Persecution of Christians ?

Toltec:
If you want to post specific passages for comparison of Jewish versions and Chritian versions of the Old Testament - Fine. But when you see statements like the following in web page:

Sadly, what began as a righteous movement of Judaism will culminate in the days of Jesus and following in a synchronistic Phythagorean-Buddhist-Jewish sect containing a synthesis of religious beliefs built upon astrology and sun-worship mixed with their Jewish heritage; many of these "Essene" beliefs deviated significantly from conservative Torah faith and the traditional Messianic hope

Notice the term Buddhist, now this guy is saying a Jewish sect was influenced by Buddhist percepts. He never said how that could happen in the first century.

I have heard that this was possible, there is to my knowledge a very old legend, which I have posted at this site called "The Legend of Eye's Closed". My only reference to this is my upbringing in which this legend was amounts the ones emphasized in my studies.

It cites that there was contact with the Chinese during the Roman era and prior to the birth of Jesus Christ.

The manner in which this was presented to me was very unique and while I am not suggesting that you accept it at faith. I am simply stating that am aware that it was possible, though in a limited way. Essentially the legend sugest the Romans were concerned about the birth of Jeshua because of the Torah.

What is really strange is, I was told this legend while in China (there is actually a written record to this effect, but its in China) by a Buddhist Scholar (old school).

That passage shocked me as well, which is why I posted it. The author is making the claim that Christians have essentially no real basis in respect to their faith and that the OT is a fraud.

The article is suggestive of an extremist ethic? Could such an argument have been used in the past as justification for something?

Plainly I am curious

To say that it is a valid Hypothesis or interpretation that's another story.

Please understand Jagd, I am not asking you to do research for me. I simply thought it would be interesting for some here to look into.

Any thoughts?

PS: Almost forgot

davidwiley.com...

[Edited on 16-10-2003 by Toltec]

About contact between the Romans and the Chineses. It sounds far fetched. I doubt if the Romans were even vaguely aware of a Jewish Messianic tradition. Also China is a long way from Rome. Study the journeys of Marco Polo. Also contact does not imply exchange of religious beliefs. The Parsis in India are an example (the Parsis are modern day Zoroastrians). They left Persia (now Iran) and went to India around 650 A.D. to escape the Moslems in Persia. They have maintained their Zorastrian beliefs for 1300 years in the midst of 600 million Hindus. Also one must be careful as to when certain texts were written and images made (Acharya S loves to use an image of an apparently Asian man crucified, found in Ireland by the way, as "proof" that Krishna was crucified. Well the image dates from around 1800 if I am correct but well past the formation of Christianity.) Indeed a Buddhist influence can be shown in certain gnostic Christian sects, but the influence dates from a much later time than the formation of Christianity. As for the Old Testament being a fraud, well the Christian version is based on the same text as the Jewish version. The thing is that non-Christians will use some extreme jumps of logic in attempts to prove that Jesus Christ is a myth. Here is a link you might find interesting:

www.tektonics.org...

The page above poses some interesting points about the early Christian church.

Here is a better link to the Gita (written by the founder of ISKCON):

www.iskcon.org...

[Edited on 16-10-2003 by jagdflieger]

As it was explained to me they traveled by ship and skirted the coast, beginning on the east coast of Africa, around India and from there went into what was then part of China.




They allegedly spared no expense and had applied their ability to make such trips as traveling around Africa (from the west coast around South Africa to the east coast).

But such trips were relegated only with respect to staying within visible range of a
coastline

For the record I am applying the term legend as it is defined.

Again, I felt it was extremist but with a unique approach as far I have been exposed to. To the best of my knowledge what difference do exists are more semantic than earth shattering.

Though would sugest that in respect to history, such an argument could have carried more weight.

Would anyone else like to add to the content of this thread?

To answer your question, Jag,

Islam falls in the same catagory as Christianity. Dogmatic persecutors who believe its thier way or no way. Christianity and Islam are both pretty Militant religions that have spread by bloodshed. Both spring from the rather racist religion of Judism.

I dont see Hindus killing to convert, I dont see hindu missionaries subjugating people into thier faith. Hinduism is pretty much Limited to south Asia. religous wars occur there all the time, between the Muslims and hindus, mainly because Muslims want to convert everyone, and Hindus think, leave me the # alone, we have our own gods. Hinduism does not have holy dogma, but more or less is a religon of contemplation, old superstitions, and spiritual introspection. Thuis, i hold them in less contempt. i dont remeber any Jihads or crusades in Hinduism. The problem with Hinduism is oit stemmed from the orginal Aryan religons, and its caste system was VERY racist. It still is, and its a religon with many good points, but unfortunately, many flaws.

Zorastrianism is barely even alive any more. About the only Zorastrians left int ehw orld are the few left in Iran that somehow the Islamic fruitcakes there have not wiped out. They are hardly worth consideration. And no, I dont hold them in contempt either. they are pretty much an odl dying religion. Same goes for Sihks, Jainists, and other small religions.

Budhism in itself, it is difficult to really cal, it a religion, but it is. In case you didnt know, Buddists dont really worship Buddah. Real Buddists dont. Most people in Asia do worship Buddah, but this is more a part of a joining of the eastern religions super imposing thier gods on the Buddah, who was not to be worshipped. Real Buddists do not believe in any god, and thier idea of heaven is complete oblivion, the state of Nirvana, where Buddah himself is said to exist. Its not a place liek the Christian Heaven, but a state of being. Thier goals are to empty the human of the ego, of the self, and remove desire, since desire is the root of all suffering.

Anyway, your question, do I think Christianity is wrong and everyone else is right? No. I dont believe in a god. Thus, all religions would be wrong in that aspect to me. However, i do see that people wish to interface and connect with the greater power than themselves, and everyone has a different approach. All the religions of the world pretty much that ever existed have made this attempt to put thier own face on "god" and try and connect with it. Thus, in that respect, all religions are right. They all see the same force and try to create a system that makes them better understand it.

The problem? Christians and Muslims seem to think they have a monopoly on truth. They are so convinced that only they know the real god and everyone else is on crack that they have spent the past 2000 years spilling the blood and guts of anyone who dares to say "thanks but no thanks". Thier dogmatic militant approach to spiritualality, added to that most dont even know thier own holy books, or have any real grasp of history vs Mythology, and what you have are a bunch of fanatically ignorant savages beating thier ideas down the throats and trying to take over entire govornments to push thier dogma down the throats of the unwilling. These are religions that convert by fear of damnation and hellfire, of eternal torment if you dont get with "our truth". NO other religion does that. Even Hindus and other eastern religions dont have this insanity ingrained in them. Hell to the Buddist is existance here on earth. The Hindus believe in reincarnation according to your lifes journey. pagans have a multitude of beliefs about afterlife. But none of these religions threaten people with fear and torment for not going with thier program.

Thus, i hold the dogma and insanity of Christianity and Islam in utetr contempt, and it has left the world with 2000 years of religious horrors and wars in its wake. Christanity and Islam have brought little benefit to the people of the world, they have brought little to no peace, and have caused alot more suffering than they have eliminated. Thus, in that aspect, I believe them to be wrong, because,

They simply cannot co exist and live and let live. They cannot by thier very holy writ tolerate the presence of any other religion other than thiers. Thus, as logn as these two exist, there will forever be war between them, and suffering will continue.

Which is Ironic, because Christianity says you are to turn the other cheek and love thy enemy. That means when your country is attacked, you are attacked, you are to basically let them come and kill you, because by being the blessed peacemaker, you get to go to heaven with the big spook.

I am yet to see a right wing christian that follows this suicidal doctrine. Thus, they are incapable of following themselves the very same religion they are quick to beat people over the head with.

does not Islam christianity and jewism all originate from the same old testament? mohammed brought the old book to the arab tribes who were killing amungst themselves over hundreds of little gods.

i believe personely that most of the bible is rewritten and edited to give power to those who wanted it. Not many people know it but there has been a female pope once. lots of texts were taking or twisted. to bad.

skadi i agree alot with what you say, but i believe the topic was not about the believers and their way of propaganding their faith, but the faith itself?

www.townhall.com...

www.yaf.org...

Just two in as many minutes. There can much more, obviously. This is in reference to the topic as indicated by the title of this thread, in case that was lost.

Actually, Spot, its a good question on both accounts.

Basically, yeah, Christianity and Islam sprang from the same old pile of scribbles, both based on same tribal gods. If you read the Old testament, its hateful, militant, and full of supremecy, twisted #. Its easy to understand where the rest of the insanity developed just reading the first five books of the old testament.

The religions themselves, how can you seperate them from the believers? you do not have Christianity anywhere in its true state, which is that of a pacifist and martyr, of one whose prupose in life is to allow others to walk all over you and forgive your enemies. Liek i said, if christianity were followed to the law, it wouldnt even be an issue today, for the christians would have died out long ago.

Islam isnt as suicidal, but its intent is not so peaceful and loving, for it still holds the undercurrents and scri[ptures of spreading Islam, and rember, islam condones slavery as long as youre nice to your slaves. islam was spread the same way, through holy wars and smitting the # out of any infidels. people often mention the Crusades, yet conviently forget the Moorish invasion of Europe 500 years earlier when Christians were still busy smiting out the pagans and battling off vikings. Hence, the clash of two phiolosphies thats sprang from the same book, the same desert tribal god called Yaweh.

However, the Monothiestic idea was not created by the Semites, but the egyptians actually concocted the one true diety philosphy that caught on with the nomadic desert dwellers. The guy who formulated one diety also had some serious issues with women.

Thats another really big issue in these two religions: the total absence of the femenine, the total imbalance. All other religions were either completely neuter or possesed a male and female aspect. In Christianity and Islam, there is no female diety for the women. there is no femminine side to relate too. The both work hard to dehumanize and kick the female out of the realm of the spiritual, something that is pretty unique to those religions. the total absence of female balance basically gives full reign to agressive, militant male spirituality.

Even ancient earth religions of the primitives were female only, for the mother goddess always had a husband, either the green man, of as the Native Americans saw it, Mother earth and father sky. The ancient people were logical in thier thinking for the time, if the gods created, and the gods were thinking beings like humans, than certainly the gods have males and females, because thats how just about everything in nature is created, through male and female, or opposing forces. Fire and frost, night and day, ect.

Hence, why the total spirutal essence of both religions totally lacks. Old pagan religions allowed males and females to exist on par equally in the realm of the spiritual, women took part equally with males when it came to matters of the gods, even in societies where women had few roles and limted rights. Thier acess to the spirtual was unlimited, they had female goddesses to relate to, they paticipated activly in prophecies, communion with the gods, ect, even had thier own private rituals.

Something that the two testosterone fuelked religions of the middle east completely denied them.

I didn't see any words of 'Toltecs' that were persecuting Christians at all. I think somewhere along the way the point was lost..I'm not a Christian, or atleast wouldn't *label* myself as one. But I can definately see relations between the Christian faith and many others. And yet it's rather funny in a not so 'haha' way that not one of those who follow those particular beliefs would EVER admit that there are parallels? Anyone know why that is? Aren't all of the faiths in a round about sort of way worshipping the same exact God? Do they not all read the book of 'their' Lord and just interpret it differently?

Why is anyone so afraid to admit to extreme comparisons amongst religious doctrines and beliefs??
These are innocent and quite frankly, easy questions and I'd appreciate an opinion TC or Jagd.
Mags

I dont see Hindus killing to convert, I dont see hindu missionaries subjugating people into thier faith. Hinduism is pretty much Limited to south Asia. religous wars occur there all the time, between the Muslims and hindus, mainly because Muslims want to convert everyone, and Hindus think, leave me the frock alone, we have our own gods. Hinduism does not have holy dogma, but more or less is a religon of contemplation, old superstitions, and spiritual introspection. Thuis, i hold them in less contempt. i dont remeber any Jihads or crusades in Hinduism. The problem with Hinduism is oit stemmed from the orginal Aryan religons, and its caste system was VERY racist. It still is, and its a religon with many good points, but unfortunately, many flaws.

Skadi you do not show much knowledge of Hinduism. In the light of your statement about Hindu Jihads, please explain the incident of 1984 at Akal Takht in Punjab and the events which followed. Also what is your bent on ISKCON (International Society of Krishna Consciousness).

And I dont know anything abouit Hinduism? LMAO.

Krishna conciousness is a total offspin of of Hinduism. If you udnerstood anything aBOUT Hinduism, youd understand it is a very complex religion with about 2000 different gods and numerous mini sects all around. The society of Krishna conciousness has little real tie to Hinduism, ti was mostly a fad of the 1060s and 1970s when Eastern Religion was hip, and hippies were going around, spaced out, spreading thier enlightenment. When was the last time you seen a Hare Krishna at an airport? Krishna Conciousness is not HIndusim, its a mini cult based on totally diferent philosphies.

As for the Punjab, the area itself should answer your question. In case you havent noticed, the Muslim Northerners are battling and have been battling violently with the Hindus over the area, its been a constant site of bloodshed for ages because the Hindus and Muslims cannot co exist. Islam cannot allow other religions to co exist with them, they must rule absolute or convert. Thus, the religious aspects of the whole mess is politics, because ultimately, you ahve people of two different opposed religions trying to live on the same chunk of dirt.

Well Skadi,
The 1984 at Akal Takht in Punjab to which I made a reference was the destruction of the Sikh Golden Temple and the killing of at least 300 Sikhs during a battle. The library there was set on fire by Hindus destroying many Sikh manuscripts (this was done after the battle). Also several thousand Sikhs were killed in riots in November 1984:

www.sikhlionz.com...

It kind of puts the damper on the concept of Hindu tolerance.

Not really, Jag.

When you consider the Sihks have often been caught aiding and abbetting the Muslims in quite a few cases, this was an act of revenge most likely.

The question isnt Hindu tolerance, but Hindu dogma. And compared to the Christ insane, yeah, Hindus are WAAAAY more tolerant. last time I checked, i saw no armadas of Hindu ships on a global crusade to wipe out unbelievers. Thier religious wars have been local, and also deal with ethnic issues as well.

The location of the worlds Hindu population itself shows pretty much why they cant live peacefully anyway, With the Sihks and Muslims in the north, there is that very tension.

And, I also metioned the whole Caste system as being intolerant as well. Racism that dates back to the Aryan invasion in 1500 BC. Caste being old sanskrit word for color. Anyway, the difference is, the Hindus have prretty much kept thier religous conflicts over in their part of the world against intolerant religious neighbors. The Buddists get very little harrassment from the Hindus, thier agression is more set on terrirotiral differences between the Muslims and the Sihks who often cast lots with the Muslims if for nothing else, control of that #ty little strip of sand they think is so holy.

Skadi:

time I checked, i saw no armadas of Hindu ships on a global crusade to wipe out unbelievers. Thier religious wars have been local, and also deal with ethnic issues as well.

When was the last time the Christians "sent armadas of ships on a global crusade to wipe out believers". Also I think the Sihks might quibble with your allegation of aiding and abetting Muslims.

The religions themselves, how can you seperate them from the believers? you do not have Christianity anywhere in its true state, which is that of a pacifist and martyr, of one whose prupose in life is to allow others to walk all over you and forgive your enemies. Liek i said, if christianity were followed to the law, it wouldnt even be an issue today, for the christians would have died out long ago.

I also do not think you understand basic Christian doctrine.

Thats another really big issue in these two religions: the total absence of the femenine, the total imbalance. All other religions were either completely neuter or possesed a male and female aspect. In Christianity and Islam, there is no female diety for the women. there is no femminine side to relate too. The both work hard to dehumanize and kick the female out of the realm of the spiritual, something that is pretty unique to those religions. the total absence of female balance basically gives full reign to agressive, militant male spirituality.

How has Christianity "kick the female out of the realm of the spiritual"? Is this your complaint - there is no female diety?

The bible clearly states Christians are to turn the other cheek. You are to love your enemies, even when they have you on your knees with the sword of your head. Christianity basically in its purest form preaches non violence.

Its more than the lack of a female diety of a femeninie aspect of god that makes Christianity unbalanced. Not only is there no female diety, but there is no female path. There is no female aspect, no female perspective, other than the basic act of submitting to male mebers and breeding thier little drones for them. The very essence of the female is ignored in Christianity, the female place is simply subservience, obedience, ect. The female issues, exploring the female side of creation and life, are pretty much ignored, deleted. there is no female side to plug into. The old religions had the godesses. Women identitifed with them. they were complex beings, beyond simple broodmares like the virgin mary. They had multi dimensional characters. females once presided not only the matters of birth in the realm of the spiritual, but the realms of death, ancestral communication, amongst many things. They had a seperate spot in society, but thier place in religion itself was never ignored, and often, even of higher importance than the male priesthood, which dealt more with mundane things.

The bible is written entirely from a male perspective, even thier little short stories about a couple of females are insignifigant in thier contributions other than carrying on a family line.

Look at the role of goddesses and female dieties in the pagan religions. They werent in the bacjground, they had HUGE roles in the myths.

For example, look in greek mythology. The biorth of all things was Chaos, which was female, and Nyx, the night, was female, who gave birth to Gaia, the female, the earth mother. it evolved, Gaia had a Husband, Uranus, the titans, who had sons and daughters. The gods and goddesses came from them. When you look at the parts that female gods play in greek myths, you see they were no side notes or background. Even entire cities were named or dedicated to godesses, Like Athens, the isle of Cyprus, and so on. The goddeses: Aphrodite, Athena, Hera, Artemis, Hecate, Demeter, Hebe, Selene, Hestia, and the female heros: Atlanta, Arachnae, Echo, Daphne, Cassandra, ect, they played multiple roles, not just broodmares, but everything udner the sun, from queens to generals, love godesses to athletes, hunters, wild and crazy hags, so on and so forth.

Christanity lacks this in the extreme. the few women of the bible mentioned are either evil pwoerhungry witches who dont get mentioned much, or broodmares and wives of someone.

And the Sihks dont technically side with the Muslims, but will collabeorate in convience when necessary, much as Bin laden locked arms with Saddam, even tho before the two hated each other. They wont join forces with the Muslims, but will work toward mutual benefical goals.

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
They simply cannot co exist and live and let live. They cannot by their very holy writ tolerate the presence of any other religion other than thiers. Thus, as logn as these two exist, there will forever be war between them, and suffering will continue.

Which is Ironic, because Christianity says you are to turn the other cheek and love thy enemy. That means when your country is attacked, you are attacked, you are to basically let them come and kill you, because by being the blessed peacemaker, you get to go to heaven with the big spook.

I am yet to see a right wing christian that follows this suicidal doctrine. Thus, they are incapable of following themselves the very same religion they are quick to beat people over the head with.

Some great posts, Skadi! You're a force not to be reckoned with, when it comes to religion. This is exactly how I feel about it. They claim to be some peaceful population that loves everyone, yet they're very quick to associate you with the devil and condemn you, or even execute you, in many historical cases. The very definition of hypocrite, IMO.


Jagd, I think it's you who doesn't understand your own religion. You seem so anxious to twist any bit of info to support your more and more far fetched "xianity is good" hypothesis.



[Edited on 10-20-2003 by Satyr]