even in detail, as was presented by noted mythologist and scholar Gerald Massey over 100 years ago, as well as by Rev. Robert Taylor 160 years ago, among others.32 The Krishna tale as told in the Hindu Vedas has been dated to at least as far back as 1400 B.C.E.33 The same can be said of the well-woven Horus mythos, which also is practically identical, in detail, to the Jesus story, but which predates the Christian version by thousands of years.

As concerns the specious claim that the analogies between the Christ myth and those outlined below are "non-existent" because they are not found in "primary sources," let us turn to the words of the early Church fathers, who acknowledged that major important aspects of the Christ character are indeed to be found in the stories of earlier, "Pagan" gods, but who asserted that the reason for these similarities was because the evidently prescient devil "anticipated" Christ and planted "foreshadowing" of his "coming" in the heathens' minds.

In his First Apology, Christian father Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) acknowledged the similarities between the older Pagan gods and religions and those of Christianity, when he attempted to demonstrate, in the face of ridicule, that Christianity was no more ridiculous than the earlier myths:

"ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST. And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre?"

In his endless apologizing, Justin reiterates the similarities between his godman and the gods of other cultures:

"As to the objection of our Jesus’s being crucified, I say, that suffering was common to all the aforementioned sons of Jove [Jupiter] . . . As to his being born of a virgin, you have your Perseus to balance that. As to his curing the lame, and the paralytic, and such as were cripples from birth, this is little more than what you say of your Aesculapius."

In making these comparisons between Christianity and its predecessor Paganism, however, Martyr sinisterly spluttered:

"It having reached the Devil’s ears that the prophets had foretold the coming of Christ, the Son of God, he set the heathen Poets to bring forward a great many who should be called the sons of Jove. The Devil laying his scheme in this, to get men to imagine that the true history of Christ was of the same characters the prodigious fables related of the sons of Jove."

In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Martyr again admits the pre-existence of the Christian tale and then uses his standard, irrational and self-serving apology, i.e., "the devil got there first":

"Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah’s days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter’s] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, "strong as a giant to run his race," has been in like manner imitated? And when he [the devil] brings forward Aesculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? . . . And when I hear, Trypho, that Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving serpent counterfeited also this."

And in his Octavius, Christian writer Minucius Felix (c. 250 CE) denied that Christians worshipped a "criminal and his cross," and retorted that the Pagans did esteem a crucified man:

"Chapter XXIX.-Argument: Nor is It More True that a Man Fastened to a Cross on Account of His Crimes is Worshipped by Christians, for They Believe Not Only that He Was Innocent, But with Reason that He Was God. But, on the Other Hand, the Heathens Invoke the Divine Powers of Kings Raised into Gods by Themselves; They Pray to Images, and Beseech Their Genii.

"These, and such as these infamous things, we are not at liberty even to hear; it is even disgraceful with any more words to defend ourselves from such charges. For you pretend that those things are done by chaste and modest persons, which we should not believe to be done at all, unless you proved that they were true concerning yourselves. For in that you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross, you wander far from the neighbourhood of the truth, in thinking either that a criminal deserved, or that an earthly being was able, to be believed God... Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it..."

The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and "sons of God," most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom were crucified or executed.33a

Adad of Assyria
Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece
Alcides of Thebes
Attis of Phrygia
Baal of Phoenicia
Bali of Afghanistan
Beddru of Japan
Buddha of India
Crite of Chaldea
Deva Tat of Siam
Hesus of the Druids
Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character34
Indra of Tibet/India
Jao of Nepal
Krishna of India
Mikado of the Sintoos
Mithra of Persia
Odin of the Scandinavians
Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
Salivahana of Bermuda
Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas35)
Thor of the Gauls
Universal Monarch of the Sibyls36
Wittoba of the Bilingonese
Xamolxis of Thrace
Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
Zoar of the Bonzes
The Major Players
Buddha
Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500 B.C.E., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.37

The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:38

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."38a
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent's head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.38b
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.38c
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."38d
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.38e
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd"39, the "Carpenter"40, the "Infinite and Everlasting."40a
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."
Horus of Egypt
The stories of Jesus and Horus are very similar, with Horus even contributing the name of Jesus Christ. Horus and his once-and-future Father, Osiris, are frequently interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one").41 The legends of Horus go back thousands of years, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger42, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.43
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.44
Horus was also baptized by "Anup the Baptizer," who becomes "John the Baptist."
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God's Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word" etc.
He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish ("Ichthys").45
Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."46
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One," long before the Christians duplicated the story.47
In fact, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis - the original "Madonna and Child"48 - and the Vatican itself is built upon the papacy of Mithra49, who shares many qualities with Jesus and who existed as a deity long before the Jesus character was formalized. The Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced50. Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to water to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier pagan mystery religions.51

Mithra, Sungod of Persia
The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years. According to Wheless, the cult of Mithra was, shortly before the Christian era, "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times." Mithra has the following in common with the Christ character:

Mithra was born on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."52
Krishna of India
The similarities between the Christian character and the Indian messiah are many. Indeed, Massey finds over 100 similarities between the Hindu and Christian saviors, and Graves, who includes the various noncanonical gospels in his analysis, lists over 300 likenesses. It should be noted that a common earlier English spelling of Krishna was "Christna," which reveals its relation to '"Christ." It should also be noted that, like the Jewish godman, many people have believed in a historical, carnalized Krishna.53

Krishna was born of the Virgin Devaki ("Divine One") 53a
His father was a carpenter.54
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.54a
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.55
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in the River Ganges.55a
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
Krishna used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
"He lived poor and he loved the poor."56
He was transfigured in front of his disciples.57
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.58
He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
Krishna is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."59
He is the second person of the Trinity,60 and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."60a
He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."61
Krishna is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth.62
Prometheus of Greece
The Greek god Prometheus has been claimed to have come from Egypt, but his drama took place in the Caucasus mountains. Prometheus shares a number of striking similarities with the Christ character.

Prometheus descended from heaven as God incarnate as man, to save mankind.
He was crucified, suffered and rose from the dead.
He was called the Logos or Word.62a
Five centuries before the Christian era, esteemed Greek poet Aeschylus wrote Prometheus Bound, which, according to Taylor, was presented in the theater in Athens. Taylor claims that in the play Prometheus is crucified "on a fatal tree" and the sky goes dark:

"The darkness which closed the scene on the suffering Prometheus, was easily exhibited on the stage, by putting out the lamps; but when the tragedy was to become history, and the fiction to be turned into fact, the lamp of day could not be so easily disposed of. Nor can it be denied that the miraculous darkness which the Evangelists so solemnly declare to have attended the crucifixion of Christ, labours under precisely the same fatality of an absolute and total want of evidence."63

Tradition holds that Prometheus was crucified on a rock, yet some sources have opined that legend also held he was crucified on a tree and that Christians muddled the story and/or mutilated the text, as they did with the works of so many ancient authors. In any case, the sun hiding in darkness parallels the Christian fable of the darkness descending when Jesus was crucified. This remarkable occurrence is not recorded in history but is only explainable within the Mythos and as part of a recurring play.

The Creation of a Myth
The Christians went on a censorship rampage that led to the virtual illiteracy of the ancient world and ensured that their secret would be hidden from the masses64, but the scholars of other schools/sects never gave up their arguments against the historicizing of a very ancient mythological creature. We have lost the arguments of these learned dissenters because the Christians destroyed any traces of their works. Nonetheless, the Christians preserved the contentions of their detractors through the Christians' own refutations.

For example, early Church Father Tertullian (@ 160-220 C.E.), an "ex-Pagan" and Bishop of Carthage, ironically admits the true origins of the Christ story and of all other such godmen by stating in refutation of his critics, "You say we worship the sun; so do you."65 Interestingly, a previously strident believer and defender of the faith, Tertullian later renounced Christianity66.

The "Son" of God is the "Sun" of God 67
The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula (the "Mythos," as mentioned above) revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.68

For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th ("Christmas"69). This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th.70 The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
The sun is the "Light of the World."
The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.71
The sun "walks on water."
The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.72
Contrary to popular belief, the ancients were not an ignorant and superstitious lot who actually believed their deities to be literal characters. Indeed, this slanderous propaganda has been part of the conspiracy to make the ancients appear as if they were truly the dark and dumb rabble that was in need of the "light of Jesus."73 The reality is that the ancients were no less advanced in their morals and spiritual practices, and in many cases were far more advanced, than the Christians in their own supposed morality and ideology, which, in its very attempt at historicity, is in actuality a degradation of the ancient Mythos. Indeed, unlike the "superior" Christians, the true intelligentsia amongst the ancients were well aware that their gods were astronomical and atmospheric in nature. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle74 surely knew that Zeus, the sky god father figure who migrated to Greece from India and/or Egypt, was never a real person, despite the fact that the Greeks have designated on Crete both a birth cave and a death cave of Zeus. In addition, all over the world are to be found sites where this god or that allegedly was born, walked, suffered, died, etc., a common and unremarkable occurrence that is not monopolized by, and did not originate with, Christianity.74a

Etymology Tells the Story
Zeus, aka "Zeus Pateras," who we now automatically believe to be a myth and not a historical figure, takes his name from the Indian version, "Dyaus Pitar." Dyaus Pitar in turn is related to the Egyptian "Ptah," and from both Pitar and Ptah comes the word "pater," or "father." "Zeus" equals "Dyaus," which became "Deos," "Deus" and "Dios" - "God." "Zeus Pateras," like Dyaus Pitar, means, "God the Father," a very ancient concept that in no way originated with "Jesus" and Christianity. There is no question of Zeus being a historical character. Dyaus Pitar becomes "Jupiter" in Roman mythology, and likewise is not representative of an actual, historical character. In Egyptian mythology, Ptah, the Father, is the unseen god-force, and the sun was viewed as Ptah's visible proxy who brings everlasting life to the earth; hence, the "son of God" is really the "sun of God." Indeed, according to Hotema, the very name "Christ" comes from the Hindi word "Kris" (as in Krishna), which is a name for the sun.75

Furthermore, since Horus was called "Iusa/Iao/Iesu"76 the "KRST," and Krishna/Christna was called "Jezeus," centuries before any Jewish character similarly named, it would be safe to assume that Jesus Christ is just a repeat of Horus and Krishna, among the rest. According to Rev. Taylor, the title "Christ" in its Hebraic form meaning "Anointed" ("Masiah"77) was held by all kings of Israel, as well as being "so commonly assumed by all sorts of impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to supernatural communications, that the very claim to it is in the gospel itself considered as an indication of imposture . . ."78 Hotema states that the name "Jesus Christ" was not formally adopted in its present form until after the first Council of Nicea, i.e., in 325 C.E.79

In actuality, even the place names and the appellations of many other characters in the New Testament can be revealed to be Hebraicized renderings of the Egyptian texts.

As an example, in the fable of "Lazarus," the mummy raised from the dead by Jesus, the Christian copyists did not change his name much, "El-Azar-us" being the Egyptian mummy raised from the dead by Horus possibly 1,000 years or more before the Jewish version.80 This story is allegory for the sun reviving its old, dying self, or father, as in "El-Osiris."81 It is not a true story.

Horus's principal enemy - originally Horus's other face or "dark" aspect - was "Set" or "Sata," whence comes "Satan."82 Horus struggles with Set in the exact manner that Jesus battles with Satan, with 40 days in the wilderness, among other similarities.83 This is because this myth represents the triumph of light over dark, or the sun's return to relieve the terror of the night.

"Jerusalem" simply means "City of Peace," and the actual city in Israel was named after the holy city of peace in the Egyptian sacred texts that already existed at the time the city was founded. Likewise, "Bethany," site of the famous multiplying of the loaves, means "House of God," and is allegory for the "multiplication of the many out of the One."84 Any town of that designation was named for the allegorical place in the texts that existed before the town's foundation. The Egyptian predecessor and counterpart is "Bethanu."85

The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian
One can find certain allegorical place names such as "Jerusalem" and "Israel" in the Book of Revelation. Massey has stated that Revelation, rather than having been written by any apostle called John during the 1st Century C.E., is a very ancient text that dates to the beginning of this era of history, i.e. possibly as early as 4,000 years ago.86 Massey asserts that Revelation relates the Mithraic legend of Zarathustra/Zoroaster.87 Hotema says of this mysterious book, which has baffled mankind for centuries: "It is expressed in terms of creative phenomena; its hero is not Jesus but the Sun of the Universe, its heroine is the Moon; and all its other characters are Planets, Stars and Constellations; while its stage-setting comprises the Sky, the Earth, the Rivers and the Sea." The common form of this text has been attributed by Churchward to Horus's scribe, Aan, whose name has been passed down to us as "John."88

The word Israel itself, far from being a Jewish appellation, probably comes from the combination of three different reigning deities: Isis, the Earth Mother Goddess revered throughout the ancient world; Ra, the Egyptian sungod; and El, the Semitic deity passed down in form as Saturn.90 El was one of the earliest names for the god of the ancient Hebrews (whence Emmanu-El, Micha-El, Gabri-El, Samu-El, etc.), and his worship is reflected in the fact that the Jews still consider Saturday as "God's Day."91

Indeed, that the Christians worship on Sunday betrays the genuine origins of their god and godman. Their "savior" is actually the sun, which is the "Light of the world that every eye can see." The sun has been viewed consistently throughout history as the savior of mankind for reasons that are obvious. Without the sun, the planet would scarcely last one day. So important was the sun to the ancients that they composed a "Sun Book," or "Helio Biblia," which became the "Holy Bible."91a

The "Patriarchs" and "Saints" are the Gods of Other Cultures
When one studies mythmaking, one can readily discern and delineate a pattern that is repeated throughout history. Whenever an invading culture takes over its predecessors, it either vilifies the preceding deities or makes them into lesser gods, "patriarchs" or, in the case of Christianity, "saints." This process is exemplified in the adoption of the Hindu god Brahma as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham.92 Another school of thought proposes that the patriarch Joshua was based on Horus as "Iusa," since the cult of Horus had migrated by this period to the Levant. In this theory, the cult of Joshua, which was situated in exactly the area where the Christ drama allegedly took place, then mutated into the Christian story, with Joshua becoming Jesus.93 As Robertson says, "The Book of Joshua leads us to think that he had several attributes of the Sun-god, and that, like Samson and Moses, he was an ancient deity reduced to human status."

Indeed, the legend of Moses, rather than being that of a historical Hebrew character, is found around the ancient Middle and Far East, with the character having different names and races, depending on the locale: "Manou" is the Indian legislator; "Nemo the lawgiver," who brought down the tablets from the Mountain of God, hails from Babylon; "Mises" is found in Syria and Egypt, where also "Manes the lawgiver" takes the stage; "Minos" is the Cretan reformer; and the Ten Commandments are simply a repetition of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi and the Hindu Vedas, among others.94 Like Moses, Krishna was placed by his mother in a reed boat and set adrift in a river to be discovered by another woman.95 A century ago, Massey outlined, and Graham recently reiterated, that even the Exodus itself is not a historical event. That the historicity of the Exodus has been questioned is echoed by the lack of any archaeological record, as is reported in Biblical Archaeology Review ("BAR"), September/October 1994.96

Like many biblical characters, Noah is also a myth97, long ago appropriated from the Egyptians, the Sumerians and others, as any sophisticated scholar could demonstrate, and yet we find all sorts of books - some even presumably "channeling" the "ultimate truth" from a mystical, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal being such as Jesus himself - prattling on about a genuine, historical Noah, his extraordinary adventures, and the "Great Flood!"98

Additionally, the "Esther" of the Old Testament Book of Esther is a remake of the Goddess Ishtar, Astarte, Astoreth or Isis, from whom comes "Easter"99 and about whose long and ubiquitous reign little is said in "God's infallible Word."100 Per Harwood (Mythology's Last Gods, 230), "Esther" is best transliterated "Ishtar" and "Mordechai" is "Mardukay." The Virgin Mother/Goddess/Queen of Heaven motif is found around the globe, long before the Christian era, with Isis, for instance, also being called "Mata-Meri" ("Mother Mary"). As Walker says, "Mari" was the "basic name of the Goddess known to the Chaldeans as Marratu, to the Jews as Marah, to the Persians as Mariham, to the Christians as Mary . . . Semites worshipped an androgynous combination of Goddess and God called Mari-El (Mary-God), corresponding to the Egyptian Meri-Ra, which combined the feminine principle of water with the masculine principle of the sun."

Even the Hebraic name of God, "Yahweh," was taken from the Egyptian "IAO."101

In one of the most notorious of Christian deceptions, in order to convert followers of "Lord Buddha," the Church canonized him as "St. Josaphat," which represented a Christian corruption of the buddhistic title, "Bodhisat."102

The "Disciples" are the Signs of the Zodiac
Moreover, it is no accident that there are 12 patriarchs and 12 disciples, 12 being the number of the astrological signs, or months. Indeed, like the 12 Herculean tasks and the 12 "helpers" of Horus, Jesus's 12 disciples are symbolic for the zodiacal signs and do not depict any literal figures who played out a drama upon the earth circa 30 C.E. The disciples can be shown to have been an earlier deity/folkloric hero/constellation.103 Peter is easily revealed to be a mythological character104, while Judas has been said to represent Scorpio, "the backbiter," the time of year when the sun's rays are weakening and the sun appears to be dying.105 James, "brother of Jesus" and "brother of the Lord," is equivalent to Amset, brother of Osiris and brother of the Lord.106 Massey says "Taht-Matiu was the scribe of the gods, and in Christian art Matthew is depicted as the scribe of the gods, with an angel standing near him, to dictate the gospel."107 Even the apostle Paul is a compilation of several characters: The Old Testament Saul, Apollonius of Tyana and the Greek demigod Orpheus.108

Was Jesus an Essene Master? 109
As regards Jesus being an Essene according to "secret" Dead Sea Scrolls, even before the discovery of the scrolls, over the centuries there has been much speculation to this effect, but Massey skillfully argued that many of Jesus's presumed teachings were either in contradiction to or were non-existent in Essene philosophy.110 The Essenes did not believe in corporeal resurrection, nor did they believe in a carnalized messiah. They did not accept the historicity of Jesus. They were not followers of the Hebrew Bible, or its prophets, or the concept of the original fall that must produce a savior. Massey further points out that the Essenes were teetotalers and ate to live rather than the other way around. Compared to this, the assumed Essene Jesus appears to be a glutton and drunkard. Also, whereas according to Josephus the Essenes abhorred the swearing of oaths, Jesus was fond of "swearing unto" his disciples.111 While many Essenic doctrines are included in the New Testament, the list of disparities between the Dead Sea Scroll Essenes and their alleged great master Jesus goes on.112

Qumran is Not an Essene Community
It should also be noted that there is another debate as to whether or not Qumran, the site traditionally associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, was an Essene community. In BAR, previously cited, it is reported that archaeological finds indicate Qumran was not an Essene community but was possibly a waystation for travelers and merchants crossing the Dead Sea. In BAR, it has also been hypothesized that the fervent tone and warrior-stance of some of the scrolls unearthed near Qumran belie any Essene origin and indicate a possible attribution to Jewish Zealots instead. In Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, Norman Golb makes a very good case that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written by any Essene scribes but were a collection of tomes from various libraries that were secreted in caves throughout eastern Israel by Jews fleeing the Roman armies during the First Revolt of 70 A.D. Golb also hypothesizes that Qumran itself was a fortress, not a monastery. In any case, it is impossible to equate the "Teacher of Righteousness" found in any scrolls with Jesus Christ.

Was the New Testament Composed by Therapeuts?
In 1829 Rev. Taylor adeptly made the case that the entire Gospel story was already in existence long before the beginning of the Common Era and was probably composed by the monks at Alexandria called "Therapeuts" in Greek and "Essenes" in Egyptian, both names meaning "healers."113 This theory has stemmed in part from the statement of early church father Eusebius, who, in a rare moment of seeming honesty, "admitted . . . that the canonical Christian gospels and epistles were the ancient writings of the Essenes or Therapeutae reproduced in the name of Jesus."114 Taylor also opines that "the travelling Egyptian Therapeuts brought the whole story from India to their monasteries in Egypt, where, some time after the commencement of the Roman monarchy, it was transmuted in Christianity."115 In addition, Wheless evinces that one can find much of the fable of "Jesus Christ" in the Book of Enoch116, which predated the supposed advent of the Jewish master by hundreds of years.117 According to Massey, it was the "pagan" Gnostics - who included members of the Essene/Therapeut and Nazarene118 brotherhoods, among others - who actually carried to Rome the esoteric (gnostic) texts containing the Mythos, upon which the numerous gospels, including the canonical four, were based. Wheless says, "Obviously, the Gospels and other New Testament booklets, written in Greek and quoting 300 times the Greek Septuagint, and several Greek Pagan authors, as Aratus, and Cleanthes, were written, not by illiterate Jewish peasants, but by Greek-speaking ex-Pagan Fathers and priests far from the Holy Land of the Jews."119 Mead averred, "We thus conclude that the autographs of our four Gospels were most probably written in Egypt, in the reign of Hadrian."120

Conclusion
As Walker said, "Scholars' efforts to eliminate paganism from the Gospels in order to find a historical Jesus have proved as hopeless as searching for a core in an onion." The "gospel" story of Jesus is not a factual portrayal of a historical "master" who walked the earth 2,000 years ago. It is a myth built upon other myths and godmen, who in turn were personifications of the ubiquitous sungod mythos.

"The Christ of the gospels is in no sense an historical personage or a supreme model of humanity, a hero who strove, and suffered, and failed to save the world by his death. It is impossible to establish the existence of an historical character even as an impostor. For such an one the two witnesses, astronomical mythology and gnosticism, completely prove an alibi. The Christ is a popular lay-figure that never lived, and a lay-figure of Pagan origin; a lay-figure that was once the Ram and afterwards the Fish; a lay-figure that in human form was the portrait and image of a dozen different gods."

Gerald Massey

© 2001 Acharya


[edit on 1-4-2005 by 1wintermute1]

thelibra

The crucifix need not be worshipped to be in violation of the Bible's commandments. However, the amount of holy attention paid to it is indistinguishable from worship. Catholics bow before it, kneel before it, pray to it, kiss it, touch it, and treat it as if it were a piece of the Almighty himself. Yet it clearly says over, and over, and over in the Bible that this is strictly forbidden.

This is not true, is Lord clearly says:

Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

The worship of false god is the root of the commandment.

This was given because Idolartors would worship carved(graven) idols and the thougth the spirit of the god, was in the Idol. It was a devil, not a God.
Right after this the Lord goes on to tell Moses, how to make the Ark, and to place images on it.

Ex 25:20
And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

Then God says he is in the Ark, meaning his Spirit.
Ex 25:22
And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Now, after Jesus Christ came to earth, born of a woman, taking her flesh, and milk, we can see the Lord in the flesh, we can draw him, paint him, describe him. No one had ever seen the Lord before he took flesh, thus when this happen, we now can have images of him. You are right to say one should not worship an image, true. The Lord says he will commune by the Ark, so now Christians worship God, and the image replaces the Ark. They should never worship the image. The image helps man to think of his Lord, his love, his kindness, his suffering for us. Just as when one faces a wall or the sky and pray, we would not say they are worshiping the sky or the wall, nor is it right to Christians worship the image, it simply helps them think of God. In face everyone is made in the image and likeness of God, so we should not remove people from the Church because they are images of God. The Apostle Luke painted the first 23 icons (paintings) of the Lord, himself. In fact the Bible itself paints a picture of God, by it writings, it says God is a Father, a Son, a Spirit, it describes God, in many way, one can learn about God, by reading the Bible.
In the old days most people could not read or write, so in the Churches they would place pictures of the Bible, like the flood, or feeding the 5000, or the Birth of Christ, this would give people comfort. They could learn from the picture, just a we learn from a movie. In fact how much better is it for people to look at the good things of God, then the evil things on T.V.?
For the Lord tell us, set nothing evil before thine eyes.
Further more, would have the first followers of Christ, be forced not to look at Christ or worship him in the flesh? Should of the early Christians not have looked at the Cross, and thought of God? How many of us keep things of friends or family past, only to see them and remember them and feel close to them in our hearts. Why do people forbid this of Christians?
Not only this, but when they would be worshiping Idol, it was not the spirit of God in the Idol. I have yet to meet a Christian who believes God is in the image of an Icon or Cross. Rather, they look at the Icon and think of God, or kiss the cross to show their to God, whom they cannot kiss as he is in Heaven, but do they think he is inside of the Cross? Heavens no, if they did so what a few misguided Christians, does not the whole barrel spoil.

Tell me one thing though......How did this turn into a rant about gun control?

Anyways as for your proof. There is no historical record of a person named Jesus. ALL THEOLOGICAL SCHOLARS AGREE ON THIS.

Since you didn't obviously read my link I will post it for you in full. Try to read and then get back to me. If you can deny any information given then I welcome it. Please good sir change my mind.

1wintermute1,

Thank you for your concern in this matter,

I did read the link in your post, it is unfortunate that is not documented, so it is not to believed in the face of documented facts. Sorry you felt the need to post the whole thing.

No evidence of Jesus Christ, all scholars agree. Do you really think anyone would believe this? All scholars agree?! This is a first in history! Second, in all my readings most scholars do believe, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, and more, all believe he existed. They of course, call the question on who he was, but that is not your point. In fact who are these scholars that say he did not exist? In fact I am pretty sure the most of the Christian scholar, think he existed. I know the Catholic Church does, and the Orthodox, and the Lutheran, and the Baptist, and the...

The gun control item, well as long as I was showing your comments to be in error, and that the main reason for genocide, which you were basing your argument of crime on, stating incorrectly that is mainly Christians. Seeing your concern for human life, and desire to keep man free, I thought you would like to see the main reason for genocide, that is gun control. For in the face of such facts you can now turn all of your efforts toward defeating gun control rather than Christians. Happy to be of help in this matter for you. The NRA is always a good place to start. The Jews are now very concerned about this matter, you could help with your good spelling and grammer. If I can ever be of help to you just ask, as we donkeys like to be helpful. Cheers!!

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027

Phone (262) 673-9745
Fax (262) 673-9746

or for the women who contest rape and robbery,

Second Amendment Sisters, Inc.
900 R.R. 620 South
Ste C101 PMB 228
Lakeway TX 78734

Toll-free Phone/Fax: (877) 271-6216
E-Mail Us




Sorry for any spelling errors, I did use spell check just for you.





[edit on 1-4-2005 by Balaams donkey]

Originally posted by Balaams donkey
thelibra

The crucifix need not be worshipped to be in violation of the Bible's commandments. However, the amount of holy attention paid to it is indistinguishable from worship. Catholics bow before it, kneel before it, pray to it, kiss it, touch it, and treat it as if it were a piece of the Almighty himself. Yet it clearly says over, and over, and over in the Bible that this is strictly forbidden.

I did read the link in your post, it is unfortunate that is not documented, so it is not to believed in the face of documented facts. Sorry you felt the need to post the whole thing.

You obviously did not read because sources are given throughout. Go to the site and sources are given throughoutu the whole paper.

You still didn't tell me how this turned into a anti gun control rant though

1wintermute1

You obviously did not read because sources are given throughout. Go to the site and sources are given throughoutu the whole paper. You still didn't tell me how this turned into a anti gun control rant though

The gun control issue, was brought up because you claimed, killing is a problem, and that Christains are the cause. So I thought you would be happy to know this is not the case, Christians are your freinds, and those who want gun control are not your friends. Sorry, I thought you would be exited to learn this, as you attack the wrong people. Remember when you said:

It (christianity)has single handedly been responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the past couple of millenia.

This is when you stated the reason for the Anti-Christian conspiracy was " the worst atrocites" .
Really it is gun control, thought I would share. Not only that but most of the people who committed crimes, could hardly be called Christians, as I am sure you are aware of the verses which tell Christians to be law abiding citizens, and not to murder people. So would not be true that these persons are not really Christians, in fact the Pope excommunicated the Crusaders for committing crimes.

Now as to rest of your post, the point as to whether Jesus is God, or not in the case of atrocities, is sort of beside the point in the matter, as to why do people attack Christian, as you have because you were simply misinformed about who is killing who, but now you know.
So even if Christians are dumb for believing in Jesus Christ, as you claim, it is no reason to attack them, right? Pity, yes attack no. So glad we had this chat, and I will research the claims in your post that he did not exist, because if he did and he is God, I am sure you would wish to be a Christian. Right? Of, course, who would be against God? But, really it is you, who has the burden of proof, as what you say flies in the face of history, just like that bit about Christians and atrocities, Take care and best wishes.

p.s. Did you the link about the documented History of Christ?

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
With regard the former statement; if he has given man freewill, then there is no reason for all of our considered actions to first be screened by him, as there is no purpose to this screening. This then endorses his allowing the attack, it means that when we think of an action, it is immediately screened by him and he then either gives us the go ahead to follow through or not. The freewill therefore cannot be freewill, since what you describe is free thought. By the definition you provide “Done of one's own accord; voluntary” the action is exclusionary of anyone but ourselves.

Now, which is it dbrandt; God “allowed” and therefore decided not to stop the attack, or God stayed out of it because he gave man the exclusive right to act as they deem? It cannot be both if you are a Christian, since you are required to believe in freewill.

I have been dwelling on this throughout the day. God intervened in the affairs of man when He destroyed the world that was in the flood. Global event. He intervened in the affairs of man at the Tower of Babel. In this case He stopped a plan that mankind was undertaking. Global event.

He also intervened in the life of Abraham on a couple of occasions. He intervened in the life of the apostle Paul when he was going to arrest followers of Christ and completely stopped that plan. Both of these on a personal level but with global implications.

King Hezekiah was on his deathbed but prayed and God extended his life by 15 years. A husband and wife in the Book of Acts lied to the Holy Spirit and God ended their lives that day. Another direct intervention. I can't find the verse now but God says He has ended the life of some christians early to keep them from sin.

So it appears while man can think of whatever he wants(free thought is how you word it), that those actions can be stopped by God.

It appears the choice to accept Christ is is completely a man or woman's choice. After that our actions are limited by His will.

Considering your absolute failure thus far at understanding anything donkey, henceforth whenever you post to me I will be taking control of any exchange to ensure that you stay on track and not veer off on your usual tangents, for I have little to no patience with mild sophistry. Therefore, refine your statements if you wish a productive discussion relative to:

Originally posted by Balaams donkeyYou seem to link freewill and free action together, can you tell me why?

What specifically from my statements supports this question?

If I am forced to do something against my will, does my will necessarily follow?

Why do you ask this question; who would be forcing you to do anything against your freewill?

Does my will conform to my action?

Which will is this, free or forced?

Do my actions always conform to my will?

see above

We agree that freewill exists, but why do you say it is necessary for it be coupled with action?

Where do I state this? provide my exact words relative to your question.

The improper mixing of these two seperate things, is the cause much confussion, in understanding of God and man.

And what is this “improper mixing,” and where is it to be found relative to my statements?

It is really a question of power. What is the power that follows freewill, and what is the Power of God and do these two things collide.

To what power I have do you refer donkey? If it is relative to my statements, provide my quote.

Well, well, you and I seemed to have found agreement in an odd way.

Why is this shocking? Do we not ultimately place one foot in front of the other when we walk?

As was God void before scripture, or must one read to be saved?

This statement is incoherent.

Of, course the logical proofs of God are contained in scripture.

Why, because the words in the scripture makes this claim? Do we have an affidavit somewhere signed by God in this regard?

Here, here, in the wisdom of necessity of the heart, in the knowing of God. For if God is not in the heart, what is the use?

Just to show how disjointed is your logic, if God is in the heart, we have no need of scripture, do we donkey?



[edit on 4/1/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by dbrandt
So it appears while man can think of whatever he wants(free thought is how you word it), that those actions can be stopped by God.

It appears the choice to accept Christ is is completely a man or woman's choice. After that our actions are limited by His will.

That is the accurate depictions of the scriptures yes; free thought but not freewill. This then mans that we, according to scripture, are not the masters of our destiny, where destiny is defined as consequence of action carried out.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
are not the masters of our destiny, where destiny is defined as consequence of action carried out.

But we would be masters of our eternity. So while our present timebound existence can be altered by God. Our eternal destination and existence would be our choice.

Originally posted by Partyof1

Some people think, or are afraid, that Christians are trying IMPOSE their views on others.

Funny you should mention this....because this is the same argument Christian Conservatives use to justify the persecution of gays in America. That somehow, their gayness will rub off and somehow create a total gay society, far, far from the reach of moral understanding.....

No, I'm not gay.