Matthew on 18/9/2006 at 13:41
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
however those holidays arent mentioned in the Bible
Oh well, as long as they're not
written down then eh?
Fragony on 18/9/2006 at 14:15
Quote Posted by Dr Sneak
Well Easter and Christmas are of pagan origin themselves, however those holidays arent mentioned in the Bible and history shows they were added on later by the Catholics who in their zeal to convert pagans often took their days of celebration and attached Christian meanings to them to make their change easier-more info can be found at (
http://yadayahweh.com/chapter.aspx?g=5105&i=51503). In contrast you can find in the Koran mention of rituals practiced by the pagan Arabs (walking around sacred hills etc) that predate Islam yet are given the green light by Mohommed as acts of worship.
I don't see any contrast really, also just took what they needed. There is a lot of ancient arab/indian mysticism to be found, allah really started as the moongod of old nomadic tribes, and a lot of copy paste from the bible. Just add a few wardrums and you have that little rag some of us call a holy book.
Convict on 18/9/2006 at 14:54
I don't follow your first sentence - did you perhaps mean no comparison instead?
Fragony on 18/9/2006 at 15:14
Quote Posted by Convict
I don't follow your first sentence - did you perhaps mean no comparison instead?
No I meant it literally, in the past christianity has included many nordic and celtic traditions in their festivities as well, think of the christman tree, or santaclaus, which all date back from the the pre-christian era, it is the same thing so no real contrast there. But they can't be compared as well, in christianity it was more of a local convience to keep the mobs down, in islam it has been included in teh book, the more the merrier if conquest is your thing.
Convict on 18/9/2006 at 15:19
Gotcha. I don't know the history behind keeping the mobs down but it does seem likely that the takeover of pagan festivals to convert the people to Christianity happened.
Matthew on 18/9/2006 at 15:19
So heavily entrenched dogma is fine if it wasn't actually laid down in the founding tenets of the faith?
Convict on 18/9/2006 at 15:20
What pagan beliefs are you referring to in Christianity Mattew? Or do you mean the takeover of pagan festivals by Christian festivals?
Fragony on 18/9/2006 at 15:31
Quote Posted by Matthew
So heavily entrenched dogma is fine if it wasn't actually laid down in the founding tenets of the faith?
Depends on what the faith aspires. Try it, best argument against dialogue with a muslim is actually doing so, just scratch the surface and see what comes up. Islam
is a violent (and emperialistic) faith, ultimatily the message of christ kept us down, no such thing in islam, not even after 700 of years where they had a lot of time to get their act together.
The pope was simply correct, and they don't like that. What do they like.
Agent Monkeysee on 18/9/2006 at 16:38
Quote Posted by Convict
I just meant that if you say Jesus is God and someone else says Jesus is not God then these are mutually exclusive views.
It's a little more complex than that. It's more like Christians believe Superman can fly and Muslims believe Superman can merely jump a long ways. The essence and the critical core of Superman remains the same, but the extent and manifestation of his powers is a bit different. You both read Superman comics and your analysis begins with the same recognizable character.
Yeah yeah the Trinity is a critical aspect of Christian theology so how could it be the same god blah blah but the Jews said the same thing about you guys so fuck all y'all. The Abrahamic religions clearly started from the same basic premise and Yahweh, God, and Allah are varied interpretations of the same notion of Godhood.
Gingerbread Man on 18/9/2006 at 16:40
Okay, but Superman can't fly. :grr:
Actually, the more I think about that, the more it's a great analogy... other than the fact that in the original stories, the character of Jesus is written in as having divine heritage whereas the character of Superman is written as not being able to fly... So the later version of Jesus Not God But Prophet is a step down and the Superman Flies is a step up.
The critical core, so to speak, of Superman is that he is from a different planet... the differences in environment between Krypton and Earth (in this particular case, the relative gravitational forces of the two worlds) are responsible for his great strength and consequent ability to leap tall buildings. The ability to fly does not follow from this without adding a new element which does not naturally follow from the basic premise.
The critical core of Jesus is that he was a man who spread the word of God and that his authority derives from a close and tangible relationship with the divine. "Demoting" Jesus from Son of God to Holy Prophet does not alter this fundamental core, and in fact doesn't even really diminish the authority ascribed to his teachings.
Whether or not Jesus was the Son of God is nitpicking. Whether or not Superman can fly is IMPORTANT. :mad:
(edit)
Actually this just occurred to me and, not being even a vague scholar of Christian mythos I don't know if I'm even right, but considering the number of times I seem to recall Jesus talking about God's Children and God The Father etc I get the impression he never meant "God, my Father" but instead "God, THE Father" quite explicitly -- and I am forced to consider that, by presenting himself as the Son of God, Jesus was perhaps using himself as a primary example / template / illustration or what have you. This "only begotten son" stuff seems to creep in later and be used as a justification of Jesus' authority as a teacher. Which is the whole Cult of the Nazarene thing starting up, I suppose.
I just get the impression that if Jesus is conceived of as qualitatively different from the rest of humanity, then a lot of the teachings -- and possibly even the value of that all-important sacrifice at the end -- are horribly diminished.
