'What religion are you?' poll discussion

lizimuffin

DavidLaGuardia wrote: »

Except that "pagan" is not a specific religion but a blanket term only a few notches down from "other". I'm not referring to the perjorative perspective of some christians, who label anything but Judaism/Christian/Islam as pagan, but the correct meaning of pagan as any polytheistic religion that emcompasses Wicca, various African Tradtions, Native North American and belief stemming from various pre christain European peoples etc. etc. Feel free to be what you like but if you say "pagan", you may as well say "other".

Yes, I'm aware of this, but I thought it was a start, you really don't need to lecture me on the term 'pagan' means, I am fully aware of what it means.

meritaten

surely the literal translation of pagan is 'of the earth'. it doesnt mean a religion in any way? pagans are literally people who lived off the earth. their practices are unknown but speculated about a lot by archeaoligists - and then they become 'facts' when they arent! and for some reason archeaologist seem to love sacrifices and blood and gore - no reason for it! and somehow all the research concentrates on men and wars!

Vaila

this thread can be summed up quite quickly

adrian is christian, and writes at least 3 paragraphs in every response telling the history of/or how great christianity is

Mrs_Bones

DavidLaGuardia wrote: »

Except that "pagan" is not a specific religion but a blanket term only a few notches down from "other". I'm not referring to the perjorative perspective of some christians, who label anything but Judaism/Christian/Islam as pagan, but the correct meaning of pagan as any polytheistic religion that emcompasses Wicca, various African Tradtions, Native North American and belief stemming from various pre christain European peoples etc. etc. Feel free to be what you like but if you say "pagan", you may as well say "other".

Pagan is an umbrella for religions that do not come under the umbrella of Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christian, Islam. The term pagan comes from the latin word for someone who lived in the country, it was thought the old religions survived longest in country area's rather than towns. If you want to be truly pedantic you might as well say 'put 'christian' if you like, but you might as well say other' because christian is also an umbrella term covering catholics, protestants, quakers, baptists, JW's to name just a few, all of who have different views on the christian religion.

Pagans are mostly polytheistic, but can also be monotheism or even atheists, with not having a belief in a deity but are still spiritual. I describe myself as an animist pagan, animist because I believe that every natural thing has a spirit and pagan because I don't follow an Abrahamic religion and also it's a term most people have heard of so they understand that you are not christian etc, thought thats as far as understanding goes for many. To many Paganism still has this either fluffy bunny or evil image of witches etc, their closed minds choose not look any further.

I choose to follow the Northern religions because the core ethics and values correspond to what I think is important and the gods and myths of this religion give me comfort and help me in my life. I say choose because I think all the religions in the world have been invented by mankind, some to describe the world our ancestors lived in and some to give man power over others.

Quasar

adrian_clark wrote: »

So you call me to reject Jesus who I know personally through prayer and the Bible and whose death, burial and resurrection is a matter of recorded history in favour of what exactly?

I cannot let this go unchallenged. As a lapsed catholic born and raised in Italy, where our history education does encompass Roman History in some detail let me inform you of the following:

The Romans were sticklers for recording everything that went on in their provinces, and someone like Jesus, who was, we are told, tried under Roman Law and crucified according to Roman punishment, WOULD have been recorded in deatil by Pontius Pilate, and this record would have been held in the imperial archives. Complete texts and laws have come down to us from Julius Caesar onwards (Jesus would have been born later), and believe me if Jesus had done all the things he is said to have done (especially resurrecting), there would be records and these would now be part of the canon, possibly.

Instead all we have are the accounts of the four gospels, written some 70 years after his death by followers of his and presented as factual truth.

That is not recorded history. That is grinding axes.

Quasar

adrian_clark wrote: »

A popular rational to explain the phenomenal impact of Jesus Christ on human history by suggesting the Romans somehow rewrote and packaged the record to suit their needs. However, given the Bible is 66 books, from 44 authors, written over the course of around 3000 years that foretells the coming of Jesus, reports his life and then the consequences, it's a stretch of the imagination to suggest it's somehow a stitch up. Millions of people worship Jesus as who He claimed to be; the Life, The way and the Truth. If that's the case then the other religions, philosophies and ideas are false or if not then Jesus is a liar. It's not really very complicated. Happy Christmas. :money:

Ok so you have all these books foretelling that Jesus was coming, if you choose to read that in them. Thing is the bible has so many contradicting statements and injunctions and whatnot, that one can read anything they want in it. Sorry, not meaning to be offensive to you, but I do find that literal interpretation of faith books is dodgy practice at best.

Edit to add: Yes millions of people worship Jesus and have found peace in that particular faith construct. Others have found it in Allah, others in Brahman or Siva, others in the Buddha. Others have found it in service to humanity without reference to a supernatural agency. Irrespective of all this being right or wrong, when one brings as "proof" a hodge-podge collection of old books that can be made to prophesy almost anything, then one shouldn't be surprised to be at the receiving end of rational challenge. After all, using one part of the Bible to validate another, isn't a proof of anything except that it was put together by vested interests (ie. the early church) in order to (loosely) validate itself - hardly a recommendation of objective truth.

adrian_clark

Quasar wrote: »

I cannot let this go unchallenged. As a lapsed catholic born and raised in Italy, where our history education does encompass Roman History in some detail let me inform you of the following:

The Romans were sticklers for recording everything that went on in their provinces, and someone like Jesus, who was, we are told, tried under Roman Law and crucified according to Roman punishment, WOULD have been recorded in deatil by Pontius Pilate, and this record would have been held in the imperial archives. Complete texts and laws have come down to us from Julius Caesar onwards (Jesus would have been born later), and believe me if Jesus had done all the things he is said to have done (especially resurrecting), there would be records and these would now be part of the canon, possibly.

Instead all we have are the accounts of the four gospels, written some 70 years after his death by followers of his and presented as factual truth.

That is not recorded history. That is grinding axes.

Thank you. There is extensive historical work on Jesus and many credible Roman records referring to him and the early Christian church. Even if people do choose to dismiss the record of Jesus' life as fabrications, which would be marvelous to have gained such credibility so quickly that so many people would give their lives. It's hard to deny this penniless preacher's impact on human history?

The Gospels were written by independent authors between fifty and seventy years after Jesus by eye witnesses to his life and in the case of Luke, who was a physician, by research and interview of eye witnesses.

However, to understand Jesus, his purpose and his claims you need all sixty six books of the Bible. In them you will find wisdom that you will marvel at in the way it relates to our lives today, you will find astonishing rhythm and synchronization to a book with forty four authors and Truth that will set you free from a world of competing truth claims.

It should be of no surprise that a God of Love should relentlessly pursue us and make such a sacrifice as taking the punishment we deserve on the Cross. It should not surprise us that man would manipulate and pervert the Truth for gain and self satisfaction. We are surrounded by truth claims, I would only encourage people to believe truth. Jesus was unequivocal that He was the way. I see no other prophets, gurus or philosophers with scars on their sides, palms and feet, dying in agony and obscurity facing the death that I deserve.

[Deleted User]

meh, i still don't see the great purpose behind dying on the cross. Seems a little pointless. When your dad is the supreme king of kings, capable of creating the stars just because he wanted to ... dying nailed to a plank of wood seems a little dramatic to me just to get an idea across to people.

Anyhoo.. it's not like the dead arose on the mount of olives like it was meant to happen for the coming of the messiah ;-)

Quasar

adrian_clark wrote: »

Thank you. There is extensive historical work on Jesus and many credible Roman records referring to him and the early Christian church. Even if people do choose to dismiss the record of Jesus' life as fabrications, which would be marvelous to have gained such credibility so quickly that so many people would give their lives. It's hard to deny this penniless preacher's impact on human history?

The Gospels were written by independent authors between fifty and seventy years after Jesus by eye witnesses to his life and in the case of Luke, who was a physician, by research and interview of eye witnesses.

However, to understand Jesus, his purpose and his claims you need all sixty six books of the Bible. In them you will find wisdom that you will marvel at in the way it relates to our lives today, you will find astonishing rhythm and synchronization to a book with forty four authors and Truth that will set you free from a world of competing truth claims.

It should be of no surprise that a God of Love should relentlessly pursue us and make such a sacrifice as taking the punishment we deserve on the Cross. It should not surprise us that man would manipulate and pervert the Truth for gain and self satisfaction. We are surrounded by truth claims, I would only encourage people to believe truth. Jesus was unequivocal that He was the way. I see no other prophets, gurus or philosophers with scars on their sides, palms and feet, dying in agony and obscurity facing the death that I deserve.

Can you please state exactly what "credible Roman records" are there? What are they called, and who deems them credible? I could accept that there was one Jesus who was crucified for sedition, but from there to say that there are credible records of him raising the dead, walking on water and himself rising after death, then no, sorry - these are stories propagated by his followers who wrote many books about him and believers take thes books as historical facts.

It is not at all marvelous that people should have wanted to die for him as martyrs. It has happened in Islam and in Buddhism too, but of course the staunch Christian does not want to learn anything that threatens their faith.

When you say you need all the books of the bible to understand things correctly, you merely prove my point that the bible was put together with books that attempt to corroborate each other, but for a rational evaluation of Jesus, or indeed anything else, one needs EXTERNAL evidence and corroboration. I have read the bible - I was raised a christian, remember? However I do not find many marvellous things in it, because I do not have a tendency to believe above all reason.

I could write a series of books purporting to be absolute truth and say that one is proven by the fact that another says it is. I hope you don't find the following offensive, but only the deeply emotionally involved in a religious "feel good" factor can't see the glaring illogical contradiction in all of this, whereby evidence is seen where there is only hearsay and writings produced by those who wanted to spread their own religion.

The church became the Roman faith when Emperor Constantine decided it would be so. Since then it became a major political power with its height in the Middle Ages. No wonder it has shaped history. But that was not because the bible is right or because one Jesus is reported to have died "for us" and risen again. It was because MEN saw this blinkered faith as an ideal tool for power.

Educate the people, teach them how to use the marvellous powers of analysis and deduction, and you'll see all faiths challenged to their very core.

Incidentally, the Buddha IS a historical figure, who lived 500 years before Christ. He was the heir to a throne, so his life is well documented. Over the ensuing centuries his followers embellished his story to include all manner of miracles and things to show how great he was, when in fact he claimed no powers for himself.

The story of Jesus is by no means unique, except in the eyes of those who have committed too much emotional investment in believing so.

adrian_clark

Quasar wrote: »

Can you please state exactly what "credible Roman records" are there? What are they called, and who deems them credible? I could accept that there was one Jesus who was crucified for sedition, but from there to say that there are credible records of him raising the dead, walking on water and himself rising after death, then no, sorry - these are stories propagated by his followers who wrote many books about him and believers take thes books as historical facts.

It is not at all marvelous that people should have wanted to die for him as martyrs. It has happened in Islam and in Buddhism too, but of course the staunch Christian does not want to learn anything that threatens their faith.

When you say you need all the books of the bible to understand things correctly, you merely prove my point that the bible was put together with books that attempt to corroborate each other, but for a rational evaluation of Jesus, or indeed anything else, one needs EXTERNAL evidence and corroboration. I have read the bible - I was raised a christian, remember? However I do not find many marvellous things in it, because I do not have a tendency to believe above all reason.

I could write a series of books purporting to be absolute truth and say that one is proven by the fact that another says it is. I hope you don't find the following offensive, but only the deeply emotionally involved in a religious "feel good" factor can't see the glaring illogical contradiction in all of this, whereby evidence is seen where there is only hearsay and writings produced by those who wanted to spread their own religion.

The church became the Roman faith when Emperor Constantine decided it would be so. Since then it became a major political power with its height in the Middle Ages. No wonder it has shaped history. But that was not because the bible is right or because one Jesus is reported to have died "for us" and risen again. It was because MEN saw this blinkered faith as an ideal tool for power.

Educate the people, teach them how to use the marvellous powers of analysis and deduction, and you'll see all faiths challenged to their very core.

Incidentally, the Buddha IS a historical figure, who lived 500 years before Christ. He was the heir to a throne, so his life is well documented. Over the ensuing centuries his followers embellished his story to include all manner of miracles and things to show how great he was, when in fact he claimed no powers for himself.

The story of Jesus is by no means unique, except in the eyes of those who have committed too much emotional investment in believing so.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I honestly appreciate them. And no you do not offend me, I enjoy hearing from you.

You offer a super exposition of the contemporary cultural mandate. It reflects influential thinkers such as Marx who taught that God is a fabrication used by men as way to keep power and suppress people. These views are reinforced by the behaviour of the medieval church of Rome and mankind's false religions with their tendency to control. However, it's worth remembering that the Protestant reformation ushered in education just so the people could access the Word and bypass mankind's corruption.

There are many people who have read the Bible and disbelieved it or manipulated it for their gain. In fact the Bible tells that very story of mankind being relentlessly pursued by an all loving just God who they rebel against, break his laws and seek their flawed ideas and philosophies that always lead to their destruction. Nothing much seems to change.

All my marvelous powers of analysis and reason, history and science point me to Jesus. I simply do not have the strength of faith required to buy into the something came from nothing scientific theories, or the goo to zoo to you, theories on natural selection. I prefer personal testimony, historical evidence and the behaviour of the early church. Say what you will but the fact that a significant number of faithful Jews turned from their religious tradition to accept Jesus as the Messiah, often at the cost of their very lives, let alone the family, social and economic costs has to be intriguing to the non-believer.

That's the very reason why we celebrate Christmas because our Father in heaven, who loves us beyond all measure, come into human history on a rescue mission to love us. You can deny Jesus' claims or you can accept him as God but you can't ignore Him.