12 Reasons To Disregard Christianity & The Bible

no they didn't worship jesus- but christians stole the original pagan festivals and created their own from them so that they could eradicate paganism (ha ha didn't work lol)

christmas- christmas comes from the celebration of the winter solstice (yule) that has been celebrated for thousands of years (long before christianity).

one pagan myth about the winter solstice is that the god (who dies at samhain-halloween) is reborn again at yule through the godess (hmm sound familiar?), this comes from the fact that the sun is "reborn" on the winter solstice as the days start getting longer after this day.

holly and ivy are traditional pagan symbols, christmas tree are used because in the pagan days they would decorate trees (eg oak and apple) at this time of year with ribbond etc.

the romans also celebrated saturnalia at this time of year. yule logs were burned to celebrate the rebirth of the sun.

christmas wasn't orriginally celebrated in december but pope julius 1 moved the date of jesus's birth to the 25th dec to try and get people to convert to christianity.

the idea of santa claus and his reindeers comes from shamanism.

easter- easter is originally based on the spring equinox, it is a time of rebirth (sound familiar? ). the christmas bunny is used beacuse the hare was an ancient pagan symbol and asociated with oestara who is the teutonic godess of the spring and dawn.

easter eggs come from eggs being the symbol of fertility. " Eggs were decorated and offered as gifts and to bring blessings of prosperity and abundance in the coming year; this was common in Old Europe. As Christianity rose and the ways of the "Old Religion" were shunned, people took to hiding the eggs and having children make a game out of finding them. This would take place with all the children of the village looking at the same time in everyone's gardens and beneath fences and other spots."

so you see the christian festivals are based on ancient pagan origins.

thsi is why puritans didn't celebrate christmas or easter as they knew they were pagan festivals. thats one thing taht annoys em abotu christuianity it sees pagan as evil but then celebrates pagan festivals - it is just so hypocrtical.

there are also many everday things that come from paganism- touching wood for luck comes from druidry, the druids believed and believe that trees are sacred, so touching wood was good luck. how many christians do this without realising that they are practising something that comes from paganism?

peace and love
issy

 

you just convinced me..i',m born again pagan

 

You're part of God, dufus.

 

You just called part of "God" a dufus. Shame shame, everybody knows you're name.

 

It's because I am soooo cool.

Yup. Khara=shit kov=head

 

kharakov, i have to ask again because i don't think you've answered before.
what is this "ego" you speak of?
if god controls every action, thought, intent, everyTHING in this world,
then who are you?

you can't be praised or blamed in life, for abandoning or returning to god.
in fact, YOU don't return to god at all - he "returns you" to him.
essentially, god decides he wants you back and makes you come home.
more essentially, god is pretty much returning to himself.

i've considered your thoughts a lot, and i find the idea of an omnipresent, omnicontrolling god to be really interesting. however, this is the problem that keeps hitting me in the head - individuality, identity, responsibility.
we have none of these things if god controls us.
me saying these words to you, this wouldn't be me. this would be GOD deciding it's time for me to say this to you. i have nothing on my own. i am nothing, but a body filled with God's control. do you understand what i'm saying?

when you speak of "me", who is saying that?!*


anyway this is really bothering me & if you can explain it you would be a hero and stuff.

 

Okay, I read that article. As far as I could tell it has absolutely no basis in fact or history. It is an absurd and often contradictory rant utilizing the most blatant fabrications in order to make some specious and empty argument against Christianity. For reasons of brevity I will not reply in deatail to every part of the article, but I will attempt to treat with the more glaring errors here.

Firstly, the Gnostics were a throughly Christian sect though they were "non-standard". Mostly likely they were far closer to the truth than any of the mainstream Churches of the day. The article claims that the Gnostics were at the same time Christian, anti-Christian, thousands of years older than Christianity, and a group new to the scene. How is that supposed to work?

Secondly, the article claims that there are no non-biblical references to Jesus, well here are some.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/18/77/
http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR217.htm (this one starts out talking about the Bible, skip that part to get to the good stuff)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/2393209.stm (note, this is the BBC, not some whack-job fundy web site)

Thirdly, the article claims that the Jesus story is very similar to the stories of 28 mythical personages from other cultures. However in truth the Jesus story is vaguely and conincidentally simliar to only a few of these; the similarities consisting in the death of both Jesus and said character of legend. Furthermore, it is claimed that the early Church purposely stole bits from all of these stories. However, characters from Ireland, India, Japan, Scandanavia, and Mexico are included in this list. The early church fathers had no contact with any of these regions and therefore could not have stolen anything from them. By the time contact was made with said regions the Jesus story had achieved the form that it has today and no further revisions were made.
The stuff about Buddha, Horus, Mithra, Krishna, and Prometheus is essentially bullshit. Little of that stuff actually shows up in any of those legends. I suggest that you find real descriptions of those legends.

As for the sun; that somebody could come up with that stuff boggles the mind, that somebody could read it and agree is beyond belief. Jesus is based on the sun because there are twelve zodica signs and Jesus had twelve disciples!? Come on man, that is just plain stupid. Eggs come 12 to a carton, does that mean that egg packagers worship the sun? The sun "beings his work at noon"!? really, before that what happens? I should stop, I could go on if you want though.

Finally, this joker claims that because Zeus (a Greek deity unconnected to Jesus) was not an historical personage Jesus could not have been either. This is the dumbest argument for anything that I have ever seen, it is 100% non-sequitur. You might as well say that because Harry potter is not real Bill Clinton isn't real either.

p.s. "non-sequitur" means roughly "it does not follow" or "that which does not follow".

 

If you believe in minarchy, minimum government, then why espouse anarchy, no government, the "A" in your avatar?

Why make the distinction between Civil Hedonism and Hedonism? It isn't like you're a nudist and you wear clothes while walking to the nude beach then take your clothes off.

I can understand your acceptance of the pleasure and the avoidance of pain, perhaps this is why you reject moralistic religions, seeing them as life negative, condemnatory, etc. But most people don't want pain, don't want to experience pain. (Daffy Duck once said, "I'm not like other people. I don't like pain.")

As humans, regarless of religion, we all want pleasure and not pain. Buddhists call it "desire". Do you see anything "wrong" with self indulgence, with selfishness? I'll even go so far as say that there are two selfishnesses, "mature" and "childish". I think that for the most part everyone is selfish, all the more so in our materialistic society. For the most part, materialistically and psychologically, we are childishly selfish.

I've read elsewhere where you describe yourself as a Humanist. I tend to think that Humanism is too losely aligned with Nihilism, although it espouses lofty ideals. I tend to disagree with Hegel or Heigel. As an existentialist I do not hold Reason to as highly a position as the Humanists do, though. Even Neitzsche thought that Science was foolish for espousing an orderly Universe.

If you look at Sir Issac Newton, he is known to have said, "Sir, I have studied it, you have not!" to Halley (after which the comet is named) when he questioned the basis for Astrology. Most believe Newton was a Deist (although some say he hated Deistism), along with perhaps being a Rosecruitan and belonging to the Masons. Some called him a magician, who studied esoterica and Hermeticism, what some consider Magick and others consider Black Magick.

{You bought up Deists and I was just reading on Newton. Go figure, it's disassociative thinking.}

 

I've been doing a little reading at wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism , where it says,

But I still cannot reconcile your behaviour with your creedo. How can you espouse a philosophy of 'don't hurt others' yet exhibit antagonism for other's beliefs? You seemingly are causing pain to others and you seem to delight in it. I really don't see this as any different from the '60s hippies promoting free sex, free drugs, etc. It just seems to be an advocation of total irresponsibility, wanton selfishness, what some may consider an unmature view of the world. Of course you may be justifying that irresponsibility in the guise of calling it anarchy. I see it as trollish behaviour and evidence of a life wich one isn't enjoying, where one is happy. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

 

Do you see an M in any avatar?

Unlike the majority of people, I like to create. Hedonism can be interpreted as doing anything for pleasure, including hurting others. Civil Hedonism allows pure freedom for all to flow without that element.

Antagonism for other beliefs is not hurting anyone (other than their feelings). Now, the question is simple. Hurting feelings is such a touchy subject that anyone can be offended by anything. So, yes, I do reconcile my behaviour with my credo. How can I not espouse my beliefs without SOMEONE not being offended by it?

I am extremely happy in my life and the red herring you are trying to create here is not working, btw. Trying to inflict my personal character is not an argument, but an ad hominem attack.

I, however, have attacked a concept- Christianity and religion and for very good reason. Also, I have challenged Christianity time after time because it is a pushy religion. You say, why not let people be. I do. People can go home and worship the sofa for all I care, but this is a public FORUM and I will express my freedom of speech (without intiating personal attacks) like anyone else.

You go home and read your Bible, fine. I will not knock on your door or call your phone--you have a right to privacy. But, this is not your forum, it is a public forum for all ideas and thoughts related to Christianity--even challenges.

 

The coincidences behind all these myths apparently are of no consequence to your way of thinking. I find them (although I don't agree 100% with the website), extremely valuable in looking at the way these stories form.

Two other books that are worth checking out are : The Jesus Mysteries and Atheism: The Case Against God. I find these very challenging, especially the latter.

It is easy to apologize away ANY coincidence or interruption in the Christian mindset. I used the sophistry myself for a long time, but I realize finally that was what I was doing--trying to conform everything into my Christian box and not being truly open-minded. I finally started reading the Atheistic viewpoint from Atheists and not Christian apologists.

You and I can go into these historical documents (whether fabricated or true) and still arrive at a different conclusion. That is apparent. However, I take coincidences of these stories and combine them with the Christian's failure to produce any viable evidence for "God" that doesn't eventually resort back to the "argument for ignorance" (i.e. "we can't explain it, thus God did it!) and form my conclusion.

You laugh at the website and that's fine. I laugh everyday at Christian "bullshit" as well. The only difference is I don't worship Acharya S or Nietzsche or Atheism. I take what each has to offer, examine it and make a decision (that could or could not change at a later time).

The simple fact of the matter is that each religion had a similar (even if vague) storyline, and I see no pure reason or any more evidence to go with the Jesus version.

That's like saying, "Well there have been a volcano myth, earthquake myth, tornado myth and hurricane myth..." all vaguely similar, "I think I'll take the tornado myth as truth" and try to find confirmations for my beliefs collecting "hits", but ignoring "misses".

That is just as much of a fallacy (confirmation bias) as the "does not follow" fallacy.

 

Perceiver of actions. Like the typing of these keys. Hunger for some food. Want of some mind blowing pleasure.

Sometimes, God purposely deludes people into thinking they are in charge. Like when I play video games, I like it, even though it is just God doing stuff- causing the desire to move a certain way arise, to do a certain trick, to kill that funny looking monster, to 'feed' 'your' 'pet dinosaur' 'mushrooms'. Little thing called "suspension of disbelief". Couldn't enjoy a video game, movie, book, or Maya in the way God intends without it (suspension of disbelief).

Anyway, God knows we percieve God's actions, which is why God does 'em. God holds other experiences up alongside the ones you are currently having (memory)- provides a sense of similarity, continuity, and depth to your experience of God.

Not really. God is pretty much making us into better perceivers of what God does.

Back in the day, God made these Dionesian Mystery cults (Baccus rituals). Anyway, the word ecstacy is derived from a word that means "to be driven out of ones self", and these mystery cults would achieve this by causing pain to the person (beating them, burning them, etc.) so that they were driven out of their sense of self, they could finally see that they were not in control of actions that they thought that they had been in control of because God generally places desire for something to happen in you before God does it. More of a realisation of the "feminine" nature of reality and all beings within it- we respond to what God does by feeling, not by actions. God molds our feelings by God's actions. Sorta a "I give you desires, then fulfill them" type of deal. Not that God has to do things this way, but God shows us the components of a feeling on the way to a complete understanding of the feeling.

Identity? God has caused you to feel different things than God has caused me to feel (at this point in life). Responsibility? God can cause you to want God to behave responsibly before God behaves responsibly. Look inside yourself at your desire to behave responsibly.

Yes. God still is growing your desires, when your desires reach a certain level, God will fulfill them, then grow new desires and repeat the cycle until you are complete.

Yes.

God. Anyway, if you don't get it yet and "I" can't tell you, it's cuz God is causing the desire to know within you without complete fulfillment. Just recognize that God is revealing my existence as an individual who perceives God to you with labels such as me, and when God writes 'you', I recognize that I am writing to an individual who feels God and desires to know about God as I do.

Right. God's gonna convince me that I am a hero. I wouldn't trade knowledge of God for imaginary glory, God's too hot (in an intellectual and sexual way). But I do love playing video games with God (or, I like it when God plays video games with me... ).

 

Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia, Khrakky?

 

If I were a shrink I would diagnose Kharakov with "awsomenia" not to be confused with insomnia, they are very different.

 

that was perfectly answered, kharakov... i dig it now, thanks.

 

No, it is an honest interpretation, an honest inquiry into your mindset. How can one divorce one's beliefs from one's actions while espousing a philosophy? If you were truly happy you would most likely want to share your happiness with others. Therefore your statement is incongruous.

Of course the statement, "I am extremely happy," may be a generalisation, also, and as such may not be the reality. I am sure that you experience the same vicissitudes of life as everyone else. But to espouse giving misery to others while claiming happiness is disengenious; at best it is a rationalisation. Such incongruity may speak to a feeling of powerlessness and may show a symptom of impotence to affect change in oneself, therefore one attacks others to prop up one's own ego, one's own beliefs, to feel superior.

That is not an attack on you, it is an observation of human nature. Everyone does it. I've listened to enough political radio, both left and right, to plainly see it.

 

Then why evil?

 

Ok, I will answer your "assessment" and then we can drop the red herring.

Your interpretation, while admirable, is wrong. I give no misery to others. I give facts and opinion and those who are miserable because of it have brought such misery upon themselves.

This has nothing to do with ego and I am about fed up with all these people with low self-esteem trying to make it that. Creating red herrings and building straw men seems to be the theme when you guys deal with me.

I am the happiest I've ever been in my life, overall. But, happiness comes with experiences and I have more pleasureable experiences now than before.

I love my life and, although there are certain changes I would make if I could (everyone would), I am certainly a happier and freer individual under my new outlook than the repressive slavery of religion.

So, why shouldn't I try to liberate others? I'm on the outside looking in.

 

No, but I did a shitload of acid once. Ohh, and God keeps saying "Once".

 

Ummm.. "Yes." Yes. Yes. No. Yes.