seeking christianity

[Audie]

Christianity has absorbed many superstitious beliefs and ritualistic practices. But had it not started with the Tantric-Mystic teachings of Yeshua the Nazarene, it would never have blossomed as a separate religious cult. So its origins stand on the shoulders of Tantra although it has lost much of its initial Tantric vitality.

Absorbed, or is composed of?

 

[Marcion]

Absorbed, or is composed of?

By those absorptions Christianity became a composite or syncretic religion, quite far removed from its more purely Tantric beginnings.

 

[lukethethird]

¨ I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me¨

There is the truth, it cannot be any clearer.

You don´t like it, sorry. Your dislike changes the truth not one whit.

Who is this Father dude?

 

[MJFlores]

Since Christians claim to have a personal relationship with God, I would simply ask the Boss, in case of doctrinal/moral/etc. differences.

I am sure if you guys do that, all those denomination will disappear and you will have a unique version of Christianity. Oder?

Ciao

- viole

Personal relationship thing is like having an illicit lover or something don't you think?
What I read in the Bible is the Church is married to Christ
Not Christ having many personal relationship with individual Christians

Here's the proof:

Ephesians 5:25-32 New International Version (NIV)
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

So which is which?

Denominations will not disappear until Judgement Day. The Bible said this with regards to church denominations:


Matthew 15:13-14 New International Version (NIV)
He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

I think that pit is the fiery hell on Judgement Day.
The various church denominations [plant] which is not established by God, not authorized by God are doomed together with their followers.

 

[shmogie]

Who is this Father dude?

You wouldn´t know.

 

[Spartan]

Oh, terrif, we are all to be identical.

Who are you going to follow?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh, terrif, we are all to be identical.

No just to get along. I still want to be your friend.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not Christianity. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Since no one is sinless, then no stones can be cast - at witches or anyone else.

So under christianity, it is forbidden to have justice served for any kind of wrongdoing?

As I said, the bible is unambigous on this particular matter. It says, crystal clear: kill them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Great opinion... but it seems a little too simplistic.

No. It is so by very definition.
Every religion that survives, survives because followers keep it alive.

Like Islam. I'm sure you disbelieve the Quran etc (much like I disbelieve your religion).
Islam doesn't survive because of something special about Islam or the book, right?
No... Islam survives because its followers keep it alive.

If tomorrow the religion of Islam disappears from collective memory, then it will be lost forever in the pages of history, never to resurface again. Christianity is no different.

Contrast that to laws of gravity for example. The same facts will still be there, ready to be inevitably discovered by someone who cares enough to look.

Scientific explanations survive because they work.
Religions survive because believers keep them alive.

There is a difference between "Bible" and "Christianity". "Christianity" doesn't kill witches... the LOVE them...

No, christianity is very much the bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I missed all that in the Bible.

Let me just take one of those so-called pagan "deities" - Mithra:

“We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a Phrygian cap. He battled first with the sun and then with a primeval bull, thought to be the first act of creation. Mithra slew the bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race.” Nash and other scholars are unanimous in their conclusions that the so-called “similarities” between Mithra and Christ are not found prior to the advent of Christianity and the birth of Jesus. It was only after Christianity became established that pagan influences merged with and borrowed from Christianity to come up with the alleged similarities with Jesus Christ. - Scholar Ron Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World

And did you even bother to read 23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions. from post #21?

Christmass isn't a christian holiday?

 

[syo]

Let's see your evidence for that.

Dionysus is older than Jesus, and Dionysus is the true vine. Christians want to replace the Wine God with Jesus. Jesus supposedly turn water into wine. Also Dionysus was celebrated in spring and he was resurrected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But is there a possibility that one of them is correct or right?
No matter how minuscule the odds, one is the genuine enchilada?
And how do we determine if that is the only one?

Depends what you mean by "possible".
It seems to me that there is the "theoretically possible" and the "practically possible".

In theory, anything is possible except the self-contradictory. Like a married bachelor.
And the reason why anything is theoretically possible, is because we don't know everything.
In that sense, I guess any religion is theoretically possible. In fact, ANY unfalsifiable yet internally consistent idea is theoretically possible.

Then there is the practically possible. That is about what is and isn't possible according to our understanding of nature / reality. It is for example practically impossible to violate / suspend / ignore the laws of physics.

Since the supernatural supposedly does exactly that, we can say that the supernatural (and by extension religions involving the supernatural) is practically impossible.


But while all that is interesting... what is even more interesting that asking if it's possible, is asking if it's plausible.

And all religions are extremely implausible. Since all of them require unjustified, extra-ordinary and outlandish assumptions.

So there you have it: all flavours of christianity are extremely implausible as well as practically impossible.
I'll add that the same goes for all theistic (both mono and poly) religions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

¨ I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by Me¨

There is the truth, it cannot be any clearer.

You don´t like it, sorry. Your dislike changes the truth not one whit.

And simply claiming that something is "truth", doesn't mean it's actually true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't understand Christianity without the holy Spirit baptism.

How does uttering a few latin words over a small bassin of water, which is then poured over your head, aid in any kind of way in gaining understanding of anything at all?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Years ago there were the Promise Keeper's rallies. The MC would often start off with asking the crowds in the football stadiums what their denomination was. A chorus of different responses indicated there were many. Then he asked them, "Who is your Savior?" The universal answer was "JESUS CHRIST"!!

Years ago, they gave the same universal answer in Ireland, but they still killed eachother.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why call death for all named above?Do you really know what a witch is?and what a witch really stands for?what the witches do and why? Do you know why people think they are of evil.Do you know why witches were forced to hide and meet in secrecy.

There's no such thing as witches.
Or "mediums". Or "necromancers". Or "sorcerers".

And those who claim to be such anyway and really believe it, belong in a mental hospital - not on death row.

Go ask your questions in Nigeria, where christians are still hunting and killing "witches".

 

[74x12]

How does uttering a few latin words over a small bassin of water, which is then poured over your head, aid in any kind of way in gaining understanding of anything at all?

That is not the holy Spirit baptism. The baptism of the holy Spirit can only be given to you by God alone. (Matthew 3:11) Nobody else.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not the holy Spirit baptism. The baptism of the holy Spirit can only be given to you by God alone. (Matthew 3:11) Nobody else.

Does it involve pouring water on you?
So how does one objectively differentiate someone who received that baptism as opposed to someone that didn't?

 

[Christian Democrat]

Dionysus is older than Jesus, and Dionysus is the true vine. Christians want to replace the Wine God with Jesus. Jesus supposedly turn water into wine. Also Dionysus was celebrated in spring and he was resurrected.

I'm sorry but this one really is based on a few misconceptions. You've cherry-picked similarities between Jesus and Dionysus to draw a false comparison between them.

When you say Dionysus was 'resurrected', you clearly want us to imagine something like Jesus' resurrection, but the story is in fact completely different. The idea of Dionysus being resurrected comes from a single source, a story reported by Diodorus of Sicily. Supposedly Dionysus as an infant was set upon Zeus' throne, and as he sat there, some of the Titans distracted him with toys and then tore him to pieces and ate everything except his heart. Zeus then blasted the Titans to bits with his thunderbolts and Dionysus was "eventually restored to a new life" from the heart that was left over. This bears absolutely no comparison at all to the resurrection of Jesus. It's not the same in any detail. Trying to say that both Jesus and Dionysus were 'resurrected' is drawing a fake comparison between two completely different stories.

And, yes, Dionysus could supposedly turn things into wine (although he more often magicked wine out of nothing rather than turning water into wine). But he wasn't just the god of wine, he was the god of wild, drunken orgiastic behaviour and frenzy. The Dionysian cult celebrated the destruction of societal boundaries and the experience of sensuality unrestrained by traditional ideals. It's surely a bit of a stretch to suggest that Jesus' story is plaigarised from this very different god.

 

[syo]

I'm sorry but this one really is based on a few misconceptions. You've cherry-picked similarities between Jesus and Dionysus to draw a false comparison between them.

When you say Dionysus was 'resurrected', you clearly want us to imagine something like Jesus' resurrection, but the story is in fact completely different. The idea of Dionysus being resurrected comes from a single source, a story reported by Diodorus of Sicily. Supposedly Dionysus as an infant was set upon Zeus' throne, and as he sat there, some of the Titans distracted him with toys and then tore him to pieces and ate everything except his heart. Zeus then blasted the Titans to bits with his thunderbolts and Dionysus was "eventually restored to a new life" from the heart that was left over. This bears absolutely no comparison at all to the resurrection of Jesus. It's not the same in any detail. Trying to say that both Jesus and Dionysus were 'resurrected' is drawing a fake comparison between two completely different stories.

And, yes, Dionysus could supposedly turn things into wine (although he more often magicked wine out of nothing rather than turning water into wine). But he wasn't just the god of wine, he was the god of wild, drunken orgiastic behaviour and frenzy. The Dionysian cult celebrated the destruction of societal boundaries and the experience of sensuality unrestrained by traditional ideals. It's surely a bit of a stretch to suggest that Jesus' story is plaigarised from this very different god.

Dionysus is the vivid life and he is the vine. Christians replaced Dionysus by saying Jesus is the TRUE VINE and then they talk about giving life, just like Dionysus is the giver of life. It's copy paste. Read what John writes.