You're not Christian you are Pagan

[Aqua_lung]

All these religions where considered Pagan by Ancient Rome


Mithraism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism)


Both religions used the rite of baptism, and each participated in an outwardly similar type of sacrament, bread and wine. Both Mithra and Christ were supposedly visited by shepherds and Magi. It has been claimed that both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, though for different reasons, although the evidence that Mithraists practiced weekly worship, any more than any other pagan religion of the time, is lacking. Many have noted that the title of "Pope" (father) is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words "Peter" (rock) and "mass" (sacrament) have significance in Mithraism.


Further similarities include how Mithras was born from a virgin on December 25, how his followers identified with him by eating a sacred meal of bread and wine, and how his devotees were baptized in water.



Isis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis)


Many scholars believe that Isis worship in late Roman times was the primary influence behind Catholic development of the cult of the Virgin Mary. Evidence suggests that this allowed the Catholic Church to absorb a huge number of converts who had formerly believed in Isis, and would not have converted unless Catholicism offered them an "Isis-like" female focus for their faith. Iconographically the similarities between the seated Isis holding or suckling the child Horus (Harpocrates) and the seated Mary and the baby *****, is apparent.


Sol Invictus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus)


The Sol Invictus festival ran from December 22 through December 25. Eradicating the remnants of this much-celebrated pagan holiday is likely the reason why Christmas was picked by the early Catholic leaders as the birthday of ***** Christ.

[fivelza]

Rob, help me out...what are you trying to say...I am a bit slow ;)

[Highflyer_GP]

I think he's trying to say that important milestones and events in the Christian faith are actually sourced from pagan beliefs.

[Aqua_lung]

Rob, help me out...what are you trying to say...I am a bit slow ;)

What Highflyer said

[Debbie]

Oh he didn't...he didn't... .... he used the P word! :D

[Aqua_lung]

Basically most of what Christians hold sacred are false,
and the sacred texts have also been falsified to enrich Roman interests

[nocilah]

Basically most of what Christians hold sacred are false,
and the sacred texts have also been falsified to enrich Roman interests

but the problem is you are refering to catholics and not christians.

[noxibox]

So there is no baptism, no virgin birth, no breaking bread, no story of being visited by magi or shepherds and Sunday is not a holy day in Christianity?

[Nanfeishen]

So there is no baptism, no virgin birth, no breaking bread, no story of being visited by magi or shepherds and Sunday is not a holy day in Christianity?

All the result of carefull and deliberate conditioning and programming of the on board "chip" called the brain. :D

[Kalvaer]

but the problem is you are refering to catholics and not christians.Saw this thread ans shock my head before I even started reading it...

Regardless of who he is refering too...CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIANS, and where in fact the first Christians to build a formal church

Sorry but I'm Catholic and it drives me insane when people say I'm not a Christian

Also with the months if you look closely into the history of the Calander, The ancient Roman Calander had 10 months and was out by 61 days (December coming from Deci) so then Mithras was born on october as per the gregorian Calander (which was set up by a pope) and would not be the same month. Also since the roman considered even numbers to be unlucky, being born on the 25th of october could mean anything or any day

[Aqua_lung]

but the problem is you are refering to catholics and not christians.

All Christians today use a Bible that is heavily influenced by the Roman Vulgate Bible, The Latin Vulgate Bible was declared the Official Bible by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D


In terms of its importance to the culture, art, and life of the Middle Ages, the Vulgate stands supreme. Through the Dark Ages and onto the Renaissance and Reformation, St. Jerome's monumental work stood as a last pillar of Roman glory and the bedrock of the Western church as it strove to unite a fractured Europe through the Catholic faith. As the version of the Bible familiar to and read by the faithful for over a thousand years (c. AD 400–1530), the Vulgate exerted a powerful influence, especially in art and music as it served as inspiration for countless paintings and hymns. Early attempts to render translations into vernacular tongues were invariably made from the Vulgate, as it was highly regarded as an infallible, divinely inspired text. Even the translations produced by Protestants, that sought to replace the Vulgate for good with vernacular versions translated from the original languages, could not avoid the enormous influence of Jerome's translation in its dignified style and flowing prose. The closest equivalent in English, the King James Version, or Authorised Version, shows a marked influence from the Vulgate in its homely, yet dignified prose and vigorous poetic rhythm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

The Gnostic Gospels however where not influenced by the council of Rome and Gnostic Christians where considered Pagan to a degree but I'm not referring to them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity

[nthdimension]

Also with the months if you look closely into the history of the Calander, The ancient Roman Calander had 10 months and was out by 61 days (December coming from Deci) so then Mithras was born on october as per the gregorian Calander (which was set up by a pope) and would not be the same month. Also since the roman considered even numbers to be unlucky, being born on the 25th of october could mean anything or any day
Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December either.

[Kalvaer]

Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December either.And I didn't say he was either hehe

What is it though that recently everyone has to run to these forums of all places and sudden try jump on the Christian Faith, or any faith for that matter? I personally think google is to blame since people can take small articles that they search for and put them together stringing a whole lot of BS together without knowing a single thing about what they are talking about in the first place.

I just did a years worth of studying into religion, mainly revolving around Christianity and how it came into being (being lectured one of the top theologians in his field for almost 40 years) ... You know what I learnt.. I learnt that I know NOTHING.. that there is much more out there than I can comprehend and try string together, especially on a BROADBAND FORUM.. and yet some people suddenly believe google gives them Theologian Doctorates and the right to try prove they know it all :(

[noxibox]

That just proves that religion is all stories.

There may be some elements with a basis in fact, but there is no compact god-given book that contains all knowledge.

[bk.ru]

Every Christian group considers the other Christian group heretics. Personally I go with the catholics, as they are the original surviving Christians. The rest who consider themselves "Christians" are just strange sects with their own agenda's.

Did you know, not one person who wrote in the Bible ever met Jesus (Which for the record, is not even his REAL NAME!!!) ?

[phenom]

According to sources Islam most likely a pagan religion.
and if Christianity was completely made up, then so was Islam


Islam's origins have been traced back by scholars to the ancient fertility religion of the worship of the moon god which was always the dominant religion of Arabia. The moon god was worshipped by praying toward Mecca several times a day, making an annual pilgrimage to the Kabah which was a temple of the moon god, running around the Kabah seven times, caressing an idol of a black stone set in the wall of the Kabah, running between two hills, making animal sacrifices, gathering on Fridays for prayers, giving alms to the poor, etc. These were pagan rites practiced by the Arabs long before Muhammad was born. http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/

Very interesting Paganism in Islam claims:
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-polytheism.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/pagansources.htm
Pagan Origins of Christianity?(from same site): http://www.answering-islam.org/Pagan/index.html

[Kalvaer]

You misunderstood what I was trying to say, and also proved what I meant, Is easy to take one section of something off the internet and twist it to mean anything

What I said.. was there is way much more involved in the Christian faith (or any faith) than what I could possible try relay over forums like this.. specifically when these forums are meant for another task all together..

There are however no books as you mentioned that contain all knowledge, though in an attempt to put together something that layman and peasants of the time could understand... you have the bible. Every single book that tries to dispute the bible is in its own essense exactly the same, a partial book of facts trying to get a point across but leaving out 99% of the facts. My wife who was a born Catholic, currently knows less about her own faith she was born into than I do, and she admits to it.

If you want to understand it all.. get ready for years of research, and even then you wont be able to put it all together in a book for somebody to understand

[phenom]

Did you know, not one person who wrote in the Bible ever met Jesus (Which for the record, is not even his REAL NAME!!!) ?
Interesting bk.ru; but they did not have camera phones or even proper paper back then, if that helps ;)
The validity of Christianity counts, but what counts the most for me is the reasoning.

[Aqua_lung]

And I didn't say he was either hehe

What is it though that recently everyone has to run to these forums of all places and sudden try jump on the Christian Faith, or any faith for that matter? I personally think google is to blame since people can take small articles that they search for and put them together stringing a whole lot of BS together without knowing a single thing about what they are talking about in the first place.

I just did a years worth of studying into religion, mainly revolving around Christianity and how it came into being (being lectured one of the top theologians in his field for almost 40 years) ... You know what I learnt.. I learnt that I know NOTHING.. that there is much more out there than I can comprehend and try string together, especially on a BROADBAND FORUM.. and yet some people suddenly believe google gives them Theologian Doctorates and the right to try prove they know it all :(

Sure blame google :rolleyes:

I'm not bashing Christianity...
I've studied Christianity as well, and have read most of the Bible.
All I'm doing is showing fables the Romans introduced into Christianity, and that there is another world of Christianity like Gnosticism.

[bk.ru]

Interesting bk.ru; but they did not have camera phones or even proper paper back then, if that helps ;)
The validity of Christianity counts, but what counts the most for me is the reasoning.

There is no validity. :confused: OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS, what validates Christianity?

[Kalvaer]

Sure blame google :rolleyes:

I'm not bashing Christianity...
I've studied Christianity as well, and have read most of the Bible.
All I'm doing is showing fables the Romans introduced into Christianity, and that there is another world of Christianity like Gnosticism.Blah.. you all type to fast.. I edited above BTW.. think I should move it to below here (actually did just move some of it), Remember anyone can take anything that was from the past, and try make up simularities to something else, Its like saying the bushman wore bikini's before they were "invented" during the 19 hundreds.

Gnosticism has some of its roots in the gospels or disciples who went to preach in greece, which is also where MOST of the problems came in with translating works done in Hebrew, into greek and then back into Latin, and Later other languages, causing most if not all of the confusion many people use to dispute the bibles credibility. However many of its roots have NOTHING to do with christianity and in fact are complete against christianity

Also remember back then was not like now days, where you could email your lifes works to a friend to have him add it into a book, its quiet comman and expected for different books of the time to show up from places ALL around the world as the gospels left to preach, most often saying different things based on each ones own interpretation.. which is again as I said above about taking small pieces out.. Put them ALL together agian though and suddenly it makes more sense

As I edited above though.. reading the bible is only a fraction of what there really is to know an understand and it will take much more understanding than that.. but its a good start



Every Christian group considers the other Christian group heretics. Personally I go with the catholics, as they are the original surviving Christians. The rest who consider themselves "Christians" are just strange sects with their own agenda's.

Did you know, not one person who wrote in the Bible ever met Jesus (Which for the record, is not even his REAL NAME!!!) ?I'm Catholic and I dont believe others are heretics.. My father who was a Baptist and is now an athiest asked my Priest the same thing when I become Catholic last year.. he laughed and said why would we consider other Christians to not be allowed into heaven?

As to his name.. I think it was Yeshua or Yahweh if I remember right, The word "Jesus" is actually a mis-transliteration of a Greek mis-transliteration

[Aqua_lung]

reading the bible is only a fraction of what there really is to know an understand and it will take much more understanding than that.. but its a good start

Care to explain what you're going on about?
What is this mysterious 'fraction of what there really is to know an understand' ?

[Mr TB]

Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December either.

NTHDIMEMSION. christians believing that christ was born on 25/12 are a bit foolish are they not? but greater fools you will not get, those believing he was not born at all...

[Mr TB]

Care to explain what you're going on about?
What is this mysterious 'fraction of what there really is to know an understand' ?

If you are really interested we may just tell you, but are you really with all your heart?

[Mr TB]

Sure blame google :rolleyes:

I'm not bashing Christianity...
I've studied Christianity as well, and have read most of the Bible.
All I'm doing is showing fables the Romans introduced into Christianity, and that there is another world of Christianity like Gnosticism.

Surely you are doing exactly that ROB33, but to support your allegations show us the timelines of your fables please...

[Mr TB]

You misunderstood what I was trying to say, and also proved what I meant, Is easy to take one section of something off the internet and twist it to mean anything

What I said.. was there is way much more involved in the Christian faith (or any faith) than what I could possible try relay over forums like this.. specifically when these forums are meant for another task all together..

There are however no books as you mentioned that contain all knowledge, though in an attempt to put together something that layman and peasants of the time could understand... you have the bible. Every single book that tries to dispute the bible is in its own essense exactly the same, a partial book of facts trying to get a point across but leaving out 99% of the facts. My wife who was a born Catholic, currently knows less about her own faith she was born into than I do, and she admits to it.

If you want to understand it all.. get ready for years of research, and even then you wont be able to put it all together in a book for somebody to understand

One thing I have realised about the the INTERNET, 90% information or more available on it is only opinion...
Very little of the INTERNET can be trusted as fact...
GOOGLE knows less about THEOLOGY than 99% church members... that is my opinion...

[Aqua_lung]

douwdouw what point are trying to make exactly?
if you don't have one then stop trolling please

[Mr TB]

douwdouw what point are trying to make exactly?
if you don't have one then stop trolling please

The fables you listed when did the come into existence, or were they actually told the first time. I would like to see the dates...

[Aqua_lung]

The fables you listed when did the come into existence, or were they actually told the first time. I would like to see the dates...

I posted all the source links already, I suggest you RTFA

[nocilah]

All Christians today use a Bible that is heavily influenced by the Roman Vulgate Bible, The Latin Vulgate Bible was declared the Official Bible by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate

The Gnostic Gospels however where not influenced by the council of Rome and Gnostic Christians where considered Pagan to a degree but I'm not referring to them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Gospels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Christianity

uh huh. and? who cares?

[geekchick]

Paganism means "rural" or "country dweller" - and is a very broad descrpitive for belief systems outside Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

To my knowledge - some of the dates and festivals and concepts that is used in paganism, was incorporated into christianity to make it easier for people to shift from paganism to christianity- Roman emperor ,Constantine teh Great has been credited with a number of these adaptations .

[Kalvaer]

uh huh. and? who cares?LOL never thought of that.. and there is a big point missing the statement that says the "Bible that is heavily influenced by the Roman Vulgate Bible" The part that it is actually HEAVILY and MOSTLY taken from the Jewish Bible.. which in part makes complete sense considering Jesus was a Jew, hence why the Christian bible (regardless if you are reading a Catholic or Protestent bible) is split in two parts, the Old testiment being part of the Tanakh, and the new tesiment being works written by people around Jesus and then put together by the Catholic Church. It also explains why there are many books people now find and say should have been in the bible, These books were not all available when the Canon was set up.

I'm sure you will find the exact same thing with the Tanakh when looking at the dead sea scrolls and find there are parts "missing" there as well


To my knowledge - some of the dates and festivals and concepts that is used in paganism, was incorporated into christianity to make it easier for people to shift from paganism to christianity- Roman emperor ,Constantine teh Great has been credited with a number of these adaptations I found a very interesting article on this and actually trying to work out the exact date when he was born, of course not that it matters the important part is as the author says at the end..


The truth of Jesus' birth is much greater than the pagan celebration that has been appropriated for his supposed honor. This truth reaffirms the need to keep God's Holy Days (listed in Lev. 23) in order to better understand His plan for mankind

EDIT Oops.. forgot the link to the above quote about when he was born... here it is http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/birthday.htm

[PostmanPot]

EDid you know, not one person who wrote in the Bible ever met Jesus (Which for the record, is not even his REAL NAME!!!) ?


...and the new tesiment being works written by people around Jesus...

hmmm?

[Kalvaer]

The gospels in the bible were written by his disciples, or at least started by them. I said that up above as well here: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=835962&postcount=21 I also said I moved things around due to people posting so fast but its above the link where I quoted bu.ku, I would like to know where its stated that nobody who wrote the gospels knew him though

And I also gave his real name if that means anything :D

[Aqua_lung]

Paganism means "rural" or "country dweller" - and is a very broad descrpitive for belief systems outside Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

To my knowledge - some of the dates and festivals and concepts that is used in paganism, was incorporated into christianity to make it easier for people to shift from paganism to christianity- Roman emperor ,Constantine teh Great has been credited with a number of these adaptations .

In the Roman Bible, Pagans are considered Devil worshippers, and are supposed to be converted...

That's the reason for the thread, to show the Irony of it all

Yes the traditions where merged into Christianity, but they lied about the meanings, claiming them to be Christian when they're not

[Kalvaer]

Yes the traditions where merged into Christianity, but they lied about the meanings, claiming them to be Christian when they're not
where did they lie?

If your talking about certain of the simularity's, there are simularity's between EVERY religon, and even some that are not to religon at all

All say it again, because Bushman women wore forms of bikini's hundreds of years ago, are the people who invited the bikini liars for its invention in the 1900's?

[nthdimension]

Christianity definitely incorporated celebrations and traditions belonging to other religions. This type of cultural transfer is fairly common. It's not at all surprising that many elements of Christian mythology come from other pre-existing religions.

I don't know that you could call traditional San clothing a bikini.

Yes, it is very definitely disputed that the bikini was invented in recent times. That name may have been attached to this item of clothing, but women had worn such swimwear long before.

[Kalvaer]

That was my point Nth, and exactly as you said cultural transfer is fairly common, and almost expected

My point about the San clothing was that if you looked hard enough you could compare anything to anything else. Like the comment about Isis looking like Mary. Give me enough time and I'll find links where George Bush's image on the tie he wore at his last speach was an ancient russian vibrator. The comment about Isis is in reference to a work of art done by Leonardo Da Vinci, something done hundreds of years after Mary was around.. It was one mans interpretation.. and now all figures of Mary are Isis.. come on its arguments like that which drive me insane because its something that was quickly read on the net or seen in a one sided movie clip somewhere with out doing any research of thier own

I still dont know where it was lied about though?

[Aqua_lung]

That was my point Nth, and exactly as you said cultural transfer is fairly common, and almost expected

My point about the San clothing was that if you looked hard enough you could compare anything to anything else. Like the comment about Isis looking like Mary. Give me enough time and I'll find links where George Bush's image on the tie he wore at his last speach was an ancient russian vibrator

I still dont know where it was lied about though?

LOL Dude your comparisons are lame...
San>Bikini
GWB tie>Russian vibrator...

My point is...
The Irony of it all is that Christianity revolves around Pagan traditions that where found around the Roman Empire...
And how ironic that the Pagan traditions where considered Satanic

[Kalvaer]

I used "lame" comparisons to try make a point, that if you wanted to, you could turn anything pathetic into a comparison, it all depends on what you want to believe.

I've shown you how the date that is celebrated of the Birth of Jesus is not important and is in fact completely wrong
Also how the comparison between Isis and Mary is a "lame comparison" which could be done by anyone if they wanted. Everyone thinks because something has a comparison to something religious its more profound when its not unless you want to make like that

I could go on explain and disproving it all above but its pointless if you wont listen or read whats given in reply. So instead of picking on my lame comparisons try realise what I was getting across with a purposfully used "really bad example"

I could make any comparison between anything if i wanted to try hard enough.. even if they are lame, you can find this in every religon if you look hard enough. What does it prove though.. nothing other than you have an over active imagination

[Aqua_lung]

I used "lame" comparisons to try make a point, that if you wanted to, you could turn anything pathetic into a comparison, it all depends on what you want to believe.

I've shown you how the date that is celebrated of the Birth of Jesus is not important and is in fact completely wrong
Also how the comparison between Isis and Mary is a "lame comparison" which could be done by anyone if they wanted. Everyone thinks because something has a comparison to something religious its more profound when its not unless you want to make like that

I could go on explain and disproving it all above but its pointless if you wont listen or read whats given in reply. So instead of picking on my lame comparisons try realise what I was getting across with a purposfully used "really bad example"

I could make any comparison between anything if i wanted to try hard enough.. even if they are lame, you can find this in every religon if you look hard enough. What does it prove though.. nothing other than you have an over active imagination


So far I've provided the evidence for my comparisons/claims

If its that easy to make a comparison and back it up, then prove it...
find evidence to back up your claims below...
San>Bikini
GWB tie>Russian vibrator

And I will digress

[Kalvaer]

I myself admitted that my comparisons were lame, made and to show you something, given enough time though I'm sure somebody could make my claims seem valid .

However your "claims" are not your claims either but are in fact claims made by others.

But lets look at something here.

This is a link to Isis holding her son: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/in-thefootsteps-bibletrans/Graphics%202/isis-with-child01.jpg

This is a link to an image of "The Madonna": http://www.picturesofjesus4you.com/images/madonna_of_the_lillies_bouguereau_l.jpg or even this one which you would say is more like the isis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fouquet_Madonna.jpg

Now here are two other pictures of Angelina holding her kids (1) like the Madonna, and (2) like the Isis Figure:
1)http://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/features/magstories/060612/angelina_jolie2.jpg
2)http://newyorkmetro.com/news/media/pittjolie060612_4_560.jpg

So, am I right to assume then that Angelina is trying to show the world that she is the Virgin Mary, or maybe even in fact Isis? Or maybe IS THEM BOTH

The comparison between Isis and the Virgin Mary is laughable, The images of Mary that are in existance today date from around the 1200-1600 A.D... all at least 1000 years after she passed away. Painted by people like Da Vince which is the one everyone uses to compare to Isis.. How can one mans interpretation of how he sees somebody in his painting suddenly become the bases for the claim that the Virgin Mary is made to look like Isis..

The other claims you have stated.. I've already shown above how they can be wrong

[Aqua_lung]

I myself admitted that my comparisons were lame, made and to show you something, given enough time though I'm sure somebody could make my claims seem valid .

However your "claims" are not your claims either but are in fact claims made by others.

But lets look at something here.

This is a link to Isis holding her son: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/in-thefootsteps-bibletrans/Graphics%202/isis-with-child01.jpg

This is a link to an image of "The Madonna": http://www.picturesofjesus4you.com/images/madonna_of_the_lillies_bouguereau_l.jpg or even this one which you would say is more like the isis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fouquet_Madonna.jpg

Now here are two other pictures of Angelina holding her kids (1) like the Madonna, and (2) like the Isis Figure:
1)http://img.timeinc.net/people/i/2006/features/magstories/060612/angelina_jolie2.jpg
2)http://newyorkmetro.com/news/media/pittjolie060612_4_560.jpg

So, am I right to assume then that Angelina is trying to show the world that she is the Virgin Mary, or maybe even in fact Isis? Or maybe IS THEM BOTH

The comparison between Isis and the Virgin Mary is laughable, The images of Mary that are in existance today date from around the 1200-1600 A.D... all at least 1000 years after she passed away. Painted by people like Da Vince which is the one everyone uses to compare to Isis.. How can one mans interpretation of how he sees somebody in his painting suddenly become the bases for the claim that the Virgin Mary is made to look like Isis..

The other claims you have stated.. I've already shown above how they can be wrong

I get your point, but the similarities I pointed out or more than just coincidence


Isis outside Egypt

The cult of Isis rose to prominence in the Hellenistic world, beginning in the last centuries BC, until it was eventually banned by the Christians in the 6th century. Despite the Isis mystery cult's growing popularity, there is evidence to suggest that the Isis mysteries were not altogether welcomed by the ruling classes in Rome. Her rites were considered by the princeps Augustus to be "pornographic" and capable of destroying the Roman moral fibre.

Tacitus writes that after Julius Caesar's assassination, a temple in honour of Isis had been decreed; Augustus suspended this, and tried to turn Romans back to the Roman gods who were closely associated with the state. Eventually the Roman emperor Caligula abandoned the Augustan wariness towards oriental cults, and it was in his reign that the Isiac festival was established in Rome. According to Josephus, Caligula himself donned female garb and took part in the mysteries he instituted, and Isis acquired in the Hellenistic age a "new rank as a leading goddess of the Mediterranean world."

Roman perspectives on cult were syncretic, seeing in a new deity merely local aspects of a familiar one. For many Romans, Egyptian Isis was an aspect of Phrygian Cybele, whose orgiastic rites were long naturalized at Rome, indeed she was known as Isis of Ten Thousand Names.

Among these names of Roman Isis, Queen of Heaven is outstanding for its long and continuous history. Herodotus identified Isis with the Greek and Roman goddesses of agriculture, Demeter and Ceres. In Yorùbá mythology, Isis became Yemaya. In later years, Isis also had temples throughout Europe, Africa, and Asia, and as far away as the British Isles, where there was a temple to Isis on the River Thames by Southwark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

[Mr TB]

MITHRAISM

“Mithraism was an ancient mystery religion prominent from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD”

“Mithraism apparently originated in the Eastern Mediterranean around the first or second centuries BC”

“Roman worship of Mithras began sometime during the early Roman empire, perhaps during the late first century of the Common Era (hereafter CE), and flourished from the second through the fourth century BCE. during which it came under the influence of Greek and Roman mythologies. The Mithraic cult maintained secrecy. Its teaching were only revealed to initiates.”

My observation from the above concerning Mithraism
-not a pagan god originating from the Roman Empire as claimed by ROB33 100BCE
-a pagan god introduced by the Roman Empire to counter the Christian faith hoping to strengthen the Empire via false teachings…100BCE to 500BCE
-a definite action by satan to pervert the church original doctrine with false teachings…

[Aqua_lung]

My observation from the above concerning Mithraism
-not a pagan god originating from the Roman Empire as claimed by ROB33 100BCE


I never said it originated from the Roman Empire,
I quoted the similarities, which existed before Christianity

I read the Wikipedia article already thanks

[Mr TB]

I never said it originated from the Roman Empire,
I quoted the similarities, which existed before Christianity

I read the Wikipedia article already thanks
Yes in your first post you indeed referred to similarities, but in the 6th post you were so arrogant to refer to falsifications...

Quote:

“Basically most of what Christians hold sacred are false,
and the sacred texts have also been falsified to enrich Roman interests”

A proper explanation and it is clear that the Roman Empire exploited christianity once they could not get rid of it via persecution...

[Aqua_lung]

Yes in your first post you indeed referred to similarities, but in the 6th post you were so arrogant to refer to falsifications...

Quote:

“Basically most of what Christians hold sacred are false,
and the sacred texts have also been falsified to enrich Roman interests”

A proper explanation and it is clear that the Roman Empire exploited christianity once they could not get rid of it via persecution...

I apologize if I was arrogant, but that's how I see it...
But you're correct my post was offensive, you're explanation is nicer,
If you're offended I do apologize

Edit: Another interesting find on Mithra

Italy: The Basilica of San Clemente in Rome has a preserved mithraeum with the altarpiece still intact in the excavations under the modern church.

[Mr TB]

I apologize if I was arrogant, but that's how I see it...
But you're correct my post was offensive, you're explanation is nicer,
If you're offended I do apologize

Edit: Another interesting find on Mithra

No sir I am not offended as christian i do not take offense to commentary. My own attitude i will admit have been way over the top in some of the threads.
Not use to sit down and give my faith that stiff examination but it worked in my favour.
It strengthened my faith, believe in god and straightened out the internet as a unreliable source for information. Verification of writers etc. is so important.

Did not really see you as arrogant... also apologise for the remark...

[Kalvaer]

Rob I can understand how Isis could be seen to be Mary as explained above, though let me put somethings into perspective if I may as well, especially with Mithraism since it became a popular religion during the rise of Christianity.

Remember though that Christianity is not entirely a "new" religion. Many.. myself included believe it is a continuation of the Jewish Religion. A Religion that goes back to the times of the ancient egyptians around 1450 - 1410 B.C, but remember this was when the first writtings took place (possible after the art of writing and paper was learnt from the egyptians but it was around many years before that)

Christianity and Judaism both believe in a prophet called Isaiah who was born in about 765BC. Now in the book of Isaiah in the "Bible", it is written that Isaiah while alive prophesised in chapter 7:14 the following:


The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." This was said almost 740 years before the birth of Jesus. Now the major difference between Christianity and Judaism is that Christians Believe that Jesus was this person that Isaiah spoke about.. The Jews however, while they do not dispute his existance, do not believe that he was "Immanuel" and are still waiting for him to come.

So the Christian faith goes back much further than 2000 years ago.. which is why the Christian bible is made up of two parts, The Old Testiment being the Jewish Bible (Torah), and the New Testiment being works written after Jesus.

Now I'm sure you know all this already and might be asking why I'm going on about this. The point is Mary was not a central figure in the Church until MUCH MUCH later. While Jesus tried to tell people that women where equal to man (remember back then women had little to no rights at all).

Now from what was explained to me by my Priest (who is a very high up Theologian in the Catholic Church and you can understand why I wont put his name down on the forums, just as we sit being alias'). The Catholic Church realised many years later that Women were still not getting this respect that they deserved, and had to somehow change this view amongst the populus.

This was done by making the Virgin Mary a central figure in the Church and recognising her as an important part of the life of Jesus and giving her a Higher status. Hence the "Hail Mary" in the Catholic Church and many other figures and paintings done to make people realise that women are equal to men. The Jews for example didn't believe this and is why the rabbi may still not preach unless there are enough men in the church. I believe its called a minion of men (might have changed in recent years.. not 100% sure). Luther and Calvin didn't believe this, and is why it is only Catholics who really remember Mary as they do with things such as the "Hail Mary" (hehe In a way Women of today can thank Jesus and the Catholic Church for the freedom they have now in what was previously a male dominated world)

My point is that Mary was not as important back then during the time of Isis, and only become so many years later, and besides that. Another reason why I cant believe the story of Isis and Mary. Also Christianity.. was around long before Isis ever came into being.

[noxibox]

Is this the same Catholic church that is entirely male-dominated in all positions of power?

Their opposition to contraception is also typical of male-dominated institutions. Whatever they may use as their excuse.

[Kalvaer]

I remember something about why men are in positions of "power" as you put it.. But to be honest I cant think of it now. I will however check up for you and and let him know, The whole world though is still male dominated, It the same why there have only been 39 female heads of state. All in small countries and never in a large country, Dont blame the church though for something that is world wide problem.

However it still doesn't dispute the above

As to contraception, It has nothing at all to do with a male dominated insitute. The Catholics believe that it is an unnatural thing to stop the creation of life itself, something which is wonderful thing.
There are however also many in the Catholic Church that dont agree to this, Times change and everyone hates change, Religion is not immune in this regard. Things take time..

However I must say I dont know what the above has to do with the current discussion, Valid as the questions may be?

[Prometheus]

Google IS to blame for all of this.

As to his name.. I think it was Yeshua or Yahweh if I remember right, The word "Jesus" is actually a mis-transliteration of a Greek mis-transliteration
Like you said the prophet Isaiah prophesised that He would be born as the saviour and be called Immanuel. His followers were most likely the ones who called Him Yeshua meaning "born of a virgin". I don't see it as a mis-transliteration but more like a deliberate change. Sentences are translated to convey meaning but as you can see it would be awkward with names and to transliterate it would result in a name that sounds foreign. So translators decide on a new name that sounds similar but is more easily pronounced than the original. The name Yahweh is a variation on YHWH which is the hebrew for the name that God gave Himself in the original hebrew Bible. It can be pronounced in about 10 different ways one of which is Jehovah from where you get your Jehovah's Witnesses. I always write YHWH so people can pronounce it the way they like.

I posted all the source links already, I suggest you RTFA
I think he meant the real source instead of just people who read it somewhere and decided to repeat it or even people who are just repeating who is repeating what is repeated.

Yes the traditions where merged into Christianity, but they lied about the meanings, claiming them to be Christian when they're not
There are some pagan traditions like for instance the christmas tree but no one really lied about them. The traditions are not part of the faith and is nowhere claimed to be. Traditions and religion go hand in hand but are not the same.

The most damaging is the recent tradition of Santa Clause which is a very clever acronym for Satan. Even christian parents think its okay to teach this false dogma to their children. What happens in the end is that a childs first believe system is shattered when they find out it was mommy and daddy who gave the presents and then the parents ask why their children don't want to believe them about God. :(

[Kalvaer]

I don't see it as a mis-transliteration but more like a deliberate change. Sentences are translated to convey meaning but as you can see it would be awkward with names and to transliterate it would result in a name that sounds foreign. So translators decide on a new name that sounds similar but is more easily pronounced than the original. The name Yahweh is a variation on YHWH which is the hebrew for the name that God gave Himself in the original hebrew Bible. It can be pronounced in about 10 different ways one of which is Jehovah from where you get your Jehovah's Witnesses. I always write YHWH so people can pronounce it the way they like.What I meat with regards to the mis-translation was to what was said about Jesus wasn't his real name, meaning in the translation into english it became something else. Pretty much the same way in that my name when pronounced in Russian becomes different to English or even Afrikaans.

To quote from another site again:


Yeshua is a Hebrew name which has been transliterated into Greek as Iesous (IhsouV: pronounced "ee-ay-SUS"). The English "Jesus" comes from the Latin transliteration of the Greek name into the Latin Iesus. Now Greek has no "y" sound, but the Latin "i" is both an "i" and a "j" (i.e., it can have a consonantal force in front of other vowels), the latter of which is properly pronounced like the English "y" (which explains the German Jesu, "YAY-su")That is why we spell Jesus as we do, taking it straight from Latin, but we pronounce the name with a soft "j" sound because that is what we do in English with the consonantal "j".

[nthdimension]

The Catholic Church realised many years later that Women were still not getting this respect that they deserved, and had to somehow change this view amongst the populus.

Hence the "Hail Mary" in the Catholic Church and many other figures and paintings done to make people realise that women are equal to men.


The whole world though is still male dominated, It the same why there have only been 39 female heads of state. All in small countries and never in a large country, Dont blame the church though for something that is world wide problem.
It definitely looks like the church made little, probably no, real effort to change the status of women. This was an organisation that controlled the heads of state of numerous countries. I also question whether the claims about Mary amount to anything more than tokenism, or historical revision on the part of the church.

[Kalvaer]

If you think little or no change has been made at all.. Do some research about how women lived in 900BC or even 900AD, Much has changed since then.

My point as well though as more than the part you cut and pasted. You cant blame the church for something and put all the blame on its shoulders alone, They might be big shoulders, but there are others to blame as well

[nthdimension]

All I'd like to see is some actual evidence that the Catholic church was at the forefront of the fight for women's rights. It's a valid point that an organisation with that much power should have made more of a difference. Especially if they want to claim they were promoting the idea of treating women as equals.

Who was responsible for the improvements from 900BCE until the Catholic church appeared?

[Mr TB]

Yes I was quite surprised to find that due to the Latin-English alphabet used that is not the correct pronunciation of his name...

Reading the jewish author documentary he however found it acceptable and emphasized that the NAME is good and should not split hairs about it and become real snobs like the gnostic/atheist crowd...

[Kalvaer]

Before 900 BC... Dont know if there where any at all. Women just didn't count ./ducks and hides away

Here is another link with regards to certain women and Jesus, its credibilty however is for you to decide on

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/women.html

[Kalvaer]

Reading the jewish author documentary he however found it acceptable and emphasized that the NAME is good and should not split hairs about it and become real snobs like the gnostic/atheist crowd...With that I agree.. at least about the part with spliting hairs. No matter what I am called or how my name is pronounced it does not change who I am and what I stand for. Of course its still interesting to understand where it all comes from

[Mr TB]

With that I agree.. at least about the part with spliting hairs. No matter what I am called or how my name is pronounced it does not change who I am and what I stand for. Of course its still interesting to understand where it all comes from

Yes, for me it was news... and something to keep in mind in future.
It actually strengthens your faith, that is my view...
In the same way you can fight about the sabbath and 25/12, it just does not make sense, we are under grace like paul says ain't that wonderful?...

[Prometheus]

Who was responsible for the improvements from 900BCE until the Catholic church appeared?
I don't think there were any noticable improvements. Even Jewish woman today have practically no say and have to use their husbands to get anything done. There are many other religions that are still like this today.

[Aqua_lung]

I don't think there were any noticable improvements. Even Jewish woman today have practically no say and have to use their husbands to get anything done. There are many other religions that are still like this today.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Ancient Egyptians where way ahead...


Ancient Egyptian Female Pharaohs
MERYT-NEITH (1st Dynasty c.3000 BC)
Meryt-Neith is believed to have ruled at the start of the dynastic period, possibly the third ruler of the dynasty, and is known principally for her funerary monuments. Her reign lasted less than three years. Her name means 'Beloved of the Goddess Neith' and she has a funerary monument and solar boat at Sakkara. This boat would enable her spirit to travel to the Afterlife, a honour reserved only for a king. She also has another funerary tomb at Abydos. Both these tombs are surrounded by over fifty graves of attendants and servants, demonstrating that she was buried with the power of a king and was full honours of a powerful ruler.



NITOCRIS (6th Dynasty 2148-44 BC)
Nitocris came to the throne during much dispute, when there was no apparent male heir. But she has become entangled with romantic legend and myth, so much so, that very little true facts are known about her reign. She would be remembered later in Egyptian history as 'The bravest and most beautiful woman of her time'. No structures were commissioned by her and she is left unmentioned in many Egyptian records. She is, however, referred to in the Turin King-list, by the Greek traveller Herodotos who wrote that she caused the deaths of hundreds of Egyptians in revenge for the killing of her brother, the king. This was done by inviting all those guilt of his murder to a banquet then, when the party was in full swing, she opened flood gates and let the River Nile in on them, drowning them all. According to legend she then flung herself into a room of ashes to escape her punishment. Again, her reign lasted less than three years.



SOBEKNOFRU (Neferusobek) (12th Dynasty ?1767-1759 BC)
Sobeknofru ruled only briefly at a time of civil unrest, followed by a period of anarchy. Monuments which record the troubled times have allowed Egyptologist to piece together her reign. Manetho states she was probably the sister of Ammenemes, whom she succeeded and he tells us that her reign lasted for 3 years and 10 months. She is mentioned in the Turin 'List of Kings' and is mentioned at Karnak Temple (Luxor) and Saqqara (near Cairo). Portraits show her wearing the royal head cloth and kilt over her female attire, a way of declaring that she is as fit to rule as any man.



HATSHEPSUT (18th Dynasty c.1473-1458 BC)
Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I. When Thutmose died his son Thutmose II succeeded him and, as was the custom, he married his stepsister, Hatshepsut. When Thutmose II also died, around 1479 BC, his son Thutmose III became Pharaoh. However as the new pharaoh was a minor, Hatshepsut stepped in as his regent. Thutmose III and Hatshepsut ruled together until 1473 BC, when she eventually appointed herself Pharaoh. She used a number of strategies to legitimate her role, including the claim that the god Amun-Ra had visited her mother while she was pregnant, which made her a divine child. Hatshepsut readily assumed traditional kingly regalia, including several male attributes such as; a fake beard, male clothing, as well as having herself drawn and treated like a man. During her fifteen year reign she mounted at least one military campaign and initiated a number of impressive building projects, including her superb funerary temple at Deir el-Bahari. One major achievement, the expedition to the Land of Punt, is shown on the temple walls. Believed to be located near the Red Sea, is shows ebony, ivory, myrrh saplings, animal skins, gold, perfumes and exotic animals etc, being brought back from this expedition. Another remarkable achievement, also chronicled through illustration shows two huge granite obelisks being transported on the River Nile from Aswan to the Temple of Karnak. Hatshepsut was a powerful and admirable woman who brought great stability to Egypt, however she mysteriously disappears around 1458 BC, when Thutmose III regained his title as Pharaoh. It is thought he despised Hatshepsut for keeping him from the throne and ordered all reference to her be wiped from Egyptian history. Hatshepsut's mummy has never been found and her name and images were nearly lost forever.



NEFERTITI (18th Dynasty c.1336 BC)
Nefertiti was the beautiful wife of Pharaoh Akhenaton who was also known as Amenophis IV and the Heritic king. They couple reigned for 17 years toward the end of the so-called Amarna period. A famous sculptured head of Nefertiti was found at Amarna, which showed her remarkable beauty. (Click here to see the bust) She was actively involved in her husband's revolutionary policies and is often shown wearing kingly regalia and officiating at his side. It is believed that after the death of Akhenaten she ruled independently around 1336 BC. Although this is by no means certain and I have only inlcuded her name here as a possible female pharaoh, not a certainty.



TWOSRET (Tausert) (19th Dynasty c.1187-1185 BC)
As with Nitocris and Sobeknofru above, Twosret's reign was during troubled times and lasted less than three years. She was the last Pharaoh of the 19th dynasty. Tausert was the very beloved wife of Seti II even though she was not his first wife and it is believed that it was Seti II who ordered her tomb to be built in the Valley of the Kings; an honour given to very few queens. Again the evidence is sketchy, however the general consensus is that, upon the death of her husband Queen Twosret became co-regent with the king's young son, (Ramesses-Siptah), by another of his wives, and then after his death (approximately six years later) ascended to the throne herself, proclaiming herself Pharaoh.



CLEOPATRA (c 51 BC)
It was over one thousand years after Twosret, during the Ptolemaic period, that Cleopatra reigned as Pharaoh. However, as the Ptolemaic kings were essentially Greek invaders, Cleopatra, unlike those mentioned above, was not of true Egyptian lineage. Descended from Macedonians, who had ruled Egypt ever since the death of Alexander the Great, some 250 years earlier, Cleopatra VII was born to Ptolemy XII in 69 B.C. She came to the throne when she was just 17 year old in 51 B.C. It's thought that she ruled jointly with her father, then after he died, with her younger brother, Ptolemy XIII. It is said that Cleopatra captivated Julius Caesar (Roman) when he came to Alexandria and in order to assume sole power over Egypt she asked for Julius Caesar's help, which he willingly gave. However their relationship was doomed and when her liaison with Mark Anthony, another powerful roman, also ended disastrously, Cleopatra, also known as the "Queen of the Nile." famously committed suicide in 30 BC. Not only was Cleopatra the last female to be called pharaoh, her demise also brought to an end 3,000 years of dynastic rule.



GENERAL COMMENTS
Almost certainly, these female Pharaohs were all of royal blood and were at one time queen-consort to their husbands. It is also believed that most of them did not produce heirs and therefore, upon the death of their husbands/brothers/fathers, they ascended to the throne.

Being a royal woman in Ancient Egypt obviously did not exclude you from the throne, unlike the vast majority of kingdoms at that time. Women in Ancient Egypt had great advantages over their contemporaries in other cultures, such as Mesopotamia and Greece. Egyptian women were allowed to own property and hold official positions. Women could also inherit their wealth and take any disputes to court and defend their legal rights. As Heroditus, a famous Greek historian pointed out, much to his horror, that Egyptian women were free to move about in public, unlike her Greece counterpart who were confined to her home. However, it is general regarded that if a woman did become pharaoh it was most likely because she had the backing of some very influential men upon whom she relied to help her maintain power.
http://www.ancientnile.co.uk/pharaohs-women.php





I think he meant the real source instead of just people who read it somewhere and decided to repeat it or even people who are just repeating who is repeating what is repeated.

If you scroll down to the bottom of the Wikipedia page/s you'll find the source references, some references are from books that you'll need to read at your local library, so if you dispute the article you can read the source yourself

[Prometheus]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Ancient Egyptians where way ahead...
Err, the subject was Christianity and the Catholic Church. Yes there were many ancient civilizations where men and women were near equals. But in Jewish culture and through much of the known world woman did not have much of a place in positions of power. Christianity changed all that although at a slow pace as if things were done overnight it would have been rejected by the majority and would not have accomplished anything. Jesus had to have tread a very fine line between truth and keeping with the establishment and couldn't go outright saying women have the same place as men.

If you scroll down to the bottom of the Wikipedia page/s you'll find the source references, some references are from books that you'll need to read at your local library, so if you dispute the article you can read the source yourself
What I mean is that anyone can write something and use that as reference. It is largely google and even the wiki that is to blame. If enough people stumble unto something and it gets repeated enough it is suddenly regarded as "scientific" fact and will eventually even make its way into scientific journals and publications without even a second thought. Like has been shown you can "create" a similarity between almost any two subjects. If enough people then believe the similarity which has no known basis in fact the of course it "must" be true. The article of Mithraism (which is the main one being focused on it seems) states that it needs cleanup by an expert btw.

[Aqua_lung]

Err, the subject was Christianity and the Catholic Church. Yes there were many ancient civilizations where men and women were near equals. But in Jewish culture and through much of the known world woman did not have much of a place in positions of power. Christianity changed all that although at a slow pace as if things were done overnight it would have been rejected by the majority and would not have accomplished anything. Jesus had to have tread a very fine line between truth and keeping with the establishment and couldn't go outright saying women have the same place as men.

Err, I was not going off topic, you claimed there was no progress prior to Christianity in defence of nthdimension's comment, and I showed you your statement was incorrect, I am aware of the other religions not being equal.
Besides the whole of western civilisation is based on and inspired by what the Ancient Egyptians achieved including Religion, remember... Exodus, Judaism is probably an off shoot of an Egyptian cult...


The idea of Akhenaten as the pioneer of a monotheistic religion that later became Judaism was promoted by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book Moses and Monotheism and thereby entered popular consciousness. Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten


What I mean is that anyone can write something and use that as reference. It is largely google and even the wiki that is to blame. If enough people stumble unto something and it gets repeated enough it is suddenly regarded as "scientific" fact and will eventually even make its way into scientific journals and publications without even a second thought. Like has been shown you can "create" a similarity between almost any two subjects. If enough people then believe the similarity which has no known basis in fact the of course it "must" be true. The article of Mithraism (which is the main one being focused on it seems) states that it needs cleanup by an expert btw.

What's with this blaming google and wiki? :mad:
Sure, blame the accomplishment the human race has made of easily accessing info?

Wikipedia does not claim anything as fact except for the facts!
Like you said wiki states clearly that the Mithra article needs cleanup,
I really don't see the point of explaining myself here, at least I quote an unbiased source unlike you guys who quote a biased source.. dare I mention the Big B

Edit: I'm not attacking, or criticizing Christianity, just making my point that humans lived pretty descent lives before Christianity, and that Christianity is not a new or unique form of religion, many similar religions existed before

[Prometheus]

Err, I was not going off topic, you claimed there was no progress prior to Christianity in defence of nthdimension's comment, and I showed you your statement was incorrect, I am aware of the other religions not being equal.
Nth was talking about the impact of the Catholic church and them not having an impact from 900BC up to their arrival. I consider this a moot point as there were no changes occuring during that time in regard to the 3 religions. Jewish woman still have little say and Muslim woman (Islam was founded after Christianity) practically no say at all. Out of these Christianity showed notably the most change. I am aware of what other cultures' stance was on the matter but they don't relate to Christianity which was the driving force of change. Please don't take my post out of the context in which it was applied.

Besides the whole of western civilisation is based on and inspired by what the Ancient Egyptians achieved including Religion, remember... Exodus, Judaism is probably an off shoot of an Egyptian cult...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten
See what I mean? ;) Anybody can cite information which hasn't been verified and use at as source to promote their idea. If you follow the source you most likely end up with someone's opinion who have no source of factual information themself. The piece you just quoted is from "Speculative theories" btw. Akhenaten was from 1353 BC to 1334 BC and Moses left Egypt before 1400 BC so I don't see where the comparison arrises.

What's with this blaming google and wiki? :mad:
Sure, blame the accomplishment the human race has made of easily accessing info?

Wikipedia does not claim anything as fact except for the facts!
Like you said wiki states clearly that the Mithra article needs cleanup,
I really don't see the point of explaining myself here, at least I quote an unbiased source unlike you guys who quote a biased source.. dare I mention the Big B
You're right, it's not the wiki or google that's too blame it's how people use it. Problem is that the wiki is too publicly accessible to be considered unbiased. Most people don't realise that people with alterior motives will use it stating biased or unverified sources and if you dispute it it most likely gets locked whether it is factual or not at that time. Knowledge, or rather too little of it is dangerous in the wrong hands. If you want to show the Bible as biased you are welcome to try like many have and failed in the past. It is probably the most unbiased you will come across. It is backed up unlike the claims by people who try to disprove it.

[nthdimension]

Nth was talking about the impact of the Catholic church and them not having an impact from 900BC up to their arrival.

The question was: Who was responsible for the improvements from 900BCE until the Catholic church appeared?

Which was prompted by:

Do some research about how women lived in 900BC [or even 900AD], Much has changed since then.

It's pretty weak to say that an organisation like the Catholic church couldn't move too quickly or no-one would have obeyed. They were happy to force their will when it suited them. Glaciers move faster than the alleged improvements the Catholic church made in the treatment of women.


Christianity which was the driving force of change
Then we'd expect the women's rights movement to be driven on Christian principles. Is this so? Do they quote passages from the Bible backing up their views? What are examples of Christian organisations over the last two thousand years demanding that women get equal treatment and being vocal on women being equal to men?

I know things have changed, but I am not convinced that either the Catholic church or the Christian religion in general had much to do with it.

[nthdimension]

suddenly regarded as "scientific" fact and will eventually even make its way into scientific journals and publications without even a second thought
If a scientific journal were to commit such a faux pas, they would always be absolutely willing to admit their error. And there are always more than enough readers who will find their mistakes and set them right.

[Prometheus]

Then we'd expect the women's rights movement to be driven on Christian principles. Is this so? Do they quote passages from the Bible backing up their views? What are examples of Christian organisations over the last two thousand years demanding that women get equal treatment and being vocal on women being equal to men?

I know things have changed, but I am not convinced that either the Catholic church or the Christian religion in general had much to do with it.
I always hear them say God created men and women equal so if it's not christian I don't know what it is. :confused:

If a scientific journal were to commit such a faux pas, they would always be absolutely willing to admit their error. And there are always more than enough readers who will find their mistakes and set them right.
How will they find out if everyone agrees with them. If you disagree you are forced to provide the proof which is very unscientific. However once it's published the damage is done. How many people read retractions rather than the main article? The lie just keeps on spreading with the truth sometimes only trailing it. It's too little or incorrect information in the wrong hands.

[noxibox]

Actually scientific journals make a big thing about correcting false information. It is nothing like the tiny retractions in a normal magazine or newspaper.

If you claim that information provided is incorrect you naturally have to provide what you believe is the correct information and explain why.

[Claymore]

I always hear them say God created men and women equal so if it's not christian I don't know what it is. :confused:


Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Oh, definitely created equal...

[nthdimension]

I found this Quaker views of women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_views_of_women) on the Wikipedia. I don't know how much this was due to their being Christian and influenced by the Bible.

I'd say the Bible is a mixed bag when it comes to views on women. In some places it declares them subservient to men, but there are also prominent female figures in the Bible - in the old testament at that.

I'm still inclined to view the claim that the Catholic church was a promoter of equality as being rubbish. At best I'd say they paid lipservice to the idea, but made no genuine effort to have it practiced. But naturally I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

[Kalvaer]

Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Oh, definitely created equal...Perfect Example right here of an EXTREMELY badly used example that was cut and paste to wrongly prove a point and can be believed due to its continued copying and pasting. You quoted what was said after the first Sin... why not also kindly quote for us what it says in Genesis 3:17 about Men. Or even the whole section from 3:14 to 3:19.

Then also kindly read where we have already gone over, IE: the part about the difference between Jewish belief and Christian

[Claymore]

Perfect Example right here of an EXTREMELY badly used example that was cut and paste to wrongly prove a point and can be believed due to its continued copying and pasting. You quoted what was said after the first Sin... why not also kindly quote for us what it says in Genesis 3:17 about Men. Or even the whole section from 3:14 to 3:19.


I guess I must have missed 3:16½, where woman was made equal to man...

3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

[Prometheus]

She will bring forth in sorrow and be ruled by her husband. He will work to eat until returning to dust. Consequences for both. Equality.

[texo]

She will bring forth in sorrow and be ruled by her husband. He will work to eat until returning to dust. Consequences for both. Equality.
You're clutching at straws.

[Prometheus]

Proving a point.

[Claymore]

She will bring forth in sorrow and be ruled by her husband. He will work to eat until returning to dust. Consequences for both. Equality.

So are you saying 3:16 is valid, or is not valid? Either they have equal consequences, or they do not. Which is it?

[Kalvaer]

We were created equal, Us humans changed that with the first sin, and have been doing so ever since. Everyone always trying to be better than everyone else, not only between men and women, but between others as well. God is not to blame for that.. we are

One verse for Eve.. Three verses for Adam being punished for listening to Eve. Women where told that they would have pain in childbirth, and serve men, who would be themselves punished and end up working a life of hardship and pain in the fields as well too keep women and thier children alive, until they die.....

Again however that was the old testiment before Christ, which of course is what makes a Christian.. and Christian.

[noxibox]

We were created equal, Us humans changed that with the first sin, and have been doing so ever since. Everyone always trying to be better than everyone else, not only between men and women, but between others as well. God is not to blame for that.. we are
God made a defective product. He can't even claim he didn't know it would all go wrong because he knows everything.

[Kalvaer]

:Sigh: Is it just me or are we going around in circles here?..

Each time an argument is given for a question somebody HAS to play the same old cards over and over mostly when it has little, or mostly NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.

[noxibox]

:Sigh: Is it just me or are we going around in circles here?..

Each time an argument is given for a question somebody HAS to play the same old cards over and over mostly when it has little, or mostly NOTHING to do with the topic at hand.
Then don't bring up nonsense about how the product is to blame for design defects deliberately created by the designer.


Us humans changed that with the first sin
God is not to blame for that.. we are
God
made
us
to
sin

He and his followers are just not very good at admitting that he either screwed up or did this deliberately. Maybe it's some experiment or just a game because he was bored.

Basically what it comes down to is God always intended men and women to be unequal.

[Kalvaer]

Are you feeling guilty about something and dont want to take blame for things you have done wrong??? I have no problems with admiting I have done things wrong or even when I am incorrect. I said that we are to blame for the current situation we are in with regards to women which was the topic on discussion, not if God made you defective or not. You know clear well that your line of attack would clearly move away from the current topic. Start another topic then if thats what you want.

Why is it that when ever an athiest is worked into a corner they come up with the same bable over and over. (and excuse the generalisation here because I have seen there are many here capable of having an intellectual discusssion)

[Mr TB]

Actually scientific journals make a big thing about correcting false information. It is nothing like the tiny retractions in a normal magazine or newspaper.

If you claim that information provided is incorrect you naturally have to provide what you believe is the correct information and explain why.

Yes That is the problem scientitists now believe they are in a class of their own, they know everything and are now playing GOD. That is the problem with you also you try play GOD...

[noxibox]

we are to blame for the current situation we are in with regards to women
OK, so God didn't make us that way or at least, because he isn't perfect, did not realise his design was defective? You can't have your perfect, all-knowing god then claim he did not know where things would go and is not responsible for what he created.

You're trying to blame humans for God's mistakes. We are exactly what this god created.

[Kalvaer]

@ Noxi ...Back to the same old point again I see... What ever.. guess this topic is dead.. sorry all

[Kalvaer]

Yes That is the problem scientitists now believe they are in a class of their own, they know everything and are now playing GOD. That is the problem with you also you try play GOD... Not all Scientists are like that though DD... My Wife sure isn't and I know many more but again.. I think we have lost the plot in this thread completely :)

[Mr TB]

Then don't bring up nonsense about how the product is to blame for design defects deliberately created by the designer.


God
made
us
to
sin

He's and his followers are just not very good at admitting that he either screwed up or did this deliberately. Maybe it's some experiment or just a game because he was bored.

Keep on believing your own lie we are not stupid enough to do that we are not the off-spring of apes... you are actually proving something very interesting to us now...

[Mr TB]

Not all Scientists are like that though DD... My Wife sure isn't and I know many more but again.. I think we have lost the plot in this thread completely :)

I agree with you KALVEAR, but in the context of the folks we are dealing with in this threads...well they tell me all christians are murders and hypocrites if you read the threads carefully which is untrue...

[nthdimension]

Manual labour is arguably worse than being confined to working in the home, but things go further than that for women. They typically had a lower status than male children - they were the servants of their husbands/fathers/brothers, they were kept uneducated, they were kept out of most physical activities, they were barred from almost any kind of work other than being a toy and servant in the home, they could be beaten, and their husbands could even rape them. As far as I am aware there are still US states where you can legally rape your wife as long as you do not physically injure her while doing so. It was Christian religious organisations that loudly opposed making rape within marriage a crime.

There's no point throwing a tantrum because you've been called on your attempt to blame humans for your deity's mistakes. As I recall it is claimed to not only know the future, but to have a detailed plan for the world. Would you have us believe that when Adam ate the apple God said to himself, "Hey, I didn't see that coming."?

This thread is on a tangent to the heading anyway so stop whining.

[Claymore]

As far as I am aware there are still US states where you can legally rape your wife as long as you do not physically injure her while doing so.

A friend of mine in the US was repeatedly drugged and raped by her husband, and that wile undergoing cancer treatment. When she discovered what was going on, she tried to have him charged, and discovered that in her state he could not be convicted of rape.

[Prometheus]

So are you saying 3:16 is valid, or is not valid? Either they have equal consequences, or they do not. Which is it?
Equal consequences for equal actions. Eve not only succumbed to temptation but lured her husband into temptation. Her husband would trust her of course so he succumbs to temptation. Because she would abuse here power she would lose it and instead become subservant to her husband. A clear point of someone taking ONE verse out of context to try and prove their point. However it's irrelevant because Christianity changed all that through grace superceding the law.

Then don't bring up nonsense about how the product is to blame for design defects deliberately created by the designer.


God
made
us
to
sin

He and his followers are just not very good at admitting that he either screwed up or did this deliberately. Maybe it's some experiment or just a game because he was bored.

Basically what it comes down to is God always intended men and women to be unequal.
Will you tell us when you're done beating that strawman into nonexistence? :rolleyes: God created mankind not to sin but to also choose between good and bad. Man chose to use that ability for evil but has shown through Jesus Christ that he can also use it for good. Don't try to blame God for your inner desire to be evil.

As I recall it is claimed to not only know the future, but to have a detailed plan for the world.
His plan is to one day reunite mankind with Himself. It is people like you who unsuccessfully try to subvert this plan for your own evil desires.

[Claymore]

Equal consequences for equal actions. Eve not only succumbed to temptation but lured her husband into temptation. Her husband would trust her of course so he succumbs to temptation. Because she would abuse here power she would lose it and instead become subservant to her husband. A clear point of someone taking ONE verse out of context to try and prove their point. However it's irrelevant because Christianity changed all that through grace superceding the law.

OK, so you're saying that under Christianity, women and men are treated equally?

[Kalvaer]

OK, so you're saying that under Christianity, women and men are treated equally?Truthfully.. No. But I Believe it was Gods plan through Jesus that we should be.

God punished, both men and women for their crime. It was us again as humans (and mostly men) who have used that to their advantage. I know there is even the argument that this could be why there are no female priests in the "Catholic Church" since they can not be trusted. I however think its a load of bull and I have read somewhere that 8 out of 10 priests believe the same thing (how true it is I can not say but have put it here for interests sake none the less)

It is us who have decided how to live our lifes and what to make of them, God gave us Freewill to live how we wanted and to make up our own minds, instead being mindlessly controlled.

Which btw Nth is why I got upset with the stupid argument about if God knows everything why didn't he stop Adam and Eve. Mainly because I see so many use it as an arguement when they have nothing to say. I wasn't throwing a tantrum, but just couldn't believe the logical train of thought. Its like that of a two year old who wont let somebody play with thier toys.

However, If God stopped Eve, would that not go against the idea of freewill we were given. Do you punish your children knowing full well that they are going to eat those cookies you made for your husband (or wife or whatever) When you told them not too when you went to the shops or do you wait until you have got back. If you did it before you would have taught them nothing at all and they would of denied it. leaving you with the question.. "what if I was wrong"?

Maybe it was an experiment, and experiment in Human judgement a test of our faith... We failed and were punished for it.. same as your kids would be for eating those cookies. Point remains its not Gods fault for the in-equality but our own.

[nthdimension]

Will you tell us when you're done beating that strawman into nonexistence
There is no strawman, only the fatal problems with your religion's claims about its god. You claim great things and abilities for this god, but hold it to very low standards.

[nthdimension]

the stupid argument about if God knows everything why didn't he stop Adam and Eve. Mainly because I see so many use it as an arguement when they have nothing to say. I wasn't throwing a tantrum, but just couldn't believe the logical train of thought. Its like that of a two year old who wont let somebody play with thier toys.
No it isn't. Is it so hard to grasp that a god that knows the future and made humans knew exactly what was going to happen? It is entirely correct and reasonable to state that this god created humans intending events to play out as they did. The events in Eden were just a show, a way for God to make it someone else's fault. Now that's childish. Not surprising considering that in the Bible there are times when God acts just like a small child throwing its toys.

The alternative is that God cannot predict the future and did not know how the creatures he had made would behave out in the field. He is fallible.


Do you punish your children knowing full well that they are going to eat those cookies you made for your husband (or wife or whatever) When you told them not too when you went to the shops or do you wait until you have got back.
I did not make my children. Nor do I know the future. It is not a valid analogy.


Maybe it was an experiment, and experiment in Human judgement a test of our faith... We failed and were punished for it.. same as your kids would be for eating those cookies. Point remains its not Gods fault for the in-equality but our own.
You still want to claim that God did not see this coming? That he did not know in advance exactly what would transpire? What happened to knowing the future? A god that knows everything knows the outcome of all possible experiments without performing them.

[Mr TB]

No it isn't. Is it so hard to grasp that a god that knows the future and made humans knew exactly what was going to happen? It is entirely correct and reasonable to state that this god created humans intending events to play out as they did. The events in Eden were just a show, a way for God to make it someone else's fault. Now that's childish. Not surprising considering that in the Bible there are times when God acts just like a small child throwing its toys.

The alternative is that God cannot predict the future and did not know how the creatures he had made would behave out in the field. He is fallible.


I did not make my children. Nor do I know the future. It is not a valid analogy.


You still want to claim that God did not see this coming? That he did not know in advance exactly what would transpire? What happened to knowing the future? A god that knows everything knows the outcome of all possible experiments without performing them.

God gave you a little bit of responsibility and you can't cope with it...
Take up your responsibility and stop blaming someone else because you can not handle it...

[Mr TB]

Strawman arguments?

What stupid way do you argue NTDIMENSION, your mom and dad put you in your flesh, go to them, ask them why did you do this to me? You fall out of your mom's womb
blame them silly-billy that's where it started...

[Prometheus]

There is no strawman, only the fatal problems with your religion's claims about its god. You claim great things and abilities for this god, but hold it to very low standards.
LOL. You continually make the same argument that gets refuted all the time. That is a strawman.

No it isn't. Is it so hard to grasp that a god that knows the future and made humans knew exactly what was going to happen? It is entirely correct and reasonable to state that this god created humans intending events to play out as they did. The events in Eden were just a show, a way for God to make it someone else's fault. Now that's childish. Not surprising considering that in the Bible there are times when God acts just like a small child throwing its toys.
Whether He knew in advance or not is irrelevant. He gave mankind a choice for the sake of those who overcome so they would not be mindless drones but could choose for themselves. You are clinging to a strawman. You want a reason not to be accountable for YOUR actions. YOU are acting like a spoilt brat.

[nthdimension]

I don't expect an answer. A lot of dodging and squirming goes on to avoid answering the problem.

The argument has never been successfully refuted. The argument is not fallacious.

At least philosophers have the decency to grapple with the problem.

[Kalvaer]

I did not make my children. Nor do I know the future. EEEEKKKK.... Wait.. if you do in fact have Children.. I hope you did in fact make them or at least have a MAJOR part in it (unless they are Test Tube kids but you still had to supply the material, or of course adopted).. Otherwise I'd presonally doubt my spouse and be kicking my neighbours door in right now

(and I am Joking of course)