Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 03-10-2003, 10:12 PM

Yikes.

Well no, actually my version changes every time I question a preconcieved religious notion and read the NT. Of course I was never swayed by conventional wisdom, ancient or modern. The old guard and the avante gard are surprisingly and similarly inane in my experience.

Rad

Sabine Grant · 03-11-2003, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
"My imaginary, unevidenced, ideosyncratic and individually-interpreted version of an invisible daddy can beat up your imaginary, unevidenced, ideosyncratic and individually-interpreted version of an invisible daddy! Nyah nyah nyah!"

Jobar brings lawn chair and big bag of popcorn

Now, let's see. It's Radorth, and Magus55, versus Amos, and Sabine Grant, and- where does the_cave fit in?... Unless, of course, they are stabbing their teammates in the back, or bashing them over the head, or spanking them...

Why am I reminded of Alice in Wonderland?

You know, this would be utterly hilarious, if the whole bloody world wasn't prone to carry on the same sort of Three Stooges nose-twisting, eye-poking and head-bopping. Armed with nuclear missles and war gases...

Hello Jobar... you did not see my post in which I am trying to point to the commonness between believers... have you? short but meaningful little verse... " be still and know that I am".

It is a fact that my faith dwells only on Christ and no other character mentionned in the Bible, but that does not mean I pertain to establish and determine how God will judge men. I do not believe it is a necessity to have the right doctrine or follow the right dogma to access eternal life. I truly entrust God's ability to percieve and examine the mind of each human being to evaluate its intent and motivations.
It is interesting to me that as the disciples were asking Christ how he will separate " sheep from the goats", there is no mention in his reply of " if you have the right doctrine". Rather he points to actions which result in goodness towards other human beings. That motivation of goodness seems to be the criteria in which Christ will possibly reject those who claim to know Him if they fail to apply it....clearly, claims have no influence on God.

The division we observe in christianity IMO is the product of the need to control others....in the midst of that confusion, the simplicity of the message of Christ seems to be lost. Something close to " mind your own business, work on yourself, and apply goodness onto others... do for them what you would do for me as you claim to love me".

We are challenged to demonstrate that claim to love Christ....

Biff the unclean · 03-11-2003, 07:11 AM

But then again that's just the 2003 Christ, not the one who told his followers to burn heretics. That guy has fallen out of fashion.

Radorth · 03-11-2003, 09:26 AM

Guess Biff couldn't locate any scripture for that one. I don't recall the Men of Ninevah as being followers of Christ. (Though I trust they are now) There is far more scriptural evidence we are judged by our own rules and the Queen of the South, than by the apostles per se.

Rad

Biff the unclean · 03-11-2003, 01:13 PM

I'm sorry, what are you asking for? You want the scripture where Jesus says that he wants heretics burned?

That would be John15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Tens of thousands of people died horribly over that little verse. I'm sure you'll want to argue that it really means something else, and it probably does...now. But that doesn't change the fact that for fifteen hundred years innocent people were burned alive for it

the_cave · 03-11-2003, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Now, let's see. It's Radorth, and Magus55, versus Amos, and Sabine Grant, and- where does the_cave fit in?...

Actually, I'm just trying to be an objective historian...

the_cave · 03-11-2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
Catholicism becaue the official religion of the Empire of Constantine in 324 CE at the Council of Nicaea. Caholicism replaced all conflicting forms of Christianty at that time. What were the NEW CONCEPTS of Catholic Christianity?

1. Sunday as the sabbath instead of Saturday.

2. Dec. 25, Winter Solstice and birthday of Mithra adoped as the birthday of Jesus.

3. The adoption of the Trinity, not accepted by rival christian sects, was taken from the Old Egyptian Trinity of Father(Amun or Atum), Son (Aten or Horus), Holy Spirit Messenger (Knepf or Ra). Tertullian substituted God the Father (JHWH), Son (Jesus), and just kept the name Holy Spirit as the third person of the trinity.

4. Jesus was elevated to full godhood, whereas many older Christian sects considered hiim a minor god(Arians), or just a human being Messiah (Ebionites).

5. They officially adopted the Mithraic concept of "saving grace" and being baptised in water.

6. They took the 7 sacraments of Mithraism and made them Christian-Catholic.

7. Catholicism didn't at first have a western pope. They recognised the patriarchs of Rome, Constantinomple, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria as equals.

(The Pope achieved power in a secular breakdown of the Roman-Byzantine provence of Rome-Ravenna. With the loss of any power by the Roman exarchate or governor, the absence of an Imperial military presence, the Pope assumed rule. He paid for his own mediaeval army, and gradually recieved the West European Kings as weak vassals, getting some protection and money in return.)

Fiach, there is some truth to the flavor of your claims, but it's easy to misinterpret you because of the way you put things. A lot of these practices do NOT date to 325, as I'm sure you're well aware! Baptism dates to the first years of Christianity, there is not a real parallel between the Catholic sacraments and the Mithraic orders (which is what I assume you're referring to), the Patriarch of Constantinople didn't even exist in 325 (!), and neither did that of Jerusalem (!!), and Arianism was not very old in 325! Also, Tertullian did not invent the Trinity.

Spaz, I think there is no real answer to your question, because as you can see, there will be a great deal of argument about what the words you used mean. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific! The Catholic Church calls everything that happened within Christianity all the way back to the first Pentecost (the descent of the holy spirit upon the followers of Jesus) the "Catholic Church". But a Protestant will probably stop at some point--like 325, for example.

At the very beginning, there were no scriptures, no hierarchy, no nothing--just a group of believers. Do you consider that "pure Christianity"? Or do you want to begin when the NT canon was established, I believe during the 3rd century? Do you want to begin when the Gospels were completed in their final form, perhaps by the year 200? Are you including the Eastern Orthodox traditions? The Orthodox and the Western church did not definitively split until around 1100 or so.

I'm afraid it's much more complicated than a simplistic history of "Once upon a time there was a Christian Church--then the Catholics took it over and 'added things'." Sorry. I guess that's the real answer to your original question.

Radorth · 03-11-2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

I'm sorry, what are you asking for? You want the scripture where Jesus says that he wants heretics burned?

I'm sorry. That's not what you said earlier is it? You said Jesus told his followers to burn heretics. Tsk tsk. You're lucky Daggah didn't see that.

Quote:

That would be John15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Which supports what I said much better, that we are not judged by God or the apostles so much as by "men." Like the "men of Ninevah."

Quote:

Tens of thousands of people died horribly over that little verse.

Prove it. And prove people without moral conviction or accountablity hardly need to dig up a Bible verse for an excuse.

Rad

Fiach · 03-11-2003, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the_cave
Fiach, there is some truth to the flavor of your claims, but it's easy to misinterpret you because of the way you put things. A lot of these practices do NOT date to 325, as I'm sure you're well aware!

I hope I didn't imply that.

Baptism dates to the first years of Christianity,

I don't know of any evidence of that. Are there Old Testament references to baptism? I know that the Gospel versions were written after Paul's exile when he seems to have borrowed the Mitraic and Zoroastrian customs.

there is not a real parallel between the Catholic sacraments and the Mithraic orders (which is what I assume you're referring to),

Maybe not each one, but the Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, and extreme unction were Mithraic, and there were 7 of them, rather coincidental I think.

the Patriarch of Constantinople didn't even exist in 325 (!),

List of Constantinople patriarchs, I stopped at 582 CE because the list goes until today.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

St. Andrew the Apostle ( founder )
Stachys the Apostle (38-54)
Patriarch Onesimus (54-68)
Patriarch Polycarpus I (69-89)
Patriarch Plutarch (89-105)
Patriarch Sedecion (105-114)
Patriarch Diogenes (114-129)
Patriarch Eleutherius (129-136)
Patriarch Felix (136-141)
Patriarch Polycarpus II (141-144)
Patriarch Athendodorus (144-148)
Patriarch Euzois (148-154)
Patriarch Laurence (154-166)
Patriarch Alypius (166-169)
Patriarch Pertinax (169-187)
Patriarch Olympians (187-198)
Patriarch Mark I (198-211)
Patriarch Philadelphus (211-217)
Patriarch Ciriacus I (217-230)
Patriarch Castinus (230-237)
Patriarch Eugenius I (237-242)
Patriarch Titus (242-272)
Patriarch Dometius (272-284)
Patriarch Rufinus I (284-293)
Patriarch Probus (293-306)
Patriarch Metrophanes (306-314)
Patriarch Alexander (314-337)
Patriarch Paul I (337-339, 341-342, 346-351)
Patriarch Eusebius of Nicomedia (339-341)
Patriarch Macedonius I (342-346, 351-360)
Patriarch Eudoxius of Antioch (360-370)
Patriarch Demophilus (370-379)
Patriarch Euagrius (379)
Patriarch Maximus (380)
Patriarch Gregory I the Theologian (379-381)
Patriarch Nectarius (381-397)
Patriarch John I Chrysostom (398-404)
Patriarch Arsacius of Tarsus (404-405)
Patriarch Atticus (406-425)
Patriarch Sisinius I (426-427)
Patriarch Nestorius (428-431)
Patriarch Maximianus (431-434)
Patriarch Proclus (434-446)
Patriarch Phlabianus (446-449)
Patriarch Anatolius (449-458)
Patriarch Gennadius I (458-471)
Patriarch Acacius (471-488)
Patriarch Phrabitas (488-489)
Patriarch Euphemius (489-495)
Patriarch Macedonus II (495-511)
Patriarch Timotheus I (511-518)
Patriarch John II Cappadocia (518-520)
Patriarch Epiphanius (520-535)
Patriarch Anthimus I (535-536)
Patriarch Menas (536-552)
Patriarch Eutychius (552-565, 577-582

and neither did that of Jerusalem (!!),

Iouvenalios 422-458 was the first Patriarch of Jerusalem. Before that they were just Archbishops of Jerusalem.

and Arianism was not very old in 325! Also, Tertullian did not invent the Trinity.

Spaz, I think there is no real answer to your question, because as you can see, there will be a great deal of argument about what the words you used mean. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific! The Catholic Church calls everything that happened within Christianity all the way back to the first Pentecost (the descent of the holy spirit upon the followers of Jesus) the "Catholic Church". But a Protestant will probably stop at some point--like 325, for example.

At the very beginning, there were no scriptures, no hierarchy, no nothing--just a group of believers. Do you consider that "pure Christianity"? Or do you want to begin when the NT canon was established, I believe during the 3rd century? Do you want to begin when the Gospels were completed in their final form, perhaps by the year 200? Are you including the Eastern Orthodox traditions? The Orthodox and the Western church did not definitively split until around 1100 or so.

I'm afraid it's much more complicated than a simplistic history of "Once upon a time there was a Christian Church--then the Catholics took it over and 'added things'." Sorry. I guess that's the real answer to your original question.

Modern Christianity is the result of the blending of several Jesus cults with several Pagan cults, and finally the decisive action of Emperor Constantine whose Imperial troops bullied the bishops at Nicaea into accepting the Athanasian Trinitarianism, to which his own mother (St. Helena) adhered. Maybe modern Christianity should be called Helenaism.

Fiach

Biff the unclean · 03-12-2003, 09:26 AM

Which supports what I said much better, that we are not judged by God or the apostles so much as by "men." Like the "men of Ninevah."
I could give a rat's hinney about Ninevah. This conversation is about what changes the Catholic Church made. My contention is that the Prods were the ones who changed from the Catholic.
There isn't any God and there probably weren't any Apostles to judge anyone.
There is only men.
And since these men interpreted Xianism one way in the past and a different way today then Xianism has changed at the hands of the Prods.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tens of thousands of people died horribly over that little verse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it. And prove people without moral conviction or accountablity hardly need to dig up a Bible verse for an excuse.

Prove it???!!! Prove that for fifteen hundred years the church burned heretics? Have you never read a history book?
And these people weren't without moral conviction and accountability. In fact that is the very reason they burn these poor people.
They read the bible and it told them to kill heretics. You, in the modern day, read the same verse and think you shouldn't. That is because Protestant Christianity HAS CHANGED.
You WILL suffer a witch to live. You wouldn't dream of harming a hair on her head. BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION HAS CHANGED.
:banghead:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-10-2003, 10:12 PM	#141
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Yikes. Well no, actually my version changes every time I question a preconcieved religious notion and read the NT. Of course I was never swayed by conventional wisdom, ancient or modern. The old guard and the avante gard are surprisingly and similarly inane in my experience. Rad

03-11-2003, 07:11 AM	#143
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	But then again that's just the 2003 Christ, not the one who told his followers to burn heretics. That guy has fallen out of fashion.

03-11-2003, 09:26 AM	#144
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Guess Biff couldn't locate any scripture for that one. I don't recall the Men of Ninevah as being followers of Christ. (Though I trust they are now) There is far more scriptural evidence we are judged by our own rules and the Queen of the South, than by the apostles per se. Rad

03-11-2003, 01:13 PM	#145
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	I'm sorry, what are you asking for? You want the scripture where Jesus says that he wants heretics burned? That would be John15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. Tens of thousands of people died horribly over that little verse. I'm sure you'll want to argue that it really means something else, and it probably does...now. But that doesn't change the fact that for fifteen hundred years innocent people were burned alive for it

03-12-2003, 09:26 AM	#150
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Which supports what I said much better, that we are not judged by God or the apostles so much as by "men." Like the "men of Ninevah." I could give a rat's hinney about Ninevah. This conversation is about what changes the Catholic Church made. My contention is that the Prods were the ones who changed from the Catholic. There isn't any God and there probably weren't any Apostles to judge anyone. There is only men. And since these men interpreted Xianism one way in the past and a different way today then Xianism has changed at the hands of the Prods. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tens of thousands of people died horribly over that little verse. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prove it. And prove people without moral conviction or accountablity hardly need to dig up a Bible verse for an excuse. Prove it???!!! Prove that for fifteen hundred years the church burned heretics? Have you never read a history book? And these people weren't without moral conviction and accountability. In fact that is the very reason they burn these poor people. They read the bible and it told them to kill heretics. You, in the modern day, read the same verse and think you shouldn't. That is because Protestant Christianity HAS CHANGED. You WILL suffer a witch to live. You wouldn't dream of harming a hair on her head. BECAUSE YOUR RELIGION HAS CHANGED. :banghead:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.