Moderator: Dan~
Christianity is a case of 'a religion is better than no religion' which is optimal to a particular circumstances and time.Zero_Sum wrote:At any rate for the record I maintain the world would of been better off staying pagan as all three religions of Abraham in my eyes are poisonous, pervasive, and destructive. I detest all three religions as a kind of living scourge upon this world. For me there is no such thing as the wise or intelligent Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They all stem from virus plague like religions hailing from the same origin.
Although I'm an atheist pagan values do at least for me seem superior to Christian ones in terms of community, independence, and individual accomplishment. Such values that all Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always lacked.
Zero_Sum wrote:Arminius wrote:Zero_Sum wrote:They're all a part of the same chimera where the only difference that exists is who is God and who isn't, or who is the messiah and who is not. Other than those differences they're all practically identical.
They all have origins in the Arabian peninsular, are related to each other, but Christianity is much more different from Judaism and Islam than Judaism and Islam from each other.
Yes, all are Abrahamic. Christianity is Judaism, it was never meant to be its own separate religion. Jesus was a radical rabbi of his day trying to reform Judaism while also claiming to be the son of God where the Pharisee rabbi elders wouldn't have any of that which is why he was crucified with the aid of the Romans. Jesus was the radical rabbi that wanted to make everybody Jewish under the new pact and covenant of God. Christianity is basically Judaism 2.0 on steroids.![]()
[Christianity was a heretical Jewish sect of Judaism itself that became its own religion after the worst of ancient Europeans adopted it later enforcing it onto everybody else through pain unto death.]
At any rate for the record I maintain the world would of been better off staying pagan as all three religions of Abraham in my eyes are poisonous, pervasive, and destructive. I detest all three religions as a kind of living scourge upon this world. For me there is no such thing as the wise or intelligent Christians, Jews, and Muslims. They all stem from virus plague like religions hailing from the same origin.
Although I'm an atheist pagan values do at least for me seem superior to Christian ones in terms of community, independence, and individual accomplishment. Such values that all Christians, Jews, and Muslims have always lacked.
Arminius wrote:
The Ancient Greek religion had been a polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places before it became a cult church during the first three centuries A.D. (Julian the Apostate [Flavius Claudius Julianus] was one of its supporters, and it was based on Neopythagorism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism and probably part of a "pseudomorphis"). At that time, there were at least six greater religions in the Romam empire: (1) rests of the said Ancient polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places, (2) the said Ancient Greek religion as a part of a "pseudomorphis" cult church, (3) Zoroastrianism and its derivations, e.g. Mazdaism, (4) Manichaeism, (5) Judaism, (6) Christianity and its many derivations, e.g. Jewish Christianity, Greek Christianity, Arianism, Catholicism ....
In other words: Christianity changed a lot within four or (in certain regions) even seven centuries before its real stability through two of its main versions: the Greek (later called: "Orthodox") one and the Catholic (Western) one. At this time, your mentioned "heretical Jewish sect of Judaism itself" had already vanished for a long time.
"Abrahamic" does not prove that the said three religions are the same and that they accept the Old Testament in the same way. All bananas, all apples, all oranges are subordinations of the superordination fruit, but nevertheless: they are not the same. All elephants, all cats, all dogs are species of the mammalia class, but nevertheless: they are not the same.
If I had (but I do not have [as you know]) to accept your "chimera" supposition and to answer the question which of the three "Abrahamic" religions matches which of the three animals lion, ram, snake the most, then I would say: "the lion matches Islam, the ram matches Christianity, the snake matches Judaism the most".![]()
Zero_Sum wrote:Arminius wrote:
The Ancient Greek religion had been a polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places before it became a cult church during the first three centuries A.D. (Julian the Apostate [Flavius Claudius Julianus] was one of its supporters, and it was based on Neopythagorism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism and probably part of a "pseudomorphis"). At that time, there were at least six greater religions in the Romam empire: (1) rests of the said Ancient polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places, (2) the said Ancient Greek religion as a part of a "pseudomorphis" cult church, (3) Zoroastrianism and its derivations, e.g. Mazdaism, (4) Manichaeism, (5) Judaism, (6) Christianity and its many derivations, e.g. Jewish Christianity, Greek Christianity, Arianism, Catholicism ....
In other words: Christianity changed a lot within four or (in certain regions) even seven centuries before its real stability through two of its main versions: the Greek (later called: "Orthodox") one and the Catholic (Western) one. At this time, your mentioned "heretical Jewish sect of Judaism itself" had already vanished for a long time.
"Abrahamic" does not prove that the said three religions are the same and that they accept the Old Testament in the same way. All bananas, all apples, all oranges are subordinations of the superordination fruit, but nevertheless: they are not the same. All elephants, all cats, all dogs are species of the mammalia class, but nevertheless: they are not the same.
If I had (but I do not have [as you know]) to accept your "chimera" supposition and to answer the question which of the three "Abrahamic" religions matches which of the three animals lion, ram, snake the most, then I would say: "the lion matches Islam, the ram matches Christianity, the snake matches Judaism the most".![]()
What I said was that Christianity is a heretical sect offshoot of Judaism where originally under Jesus discipleship the goal was to radically reform and change Judaism itself from the inside out not to become a new religion. Christianity only became a new separate religion or identity away from Judaism because the Pharisee rabbis stopped Jesus and had him killed who was himself a kind of rabbi looking to revise the old testament of the Jews. Either way Christianity and Christians embrace a sort of spiritual Judaism, Christians are spiritual Jews. For me there is very little difference between a Christian and a Jew.
If we want to get historically technical Zoroastrianism influenced Atenism which then preceded to influence Judaism. Christianity came about with Jesus and his followers that sought to radically transform or reform Judaism yet failed to do so where later it became its own distinct separate religion despite almost being indistinct from Judaism itself.
While all Christians and Jews never like admitting such Christianity is sort of like a weird step brother of Judaism that nobody likes talking about.
Islam is more of a political response to medieval Christian/European expansionism in that the Arabic nations and those nations surrounding them didn't know what to do with a unified continental Europe under Christianity. They didn't want to embrace Judaism or Christianity where instead they created their own religion of Allah with the prophet Mohammad. By doing so the Arabic and surrounding nations were able to compete against medieval Christian Europe yet retain their own distinct identity. It is because of all that Islam has always been a sort of reactionary religion to both Christianity and Judaism.
I still stand onto my position as an atheist and somewhat of a pagan sympathizer that I despise all three of those semitic Abrahamic religions. I am the ultimate anti semite and I make no apologies for being such. The seeds of Abraham are nothing but poison poisoning the well that is our planet. All three religions will not be happy until they bring about a global crisis stemming from the middle east that we see the emergence of today. All the followers and leaders of all three religions are bat shit insane or whacko. Once again, I make no apologies for my comments.
In a much better alternate historical timeline Rome and the rest of the world would of remained pagan where the likes of Constantine never came to be, Jews would of remained in a constant never ending diaspora scattered to the four winds, and the Arabs worshipped Ahura Mazda or similar gods where Islam never existed. If history played out like that instead of with what we have now the world would be better off. It's unfortunate that we're not so lucky.
Arminius wrote:Zero_Sum wrote:Arminius wrote:
The Ancient Greek religion had been a polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places before it became a cult church during the first three centuries A.D. (Julian the Apostate [Flavius Claudius Julianus] was one of its supporters, and it was based on Neopythagorism, Neoplatonism, Stoicism and probably part of a "pseudomorphis"). At that time, there were at least six greater religions in the Romam empire: (1) rests of the said Ancient polytheistic mysteries cult religion without any church and only with cult places, (2) the said Ancient Greek religion as a part of a "pseudomorphis" cult church, (3) Zoroastrianism and its derivations, e.g. Mazdaism, (4) Manichaeism, (5) Judaism, (6) Christianity and its many derivations, e.g. Jewish Christianity, Greek Christianity, Arianism, Catholicism ....
In other words: Christianity changed a lot within four or (in certain regions) even seven centuries before its real stability through two of its main versions: the Greek (later called: "Orthodox") one and the Catholic (Western) one. At this time, your mentioned "heretical Jewish sect of Judaism itself" had already vanished for a long time.
"Abrahamic" does not prove that the said three religions are the same and that they accept the Old Testament in the same way. All bananas, all apples, all oranges are subordinations of the superordination fruit, but nevertheless: they are not the same. All elephants, all cats, all dogs are species of the mammalia class, but nevertheless: they are not the same.
If I had (but I do not have [as you know]) to accept your "chimera" supposition and to answer the question which of the three "Abrahamic" religions matches which of the three animals lion, ram, snake the most, then I would say: "the lion matches Islam, the ram matches Christianity, the snake matches Judaism the most".![]()
What I said was that Christianity is a heretical sect offshoot of Judaism where originally under Jesus discipleship the goal was to radically reform and change Judaism itself from the inside out not to become a new religion. Christianity only became a new separate religion or identity away from Judaism because the Pharisee rabbis stopped Jesus and had him killed who was himself a kind of rabbi looking to revise the old testament of the Jews. Either way Christianity and Christians embrace a sort of spiritual Judaism, Christians are spiritual Jews. For me there is very little difference between a Christian and a Jew.
If we want to get historically technical Zoroastrianism influenced Atenism which then preceded to influence Judaism. Christianity came about with Jesus and his followers that sought to radically transform or reform Judaism yet failed to do so where later it became its own distinct separate religion despite almost being indistinct from Judaism itself.
While all Christians and Jews never like admitting such Christianity is sort of like a weird step brother of Judaism that nobody likes talking about.
Islam is more of a political response to medieval Christian/European expansionism in that the Arabic nations and those nations surrounding them didn't know what to do with a unified continental Europe under Christianity. They didn't want to embrace Judaism or Christianity where instead they created their own religion of Allah with the prophet Mohammad. By doing so the Arabic and surrounding nations were able to compete against medieval Christian Europe yet retain their own distinct identity. It is because of all that Islam has always been a sort of reactionary religion to both Christianity and Judaism.
I still stand onto my position as an atheist and somewhat of a pagan sympathizer that I despise all three of those semitic Abrahamic religions. I am the ultimate anti semite and I make no apologies for being such. The seeds of Abraham are nothing but poison poisoning the well that is our planet. All three religions will not be happy until they bring about a global crisis stemming from the middle east that we see the emergence of today. All the followers and leaders of all three religions are bat shit insane or whacko. Once again, I make no apologies for my comments.
In a much better alternate historical timeline Rome and the rest of the world would of remained pagan where the likes of Constantine never came to be, Jews would of remained in a constant never ending diaspora scattered to the four winds, and the Arabs worshipped Ahura Mazda or similar gods where Islam never existed. If history played out like that instead of with what we have now the world would be better off. It's unfortunate that we're not so lucky.
How would you bring this what you just said into connection with what you said in your thread "Did The Romans Invent Jesus?"?
Meno_ wrote:I would say no. The historical Jesus may have been a result of both: the Romans' invention to manage political affairs, but politics being what they are may follow either a belief in historical inevitability, - determination of events without exact causal referentiality, or the idea that people were following creative dictums of their own foreseeable effects of self prescribed causes.
At the very least , a mixture of both of these possible routes of acquisition of religion imply some generic consoderations bearing on religious motives of basic psychic functions of what the religious came to understand as the soul.
James S Saint wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:I
And Christianity was formed specifically to correct Judaism (for the ignorant atheist accusing the theist of being ignorant).
Venture wrote:I agree with Arminius on nearly every reply of his here. I especially enjoyed what James Saint said earlier about the projections of atheists unto themselves, I have been one of those and experienced others like that first hand. After having most of my family pass, seeing some high school friends take their own lives slowly or quickly, and being too poor to continue University studies, I turned to Christianity and I've been better off ever since, almost inverting those 3 major suffering points I just mentioned. I have beginners knowledge of philosophy and religious thought and I've barely entered adulthood so I doubt I can contribute anything of utility to this discussion due to lack of experience and knowledge.
It kinda scares me the way zero_sum talks about his outlook towards modern middle eastern upheaval and the embellishment of a Jesus figure in Roman times for the sake of leveraging law and politics..
ezak42 wrote:the main 3 religions- christian, muslim and jew.. put complete faith in vague, static scriptures that were written eons ago. people who believe in these books are never critical, they accept no logical faults in the words.
felix dakat wrote:How much different is a burka from an Easter bonnet?
Karpel Tunnel wrote:felix dakat wrote:How much different is a burka from an Easter bonnet?
Well, radically different. An Easter Bonnet is worn during Easter, and generally no one today is forced to wear it. IOW no one got a vitamin D deficiency from an Easter bonnet because of societal control. An Easter bonnet, given it's temporary use, is not - certainly today - a sign that whoever wears it is property, not to be trusted, less than a man.
What's the difference between a straight jacket and a tight t-shirt?
Power, whose got it and the life you live in one as opposed to the other.
I wouldn't be shocked that the bonnet has these origins, but I can't find that origin. Could you link it?felix dakat wrote:Yes very different. And yet the burqa and the Easter bonnet are both products of patriarchies which view women as subordinate to men. Where the burqa is a norm the patriarchy is in full control. Where the Easter bonnet still has any meaning, it's meaning has so devolved and diminished that its wearer likely is not conscious of it. Women were to keep their head covered in public lest they tempt the sons of God who in the antediluvian age had fucked them and produced a hybid race of giants.
Head covering is practiced by women in many orthodox or fundamentalist Christian sects today. The Easter bonnet is but one instance of this more general Christian practice. The claimant to apostleship Paul of Tarsus in his first letter to the Corinthians says that the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. The angels he refers to are the fallen ones called "the sons of God" in Genesis 6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NephilimKarpel Tunnel wrote:I wouldn't be shocked that the bonnet has these origins, but I can't find that origin. Could you link it?felix dakat wrote:Yes very different. And yet the burqa and the Easter bonnet are both products of patriarchies which view women as subordinate to men. Where the burqa is a norm the patriarchy is in full control. Where the Easter bonnet still has any meaning, it's meaning has so devolved and diminished that its wearer likely is not conscious of it. Women were to keep their head covered in public lest they tempt the sons of God who in the antediluvian age had fucked them and produced a hybid race of giants.
Yes, but head covering has all sorts of roots, including decoration and protection from weather. And religious men wear hats also. So jumping from what some sects use hat wearing for doesn't really work for me yet. And as far as I can find Easter hat wearing came about from both sexes dressing up on Easter. And sure, the women, being seen in a specific way by gender were prettified, hence flowers. But these women were generally not forced to wear hats all the time. And it almost has the opposite pull from the Burhka which is meant to eliminate from sight anything that another man might find attractive and any woman breaking that, in places where they are supposed to wear them, is in danger of violence by strangers and family. Women not wearing Easter hats or good ones might have, earlier in history and perhaps in some places today, found themselves socially on the outs. But so would men with the wrong car or suit or hair length.felix dakat wrote: Head covering is practiced by women in many orthodox or fundamentalist Christian sects today. The Easter bonnet is but one instance of this more General Christian practice. The claimant to apostleship Paul of Tarsus in his first letter to the Corinthians says that the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. The angels he refers to are the fallen ones called "the sons of God in Genesis 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim
I can see that women were required to wear something in church on their heads, yes. I didn't see the part about fucking giants, though that wouldn't surprise me.felix dakat wrote:My position is fully supported at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering Since Christian women were always expected to wear a head covering in church assemblies, the Easter bonnet was merely a late elaboration of the standard practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_bonnet. I mentioned it only as a symbol of the fact that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all traditionally held that women are subordinate to men and while the principle of gender equality has made some inroads into traditions of male dominance to varying degrees in these religions, evidence of patriarchy is still prevalent even in the more liberal modernized versions of these institutions.
Okay. You asked me for a link and I obliged you with three including a link to the Wikipedia article on the nephilim. I also referenced 1st Corinthians 11 where Paul lays out the practice of head covering that became the norm in the churches for centuries. It's up to you to read these references and to get the facts straight or not. My work is done.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]