Do you claim any religious faith? / How are you on sharing?

[Josh Oakley]

That's fine - and I accept the clarification. One can be anti-Christianity without being anti-Christian. I've had people tell me they thought my Pope is the anti-Christ, but they like *me* just fine. It's a bit off-putting, but oh well, I'll live.

In any case, I'm fine with someone who is anti-Christian or anti-Christianity. I just don't like it when they cloak it as something else. "I'm not anti-Christian, I'm atheist." Funny, since all they do is run down Christianity all day long.

I've got a couple atheist friends on FB; seems like every other post on their timeline is about this or that horrible thing Christianity has done to them. I get it; but I don't think atheism is what they seem to think it is.

Yeah, I will agree on that. I also consider myself to be atheist and humanist. But there are those of us who act like, bitter, jolted ex-lovers.

Me I have better things to do for the most part. Obviously I don't hide my stance on religion but I have a lot of better things to do (sex up my wife, sing awesomely, train in martial arts) than swing a needless hate-on at every passing ear.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Josh Oakley]

BTW I suspect there was a historical Jesus. I was just pointing out that in 300 years, it wouldn't be hard to make one up.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Morgan]

There is evidence that Jesus, the person, existed. If you choose to discount what little evidence does exist, that is your own business, but it does not stop existing because you choose not to believe it.

The first mention of Jesus anywhere, in any source, is in the Gospel of Mark, circa 70-80AD, 40+ years after his “death”. No contemporary sources exist in any other historical document from his time. For the last three years of religious discussions here, I have asked for links to the sources everyone claims exists, but to date no one has provided such evidence. I ask if you believe such evidence exists, then to please post the links here, if they are indeed legitimate sources, I will gladly read them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The first mention of Jesus anywhere, in any source, is in the Gospel of Mark, circa 70-80AD, 40+ years after his “death”. No contemporary sources exist in any other historical document from his time. For the last three years of religious discussions here, I have asked for links to the sources everyone claims exists, but to date no one has provided such evidence. I ask if you believe such evidence exists, then to please post the links here, if they are indeed legitimate sources, I will gladly read them.

I believe you are mistaking the terms 'proof' and 'evidence'. There is no proof that Jesus the historical figure existed. There is evidence, as you stated yourself. From the time of Jesus actual life? None that I know of. That does not mean there is no evidence, it means there is no evidence which you accept as proof. That's fine, I agree that there is no proof. But evidence exists, and you say as much yourself.

 

[CanuckMA]

Canuck and Tez would no more associate kristos-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."

"G_d. ""

Xtian."

Much less offensive to them, see, but they're not telling anyone that we have to write it that way.:lol:

Correct. I do it because I'm prohibited to write the names of other deities.

Same with G-d. Actually, that one is more complex. there is a way to properly dispose of text containig the names of G-d written on them. I, personnaly, do not want to be a perty i the improper disposal. So I don't write it completely. It definetely applies yo printed copies of the discussions. There i actually a debate on whether a computer display can be considered "permanent" and therefore dubejct to those rules. Most opinions say No. So if Ifillowed majurity opinions and could be absolutely certain that the pages would never be printed, I could write G-d fully.

 

[oftheherd1]

The hanged or crucified man resurrected is a common archetype. And people naturally tend to combine belief systems-it's called syncreticism-rather than adopt one to the exclusion of others, hierarchical insistence on the contrary notwithstanding. So you wind up with Islam keeping pagan beliefs and symbolism, and Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals and symbolism. Many Catholic saints are just an evolution of some local pagan god.

Scratch any religion hard enough, and you'll find another underneath.

Scratch any god-or saint-hard enough, and you'll find an older god underneath.

carry on.....

Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals seems a big stretch. Of course I only have Wikpedia to rely on, and perhaps you have more. But Mithra does not seem to predate Christianity. And according to Wikipedia, Mithra rose from a rock. I see nothing there that indicates Mithra being crucified and resurrected. Now it is interesting that there are things in other beliefs that seemingly can be associated with Christianity, and can be used by Missionaries to win locals to Christianity. An example would be a belief in some Burma area tribes that they were to look for a man with a book that would tell them things to live by that they had lost. When missionaries came with the Bible, they accepted that as the book they were to learn from and follow. Anyone interested in that line of thought might want to read Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson. I guess my point being that it is just as plausible that Christian teachings from very early missionaries became corrupted due to lack of teachers, and some parts of it or references to it were passed down but not understood.

Inasmuch as Christians believe our religion has Jewish underpinnings, and we believe also in the Old Testament, and the New Testament tells us specifically about Christ and his teachings, we would not accept you what you say. And, if there are any similarities, we would suspect it is the other religions borrowing from Christianity.

Your statement that Christianity has adopted Mithraic rituals doesn't stand up to what Wikipedia states about Mithra. Mithra has no surviving religious writings, seemed to accept Sol (the sun) as another god, and apparently only survived from possibly the late 1st century to the 4th century.

 

[oftheherd1]

I'd venture that Christianity itself, while its present forms are a creation of the 3rd or 4th century after Christ, still certainly constitutes historical evidence of something. I mean, something happened, and someone was involved, and it all made quite an impression, but as to what those actually, were.............

That is painting with a very broad brush sir. Can you explain why you believe that?

Canuck and Tez would no more associate kristos-"messiah"- with the rabbi, Jesus the Nazarene than they would write the whole word "God."

"G_d. ""

Xtian."


Much less offensive to them, see, but they're not telling anyone that we have to write it that way.:lol:

I am curious why you used an emoticon showing what I took to be derision at the thought of Jesus of Nasareth. Jesus was raised there according to the Bible. BTW, I am sure you must know that Jesus was not a Nasarene. Was that an intentional distortion or did you really not know?

 

[Tez3]

Not quite. "Jesus" is "Joshua," in Greek. Most of the Hebrews at that time and place were quite Hellenized, actually-gave Paul fits, later on. Of course, their common language was Aramaic, so the name is really "Jeshua. "...all via Latin as well, of course. Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English. It's no wonder the King James Version-and so many others-are as full of errors and mistranslations as they are.

"Jesus of Nazareth?" Really? :lfao:

They all mean "G_d will save," though, as long as I'm trying to be all politically correct and non-offensive, and all.

As for using "X" for "Christ," Canuck is actually doing it to avoid associations with the word "messiah," which transliterates as "kristos," in Greek, or "the anointed one."

So, by using the "X", he's actually putting the "Christ" right back into "Christmas" and "Christian," as Tez posted....:lol:

carry on....

Sigh, I know all that. If you use English however Joshua would be correct, Hebrew is a different matter, Joshua in Greek would be in letters my keyboard doesn't do! Same as my keyboard doesn't 'do' Hebrew, well it might but I don't know how to make it do it. My shift partner has fun with the keyboards at word when he converts it into Nepali and Ghurkali. So using Joshua spelt and pronounced that way in English is the best I can do.

The main thing is though that Canuck wasn't trying to be offensive or wind people up.

 

[elder999]

Christianity adopting Mithraic rituals seems a big stretch. Of course I only have Wikpedia to rely on, and perhaps you have more. But Mithra does not seem to predate Christianity.

As part of the Zoroastrian pantheon, Mithra predates Christianity, by at least six centuries. The Mithraic cult of the Romans would have been contemporaneous with Christianity, from the first to the fifth century

Your statement that Christianity has adopted Mithraic rituals doesn't stand up to what Wikipedia states about Mithra. Mithra has no surviving religious writings, seemed to accept Sol (the sun) as another god, and apparently only survived from possibly the late 1st century to the 4th century.

Mithras was born from a virgin on December 25, a date later co-opted by Christians as Christ's birthday in 320 AD. A traveling teacher and master, Mithras also performed miracles. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras died for man’s sins and was resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the breaking of bread and wine are also shared by both religions, and I won't even get into the cosmological similarities like belief in a soul, heaven and hell

That is painting with a very broad brush sir. Can you explain why you believe that?

Something did happen. Someone was involved. Christianity itself is proof of that, as is the Bible. Whether or not the events depicted in the New Testament happened as they are depicted, and constittute "proof" of anything, is a matter of faith, and not archaeological evidence at all.

So, I believe that because I'm a scientist.

I am curious why you used an emoticon showing what I took to be derision at the thought of Jesus of Nasareth

I used an emoticon because Bil saw fit to tell Canuck to stop using "Xtian" because it my be offensive, when writing "Christian" or telling him to might be just as offensive, that's all.

Jesus was raised there according to the Bible.

Strange, though, that we have ample archaeological evidence of other places mentioned in the Bible-evidence that is contemporaneous with Jesus-but none in Nazareth. There is, in fact, in spite of what they say on the tours in Israel, evidence that at the time of Christ,the place that came to be called Nazareth had been a necropolis, and, consequently, not a place that would have had a large or principally Hebrew population, due to their strictures on purity. There is, in fact, no extra-Biblical reference to the village of Nazareth until about the beginning of the third century. There is, in fact, a preponderance of archaeological evidence that indicates the place simply didn't exist at the time of Jesus, and that the references in the Bible are mistranslations or redactions from the third century or later.

None of which has anything at all to do with "faith." People can believe what they want to believe, and that makes it the truth, which is completely different from fact.

BTW, I am sure you must know that Jesus was not a Nasarene. Was that an intentional distortion or did you really not know?

And this is most curious of all-Jesus is called "a Nazarene," or "the Nazarene[/i] several times in Greek. On simple linguistic grounds, he was Nazaros or, in Hebrew, Nazir: "one consecrated,or devoted" or , more properly, a Nazirite-one consecrated to God from birth.The Greek term mistranslated as "Jesus of Nazareth" actually more properly reads "Jesus the Nazarene," making it far more likely that the term is associated with a spiritual vow or dedication Jesus made as a Hebrew, and one that concluded with his immersion in water at the hands of John the Baptist.In fact, Jesus is the only person in the New Testament referenced in this way-even other people who are supposed to be (again, probably from redactions) "from Nazareth."

Of course, there's just a little more fact in all of that than there is factual evidence that Jesus actually existed, or that he was "of Nazareth," rather than a Nazirite.So, not an intentional distortion at all, merely what I choose to believe, based on a religious studies degree, and having read the Bible in Greek, Latin and Aramaic (and, later, Coptic-very different book) You can, of course, believe what you want, and it's not my intention to turn what's been an otherwise enjoyable and respectable thread into one of Biblical scholarship, or arguing the merits of the Bible itself.

It is, after all, about faith-it says so, right there in the title, and I'd be the last person to tell anyone that what they believe is wrong. :asian:

 

[tkizzle05]

To answer your question, I do not claim a religious faith, I'm in no means bound to any mans religious sects.

I do believe in Jesus, and I do believe what is written about him. I believe in God and all of the wonderful things he has done. I also believe in what the father sees in us, and that's love.

A religious group is no different then a cult IMO, a leader persuading people into believing a SYSTEM and the people blindly following it. (hope I don't lose points for this post )

Jesus never preached religion, Jesus never started Christianity, in fact what you do for god, doesn't even need a title, it should be seen through how you live.

 

[elder999]

As you probably know, I earned a degree in religious studies-35 years ago, now! So, thanks, Jenna-this is, as a few here already know, a topic of much interest to me, and this has been a good thread.

If you have a religious faith, would you take an opportunity to state your faith because I am openly interested in hearing?

Sure.Born again heathen.

I say "born again," because I was raised a Christian. My father and grandfather were Episcopal priests, and, in addition to their trade as sailors, most of my direct ancestors were ministers of one sort or another-my great grandfather was a Presbyterian, and the reasons for his conversion to the Episcopal church are an interesting story for some other time. On the other hand, their participation in Christianity did not keep them from some other interesting practices-in a day when people still spoke of witchcraft as though it were a crime, the songs that have been passed down to me really might have been thought by all and sundry to be calling up the wind to fill one's sails or to quiet the waves, and Christianity was a good veneer to hide behind. When I sing those songs, it's thought by most to be some quaint family legacy, but prior to my great grandfather, it was thought by many to be quite real...

In any case, my own religious journey has taken me from Episcopal to atheist-no, that's not quite right: I was more pissed off at God than not a believer-to Buddhist-I practiced at the Zen Mountain Monastery in Mt. Tremper, NY-to Native American practices. While I still meditate regularly, and while I'm not averse to occasionally taking my mom to church, most of my regular spiritual life-my "religion"-is American Indian.

If so, are you also happy to tell me about your faith and what good things it is that your faith brings to your life because I am openly interested in learning and discussing?

Some things, yes. Some things, no.

The biggest thing to explain, if I can, is what it means to "walk in beauty." It's to see-or try to see-the sacred in everything, and to see every act as a prayer. Whatever I do and whatever exists in the world is part of the Creator. Sometimes this is as simple as taking a meal, drink of water, or hunting, and sometimes it's as complicated a thing as the Sun Dance or a peyote meeting. For me, the best day to day thing is how absolutely humbled I am by my participation in these things, the people I share it with, and, of course, the Creator, and all of creation itself.

I think recognizing things greater than oneself is a mandatory practice to qualify as "human."

Sometimes, of course, I'm not "walking in beauty," but that's what I strive for.

]If so, thank you. If not, can I ask please, why not? And if I cannot even coax you into answering that then maybe I can persuade you to ask yourself: what is the hindrance to your sharing?

Some things aren't meant to be shared. Some things are secret. I know Navajos who don't even tell their real name: the one they use for social and business interactions, their "legal" name, is not their true[/i[ name. If I've been instructed not to share something, I won't. There's also a matter of prurient interest-some people might think of peyote meetings as some sort of party-while they can be quite joyous at times, they are serious business, and, like most native religious practices, not particularly easy at all. Sometimes, it's better just to stay off the subject.

For some, of course, openly discussing religion in this way is thought to be rude, or intrusive. For others, such discussions cannot help but become argumentative because they take others viewpoints personally. For myself-well, my father said that whenever people get together to pray it's a good thing. He might not have been quite right about that, but I think it's true most of the time, and I think my own beliefs are enhanced by knowledge of and acknowledging the belief-or lack of belief-of others.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Mithras was born from a virgin on December 25, a date later co-opted by Christians as Christ's birthday in 320 AD. A traveling teacher and master, Mithras also performed miracles. He had twelve companions as Jesus had twelve disciples. Mithras died for man’s sins and was resurrected on the following Sunday. The crucifix, water baptism and the breaking of bread and wine are also shared by both religions, and I won't even get into the cosmological similarities like belief in a soul, heaven and hell

I suppose you could say Mithras was born of a virgin; if rocks are virgins.

The December 25th myth appears to be a generic holiday of the Romans and not specifically associated to Mithraism.

The 'Sign of the Cross' was a diagonal cross inside a circle.

There were no "12 Disciples." He could have had no disciples, he existed before Man did (according to Mithraism). His companions and fellows were other gods and demi-gods.

Mithras was not crucified, but ascended bodily into Heaven.

There was, however, a "Last Supper."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Jesus never preached religion, Jesus never started Christianity, in fact what you do for god, doesn't even need a title, it should be seen through how you live.

True enough, Jesus considered himself a Jew. However, he did establish a Church through Peter. And Paul got the whole Christianity thing going.

 

[elder999]

I suppose you could say Mithras was born of a virgin; if rocks are virgins

ACtually, according to Persian mythology,Mithra was born of a virgin, called Anahita, "the mother of God."

The December 25th myth appears to be a generic holiday of the Romans and not specifically associated to Mithraism.

Mithras was a sun god. The Sol Invictus cult and Mithraism were directly tied together, as was the cross-it was this cross by which Constantine ruled, by the way, that of the Sol Invictus cult,...Christianity, not so much, though the relationship between the three in Byzantium might well be the reason for his legitimizing Christianity.

The 'Sign of the Cross' was a diagonal cross inside a circle.

Apropos of what, exactly? See "Sol Invictus.

There were no "12 Disciples." He could have had no disciples, he existed before Man did (according to Mithraism). His companions and fellows were other gods and demi-gods

And there were 12 of them.

Mithras was not crucified, but ascended bodily into Heaven.

After he was crucified on a tree, only to rise from the dead on Mar. 25th.

Like I said, you are welcome to believe what you want-and there is actually less known about Mithraism than there is about early Christianity-but that doesn't change the facts. Try to accept for a minute that of course a Catholic webpage is going to argue for the exclusivity of the various elements of the Christ mythology, whether those elements are in traditions that predate Christianity or not, Try to accept that a "god-man's" death as sacrifice for "mankind," and his resurrection are common themes in religions that predate Christianity, going back to ancient Egypt, India and Persia, and that those deaths variously took some form of crucifixion-tied to a tree, bound to a rock, etc. Since Mithraism and Christianity were contemporaneous, it's likely that there was a fair amount of cross-pollination, in part because of similarities. Communion like ritual meals are part and parcel of all religions, especially mystery religions like Mithraism-and Christianity,a that time, was a mystery religion.

Mithraism also, by the way, had a head-priest called a "Pope."

And, of course, feel free to believe what you want. Just don't get confused about facts.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

ACtually, according to Persian mythology,Mithras was born of a virgin, called Anahita, "the mother of God."

Seriously, this was debunked in the early 1920's. Mithras was not born of Anahita, in Persian or any other mythology. There is a single inscription on a temple that describes Mithras as the son of Anahita. One inscription does not a fact make. Of the few remaining pieces of the Mithraic cult that remain to us today, Mithra is described as having been born of a 'mother rock'.

Mithras was a sun god. The Sol Invictus cult and Mithraism were directly tied together, as was the cross-it was this cross by which Constantine ruled, by the way, that of the Sol Invictus cult,...Christianity, not so much, though the relationship between the three in Byzantium might well be the reason for his legitimizing Christianity.

They were tied to each other at a certain point in time; which would have been much later than the Persian worship of Mithras; so you're cherry-picking your facts and jamming them together to show a relationship that isn't there. Roman soldiers worshipping Mithras would not have considered him the son of Anahita, whom they would not have even known of at that time.

And there were 12 of them.

I have not read that anywhere. There is a temple drawing of him that shows him surrounded by the 12 signs of the Zodiac, however.

After he was crucified on a tree, only to rise from the dead on Mar. 25th.

No, he was taken to heaven alive and well, in a chariot.

However, the early Christian writer, Tertullian, wrote of Roman soldiers who were Mithra worshippers and celebrated a 'resurrection ritual,' and scholars commonly believe now that this represented Christian influence on Mithraism.

Like I said, you are welcome to believe what you want-and there is actually less known about Mithraism than there is about early Christianity-but that doesn't change the facts. Try to accept for a minute that of course a Catholic webpage is going to argue for the exclusivity of the various elements of the Christ mythology, whether those elements are in traditions that predate Christianity or not, Try to accept that a "god-man's" death as sacrifice for "mankind," and his resurrection are common themes in religions that predate Christianity, going back to ancient Egypt, India and Persia, and that those deaths variously took some form of crucifixion-tied to a tree, bound to a rock, etc.

And, of course, feel free to believe what you want. Just don't get confused about facts.

Ditto. I don't doubt this is what you studied in college, but times have changed, and many of the assumptions that were once passed down as fact are now rejected by the historical community.

This is not simply reflected in Catholic dogma; it's clearly represented in the historical record as we now understand it.

FYI, Horus is said to have the same attributes as Mithras by anti-Christians. Also untrue.

 

[elder999]

Ditto. I don't doubt this is what you studied in college, but times have changed, and many of the assumptions that were once passed down as fact are now rejected by the historical community.

This is not simply reflected in Catholic dogma; it's clearly represented in the historical record as we now understand it.

FYI, Horus is said to have the same attributes as Mithras by anti-Christians. Also untrue.

Oddly enough, it's what I studied at Marist College....:lol:

And I'm not "anti-Christian." I'm not "anti" anything.....

(BTW, this is me, not arguing with you anymore.....)

 

[Tez3]

To answer your question, I do not claim a religious faith, I'm in no means bound to any mans religious sects.

I do believe in Jesus, and I do believe what is written about him. I believe in God and all of the wonderful things he has done. I also believe in what the father sees in us, and that's love.

A religious group is no different then a cult IMO, a leader persuading people into believing a SYSTEM and the people blindly following it. (hope I don't lose points for this post )

Jesus never preached religion, Jesus never started Christianity, in fact what you do for god, doesn't even need a title, it should be seen through how you live.

You won't lose 'points' for your opinion here! I'm curious to know though why you think religious people these days follow their faith 'blindly' and unquestionly? The majority of people from all the main religions do question their beliefs and what they follow, I thiink you can see that from post here. Cults are precisely that, often little to do with religion and more to do with ego and power trips by their leaders.

 

[john2054]

Arguing about little details won't get us anywhere. Personally my multi faith journey has taken my prayers into Hindu temples, mosques and other muslim places of worship, and out for long country walks not to mention to my garden where every flower i lovingly nurture is its own act of faith in its own little way. More on this later?

 

[CanuckMA]

A religious group is no different then a cult IMO, a leader persuading people into believing a SYSTEM and the people blindly following it. (hope I don't lose points for this post )

Not always. Jews hire and fire their "leaders". And in most Orthodox congregations, a fair percentage of the men have recieved smicha, ordination, and can be addressed as Rabbi. They just chose to work at semething else. So the congretional Rabbi can't just spout tings off, a lot of his congregants know as much and sometimes more than he does.

Jews don't blindly follow. We argue, incessently. There is a lot of truth in "2 Jews, 3 opinions".

 

[Tez3]

Arguing about little details won't get us anywhere. Personally my multi faith journey has taken my prayers into Hindu temples, mosques and other muslim places of worship, and out for long country walks not to mention to my garden where every flower i lovingly nurture is its own act of faith in its own little way. More on this later?

No thank you.