The-Captain Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Soj, I have also read Bolinger's work on the subject. Marilyn Hickey wrote a book in the 70's that caused a lot of ruckus on this subject, also. This came mostly from superstitious fundie's that thought even mentioning astrology in the same framework as the Bible was blasphemy. Of course, these were people who were reacting emotionally and had never read the book. Her premise was that this was a fulfillment of the scriptures that says that the Heavens declare the glory of God and that God has revealed Himself to everyone who is made so they are without excuse. Again, as universalists, we believe that God's intention has always been the salvation of all, it would make sense that He would preach the gospel in the stars so even the most primitive and isolated of indigenous people would have been given enough to believe or reject the Savior by their free will. I love the truth that even the stars have told the greatest story ever told. John Kratos I think your definition of universalist deviates a great bit from the commonly accepted one. Doc, A Christian Universalist is someone who still believes that all salvation is in Jesus Christ, but believes He is the Savior of the whole world so we do not hold to the existense of an eternal hell. We see the scriptures that speak of eternal torment in hell as mistranslations brought on by a mixture of Greek and Roman mythology with early Christianity. What definition have you heard? John In addition to what Gramps and Deva said I would like to point out that you said universalist before, not christian universalist. Universalism is hardly native to christianity, hindus might be considered the true universalists. And as an aside whats the christian universalist take on how god let his message get fucked up so royally, that only their minority could get it right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 The "virgin Mary" is symbolic of the constellation virgo (the virgin). The ancient symbol for Virgo is the altered *M*. This is why Mary and other virgin mothers of "mythras",Horus's mother Isis-Mery, Adonis's mother Myra, and Budha's mother Maya begin with the letter M! Lots of good stuff you have there... buuuut... Wasn't Horus, Isis-Mery and Buddha, Maya etc, used in languages long before the Roman empire and hence didn't use the Roman/Latin letters??? It sounds like an impossible stretch. I don't know how the character for "M" looks in the old pictographic egyptian, is there any reference to this? The point is that people used astrological symbols in in their stories religion. It is an explaination as to WHY the mythras stories all hold the same basic features. True. But we have to be careful not to make claims that can't be supported. (Btw, it's not Mythra, but Mithras: Roman cult hero, or Mithra: Zoroastrian son of God.) And, sure, M in Mithra could be the same M as in Mary, but I still not sure if the letter "M" in Isis-Mery or Maya looked the same, since they both predates the Latin language. Unfortunately there has been a lot of muddying the waters for a while, and people and so called researchers have come up with evidence for connections between Christianity and other religions, and granted that some of these claims are true, there are many claims that are not true, or at least cannot be substantiated in any way. So it's important to tread carefully in this subjects, since there is misinformation out there that can easily backfire instead. We have to be skeptical towards all and everything, which means that even this subject has to be analyzed and studied carefully and not just accept everything someone says for truth. We've had this topic on the board several times before, and I was making the same mistakes, and I learned that even if there are a lot of similarities and connections (and it's hard to say if they're correlated or causative) there are things that possibly are not true. For instance, the story about Buddha's resurrection can be questioned. I think there are a bunch of different Buddha death legends, but only one of them got Buddha wake up for a couple of seconds after death and say something wise and die again. That is hardly a story that could have been borrowed by the Christians since Jesus supposedly had a lot more bells and whistles to "event". And if we say that it was the idea of "waking up from the dead" that was borrowed, well, that's sort-of true, but then Christianity could have borrowed it from the Old Testament (didn't one of the prophets do a miracle like that?), or from almost any other religion. Every religion got that element of "the hero who survives death". I think what you can see isn't necessarily that Christianity had to borrow one particular idea from this or from that religion, but people were already soaked in these ideas. The stories from many cults were in people's minds. Rome was pluralistic regarding religion, and Christianity was influenced by the Essene cult, Messianic cult, Hellenistic religion and philosophy, Jewish religious philosophy, Gnosticism, Mithraism (maybe), astrology, and many, many more. And the reason to this is simple to understand when you think of that Christianity was like a sponge. It started maybe as a slim religion with few core elements, and when Paul - or whoever - took the story over the Roman empire, the new followers colored it in their own ideas and beliefs, and the "dogma" exploded because it was an empty container where you could stuff all your favorite toys of faith. Later when Constantine wanted to unify the empire, Christianity was the natural choice since it had elements of all faiths, and could easily be molded to fit even more. That's why it became Orthodox church instead of Christian church. There were about 150 or more cults of Christianity at that time, all with different views of the trinity, Jesus, salvation, canon of the holy book and so on. It's also important to know that Judaism was influenced by astrology before Christianity, and since Christianity grew out from Judaism, of course the astrological concept would be there too. It's not hard to see that parts of the Gospel story is a rewrite of some of the old testament stories, so the 12 from the OT would show up in the Gospel as well. This means that much of the astrology we see in there is the Jewish astrology. Enough blabber from me. Sorry to interrupt. Kratos and Soj, let me ask, is this a correct observation: Kratos - you're a Christian Universalist, and Sojourner - you're a Unitarian Universalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 It's also important to know that Judaism was influenced by astrology before Christianity, and since Christianity grew out from Judaism, of course the astrological concept would be there too. It's not hard to see that parts of the Gospel story is a rewrite of some of the old testament stories, so the 12 from the OT would show up in the Gospel as well. This means that much of the astrology we see in there is the Jewish astrology. Enough blabber from me. Sorry to interrupt. Ah, so true, I get a bit overzealous sometimes with ideas I have not sussed over before. But, even though there may not be as many similarites as I first thought, due to overzealous information sources IE: zeighiest move, there ARE plenty of similarites, and as you pointed out, it is so with judaism. Even though the similarities may not be as extreme as I implied, they ARE still there, and at the very least point to their usage and inspiration in the bible. And this is *really* what my last three threads were about, more evidence, though circumstantual, that the bible is not the word of god, but rather a fairy tale myth book. There are MANY things that discredit the bible, and on this site we explore a lot of those, this is just one angle of many, to help those still in the delusion to reach out of the darkness. Great response btw! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Kratos and Soj, let me ask, is this a correct observation: Kratos - you're a Christian Universalist, and Sojourner - you're a Unitarian Universalist? Hi Hans, I dont think Im unitarian but I have not spent time looking into it cause if you got close to it you were heavily debated out of it and to not touch, if you were to remain in the click ya know? So I have to look into that. I feel as if lately Ive returned to my roots in universalism. Universalism didnt open up to me thru the bible or christianity per se. It was so much bigger than that but because of my christian roots and paradigm it got defined by the bible even though where I saw it first in a belief system was buddhism and eastern thought. I dont know what the heck I am Hans. Im a sojourner thru it all I suppose but I am not any longer a strict christian univeralist. I cant remain strictly there. Its too confining and in reality I dont think I was ever meant to remain there but to see a bigger picture. oh well not an answer perhaps lol and Im sorry for my bringing up that in the other post, I got ticked and let off steam and I apologize to Kratos as well. His views are really none of my business so will leave him be, I just want it understood Im distancing myself from being categorized as strictly a christian universalist but not refusing the label christian either. Its in there in the mix. lol sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Ah, so true, I get a bit overzealous sometimes with ideas I have not sussed over before. Welcome to the club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 You know what I realize Hans, I am perfectly content in my life views as long as there is room to change and I dont have to be completely defined or completely define them. Is there a label for that? haha the reason I feel so good being here is that I dont have to really define unless someone wants me to explain how I hold onto the christian label at all, then I do but there is a lot of expansion room!! I love that freedom that is here amongst you all. sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Later when Constantine wanted to unify the empire, Christianity was the natural choice since it had elements of all faiths, and could easily be molded to fit even more. That's why it became Orthodox church instead of Christian church. There were about 150 or more cults of Christianity at that time, all with different views of the trinity, Jesus, salvation, canon of the holy book and so on. Actually, it was Theodosius, about 100-150 years after Constantine who used the religion to unify the Empire. Even after ratifying Roman Christianity as a recognised 'religion of the Empire', it only had the same status as Judaism. When Constantine comissioned a Temple of Mithras, he also commissioned an equivalent Synagogue and Christian Church... Theodosius made it the fully fledged Imperial Religion, since he was a Chrisitan from birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 and Im sorry for my bringing up that in the other post, I got ticked and let off steam and I apologize to Kratos as well. His views are really none of my business so will leave him be, I just want it understood Im distancing myself from being categorized as strictly a christian universalist but not refusing the label christian either. Its in there in the mix. lol sojourner With due respect... if someone puts their views on a public board, they can expect to have them critiqued, not to say lambasted, and they can take it and like it... seems that you had yours censored, which is not on at all... You don't owe Kratos diddly... IMO, you are owed an apology be the other place for not having enough moral fibre to be able to take a contrary view without deleting the bloody thing... God rot them and their tribe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 You know what I realize Hans, I am perfectly content in my life views as long as there is room to change and I dont have to be completely defined or completely define them. Is there a label for that? haha A skeptic, or agnostic? Later when Constantine wanted to unify the empire, Christianity was the natural choice since it had elements of all faiths, and could easily be molded to fit even more. That's why it became Orthodox church instead of Christian church. There were about 150 or more cults of Christianity at that time, all with different views of the trinity, Jesus, salvation, canon of the holy book and so on. Actually, it was Theodosius, about 100-150 years after Constantine who used the religion to unify the Empire. Even after ratifying Roman Christianity as a recognised 'religion of the Empire', it only had the same status as Judaism. When Constantine comissioned a Temple of Mithras, he also commissioned an equivalent Synagogue and Christian Church... Theodosius made it the fully fledged Imperial Religion, since he was a Chrisitan from birth. Ah. You could be right. Still, Constantine is considered to be the first Christian emperor, right? And if I understand your point, Constantine didn't have any plans of using Christianity to unify the empire, he only tried to unify Christianity as such with the new Orthodoxy? And by the way, as you perhaps can notice, I didn't write that Constantine did unite the empire under Christianity, but that he wanted to, but I could be wrong and you're right, maybe that wasn't even his purpose at all. He did support the Nicean Council though, even if he took a moderate position to religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 He's considered the 'first Christian emperor' largely down to the 'Donation of Constantine' which was a forgery, even admitted by the RCC... lot of legends grew up after his death. He certainly wasn't voluntarily baptised. I think Theodosius is the better candidate. As to 'support'... I think you'll find he convened it at the advice of Eusebeus, since he was getting sick of the Christians being a PITA (mostly public order problems...). One thing about Constantine's attitude to most things, ruthless and bloody violence was a final option, when all else failed. He was, IME, one of the better Roman Emperors... bloody good politician and diplomat. So, if you defined who were the 'good guys', then the 'bad ones' were easier to manage.... thus Eusebeus' masterstroke of taking the two main strands of Chrsitianity, one the monotheist view where Jesus was a man, and the other the Tarsean view of three gods, of whom became the avatar Jesus... warmed over with some pagan stuff to make it seem less alien to Romans... so virgin birth etc, which was a minor strand prior to Nicaea. Least wyse the best I can make out of the histories I've read... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Sounds very plausible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Whether it's accurate is hard to fully establish... there's a lot of noise around Constantine, and the RCC's stories make it hard to winnow out the wheat from the chaff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I am perfectly content in my life views as long as there is room to change and I dont have to be completely defined or completely define them. Is there a label for that? haha Yes. "Individual" or "Sincere" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Whether it's accurate is hard to fully establish... there's a lot of noise around Constantine, and the RCC's stories make it hard to winnow out the wheat from the chaff... Like most of history. It's just more or less based on probabilities than absolute truths. Many events are too complex to grasp even when we have all information. But what you said could very well be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eccles Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Why does the story of Horus seem so similar to the jesus myth? Simply because the Jesus Myth is based on Horus. Reason: As the Hebrews lived in Egypt, they knew the Egyptian Religion. Then Jesus, Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt (with Pontius the Pilot of course). Horus was born of the Virgin Isis, died and was resurrected from the dead. Much of the Bible is a poor plagiarism of Egyptian religious myths. http://home.austarnet.com.au/calum/egypt.html May I please point out that I regard Astrology as I regard Christianity: BULLSHIT. I am an Astronomer and have a very good knowledge of Egyptology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I've also heard that there's only 30 different types of stories or something like that (I can't remember where I heard this from or what the exact number was) and everything else is derived from these 30 or so different story types. If this applies to contemporary fiction, then I wouldn't be surprised if it also applies to mythology if we accept that these religious stories are fiction. I just wish I could remember where I heard this from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MathGeek Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I find hilarious that Tektonic Ministries has an entire section of their website devoted to debunking these connecting and overlapping myths. To go that far to defend your faith is insane. If Christianity is ultimately untouchable and correct in their views and suppositions, why do they still go to great lengths to defend it? As for this entire idea of connecting to other myths, there are some interesting points that assisted my deconversion but nothing beyond that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Soj, I am sorry that you are once again offended with me and that you see nothing in common between us. I really do find that as sad, but we must each find our own way. I never read your comment to me on the homosexuality thread. Another Mod mentioned removing it because he felt it was inappropriate, but I never even saw it. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The bad blood here is starting to get pretty overwhelming, not to mention overbearing... As usual just my opinion, but I think we would all be better off dropping our axe grinding and just moving on. Kratos believes some crazy things, some things that offend people, he has a penchant for posting opinions that are going to provoke a response. But they are just that his opinions on an internet message board. As far as christians go there are alot worse, if its preaching he's doing I dont think we need to worry about any of us believing it, right? I know alot of people take issue with him and thats up to you, but as for me I dont see the harm in giving the benefit of the doubt. He's human right? we arent ebil atheists, and he isnt one of dem ebil christians. To his credit he does consider his views as evolving not set in stone and has displayed a willingness to listen, and read other things. While I may feel that certain negative attitudes (regarding homosexuality etc) are wrong, I can hardly expect everyone else to see it that way at this moment in time. After all werent we all a bit like Kratos at one point, I for one was a heck of alot worse, it took my thick skull years to figure out that RCs arent in fact going to hell. He's miles ahead of where I was when I was a fundy. Maybe it wouldnt hurt to at least respond to him on a post by post basis rather than dredging up his entire history of posts. Maybe he is flip-flopping but its just as possible that hes changed his mind about something. Lighten up a bit on both sides? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kratos Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Doc, I would mention that blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God, but that might appear to be preaching so I won't. LOL John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Whether it's accurate is hard to fully establish... there's a lot of noise around Constantine, and the RCC's stories make it hard to winnow out the wheat from the chaff... Like most of history. It's just more or less based on probabilities than absolute truths. Many events are too complex to grasp even when we have all information. But what you said could very well be true. It has the redeeming feature of fitting the established facts, only ignoring the stuff that is on Catholic record as being a later 'pious forgery'... the whole history of ecumenical councils is a vipers nest of complexity. Makes most soap operas seem decidedly linear.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Soj, I am sorry that you are once again offended with me and that you see nothing in common between us. I really do find that as sad, but we must each find our own way. I never read your comment to me on the homosexuality thread. Another Mod mentioned removing it because he felt it was inappropriate, but I never even saw it. John I assume by 'inappropriate' he meant it didn't support his world view... Oh, I love the hypocrisy of sites like that... they simply show again and again how weak and silly they really are... OK, If I'd been stinking the place up , I'd have agreed that it would be 'inappropriate' but, unless Sojourner had had some sort of seizure that removed her social control, 'inappropriate' isn't likely to have happened... the arse just didn't like his views being challenged, and being challenged by a WOMAN... I suggest you head back to your other hell hole board where you fit in better and no one is allowed to disagree... God's teeth, but some people are short a flogging... On the plus side, one of the best Pilate moves I've seen pulled by a Christian in the past month ( *wail* it wasn't me, it was another mod *wail*) ... I may have to award you the Grandpa Harley 'Pontius Pilate' Avoidance of Blame Award for Feb 08... And Doc, do you have to encourage the serpent? In answer to your question, no, I have never held the opinion as an adult that Homosexuals are 'sinners' nor have I EVER held the opinion that women should be subservient to men in the domestic or ANY arena... If you did and you got better, well, Bully for you... This one is still tainted with stench of the monstrous creed... the sickly smell of censers and corruption clings strong to every word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Kratos I didnt say we had nothing in common and I was ticked so, ty for just letting it go. I just feel as if so much of christian universalism is little better than glossed over fundamentalism without an eternal torture chamber. I think its actually much broader than that and much more inclusive. Doc I agree. Gramps I believe Kratos. I can tell ya if he had seen it he would have responded. lol sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The bad blood here is starting to get pretty overwhelming, not to mention overbearing... As usual just my opinion, but I think we would all be better off dropping our axe grinding and just moving on. Kratos believes some crazy things, some things that offend people, he has a penchant for posting opinions that are going to provoke a response. But they are just that his opinions on an internet message board. As far as christians go there are alot worse, if its preaching he's doing I dont think we need to worry about any of us believing it, right? I know alot of people take issue with him and thats up to you, but as for me I dont see the harm in giving the benefit of the doubt. He's human right? we arent ebil atheists, and he isnt one of dem ebil christians. To his credit he does consider his views as evolving not set in stone and has displayed a willingness to listen, and read other things. While I may feel that certain negative attitudes (regarding homosexuality etc) are wrong, I can hardly expect everyone else to see it that way at this moment in time. After all werent we all a bit like Kratos at one point, I for one was a heck of alot worse, it took my thick skull years to figure out that RCs arent in fact going to hell. He's miles ahead of where I was when I was a fundy. Maybe it wouldnt hurt to at least respond to him on a post by post basis rather than dredging up his entire history of posts. Maybe he is flip-flopping but its just as possible that hes changed his mind about something. Lighten up a bit on both sides? I just wanted to underscore this post by quoting it again. What I've found is that when someone holds views that seem to grate against us it's far more productive to attempt to genuinely communicate through wisdom, rather than name calling and beating with sticks. I want to also bring up our friend Sojourner was one who at first was beaten and buffeted simply for calling herself a Christian. Some of us went to lengths to dialog rather than attack, and the result is abundantly clear today. Even Katt22 in her firm views made what I consider a huge concession. I can list off numerous people on this site who others sought to drive off with sticks, that in the end benefited from their experience here. It was life-changing for them, and it could not have happened through insults. It's not that anyone of us changes someone's mind, it's something that happens within them but it normally in anyone doesn't have a chance to work out in them while someone is insulting them. If someone simply wants to attack people for sport, personally I can't find much real value in that to anyone. Personally, I see Kratos' being here in itself as very telling. Someone doesn't hang out here, or keep coming back this long if there isn't something happening. As far as outdated social views... hell there are plenty of people in our culture who are also behind the curve (religion isn’t the cause IMO), but that doesn't make them evil threats to be beaten with sticks and pitch forks. Do we appreciate it when then Christians use God to damn us for having more socially progressive views? Does it do anyone good? I believe John can see some merit in these more socially evolving sensitivities, but it's a matter of actually hearing the wisdom of it, rather than being told how bad his views are. How did we evolve? Because of threats and intimidations and insults? Isn't that why we left Christianity? Why should we bring that same tactic with us to our views now? When I left that system... I really left it. Is there a time to drive someone out with sticks? Sure, but usually it’s pretty abundantly clear when that person is only here to antagonize. I don't see that here. If I have the energy later, I may consider a one on one with Kratos, but no promises. I have my own load right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 Gramps I believe Kratos. I can tell ya if he had seen it he would have responded. lol sojourner I don't doubt that... I was casting aspersions at the idea that you'd put something 'inappropriate' on the other board... unless you had a stroke or were under the influence of some mind altering drug... the Moderator of that board in question is, imo, person of vast inadequacies and sensibilities that make me wonder how they lived to adulthood... As to treating old Kratos worth anything other than disdain... when he proves he's worth the effort I'll bother, otherwise I'm not letting him forget what an unpleasant creature he is... I know it's not nice, but then, I'm not a 'nice' guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts