Christianity: True or False

[David19]

I think Jesus did exist, since i've heard that most scholar's have come to an conclusion that he did exist, although their not sure about his life, i'm not sure whether he was a son of Yahweh or not, but i don't think it would matter to pagan's since Jesus is the son of the Christian god, pagans worship other gods so their afterlife may be different (e.g. Norse pagans might go to one of their gods hall's, Kemetics will go to their afterlige, Hellenic Reconstructionist's go to Hades or Elysian(sp) fields, etc).

There was something interesting i read on a satanist site, i can't remember the exact address, but it was by a guy who's a member of Diane Vera's Church of Azazel, and he say's that their may be multible supernatural beings/gods who respond to the same name, e.g. more than one being that has the name Yahweh, more than one Jesus, so maybe there are different Jesus's (one that responds to fundamentalist's, one that is peaceful and responds to LGBT people, etc), i've probably explained it all wrong, but i hope it makes sense.

[beachj]

I believe he exists...I just think that he isn't whom most Christians are actually praying to.

Well, some christians may not be.
Christianity is borderline pagan in some believes.
Some christians belive in whats know as 'the holy trinidy' haveing 3 seperate supernatural beings as one God. Father, Son, Holy Spirt. In that sence, the Son being Jesus, and people prying to God the "Father" would not be prying to Jesus.
:spaceman:

[Little Billy]

Well, some christians may not be.
Christianity is borderline pagan in some believes.
Some christians belive in whats know as 'the holy trinidy' haveing 3 seperate supernatural beings as one God. Father, Son, Holy Spirt. In that sence, the Son being Jesus, and people prying to God the "Father" would not be prying to Jesus.
:spaceman:


That's not what I meant. Look at the beliefs that some of these people espouse. Those aren't the beliefs of ANY benevolent diety, period. More likely they're praying to something we haven't even had nightmares about yet.

[Rurik]

Honestly I don't believe any religion is more or less real than another, I believe that whichever Gods exist they don't really care whethere you call them Brigid, Jesus, Budha, or Ishkibibble the lord of frigin' hamsters, or if you don't even believe in them at all, so long as you're a good person.

[Betah]

Well, some Christians may not be.
Christianity is borderline pagan in some believes.
Some Christians believe in whats know as 'the holy Trinity' having 3 separate supernatural beings as one God. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. In that sense, the Son being Jesus, and people prying to God the "Father" would not be praying to Jesus.
:spaceman:
Actually, the Trinity is usually referred to as 3 separate aspects of the same whole.
In any case, this wouldn't indicate Paganism, merely a limited polytheism.
As far as I know, the Trinity originated in the Council of Constantinople; so it's likely that denominations which don't believe in the Trinity are the exception, rather than the rule.

[Findarto]

Technically, Christianity is a real religion.

On the thesis of God and Jesus, well I'm not sure. But, I hope not. At least, not in the way the Bible describes, maybe there is a god/entity that takes everyone as they are, no hate for any minorities (Gays, etc.)...

[WiccanGoddess]

Actually, the Trinity is usually referred to as 3 separate aspects of the same whole.
In any case, this wouldn't indicate Paganism, merely a limited polytheism.
As far as I know, the Trinity originated in the Council of Constantinople; so it's likely that denominations which don't believe in the Trinity are the exception, rather than the rule.

Wouldn't the Trinity share with the Trio? The Maiden/Mother/Crone? I'm not sure the origin of the Trinity, but it indicates a connection to Paganism in a sense, would it not?

[Ron]

Wouldn't the Trinity share with the Trio? The Maiden/Mother/Crone? I'm not sure the origin of the Trinity, but it indicates a connection to Paganism in a sense, would it not?
And ... not. The concept of the Trinity is embedded in the Bible, making is something highly Chr!stian.

In my understanding, the Trinity is [seen to be] a physical existence, of three separate entities all to be revered as Holy (and that may all three in tandem be considered as a G-dlike form, as well as G-d the Father); whereas the MMC is [seen to be] one entity taking different forms.

Ciao.

[Akhkharu Asgard]

Wouldn't the Trinity share with the Trio? The Maiden/Mother/Crone? I'm not sure the origin of the Trinity, but it indicates a connection to Paganism in a sense, would it not?

The Trinity is purely a Christian concept that voted on in the Council of Nicea in the Roman Empire. It was a way to justify how Jesus could be the son of god and god at the same time. There were many other ideas, but the Trinity was the one that was voted in.

[Rasenna]

You know, I came across this thread at an interesting time. Last night my atheist boyfriend and I attended a debate on-campus between a Christian minister and a former Christian atheist. I think that people on both sides are asking the wrong question. They *should* be asking whether or not a religion is PROVABLE, *not* whether it is TRUE.
What I mean is that, like a scientific theory (okay, slightly sikewed allegory here, but it's the best I can do before I have to run off to work), can we PROVE that any god or goddess exists? No, we can't. Can we PROVE that a group of people worshipped and served particular Gods and Goddesses? Yes, we can. Proof of existence of followers doesn't prove that a deity exists or not. Only personal experience does. That's why it's called *faith.*
R,
a polytheist~

[Pandy Fackler]

I say, whatever religion brings you closer to god and makes you a better person for it....then it's valid in my eyes!

Besides, I don't get pissy with the religions, themselves. I get pissy with the people who -use- religion to condemn other people for not believing in the same thing.

But I couldn't pick one way or another on the poll because, personally, I don't believe Christianity to be either true or false. I mean, for me, it's not true because it's not something I follow or believe in (entirely), but I also don't think it's false beause I know a lot of people who -do- follow it and find very much happiness in it. So...to me, it's just another path to the same god that all religions worship. And that's quite alright with me :)

[WiccanGoddess]

I say, whatever religion brings you closer to god and makes you a better person for it....then it's valid in my eyes!


And if it's not a religion that has any ties to God? What if the religion is one that brings its members closer to the Lady? No God or Jesus what so ever? Not all religions a devout to God, or hell, even some don't have a named God.

[WiccanGoddess]

And ... not. The concept of the Trinity is embedded in the Bible, making is something highly Chr!stian.

In my understanding, the Trinity is [seen to be] a physical existence, of three separate entities all to be revered as Holy (and that may all three in tandem be considered as a G-dlike form, as well as G-d the Father); whereas the MMC is [seen to be] one entity taking different forms.

Ciao.

I now feel the need to read up on this Trinity. It's something I don't know much of, as an raised Atheist. But from what I've read, it does share some ties with The Maiden/Mother/Crone, or as I call them, the Trio. Just because it is embedded in the Bible doesn't mean anything, but I do get where you are coming from. But can't the Trio be revered Holy? All in Goddess like Form? To me, the Trio isn't about different form, it's about unity. They are always present, all at once, ever changing, similar to the Trinity? Perhaps the Trinity could be explained more to me here?
Tempting to start a thread, "Comparing Pagan to Christian", as, most of the time, the connections are horribly obvious.

[celtica]

I see the trinity as father= mind(consciousness), son = body(matter), holy spirit = soul(spirit/energy force/source)

[Pandy Fackler]

And if it's not a religion that has any ties to God? What if the religion is one that brings its members closer to the Lady? No God or Jesus what so ever? Not all religions a devout to God, or hell, even some don't have a named God.

I was just talking about religions, but I agree with you. I don't belong to a religion and I feel close to god. I just figured that since this thread was mroe about religion...

[WiccanGoddess]

Oh, my mistake, Pandy Fackler. *blush*

Celtica: See, the way you set up the Trinity is about how I see the Trio. The Maiden is conciousness and will, the Mother is matter and spirit, and the Crone is The Source of All.

[Pandy Fackler]

Don't worry about it ^_^ You brought up a good point!

[thundersdisciple]

I think all religions are valid!
all have good and bad things about them.
I also belive that Christianity and Wicca flow from a similar source, Christianity just forgot the goddess!!!

[Meabh23]

There is evidence besides the bible... the Romans recorded the early Christians as a cult and that a man named Jesus founded it. There is supposed physical evidence as well... No, Jesus existed all right, but whether or not he was the son of God or not can never be proven nor disproved... that is the matter of faith

Aside from the religion, because I already spoke my bit about it, where in Roman writings is Jesus referred to? Are these contemporary records (around the same time as Jesus was said to have lived and taught), or are they records written generations later when the Romans were attempting to catalogue the new religion and its founding myths.

I'd be very interested in any contemporary records. Since those would prove something of Jesus' literal existence. (Which isn't necessary for religious validity, but some Christians make it a big deal.)

Beyond that historical curiosity, all religions are real and have truths. None are false. (Though some can be really authoritarian.)

[Acid09]

Christianity is valid. The church's dogma is false. I can't reason against the teachings of the bible as wrong or irrelavent. But the power structure, culture domination and hypocracy that was, is and will be perpetuated by the church's dogma, to me is wrong.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses"
Karl Marx

[Maverynthia]

I personally feel that Christianity shouldn't exist. Jesus was not about preaching a new religion, he was preaching about being a better Jew. He was calling out against the Jews that coveted wealth and that were rejecting the poor from entering their temples. From wha I read, Jesus didn't start Cristianity it was Peter that started it. It was also him that made the Bible the mess it was in jealousy of Mary Magdalen, because Jesus saw her as an equal not a lesser.
So, I feel that people that follow Christianity are following a falsehood and are lying to themselves. They aren't following what Jesus was teaching only what Peter wanted them to follow. So really they should be called Peterians.

[shuvanilu]

I think all religions are valid!
all have good and bad things about them.
I also belive that Christianity and Wicca flow from a similar source, Christianity just forgot the goddess!!!


Absolutely---although I don't think they forgot about Her as much as the church fathers HID Her.---shuvanilu

[shuvanilu]

I personally feel that Christianity shouldn't exist. Jesus was not about preaching a new religion, he was preaching about being a better Jew. He was calling out against the Jews that coveted wealth and that were rejecting the poor from entering their temples. From wha I read, Jesus didn't start Cristianity it was Peter that started it. It was also him that made the Bible the mess it was in jealousy of Mary Magdalen, because Jesus saw her as an equal not a lesser.
So, I feel that people that follow Christianity are following a falsehood and are lying to themselves. They aren't following what Jesus was teaching only what Peter wanted them to follow. So really they should be called Peterians.

I totally agree with everything you said *except* where you said that Christianity shouldn't exist. Every person's Truth is true to them and absolutely valid. AND I do believe that while the majority of modern Christians should be considered Petertarians, or even more rightly Churchitarians, there are still modern Christians who seek the truth in their religion and truly attemp to follow the teachings of Christ. They did deeper. And that's cool.----shuvanilu

[Meimi]

I don't think one can really determine whether or not a religion is "true". Beliefs aren't concrete, and therefore they can't be true or untrue.
So, Christianity is an existing religion, yes. And many find it "true" for them. I don't really understand it, personally... I don't like the way it was 'created'. While Jesus historically existed, I don't think spreading this whole religion of Christianity was his intent. Their holy book doesn't make much sense to me either, especially how it's been so sliced and diced with differing translations and such...

[Ravensnest]

I would never attack one for being a christian or any other religion. I voted that it is real. I do not believe it's the ONLY path but I do believe it is one. My personal view on religion is that ultimately everyone is headed to the same end we each simply choose a different path to get there.

I also believe that if one does believe in an all knowing all seeing type of "god" then it would make sense that that god would understand that not all people would accept one representative. That a different representative would need to be sent to each group. It would certainly explain why so many religions share a great many details even when the characters are different.

It's kind of like I told one of my step daughters who was going to church with her mom and beginning to question not only religion but whether there was a god or not. She said "if there's not and we're all wrong we're wasting our time" and I told her "whether there is or not really doesn't matter. It's not wasting time even if there is nothing. If believing in a god makes a person strive to be a better human being, if it makes them try harder, if it makes them able to get through a rough time then how could it be a waste or hurt anything?"

And that's how I truly feel. None of us knows for sure exactly what's going to happen once we die. We each have our beliefs but none of us will know for SURE until we're gone and I for one am in no hurry to fine out :hehehehe:

Therefore, I find validity in all religions. I think whatever works for each person is the right thing for them. Whether it works for me or not. I respect their right to believe as they see fit as long as their belief isn't harmful to others.

[RavenMoonshadow]

I believe it is a true religieon, and I belive in what the bible teaches I just dont follow it, I believe it because the christians do and I am no person to tell them what to belive or how to worship. Infact the funny thing is I Follow celtic shamanism and I convinced my christian room mate he should go to church because everyone needs spirituality. I know I would not like someone coming up to me saying That Danu dosn't exist you should worship my god named Fred beacause hes better.So I wont do that to others

[Crysiira]

I've read every post on this thread, though it's taken me hours. I think all the answers are trying to make sense out of a faulty question, as many people pointed out. The wording is so off that the question doesn't even make sense, really. But I loved reading all the posts anyway because people, when forced to make sense out of something that really doesn't make any sense at all (like life!) come up with some pretty creative solutions. Reading all the debates and different ideas that came up has been absolutely fascinating. I'm not even going to answer the original question here, just say, thank you to everyone who has posted because you have raised thoughts and questions in my mind and that is always ALWAYS a good thing! I'm going to run off and do a self-imposed research paper based on this idea because that's what crazy, learning-obsessed people like me do.

[Isis-Rayne]

Why would Christianity be unreal? Is Wicca unreal? Islam? How can we say that because they're not Pagan/Wiccan, whatever .. that they follow a 'fake' religion? Doesn't saying that make you -exactly- the type of people that we as Pagans are always complaining about?

[ElvenDestiny]

Do you believe Christianity is a true religion, i.e. there is a God and there was a Jesus (etc) or not? (You can also vote to abstain.) Why?

(edit) Due to some shortsighted persons, I would like everyone to please refer to this post (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=1366001&postcount=137) before insulting me as a Christian or as anything else. Thank you.

[Edit edit] The above edit no longer fully applies. A year is a long time.

Based on the original question about Christianity by the person who started the poll, I voted Christianity is not real, and here is why.

I do not believe that Jesus ever existed as anything more than a man, no more important than myself. I believe in all the gods and goddesses to some degree for whatever their worth, so I am sure the god that the Christians worship are among those gods somewhere.

I do not believe that Christianity as the Church decrees is a religion because it has not original foundation and it cares for nothing but money. Of course that is a debate on semantics but you asked my opinion and it is thus. Christianity does not have its own roots, it is a parasite that lives off of other religions, without the other religions it has no basis of belief or any structure by itself. It feeds off of the fears and superstitions of the people and it discredits all other religions and thus gains its strength through ignorance and intolerance to legit religions that have been around since the dawn of belief. Not saying that anything we worship to day or belief we hold today have these foundations but they show tale signs more than Christianity as far as im concerned.

I do believe that the people who worship their god and hold their faiths are fully entitled to do so and by all means I do not discredit their individual beliefs. I only discredit the lies and deceit the Churches claim to be the word of god. Any and all attacks by me to the Christian religion are direct to the church and not the individual believer, if the individual chooses to step in front of the bullet then so be it, it is their will not mine, all wars have casualties.

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

Question? Clever or stupid?
Stupid, obviously. When will people stop bitching and complaining? Because people want to feel persecuted, and because they're whiny little twits who're jealous that Christianity was there bfore Wicca and has a long, verifiable, and often glorious heritage, and that its message must obviously have power, or it would have ceased to exist centuries ago. GROW UP.

[Aquarian_Moon]

Christianity is not real, for 'me'. But it is real for others, just as real as my own beliefs, for those people. I respect all religions, and all ways of thinking, no matter how bad or good, even if I dislike them.

[fangedeshana]

If I were sensitive enough, I would be highly offended by this poll. And I'm not even Christian.

But I'm not, and I'll stick my 2cents in. I wrote Abstain.

I think sugesting any religion is 'fake' is chose minded and a little offensive. Comming for the opinion that all religions lead to the same source, I don't think it matters what belief system you follow, as long as it is enlightening you on your way. This presents an issue in the members in religions that think their religion is the only way, and make negative and violent acts to make others believe what they do.

I do believe Jesus existed, and I do believe he was a great man. I just think his story was embelished with someone with a vivid imagination taking creative licence. It's kind of like chinese whispers. Give it 100 years and the Bible wil start off with "Purple Monkey Dishwasher".

[Kalika]

I chose 'Abstain'.

Christianity is not my religion - but that doesn't make it invalid or untrue.

I think it is as true as any other religion you could name - the followers and believers are what make the religion have validity and worth, and there are plenty of them out there.

As for Jesus, God, etc etc - as I said, it's not my religion - not my place to question whether they do/did exist.

[babygrl35]

I chose abstain.

Christianity is real for the people who believe in it, just like paganism is real for me & everyone else here. If a person believes in something as important as a god then it's real for them. As for Jesus, I believe he was real, there are actually historical records of him being alive. I don't think he was the messiah but I believe he was a great man & prophet.

[Golliath]

jesus was a person, like you and me. He had certain gifts, one being charisma.


fin.



:fpipesmok

[David19]

Based on the original question about Christianity by the person who started the poll, I voted Christianity is not real, and here is why.

I do not believe that Jesus ever existed as anything more than a man, no more important than myself. I believe in all the gods and goddesses to some degree for whatever their worth, so I am sure the god that the Christians worship are among those gods somewhere.

[COLOR=black][SIZE=3]I do not believe that Christianity as the Church decrees is a religion because it has not original foundation and it cares for nothing but money. Of course that is a debate on semantics but you asked my opinion and it is thus. Christianity does not have its own roots, it is a parasite that lives off of other religions, without the other religions it has no basis of belief or any structure by itself. It feeds off of the fears and superstitions of the people and it discredits all other religions and thus gains its strength through ignorance and intolerance to legit religions that have been around since the dawn of belief. Not saying that anything we worship to day or belief we hold today have these foundations but they show tale signs more than Christianity as far as im concerned.

Actually, Christianity does have 'roots' in Judaism (Jesus was a Jew afterall, and the earliest Christian's were Jews, who were then wiped out by the Roman Christian's).

To say that it's 'a parasite that lives off other religions' is extreme, and that could be applied to most religions, even wicca - e.g. a lot of the wiccan myths come from the ancient Sumerian religion - Descent of Inanna, etc plus European myths and folklore and probably lots of others.

Also, while i'm not Christian, i have no idea why people seem to have so much of a problem with Christianity - some of the Christian organizations that i've seen have been helping raise money for Make Poverty History and other campaigns, there are fundamentalist's (although most live in America), but that shouldn't ruin a religion, anymore than Hitler and the Holocaust should damage Germany's or the German people's reputation.

[fangedeshana]

Also, while i'm not Christian, i have no idea why people seem to have so much of a problem with Christianity - some of the Christian organizations that i've seen have been helping raise money for Make Poverty History and other campaigns, there are fundamentalist's (although most live in America), but that shouldn't ruin a religion, anymore than Hitler and the Holocaust should damage Germany's or the German people's reputation.

I feel the same. I have had some really negative situations with most Christian churches, but that has never stoped me biting my nose off to spite my face in relation to Christianity. I know some very loving, englightened people who are Christian. They're not all evangelistic fundamentalists.

[Harmony Aurore]

Do you belive Christianity is a true religion, ie. there is a G!d and there was a Jesus (etc) or not? (You can also vote to abstain.) Why?

(edit) Due to some shortsighted persons, I would like everyone to please refer to this post (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=1366001&postcount=137) before insulting me as a Christian or as anything else. Thank you.

[edit edit] The above edit no longer fully applies. A year is a long time.

whether or not Jesus roamed the earth 2000 years ago is not relevent to whether or not Christianity is a "real" religion. I'm under the impression that it is a real religion, seeing as I pass churches and cathedrals filled with christian practitioners every day... seeing as a good majority of the world's population believes in what Christianity teaches.

If the existance of historical fact pertaining to the teachings were a requirement in order to have a religion, i think we'd all be atheists! Do I have proof that Set ACTUALLY killed Osiris, that Isis revived him long enough to conceive Horus? No, I have no concrete proof, I have the belief in my heart.

Also, if religion is only relevent if it has a proven long history, then can we say that Wicca is a real religion?

This is why your question is completely irrelevent. Religion is NOT based on historical fact, it's based on faith and belief.

edited for spelling/typos

[Johnathan Brisby]

The bible is metaphorical- Moses' "burning bush" is a description of a man's heart opening in unconditional love during a kundalini awakening:hahugh:

[Medb]

I believe it is real for those who choose to be christians. While it is not my favorite of belief systems for a variety of reasons, it does what it should. It gives its followers a feeling that they have a place in the universe and that there is something out there bigger than themselves that cares about them. Which is the goal of a lot of belief systems not just christanity. If it is real for them and gives them hope who am I to say it is not real or a valid path reguardless of wither Jesus was real or not.

[WiccanGoddess]

I believe Jesus once existed. He was a kind and caring man.

What I don't believe is that he ever died. His 'rebirth' and 'rise from the ground' was, in my opinion, simply him, alive as ever. They declared many dead in that time without proper procedure, b/c they lacked the ability, knowledge, and technology to do so. How he could have survived beneath the dirt suits me, but that's what I believe.

[Incendia]

I believe Christianity is a true religion, however, not the ONE true religion. I have never been Christian and, from a hard polytheistic standpoint, I see Jehovah as just another god with His own mythology.

[KylalaKitty]

Do you belive Christianity is a true religion, ie. there is a G!d and there was a Jesus (etc) or not? (You can also vote to abstain.) Why?

(edit) Due to some shortsighted persons, I would like everyone to please refer to this post (http://mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=1366001&postcount=137) before insulting me as a Christian or as anything else. Thank you.

[edit edit] The above edit no longer fully applies. A year is a long time.

....:huh: You're a christian on a Pagan forum? that makes a whole lot of sense. :huh:

[LacyRoze]

....:huh: You're a christian on a Pagan forum? that makes a whole lot of sense. :huh:

Yeah, because there couldn't possibly be open-minded Christians who want to learn about other religions and beliefs. Christians couldn't possibly be interested in oils, incense, candles, gardening, herbs or the hundreds of other topics here.:rolleyes:

[Cat]

Okay, I'll give this a shot.

I had to abstain on the poll because I don't have the slightest idea what a true religion is. I'm not just being literal and pissy here, I have a problem with the whole premise that a false religion is possible.

Which I guess means I should have said its real. Darn.

Do I believe that Jesus as a real historical person--I'm unconvinced. Like several other posters, I don't think its relevant anyhow. I consider him their version of a dying god. I also consider the saints to be deities or demi-deities, so from my persepctive some Christians are polytheists.

Do I believe that the Christian deity exists? Yes, absolutely. I did even before I chatted with Him, and having had the experience convinced me.

I am not and never have been Christian. That doesn't detract from the religion's validity, seeing as how the universe doesn't revolve around me.

[Infinite Grey]

....:huh: You're a christian on a Pagan forum? that makes a whole lot of sense. :huh:

Oppressor! Oppressor!

[Grey]

Yes I believe yahweh and jesus are real, and yes even divine. I dont believe they are the only beings out there of divine stature... but that doesnt make them any less real eh?

[Grey]

....:huh: You're a christian on a Pagan forum? that makes a whole lot of sense. :huh:

Oi, not to mention that many a pagan has been interested in christian beliefs, and the relative beliefs of other pagans on the subject of christianity... *sighs* I think it makes perfect sense.

[David19]

Okay, I'll give this a shot.

I had to abstain on the poll because I don't have the slightest idea what a true religion is. I'm not just being literal and pissy here, I have a problem with the whole premise that a false religion is possible.

Which I guess means I should have said its real. Darn.

Do I believe that Jesus as a real historical person--I'm unconvinced. Like several other posters, I don't think its relevant anyhow. I consider him their version of a dying god. I also consider the saints to be deities or demi-deities, so from my persepctive some Christians are polytheists.

Do I believe that the Christian deity exists? Yes, absolutely. I did even before I chatted with Him, and having had the experience convinced me.

I agree with your post, but could i just ask, what do you mean you chatted with Yahweh (that's the Christian god, right?), and how did you do it, i'm not Christian, but i'm kind of interested in people talking to deities, (probably 'cause i'd like to :)), and, it may be 'cause i'm 1/2 Jewish, but i'm really interested in learning about Yahweh, if this is too off topic or too personal, do you think you could PM me or something, as i'd like to hear a bit more.

Thanks.

[David19]

I believe Christianity is a true religion, however, not the ONE true religion. I have never been Christian and, from a hard polytheistic standpoint, I see Jehovah as just another god with His own mythology.

That is exactly my view too, and i'm a 'hard' polytheist too :).

[David19]

Yeah, because there couldn't possibly be open-minded Christians who want to learn about other religions and beliefs. Christians couldn't possibly be interested in oils, incense, candles, gardening, herbs or the hundreds of other topics here.:rolleyes:



Thanks for saying it, so i didn't have to :).

[PeatBog]

Christians couldn't possibly be interested in oils, incense, candles, gardening, herbs or the hundreds of other topics here.:rolleyes:



Um, aren't there any Christian forums with those topics?

[Cornflake_Girl8]

All religions are real to the people believing it.

[LacyRoze]

Um, aren't there any Christian forums with those topics?

There are a few I'm sure but most aren't very accepting of open-minded Christians.Also, as the first part of my post stated, some of us want to learn about other paths and beliefs.. Sorry if you (that's a general you) don't like my being here, but I'm quite happy here.

[Agaliha]

Abstain.

It's up to the individual to decided what to believe and what not to. Research, read and figure it out for themselves.
Every individual has their own truth and true religion, I don't think there is one for everyone in the world.
What path is for me is not the path for everyone.

[ViolinGoddess]

I beleive that Christianity is real. Of course, I'm a christian.

Violin Goddess

[angle kitsune]

Christianity is a true religion. It gives my sister peace of mind and some faith to fall back on. I also believe christ was a real person who meny people could learn from,weather or not he was the son of god or not. all faith aside,he was a good MAN and should be given respect for his actions no matter what you believe.

[Amythyst]

Of course, it's a real religion practiced by millions of people. Personally, however, I'm not into Christian mythology myself. To each his own.

[whiteravenfire]

I have always considered myself broadly pagan. I've not followed one specific path but rather have imersed myself in different beliefs, trying to grow and find what is right for me.

I've never been particularly interested in Christianity as a gay pagan it never seemed very welcoming. However, within the last three months I've been drawn to Christianity. I have questions, and don't agree with everything I read and hear but there is something at its core that is pulling me in.

I don't believe Christianity is "the one true path" but it is a valid path, one of many. Everything that I've learnt from wicca, heathenism, magick and energy body awarness (chakras) continue to enhance my belief system which is now predominently Christian.

My journey continues :)

[moonbride]

I also feel that it's a very valid path, even if not the path for me. Who am I to say that it's not? I certainly don't like it much when people say that my path is not valid, and I've definitely had my share of that!

[Tanya]

I guess top answer the question begs the question "What is Christianity?"

So... If you were to define that as "The belief that a man named Jesus was the son of God, who came to tell us how to treat each other properly and got killed for his trouble, but his message lived on....."

Than sure, I believe it all.

I believe all of us are the children of the divine, and some of us are able to articulate what that means as far as how we should act, and its great when we remember that even though really amazing folks get killed for saying it.

What I don't buy is that anyone has a corner on the 'child of the divine market,' or gets the right to control the spin on what amazing people say.

[Wolfpoet]

101 people voted that Christianity is not real.

Christians have been oppressing and subjugating pagan faiths for centuries. Telling us such faiths are not reala nd that only through jesus can one find the true faith.

By it's very definition, Paganism acknowledges the existence of multiple faiths and Deities. People are always quick to extol the Pagan virtues of open-mindedness, tolerance and understanding.

Yet 101 of you see fit to deny one faith the very thing you demand for your own. Recognition.

FOR SHAME!

You think two thousand years of oppresion gives us the right to do to Christians what they have done to us? You think we can just write them off the way they do us? You think we can abandon all of our principles as a multi-faith community when it suits us? Christians are entitled to their beliefs, they cross the line when they try to force those beliefs on us. But not all of them are the same, many are content to follow their own teachings and not try to convert.

I came to this forum because it promised openess, it promised a welcoming forum where people could exchange ideas and teachings.

To find that 101 of you could be so cose minded and bigoted as to deny a faith it's existence deeply shocks and offends me.

[OnyxStar]

I believe in them as a concentration of energy from people's beliefs. But I also think that energy is hard to access for most Christians because they expect their dreams to come true without any work on their part, etc.

[Zibblsnrt]

A lot of it's the new-convert syndrome.

A lot of people on this forum have recently discovered the various pagan beliefs, or have recently picked one and are still learning about them, or are here for the ambience, etc. New people to a faith tend to be rather, er, zealous about it. It's something you're more likely to notice in new Christians, simply because there's more of 'em per capita. It's not just a religious thing: new libertarians take Randian philosophy to extremes, new transhumanists become wide-eyed Singularitarians in addition to being evangelical atheists. For the most part it's a phase people go through while reinterpreting their worldview; thoughts are elastic and bouncy.

With new or younger pagans, it's the same way - for the most part, a belief's a belief. It's also common to identify oneself in terms of what one isn't as much as one is. There's a common running gag up here that Canadians don't know what they are, but they sure as hell aren't Americans, for instance. If you swap "Canadian" for "pagan" and "American" for "Christian," you'll find that same mindset to be common in the pagan community.

People see one another in terms of contrasts as much as similarities. A lot of folks who think of themselves as pagan define that as not Christian (which is roughly accurate; "pagan" after all basically means "not an Abrahamic faith"), and a good set of those people will often take it a step further and begin defining their beliefs as oppositional to Christianity, as opposed to just not Christianity.

Do I think that justifies it? Of course not. It explains it, though, and things which explain other things are generally worth knowing for one reason or another.

[Ron]

101 people voted that Christianity is not real.

Christians have been oppressing and subjugating pagan faiths for centuries. Telling us such faiths are not reala nd that only through jesus can one find the true faith.

By it's very definition, Paganism acknowledges the existence of multiple faiths and Deities. People are always quick to extol the Pagan virtues of open-mindedness, tolerance and understanding.

Yet 101 of you see fit to deny one faith the very thing you demand for your own. Recognition.

FOR SHAME!

You think two thousand years of oppresion gives us the right to do to Christians what they have done to us? You think we can just write them off the way they do us? You think we can abandon all of our principles as a multi-faith community when it suits us? Christians are entitled to their beliefs, they cross the line when they try to force those beliefs on us. But not all of them are the same, many are content to follow their own teachings and not try to convert.

I came to this forum because it promised openess, it promised a welcoming forum where people could exchange ideas and teachings.

To find that 101 of you could be so cose minded and bigoted as to deny a faith it's existence deeply shocks and offends me.

Hi. Um. I started this poll, about two years ago to find out if persons on MysticWicks believed that the works of Chr-stianity held any "power". That was the real question I was asking. There were several persons whom I met who based their religious beliefs-- as Zibblsnrt kindly mentioned-- opposed to Chr-stianty... in the way that some Abrahamic groups work in fear of Shaytaan/Satan and the "Eternal Flame"/hell.

Now, where I must disagree with you is in that having beliefs which conclude the Chr-stian story or the Chr-stian religious system-- in all its incarnations --does not work, is faulty, cannot work, is contrary to one's own understanding of divinity, or does not appear to be something that could possibly work,... does not give Chr-stianity any less recognition. (one freakin' long sentence).

There is a difference between the disagreement that these 101 persons have, and the disrespect that some members of this community have toward Chr-stianity; and these two things are not to be confused.

These 101 persons are simply saying, "While I understand that Chr-stianity is a popular faith, I do not personally believe that it works in terms of the way that it proclaims."

This is a very personal, fair and acceptable statement.

As a Neopagan, I do not want the rest of the world to agree that my religious system-- or whatever you'll have it called --works, or is even true. I just expect to be treated with respect and dignity.

Where be the shame in this?

[Zibblsnrt]

Out of curiosity, why do you refuse to spell out the word "Christian?"


Hi. Um. I started this poll, about two years ago to find out if persons on MysticWicks believed that the works of Chr-stianity held any "power". That was the real question I was asking. There were several persons whom I met who based their religious beliefs-- as Zibblsnrt kindly mentioned-- opposed to Chr-stianty... in the way that some Abrahamic groups work in fear of Shaytaan/Satan and the "Eternal Flame"/hell.

Those really are different, however, in that the idea of Satan or the Renaissance-era notion of damnation are intrinsic to the Christian (or, as you implicitly note, Muslim) faith. It's a conflict internal to the belief system, as opposed to basing the belief system on opposition to another clearly-defined, existing one.

The argument I was trying to make in my previous post is that people who define their views in those terms are less defining their own views, and much more engaging in backlash against the dominant tradition (or, in the case of the other conversions I mentioned, the one they just left). That's a common, annoying, but understandable element of people new to a belief system. If it's maintained well into their adoption of a new worldview, however, I think that's symptomatic of some problems.


These 101 persons are simply saying, "While I understand that Chr-stianity is a popular faith, I do not personally believe that it works in terms of the way that it proclaims."

I profoundly doubt that's all that those 101 people think. Examples in this thread include someone taking some flak for daring to be a Christian on this forum, and another person declaring Christianity to be a "parasite" rather than an actual belief system - and those are just in the last third or so of the thread!


As a Neopagan, I do not want the rest of the world to agree that my religious system-- or whatever you'll have it called --works, or is even true. I just expect to be treated with respect and dignity.

Where be the shame in this?

The shame is in those people who, as I (and, rather more vehemently, Wolfpoet) said, actually define their religious worldview in terms of an opposition to or hatred for Christianity - when they refuse to treat it with respect and dignity, and consider that refusal intrinsic to their faith.

Disagreeing with it, or even disliking it, is one thing, but when you start taking another, unrelated-to-your-own belief system and use opposition to it as a fundamental facet of your own views, it's time to start questioning why (or even whether) someone's holding their beliefs in the first place.

[Ron]

Out of curiosity, why do you refuse to spell out the word "Christian?"
My father was a minister in the United Church of Canada, which is probably why the life and times of Chr-st are very important to me. Nevertheless, I have Jewish friends who become offended if I say G-d or Chr-st, et cetera. Thus, several years ago, I just stopped all together. The wry bit of the tale is that my father loves to say "for Chr-ssake" and the lot. I just don't. I don't like to... I know that this has nothing to do with anything near the Ten Commandments-- I would suppose it is reverence taken to an extreme.


Those really are different, however, in that the idea of Satan or the Renaissance-era notion of damnation are intrinsic to the Christian (or, as you implicitly note, Muslim) faith. It's a conflict internal to the belief system, as opposed to basing the belief system on opposition to another clearly-defined, existing one.

The argument I was trying to make in my previous post is that people who define their views in those terms are less defining their own views, and much more engaging in backlash against the dominant tradition (or, in the case of the other conversions I mentioned, the one they just left). That's a common, annoying, but understandable element of people new to a belief system. If it's maintained well into their adoption of a new worldview, however, I think that's symptomatic of some problems. Yes, I know that, but in doing so you reminded me of a couple of Islamist boys who tried very hard to convince me to follow their ways on the pure fear of 'the Burning'... so I credited you. (and also on the complexity of DNA... lol *snorts*... "We're complicated, so obviously the Qu'ran is completely right" ... that's a giant leap. )



I profoundly doubt that's all that those 101 people think. Examples in this thread include someone taking some flak for daring to be a Christian on this forum, and another person declaring Christianity to be a "parasite" rather than an actual belief system - and those are just in the last third or so of the thread! Yes, and so I do. I will note the operative clause that I used: "simply saying." I was giving a very very brief précis of the situation. But I do appreciate that there was extremism present throughout the thread.


The shame is in those people who, as I (and, rather more vehemently, Wolfpoet) said, actually define their religious worldview in terms of an opposition to or hatred for Christianity - when they refuse to treat it with respect and dignity, and consider that refusal intrinsic to their faith. Yes, that would be shameful. But that is not the elegant point that Wolfpoet was making. Rather, it was:
To find that 101 of you could be so cose minded and bigoted as to deny a faith it's existence deeply shocks and offends me. And I have difficulty with that, as I said in my earlier post, because the existence of Chr-stianity was not in question.

Bendithiau.

[Wolfpoet]

101 people voted that "Christianity is not real"

Any other way you care to spin that?

[Ron]

101 people voted that "Christianity is not real"

Any other way you care to spin that?Hi there!

From my opening post:

Do you [believe] Christianity is a true religion, ie. there is a G!d and there was a Jesus (etc) or not? (You can also vote to abstain.) Why?

The question clearly asks if the Chr-stian system is believed in by respondents. There is nothing inherently shameful in responding any of the three options, since the question asks for personal conceptions, personal beliefs.

[The High Queen of Faerie]

Personally I think it's disrespectful to call someone else's faith false. Sure, Christianity is not my thing, but that does not decrease its validity in the eyes of others. It is real to the people who believe in it, and isn't that all that matters?

[David19]

Personally I think it's disrespectful to call someone else's faith false. Sure, Christianity is not my thing, but that does not decrease its validity in the eyes of others. It is real to the people who believe in it, and isn't that all that matters?

Same as me, i believe Jesus and Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah exist (whether they're seperate entities or the same one?), there just not my gods, i think that's what being a polytheist is, believing in gods, even if there not your gods (like the Norse would have worshipped the Norse gods, but they would have accepted that the Jew's had Yahweh, etc).

Not sure if that last bit made much sense, but i hope it did :).

[wolfjan1]

Christianity is a very real religion just as Wicca, paganism or any path that we follow here. The problem is that a GREAT deal of the LEADERS of organized religion have a tendency to offshoot and begin to focus on some pretty disturbing tangents.
They become legends in their own minds and begin to tell their avid followers that the rest of the planet is going to some special hell and just they will get the land of milk and honey.
Then, there are those pesky TELEVANGELESTS that take vulnerable people's money right out of their hands and build themselves a beautiful mansion and matching dog house.
But I have had some true Christians as friends and family. The type that show up at your door and provide whatever you might need when you are in crisis. So, Maybe they are following Jesus' teachings in the bible. I have read that book and found out what the Bush's and the Halliburtins(oops, I meant the romans and the mobs) did to him. Pretty gruesome, Huh?
I really think that it is a good idea to have an open mind, be respectful and follow your own path. And READ! Everything you can get your hands on.

[Fiamma]

no more or less real than any other religion.

[Nox_Mortus]

Christianity is as real as its belivers make it. As for Jesus consensus among historians is that he was a real person, so I'm going to go with that.

[Aina]

It's a real as anyother religon. It was founded by someone, just like any other religon.
Kind of a contraversal post, isn't it?

[spiritbear99]

It's impossible to deny Christianity is a valid religion because so many people follow it... religiously. I do not, however, think that modern Christianity is anything like the original that Jesus started. That is the difference.

Christianity today, in my view, is merely a compilation of whatever Saint Paul, the Popes, Saint Thomas Acquinas (sp?), Saint Augustine, and Emperor Constantine shaped it into. Most of whatever Jesus taught was probably lost in the mix, primarily through translation, and as the times changed. I also believe that most Christians do not follow the doctrine... I feel that there are many who go to church simply to avoid "Hell", since Christianity is so easy to join. If people weren't afraid of being burned alive, separated from their family members for all of eternity, and being tortured by the "Devil", I'm sure there wouldn't be as many Christians as there are today.

-- Gally

[plumedsnake]

Then, there are those pesky TELEVANGELESTS that take vulnerable people's money right out of their hands and build themselves a beautiful mansion and matching dog house.
But I have had some true Christians as friends and family. The type that show up at your door and provide whatever you might need when you are in crisis. So, Maybe they are following Jesus' teachings in the bible. I have read that book and found out what the Bush's and the Halliburtins(oops, I meant the romans and the mobs) did to him. Pretty gruesome, Huh?

My question is: If there was no christianity would there be any less televangelists and vermin taking money from vulnerable people. Wouldn't the televangelist still be there but only that they'll be using what ever is the prevalent religion whether it be wiccan or whatever.

My second question is: Those 'true christians' that we have as friends and family, are they the way they are because of the teachings of christ or are they just essentially good people whether or not they are christians or not. I mean, aren't there good 'christianly' buddhists and hindus and moslems.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that people are people and will do whatever it is that people do according to their varying natures whether it be stealing and lying or being helpful and caring. It's actually down to your personal nature.

[plumedsnake]

It's impossible to deny Christianity is a valid religion because so many people follow it... religiously. I do not, however, think that modern Christianity is anything like the original that Jesus started. That is the difference.


But did Jesus actually start christianity? In qumran scrolls have been found predating Jesus that contain sayings that Jesus was supposed to have been the author of. If Jesus was quoting others then who were these others. Were they the essenes?
The problem has been caused by Orthodoxy. We have had orthodoxy so rammed down our throats that we can no longer even imagine a world without it. Jewish orthodoxy is only about 1000 years old. At the time of Jesus Judaism was a rich and diverse soup of beliefs. The temple was being controlled by a group called the Pharisees but there were thousands of others types of Jews with quite radically different beliefs.

When the Irenaeus' of yore were trying to create a christian orthodoxy they referred to an 'apostolic' tradition. What they felt that the apostles believed and followed. But we find that Jesus' apostles had different takes on what Christianity was. And the greatest influence on the eventual orthodoxy was Paul who had never actually met Jesus at all. Paul was obviously an eloquent and forceful guy and when he was challenged by St. Peter he totally subdued
peter. Jesus also had other followers that the 12 didn't know about. In the gospels they encountered another group preaching about Jesus and they tried to get the other group to stop. They went back to report to Jesus, but Jesus told them that the other group were his followers too and they didn't know the half of what was going down.

It's a fascinating history, but what I can surmise from it all is that there wasn't actually a fixed set of beliefs that defined what christianity was, and if not for a twist of history Christianity would be no different from the thousands of other forms of Judaism prior to jewish orthodoxy.

[LostSheep]

Why should Christianity be any less real than any other religion? nearly every religion (except Hinduism) had a founder originally, whether real or mythical, every religion has some form of mythology surrounding its origins, every religion has had various sects or spinoffs going off in various directions from it. Do I think Christianity is real? Well, it exists. :-/ Do I think Jesus really was who Christianity makes him out to be? i don't know, but, well... I do think there was something that made him different from all the other wandering preachers, rabbis, healers, would-be Messiahs, who were around palestine at that time. Do i think that his message (whether or not he ever actually said the words that are put down on the page) had some meaning, has some relevance now? Well, yes. But that's just how I feel about it. I'd never say that it's the One True religion, or even that Jesus was "the way, the truth and the life", (that was probably put in his mouth by whoever wrote the gospel of John), but it seems real to me. But that doesn't mean that i don't think that any other is equally real or true.

[David19]

My question is: If there was no christianity would there be any less televangelists and vermin taking money from vulnerable people. Wouldn't the televangelist still be there but only that they'll be using what ever is the prevalent religion whether it be wiccan or whatever.

I agree with you, even if Christianity wasn't around, televangelists and fundamentalists would be, except, instead of using Christianity, the fundamentalists and conartists would use Wicca or Asatru or Buddhism, Taoism or whatever.

[kalín]

I think there's more then one truth. :idea:

[plumedsnake]

I think there's more then one truth. :idea:

But what is truth? Before we start counting it let's define it first

[aluokaloo]

yes I believe it is a real valid religion, I can't believe there aree so many people who think otherwisw, unless they were kidding.

[imapepper]

I think religion is a way of explaining or trying to articulate an Ultimate Reality, so I believe Christianity is just as valid as any other religion. They all hold some truth, maybe not all of it, but I find something relevant and beautiful about each one. You don't have to agree with a certain religion or like it, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

[plumedsnake]

I think religion is a way of explaining or trying to articulate an Ultimate Reality, so I believe Christianity is just as valid as any other religion. They all hold some truth, maybe not all of it, but I find something relevant and beautiful about each one. You don't have to agree with a certain religion or like it, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

But religion goes much further than try to explain or articulate reality. It it only did that then it would merely be a Cosmology, or more broadly, a science.
Religion also, and this is more crucial and at the core of the whole thing, seeks to improve our life and condition based on it's perception of reality. It is the attempt to make things better that is at the core of religion, hence the rituals and the sacrifices and the various practices. If it were just an ideology and an intellectual musing made up by creative thinkers then any religion would be just as good as any other.
But if it has an objective then some religions will be more effective, hence better, than others.
Whether one agrees with religion or likes it is totally beyond the point. We can like hypotheses, we can agree with theories and ideologies, but REligion is neither of these. Whether or not one likes or agrees with religion in any of it's forms religion is still relevant.

[plumedsnake]

It's a real as anyother religon. It was founded by someone, just like any other religon.
Kind of a contraversal post, isn't it?

My religion wasn't founded by someone. It was set by God.

[mystic_zoe]

i think like many people that it is a real religionand is just as valid as any other.
but the religion isnt for me but it doesnt make it any less real or valid.

[imapepper]

But religion goes much further than try to explain or articulate reality. It it only did that then it would merely be a Cosmology, or more broadly, a science.
Religion also, and this is more crucial and at the core of the whole thing, seeks to improve our life and condition based on it's perception of reality. It is the attempt to make things better that is at the core of religion, hence the rituals and the sacrifices and the various practices. If it were just an ideology and an intellectual musing made up by creative thinkers then any religion would be just as good as any other.
But if it has an objective then some religions will be more effective, hence better, than others.
Whether one agrees with religion or likes it is totally beyond the point. We can like hypotheses, we can agree with theories and ideologies, but REligion is neither of these. Whether or not one likes or agrees with religion in any of it's forms religion is still relevant.

Well I disagree, I think the objective of every religion boils down to the same thing, to explain an Ultimate Reality and I stay away from saying it is 'an attempt to make things better' because for some religions the way the world spins is fine as it is and doesn't need improvement because it's all a matter of perspective, not to mention there are other religions that believe in chaos and destruction. Also, what is wrong with mixing intellect and religion? I personally think there isn't enough of that. You can believe in whatever you want and still hold an objective and scholarly view of it. I also don't pit God against science or vice versa, just because I don't seperate the two, doesn't mean I think religion is irrelevant, I just don't have the same definition as you.

[Aoibheal]

Christianity a real religion? Sure. If they believe in it and it makes them feel good then yeah. I don't really care what anyone believes so long as they don't force feed me it and can respect me for being different. Some people aren't capable of that, not solely christians other religious people are like that too, so just gotta take the good with the bad and don't spend time with those you constantly argue with.

[Wicce]

I think there's more then one truth.


even if each religion were an equally valid path to one very understanding creator, that would still be one truth, not many separate truths.

[plumedsnake]

Well I disagree, I think the objective of every religion boils down to the same thing, to explain an Ultimate Reality and I stay away from saying it is 'an attempt to make things better' because for some religions the way the world spins is fine as it is and doesn't need improvement because it's all a matter of perspective, not to mention there are other religions that believe in chaos and destruction..

Wow! I'm gonna need you to tell me which religion you are aware of that thinks that the world spins just fine. After reading your post I searched and searched through the archives of my mind but I couldn't come up with one.
Furthermore, I'm definately gonna need you to tell me which religions seek to create chaos and destruction.
I still think what you are using as the definition of religion is in fact the definition of Cosmology. All religionism utilise one cosmology or the other but that cannot be said to be the basic function of religion. Then again, maybe it is a matter of definitions what you call a religion, I call a cosmology.




Also, what is wrong with mixing intellect and religion? I personally think there isn't enough of that. You can believe in whatever you want and still hold an objective and scholarly view of it. I also don't pit God against science or vice versa, just because I don't seperate the two, doesn't mean I think religion is irrelevant, I just don't have the same definition as you.

I never said that mixing intellect with religion was wrong. I said that any attempt to explain reality is called a cosmology. Religion uses cosmology, but cosmology is not religion. I haven't pitted god against science either.
Truth be told, I'm totally confused by what you understand as religion. Especially religion that seeks to reverse the natural human tendency to improve or better life. Frankly I don't know of any human activity that seeks to destroy, ie reduce value. Even the suicide bombers, jihadists, and 9-11 guys believed that they were improving their world when they did, and do, they things they did/do.

I need examples of these destruction religions. Cheers

[plumedsnake]

Can Christianity still be considered to be a real religion if it contains internal contradictions?

What about if it is historically inaccurate?

What about if it fails to deliver on any of it's promises?

[River]

Is Christianity real?

Well. Christianity certainly exists, so yes.

[imapepper]

Wow! I'm gonna need you to tell me which religion you are aware of that thinks that the world spins just fine. After reading your post I searched and searched through the archives of my mind but I couldn't come up with one.
Furthermore, I'm definately gonna need you to tell me which religions seek to create chaos and destruction.
I still think what you are using as the definition of religion is in fact the definition of Cosmology. All religionism utilise one cosmology or the other but that cannot be said to be the basic function of religion. Then again, maybe it is a matter of definitions what you call a religion, I call a cosmology.





I never said that mixing intellect with religion was wrong. I said that any attempt to explain reality is called a cosmology. Religion uses cosmology, but cosmology is not religion. I haven't pitted god against science either.
Truth be told, I'm totally confused by what you understand as religion. Especially religion that seeks to reverse the natural human tendency to improve or better life. Frankly I don't know of any human activity that seeks to destroy, ie reduce value. Even the suicide bombers, jihadists, and 9-11 guys believed that they were improving their world when they did, and do, they things they did/do.

I need examples of these destruction religions. Cheers

You can look at any earth based faith of the native Americas (the Aztec philosophy of Teotl is interesting) and see that the natives felt nature, although dual, was perfect as is, and that the world is a series of dark and light, no one part is bigger or more important than the other. Also, in ancient Greece you have some pretty nasty gods, or what might seem like nasty to most, yet they were revered and respected, nobody was running around trying to destroy these gods, they recognized their place in the universe.

As far as chaos and destruction, there are some devil worshippers (stress on the word some) and I don't say 'Satanists' because it's not the same thing, who feel it is their duty to engage in human and animal sacrifice, as well as anarchy, and excessive force at all costs. There are also Santeros who take on this philosophy and are the favored religion of many drug traffickers here in Mexico as well as South America, who, trust me, are not into saving the trees and making the world a better place; their objective is money, power, and sex at all costs, no matter who gets killed in the process, including children who are usually kidnapped first, sexually abused, and then sacrificed. These are only two I know of which believe in and encourage murder, rape, child sexual abuse, cannabilism, etc.

Let me clarify, my definition of religion is metaphysical cosmology in motion/applied/manifest, if that helps.

[plumedsnake]

Is Christianity real?

Well. Christianity certainly exists, so yes.

I asked if it was a real religion not if it was real at all.

[plumedsnake]

Let me clarify, my definition of religion is metaphysical cosmology in motion/applied/manifest, if that helps.

Thank you very much. Now that goes much further than just trying to explain an ultimate reality. The key part for me is the in motion/applied/manifest part. In fact the cosmologising is just a necessary step in order to effectively achieve a certain end. To the extent that the cosmology is inaccurate the religion will be ineffective. If in my world view I believed that eating carrots will give me radar like night vision, then I can practice eating carrots till I go orange in the face yet I will remain quite blind in the dark.

Now once the religious practitioner has cosmologised, he will proceed to to practice certain rituals to effect an end or the other. I insist that all human soul driven endeavour is to maximise value. What do I mean?
We all have value systems that guide our actions. This differs from individual to individual and from culture to culture but they are still value systems, and we all seek to reach the peak of our value system. How we do so will depend largely on the cosmology we believe in.
Let us consider some of the examples you've quoted:



You can look at any earth based faith of the native Americas (the Aztec philosophy of Teotl is interesting) and see that the natives felt nature, although dual, was perfect as is, and that the world is a series of dark and light, no one part is bigger or more important than the other.

I'll admit not knowing much about the Aztec but it is my belief that they were an extremely ritualistic people. They practiced sacrifices of all sorts etc. Now I don't think that they thought, hey the world is perfect as it is but let's just kill a whole heap of kids just for the fun of it. They practiced ritual in order to achieve or secure harmony with nature because that was, within their value system, the highest good. They had a sense of the highest value and in their bid to acheive this they practiced religious ritual. I know of no religion that does not have rituals that are designed to achieve a certain end.





Also, in ancient Greece you have some pretty nasty gods, or what might seem like nasty to most, yet they were revered and respected, nobody was running around trying to destroy these gods, they recognized their place in the universe.

There are ancient greek gods that will seem nasty to us today, but within the cosmology of Ancient greece and their value system these gods had their uses and they probably were not considered nasty at all. Gods of War are only nasty gods to a peaceful people.



As far as chaos and destruction, there are some devil worshippers (stress on the word some) and I don't say 'Satanists' because it's not the same thing, who feel it is their duty to engage in human and animal sacrifice, as well as anarchy, and excessive force at all costs.

Again, as with the 9-11 bombers, they believe themselves to be achieving value by destroying what they associate with their antagonists. Human and animal sacrifices are essential parts of religions that accept certain cosmologies. That is not Evil in and of itself. Christianity is one of those religions and that's the religionism with the most members in the world . . . ever.

There are some people, many people in fact, whose world view is very much based on a dog eat dog/survival of the nastiest cosmology. This is a world view seemingly supported by Darwinian scientists and others. This world view coupled with a value system that places the self above all other concerns (a very common value system too) very easily explains your above examples.
What's good for me is my highest good is a very common value system and for the majority of people in the world who live by this killing others to achieve this Good is a worthwhile sacrifice. Just ask George Bush, he can explain it to you better. I'd say ask the Pope who ordered the Albigensian crusade but he's long dead and gone.




There are also Santeros who take on this philosophy and are the favored religion of many drug traffickers here in Mexico as well as South America, who, trust me, are not into saving the trees and making the world a better place; their objective is money, power, and sex at all costs, no matter who gets killed in the process, including children who are usually kidnapped first, sexually abused, and then sacrificed. These are only two I know of which believe in and encourage murder, rape, child sexual abuse, cannabilism, etc.

Ahh! a religion that I know a little something about. I can tell lyou straight now that there is nothing in Orisha religions that tells people to rape children or eat them. I should know because I'm an Awo. I know that there are traditions of magic and other arts that some orisha devotees might get involved in but they are not a part of the Orisha traditions and within the cosmology of orisha traditions there is a payback for such actions. Orisha is about coming into harmony with Earth energies. Orisha is about fulfilling divine anointing. Orisha is about manifesting divine potential, Ifa is about Iwa Pele. That is the highest good taught in Ifa. It would be a injustice to my Good Head for me not to correct you on that point.

[latin_baller]

So far 42.03% believe yourselves are going to hell...

[David19]

So far 42.03% believe yourselves are going to hell...

I don't think that accepting Christianity as a valid path means we think we're going to hell, it's called acceptance.

[Aoibheal]

I agree. I'd have to believe in hell in order to go there.

[latin_baller]

I don't think that accepting Christianity as a valid path means we think we're going to hell, it's called acceptance.

You can be tolerant of a religion but still believe it to be completely (or partially at least) false. By believing Christianity to be true, that means accepting the belief that those who have not accepted Jesus are going to hell to be punished for all eternity.

I think you might be a little afraid of seeming unpolitically correct because there is a difference between seeing things as valid and tolerating them. Just like mormonism, everyone outside of it knows it is completely fictional, ie. Jews living in America before Columbus, or Him deciphering Egytpian heiroglyphs (when later it was deciphered for real, proving him completely wrong). Lots of people know Mormonism is fictional yet have respect for the people who have those beliefs.

I think this place is way too PC.

[Aoibheal]

I don't think we fall into the boat of believing that it is true, we are just debating on whether it is a real option. Your post is interesting though, I like when people make me think.

[latin_baller]

I don't think we fall into the boat of believing that it is true, we are just debating on whether it is a real option. Your post is interesting though, I like when people make me think.

The option is real, otherwise no one would be Christian but im thinking along the lines of "is what there religion says (the bible) real?"

[plumedsnake]

The option is real, otherwise no one would be Christian but im thinking along the lines of "is what there religion says (the bible) real?"

Ah! Everyone was discussing whether or no it was an option. That must be why my questions got blanked. I'll ask again:



Can Christianity still be considered to be a real religion if it contains internal contradictions?

What about if it is historically inaccurate?

What about if it fails to deliver on any of it's promises?


As regards the PC part that you were complaining about, you should check the title of this site. It is called a Spiritual Sanctuary. It would hardly be a sanctuary if questers after truth started asking uncomfortable questions about people's beliefs.

We've got the option of PC and peace, or Truth Quest and battered egos. I think most people would rather have peace.

[LadyDancer1181]

Since this thread has been replied to so many times, I will express my opinions in regard to the OP. I think Christianity is true for those who adhere to it. While it may not be a beliefs system I can lend personal credence to, I feel that if it brings people peace and comfort then it is right for them. Just as I don't want to be attacked for what I place my faith in, I strive to not attack when others choose a different path. If you study various religions, you will see that there are common threads that run through all of them.

As a practicing Wiccan, I believe in the Goddess and the God. Most Christians I have spoken with believe the God of Judeo-Christianity is gender-neutral, but refer to him using masculine pronouns because that is how He is referred to in the Bible. I do believe that there was a man named Jesus or Yeshua who traveled the land being a peace maker and maybe even a little bit of a folk magic healer. I don't believe he was the Messiah or that belief in him guarantees an eternal spot in heaven; however, Christians do and if that is what pleases them I have no grievances with that.

I remember one time I was lurking on a message forum for Atheists and Agnostics. Some of the members there were downright violent in their approach to Christianity. They would throw things at street preachers, stated they were trying to have Christianity outlawed because it is a "dangerous" religion. Any religion can be dangerous when practiced in a perverted manner by those who do not understand the tenets of their faith.

[David19]

You can be tolerant of a religion but still believe it to be completely (or partially at least) false. By believing Christianity to be true, that means accepting the belief that those who have not accepted Jesus are going to hell to be punished for all eternity.

No, I can accept that the Christian pantheon exists, and I can accept that Christians have generally real spritual and mystical experiences with gods like YHWH, Jesus, Mary, etc.

They just aren't my gods that's all.

[latin_baller]

No, I can accept that the Christian pantheon exists, and I can accept that Christians have generally real spritual and mystical experiences with gods like YHWH, Jesus, Mary, etc.

They just aren't my gods that's all.

If you believe the Christian pantheon exists then that would mean you believe they will send you to hell. If these beings do exist they will send us all to hell...

But I know I cant change you so go on believing whatever you want...:wave:

[imapepper]

Ahh! a religion that I know a little something about. I can tell lyou straight now that there is nothing in Orisha religions that tells people to rape children or eat them. I should know because I'm an Awo. I know that there are traditions of magic and other arts that some orisha devotees might get involved in but they are not a part of the Orisha traditions and within the cosmology of orisha traditions there is a payback for such actions. Orisha is about coming into harmony with Earth energies. Orisha is about fulfilling divine anointing. Orisha is about manifesting divine potential, Ifa is about Iwa Pele. That is the highest good taught in Ifa. It would be a injustice to my Good Head for me not to correct you on that point.

Thank you Plumed for clarifying, I suppose my run-ins as well as the word on the street, has been mostly negative regarding Santeros. I haven't met a 'good' one yet but it seems, from what you say, that the others who are eating people and raping children are probably not fully aware of the tennants? I don't know, I'm guessing, or like you said, they could be getting involved in other arts and coming up with their own mix. I never thought Santeria was what it dominantly seems to be here, but maybe the people here also are just so terrified of it that these wild stories get passed on, like Haiti being damned. Seeing as that I never met a Santero that didn't fall into the good category, I should say thus far, I shouldn't have assumed all are as such so I appreciate your clarification, and I also want to thank you for being so respectful and insightful.

:wave:

[David19]

If you believe the Christian pantheon exists then that would mean you believe they will send you to hell. If these beings do exist they will send us all to hell...

I don't get that, believing in a pantheon doesn't mean you follow them, same as I believe in the Wiccan Goddess and God, yet that doesn't mean I'm going to get affected by their 3 fold law, etc.

Besides, not all Christians believe in hell, and also there isn't a hell in Judaism at all.

[LostSheep]

If you believe the Christian pantheon exists then that would mean you believe they will send you to hell. If these beings do exist they will send us all to hell...

But I know I cant change you so go on believing whatever you want...:wave:

Well, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, at least, had an equivalent, didn't they? Hades, the Underworld... so if we accept the validity of those belief systems, does that mean we have to believe that when we die, we'll be ferried by Charon over the Styx?

[Sequoia]

Christianity is a real religion. As far as, "Jesus was the Son" and "There is only one God" goes, that's more a matter of personal opinion than fact or fiction.

I mean... there was obviously a historical figure Jesus, but was he the Son? And how could you ever prove such a thing?

Christianity is as real as Paganism is.

[plumedsnake]

Since this thread has been replied to so many times, I will express my opinions in regard to the OP. I think Christianity is true for those who adhere to it. While it may not be a beliefs system I can lend personal credence to, I feel that if it brings people peace and comfort then it is right for them.

I totally agree that if a fallacy brings comfort and peace then it is worth indulging it. Like if a mate dumps his girlfriend for another woman, but he's told her that he thinks he's gay. If she comes to me crying, I'll go along with the gay story.

But that was not what the OP was asking. It wasn't asking if fallacies where worth indulging in. It asked whether or not Christianity was a Fallacy. That is a totally different question .

I've never really understood this 'if it's true for you then that's valid' argument. If I thought rat poison was nourishing and I ate it would I continue to live because the nourishment was true for me? Or would I die?
Truth is independent of Belief.

[LostSheep]

just wondering .... would this question be asked about any other religion? About Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any pagan path? Not just questioning particular aspects 0f it, but whether it's actually "true" , whatever "truth" is? And is there ever any independent, objective truth ?

Just wondering.

[Aoibheal]

I hold the same feelings I do for any other religion as I do this one. If it makes them happy then who am I to go around telling them it is false just because I don't believe in it? I would not like it if people were that way to me and sometimes people are, but that is something you just have to deal with.

[CoolJ]

Christianity is just as much true as any religion...

[banondraig]

That I don't follow Christianity myself negates neither its existence, nor its validity to its followers.

[Sequoia]

Christianity is just as much true as any religion...


That I don't follow Christianity myself negates neither its existence, nor its validity to its followers.

Quoted for truth.

[latin_baller]

:sick:

[plumedsnake]

just wondering .... would this question be asked about any other religion? About Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any pagan path? Not just questioning particular aspects 0f it, but whether it's actually "true" , whatever "truth" is? And is there ever any independent, objective truth ?

Just wondering.

In my case, the answer is yes. I've asked this question of just about every religionism that I've ever come across.

Is there an objective independent truth? The whole way the human mind operates is based on the assumption that there is. Otherwise what is the point of having an inquiring mind. Exploration, and investigation implies that there is something out there to be discovered. If we could just make it up then what is the point of the investigation.

[plumedsnake]

Christianity is just as much true as any religion...

I would disagree with this. Why? Well, as I said before part of almost every religion is a cosmology, and cosmologies are either true or not true. Scientific discoveries have found the cosmologies of many religions to be untrue. ie the world is not flat, supported by pillars above a mass of water (jewish cosmology). History also contradicts what a lot of other religions say, so they are patently not true.

Then there are other religions that allow for evolving cosmologies. They are not rigid about what they say being absolute truth. These religions for me are infinitely more valid than the rigid ones.

Now no cosmology is absolutely true, even those hypothesised by science. New discoveries are constantly being found that require us changing our model. However science is infinitely superior to those rigid religions because science too allows for it's cosmologies to evolve.

If religions are just about making you feel better about yourself then many religions are just mendacious concoctions, because the religions themselves claim to be a whole lot more than that. And, I don't know about anyone else but, if someone makes a claim to me and can't back it up then I call that person a ****ing Liar. I don't consider lies to be valid in any way shape or form.

I con man went to prison in england a while back for duping women and telling them he was a spy. All the women said that they had the time of their lives and if they had to do it again they probably would. He still went to prison. Seems the law thinks that a liar is a liar too whether or not he tells enjoyable lies.

[LostSheep]

I would disagree with this. Why? Well, as I said before part of almost every religion is a cosmology, and cosmologies are either true or not true. Scientific discoveries have found the cosmologies of many religions to be untrue. ie the world is not flat, supported by pillars above a mass of water (jewish cosmology). History also contradicts what a lot of other religions say, so they are patently not true.

Then there are other religions that allow for evolving cosmologies. They are not rigid about what they say being absolute truth. These religions for me are infinitely more valid than the rigid ones.

Now no cosmology is absolutely true, even those hypothesised by science. New discoveries are constantly being found that require us changing our model. However science is infinitely superior to those rigid religions because science too allows for it's cosmologies to evolve. . But if science is always finding new things, and what we think is true this year might turn out to be not so next year, how can we say that there is an absolute truth? or is it just that there is one, but we haven't found it yet?
science too allows for it's cosmologies to evolve But what about those scientists (looks at Dawkins) who are absolutely adamant that religion isn't true, and science has, or will have all the answers? what if science never finds all the answers to everything? Will they just keep putting off the moment of revelation of the absolute truth for ever? Or will they ever concede that science might not have all the answers? Isn't Dawkins' attitude just as rigid as the religions that he denies?

[David19]

I would disagree with this. Why? Well, as I said before part of almost every religion is a cosmology, and cosmologies are either true or not true. Scientific discoveries have found the cosmologies of many religions to be untrue. ie the world is not flat, supported by pillars above a mass of water (jewish cosmology). History also contradicts what a lot of other religions say, so they are patently not true.

But, a cosmology is the way a culture or religion makes sense of the world, it's not about the physical nature of the world - e.g. in Norse mythology, the cosmology is of a tree which supports 9 worlds, it doesn't refer to the physical world, but to the spiritual/supernatural realms.

Going to the Jewish example you gave, the world may not be flat, but at the time the ancient Jews came up with it, the world that they knew of was flat (e.g. the land they were on).

In order to understand any cosmology, you have to take it in cultural context and the religious beliefs, e.g. the Greeks believed Greece was the center of the world, yet it obvously isn't.

[IronSeraphim]

I hold the same feelings I do for any other religion as I do this one. If it makes them happy then who am I to go around telling them it is false just because I don't believe in it? I would not like it if people were that way to me and sometimes people are, but that is something you just have to deal with.

Agreed.:hahugh:

[plumedsnake]

But if science is always finding new things, and what we think is true this year might turn out to be not so next year, how can we say that there is an absolute truth? or is it just that there is one, but we haven't found it yet?

You've made some good points. While I cannot lay claim to knowing the undiscovered truth I can claim to know that fallacies that I once believed were true are in fact fallacies. I do not think that sometimes in the future we will discover that the Earth is in actually fact flat.
Should we take this discussion towards inquiring what the nature of knowledge is (ie. how do we know what we know is true). That'll be fun but is bound to make the head spin. I would love to go that way but you'll have to make the first move cos right now my brain can't really think straight. It's been a long day with many things still left undone . . .



But what about those scientists (looks at Dawkins) who are absolutely adamant that religion isn't true, and science has, or will have all the answers? what if science never finds all the answers to everything? Will they just keep putting off the moment of revelation of the absolute truth for ever? Or will they ever concede that science might not have all the answers? Isn't Dawkins' attitude just as rigid as the religions that he denies?

For a guy who is obviously very intelligent , for some reason he comes across to me as incredibly stoopid and obtuse. dawkins, that is. To be honest I haven't even read any of his books, mainly because I already believe that it won't be worth my while.
Funny how I can be so prejudicial sometimes. And I reckon that I'm quite a open minded guy. One half of me says that this guy has got to be smart cos many people respect him (actually a terribly weak argument) then the other half just thinks that the little I've heard him say comes across as incredibly dense.

I think that if we are to discuss knowledge then we have to make a distinction between Truth and Facts. Truth being the ultimate essence of existence, while Facts being events that have occurred in the temporal realm. The knowledge I think we are talking about is about facts. Facts are 'done things'/past acts. In french the word is Fait which just means done or happened. Learning truth involves using a totally different faculty of the mind from learning facts.

Many religions are factually incorrect. They might lead to truth, but if they insist on a factual basis then they are fallacies. . .etc etc along those lines . . . .

[plumedsnake]

But, a cosmology is the way a culture or religion makes sense of the world, it's not about the physical nature of the world - e.g. in Norse mythology, the cosmology is of a tree which supports 9 worlds, it doesn't refer to the physical world, but to the spiritual/supernatural realms.

Going to the Jewish example you gave, the world may not be flat, but at the time the ancient Jews came up with it, the world that they knew of was flat (e.g. the land they were on).

In order to understand any cosmology, you have to take it in cultural context and the religious beliefs, e.g. the Greeks believed Greece was the center of the world, yet it obvously isn't.

Well if the flat earth paradigm points to a deeper Truth or meaning then it retains it validity but if it claims that it is a fact that the earth is flat then the culture/religion was shrouded in ignorance. Not their fault, but constructing factual cosmologies takes centuries of discoveries.

[LostSheep]

Should we take this discussion towards inquiring what the nature of knowledge is (ie. how do we know what we know is true). That'll be fun but is bound to make the head spin. I would love to go that way but you'll have to make the first move cos right now my brain can't really think straight. It's been a long day with many things still left undone . . . . I tend to agree there. Maybe we could just say that facts are what we know, but what Truth might be, we don't know yet. We might one day, but then again, we might not. But for now, all this philosophy makes me want to go and get some :cheers: , I think.

[Adrianus]

...all this philosophy makes me want to go and get some :cheers: , I think.


:jamsessio Yeh, enough of this Christian rot. Time for some tunes and a pint a' bitters! :caffeine:

[Raven Mystic]

Christianity is pure rubbish. In its fundamentalist vein it is obnoxious and a danger to human well-being.

I must say that I am profoundly sad to see that, to date, over 40% of the so-called "Pagans" here believe in Christianity. The gods must be brusting with either laughter or pure diagust at such [word withdrawn to avoid offense to such so-called "Pagans"].

[Kaylara]

Believing that Christianity exists is a bit different than following it. I believe Christianity is real, as in, It Exists. Do I follow any of it? No. I'm a Pagan, and as far as I'm concerned Paganism and Christianity do not mix.

[latin_baller]

Christianity is pure rubbish. In its fundamentalist vein it is obnoxious and a danger to human well-being.

I must say that I am profoundly sad to see that, to date, over 40% of the so-called "Pagans" here believe in Christianity. The gods must be brusting with either laughter or pure diagust at such [word withdrawn to avoid offense to such so-called "Pagans"].

Thank you! Finally someone with common sense.:)

[Athena-Nadine]

Christianity is pure rubbish. In its fundamentalist vein it is obnoxious and a danger to human well-being.

I must say that I am profoundly sad to see that, to date, over 40% of the so-called "Pagans" here believe in Christianity. The gods must be brusting with either laughter or pure diagust at such [word withdrawn to avoid offense to such so-called "Pagans"].
Calling another religion "rubbish" is against the Rule of this site. ALL religions are welcome here and always have been. Just as a Christian would not be allowed to come here and attack your religion as "false," you are not allowed to do so to Christianity here. You are also not allowed to claim that anyone else's beliefs are false or to determine who is and isn't a Pagan or of any other religious belief.

[cesara]

Christianity is pure rubbish. In its fundamentalist vein it is obnoxious and a danger to human well-being.

I must say that I am profoundly sad to see that, to date, over 40% of the so-called "Pagans" here believe in Christianity. The gods must be brusting with either laughter or pure diagust at such [word withdrawn to avoid offense to such so-called "Pagans"].

Let me get this straight. You believe in 'The gods' enough that you comment that they must be 'brusting with either laughter or pure disgust', but you find Christianity to be pure rubbish?

Have you ever been a Christian? I'm just curious....

[David19]

Christianity is pure rubbish. In its fundamentalist vein it is obnoxious and a danger to human well-being.

I must say that I am profoundly sad to see that, to date, over 40% of the so-called "Pagans" here believe in Christianity. The gods must be brusting with either laughter or pure diagust at such [word withdrawn to avoid offense to such so-called "Pagans"].

Why?, and what gods, there are many, many gods, not just one set, so which ones are laughing?.

You know, no offence, but I think you'd find a great home in the fundamentalist forms of Christianity, 'cause what you said, could as easily be said by any evangelical Christian (just turn "Christianity is pure rubbish" to "Paganism is pure rubbish" and you have yourself a fundamentalist).

[David19]

Thank you! Finally someone with common sense.:)

How is that "common sense", if anything the poster obvously still has issues with Christianity and in all likelihood will be the one who goes back to Christianity.

[Adrianus]

Calling another religion "rubbish" is against the Rule of this site. ALL religions are welcome here and always have been. Just as a Christian would not be allowed to come here and attack your religion as "false," you are not allowed to do so to Christianity here. You are also not allowed to claim that anyone else's beliefs are false or to determine who is and isn't a Pagan or of any other religious belief.

Athena-Nadine. Respectfully, I'd like to point out that the question of this poll is: "Do you believe Christianity is true or false?"

In my opinion the question itself may be in violation of this site, but it has been allowed to continue. Thus so, Raven Mystic was well within her right to comment, although I think "rubbish" is pushing it a bit.

I am sure we all know that very strong negative feelings toward Christianity are very common in a segment of the Trad Witchcraft and Wiccan communities. The poll question invites elaboration, like so many polls do. For a volatile subject, this can only bring trouble.

Obviously by some of the responses to Raven Mystic, some members have emotional feelings in favor of Christianity. One careless comment to Raven Mystic stated "I think you'd find a great home in the fundamentalist forms of Christianity..." This is inflammatory and is meant to be highly insulting.

I would not like to see this forum discussion degenerate into a fight. I think it will if left open. In my opinion, this poll, as well intentioned as I am sure it was, should be CLOSED forthwith.

I suggest members refrain from further critical comment while closure is considered.

[LostSheep]

I am sure we all know that very strong negative feelings toward Christianity are very common in a segment of the Trad Witchcraft and Wiccan communities. The poll question invites elaboration, like so many polls do. For a [/FONT]volatile subject, this can only bring trouble.

Obviously by some of the responses to Raven Mystic, some members have emotional feelings in favor of Christianity. One careless comment to Raven Mystic stated "I think you'd find a great home in the fundamentalist forms of Christianity..." This is inflammatory and is meant to be highly insulting.

I would not like to see this forum discussion degenerate into a fight. I think it will if left open. In my opinion, this poll, as well intentioned as I am sure it was, should be CLOSED forthwith.

I suggest members refrain from further critical comment while closure is considered.

Surely there's nothing objectionable to either saying what your issues are with conventional Christianity, or why you don't have issues with it, whether or not you may follow it yourself (and there are people here who do, and who might find words like "rubbish" and "obnoxious" objectionable), just as long as someone can say so so reasonably civilly?

[Xentor]

Athena-Nadine. Respectfully, I'd like to point out that the question of this poll is: "Do you believe Christianity is true or false?"

In my opinion the question itself may be in violation of this site, but it has been allowed to continue. Thus so, Raven Mystic was well within her right to comment, although I think "rubbish" is pushing it a bit.

I am sure we all know that very strong negative feelings toward Christianity are very common in a segment of the Trad Witchcraft and Wiccan communities. The poll question invites elaboration, like so many polls do. For a volatile subject, this can only bring trouble.

Obviously by some of the responses to Raven Mystic, some members have emotional feelings in favor of Christianity. One careless comment to Raven Mystic stated "I think you'd find a great home in the fundamentalist forms of Christianity..." This is inflammatory and is meant to be highly insulting.

I would not like to see this forum discussion degenerate into a fight. I think it will if left open. In my opinion, this poll, as well intentioned as I am sure it was, should be CLOSED forthwith.

I suggest members refrain from further critical comment while closure is considered.



Sure, let's hash out admin modes in public, why won't we? In case you didn't know, you're not supposed to.

Let's just address the main point here: respect. MW is open to (almost) all religions and paths, as it sees itself a spiritual sanctuary. (Almost all, since there are paths like that of the KKK which would not be welcome.) We are supposed to treat people who follow these religions and paths with respect.

Now, does that allow for asking whether a religion is true or false? That very much depends on the goal of that question. Is the goal to establish a formal outlawing of the religion in a country or from a site? In that case, the question itself violates the respect rule.

However, if the question inquires about our personal feelings, the line between respect and disrespect is far harder to establish. I can think something is false, while respecting it at the same time. I can also think something is true and disrespecting it at the same time.

So, what will we allow? We will allow someone stating that to them, a certain path does not make sense, or does not fit. What we will not allow, is someone stating that a certain path is void of worth as a whole. The difference between the two is that the first statement is about me, personally, and the second one is about the path and its followers.

Now, if you can show that the original question of this thread is meant to void the entire path and its followers, I'll be happy to shut down the thread. Otherwise, feel free to continue discussing.

[Aoibheal]

If you've actually looked over the thread there hasn't been that much bashing except for a few people and they were put in there place.

[Cassie]

That I don't follow Christianity myself negates neither its existence, nor its validity to its followers.
Well said.
Niether do you have to be a Christian to find wisdom in some Christian texts or teachings.





I must say that I am profoundly sad to see that, to date, over 40% of the so-called "Pagans" here believe in Christianity. The gods must be brusting with either laughter or pure diagust at such [word withdrawn to avoid offense to such so-called "Pagans"].
Well, as others have pointed out, the title of this thread and the questions asked in the poll are a bit ambiguous to say the least. Of course Chistianity is true in so far as it exists. The 40% you are speaking about do not have to accept or follow the tenants of Christianity in order to believe it is real.

I dont't believe many of the Gods would either laugh or be disgusted that some Pagans find a certain amount of wisdom, worth and validity within the various branches of Christianity. They are bigger and wiser than that. There are many Christo-Pagans and there are many Christians who prctice forms of witchcraft. Moreover there are quite a few Christians who post regularly on this site in a spirit of genuine interest and openness to discussion.

Yes there are some biggoted and generally nasty Christians around but Paganism, sadly, is not free of those kinds of idiots either.

[HeatherMoore]

The thing I get mad about is when magazines like "Newsweek" will have whole issues devoted to whether Jesus lived or more recently, the "Women of the Bible." No offense to Christians but I thought this was supposed to be a NEWS magazine.

I'm wondering if "Newsweek" is owned by Rupret Murdock (FOX media mogul). That would explain a lot. The more media outlets are bought up by these mega conglomerates, the less "real news" actually gets out to the wider public. Nowadays the true journalists out there have to either resort to blogging or hope to get hired by The Nation, Mother Jones, or other progressive zines.

Getting back to Christianity, I know this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but I wondered how one can bridge the Evolution/Intelligent Design gap. As a Pagan, I'm more than happy to say that Nature is an intelligent designer, but what makes some Christians think that dinosaurs and people covorted at the same time like the Flintstones? And some powerful Christians with a lot of money have invested millions to building some pretty swanky "Creationism" museums. Haven't these people heard of carbon dating? I just can't see how "smart" Christians can stick their head in the sand on this issue and ignore basic scientific facts.

Mostly, I fear for the children that get raised on false science and are purposely "dumbed down" by their faith. That's what's most scary to me.

[LostSheep]

I don't think there has to be an absolute, impenetrable barrier between science and religion; obviously, science has a few issues with the literal view of creation, but the way that some people see it is that evolution and all the processes that formed the earth happened the way that Darwin and everyone else says, but that it was just set in motion by - whoever - whatever it is that people call God - following the processes , the "laws of nature", that set out by "God" in the first place.

[EponaCapaill]

Getting back to Christianity, I know this has been discussed earlier in the thread, but I wondered how one can bridge the Evolution/Intelligent Design gap. As a Pagan, I'm more than happy to say that Nature is an intelligent designer, but what makes some Christians think that dinosaurs and people covorted at the same time like the Flintstones? And some powerful Christians with a lot of money have invested millions to building some pretty swanky "Creationism" museums. Haven't these people heard of carbon dating? I just can't see how "smart" Christians can stick their head in the sand on this issue and ignore basic scientific facts.

Mostly, I fear for the children that get raised on false science and are purposely "dumbed down" by their faith. That's what's most scary to me.

I don't know what leads other Christians to believe that God created humans just like us way back in the beginning. Perhaps it is that in Genesis it says that God spoke to Adam and Eve, but we don't know how he spoke to them, did he use words? Did he use telepathy? Grunts? We don't know.

Perhaps they believe in "The other people" that I have heard about right here on this forum. That other people extisted outside of the Garden of Eden and God created Adam and Eve after these other people came into existance.

I however believe that God created evolution, that he intended for us to evolve. That how I bridge gap between evolution and intelligent design.

I also have room in my thinking for the existance of other gods and other religions. Because I don't serve them or follow the tenents of other religions doesn't mean they don' t exist. As long as people believe in them means that their religion is a real valid religion, therfore Christianity is a real valid religion, at least to me.


Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe.

I don't believe that children that are raised by people who believe in creationism are purposely dumbed down. They are taught what their parents truely believe. This is not purposeful, it is may be misinformed, but it is not purposeful.

[David19]

Well said.
Niether do you have to be a Christian to find wisdom in some Christian texts or teachings.




Well, as others have pointed out, the title of this thread and the questions asked in the poll are a bit ambiguous to say the least. Of course Chistianity is true in so far as it exists. The 40% you are speaking about do not have to accept or follow the tenants of Christianity in order to believe it is real.

I dont't believe many of the Gods would either laugh or be disgusted that some Pagans find a certain amount of wisdom, worth and validity within the various branches of Christianity. They are bigger and wiser than that. There are many Christo-Pagans and there are many Christians who prctice forms of witchcraft. Moreover there are quite a few Christians who post regularly on this site in a spirit of genuine interest and openness to discussion.

Yes there are some biggoted and generally nasty Christians around but Paganism, sadly, is not free of those kinds of idiots either.

Exactly - I'm Pagan, yet I can still accept the Christian god exists, just as I accept the Lwa of Vodou, the Orisha's of Santeria, Native American deities, Celtic gods, etc all exist, I just don't worship that's all.

[Raven Mystic]

Well, I seemed to have upset the apple cart. However, I certainly did not intend to offend, especially as I was posting in a "Just Pagan" thread, took it to be literal, and felt comfortable speaking freely. Obviously, I was wrong.

I certainly do respect Christians that are peaceable and kind at heart, and they are many. That does not mean I am not aware of completely loving congregations, such as the American Quakers, today's Anglicans, and surely many other denominations with millions of good-natured, kind, and loving members, which includes some of its leadership, including H.M. The Queen.

That certainly does not mean I respect the Christian religion and think anything more of it than before.

When you own the name, you own the whole bag of tricks. Christians cannot disown their history, nor the totality of their cleric's activities. Too many Christian denominational preachers reflect blatant intolerance from their pulpits even today for me to be fooled into thinking that in general, sections of Christianity could be anything less than a direct threat and general danger.

That be as it may, I certainly will respect the Rule of this site. In other ways, this site is of merit and I find it most interesting.

[David19]

Well, I seemed to have upset the apple cart. However, I certainly did not intend to offend, especially as I was posting in a "Just Pagan" thread, took it to be literal, and felt comfortable speaking freely. Obviously, I was wrong.

I certainly do respect Christians that are peaceable and kind at heart, and they are many. That does not mean I am not aware of completely loving congregations, such as the American Quakers, today's Anglicans, and surely many other denominations with millions of good-natured, kind, and loving members, which includes some of its leadership, including H.M. The Queen.

That certainly does not mean I respect the Christian religion and think anything more of it than before.

When you own the name, you own the whole bag of tricks. Christians cannot disown their history, nor the totality of their cleric's activities. Too many Christian denominational preachers reflect blatant intolerance from their pulpits even today for me to be fooled into thinking that in general, sections of Christianity could be anything less than a direct threat and general danger.

That be as it may, I certainly will respect the Rule of this site. In other ways, this site is of merit and I find it most interesting.


I think you mentioned you're in America, so maybe it's different there (although for some reason, the U.S. has the highest percentage of Christian fundamentalists), but here in the UK, Europe and other countries, Christianity isn't a "danger", I understand by looking at history, you might think it, and yes, there have been atrocities committed by Christians (too many to mention), but there have also been great works of art, poetry, mystics, even several esoteric items (e.g. Tarot cards) and many other others that have come from Christianity.

If we blame Christians and Christianity for the crimes of the past, then we should also blame all Germans for the Holocaust, and every American should be blamed for persecution of the Native American people, etc.

Now, that you've explained you're position, I can understand it more, but I still think Christianity is perfectly valid (when I think of Christians, I think of Mother Theresa, of the charity work done by many, many Christians, I think of how the Catholic Church opposed the Iraq war, etc).

I do think we (not just Pagans, but even other Christians, LGBT people, Jews) face a danger from the fundamentalists (who, unfortunely, in the Bible Belt seem to be growing), but by no means, do we face a danger from Christianity or Christians as a whole.

[LostSheep]

Well, I seemed to have upset the apple cart. However, I certainly did not intend to offend, especially as I was posting in a "Just Pagan" thread, took it to be literal, and felt comfortable speaking freely. Obviously, I was wrong.

I certainly do respect Christians that are peaceable and kind at heart, and they are many. That does not mean I am not aware of completely loving congregations, such as the American Quakers, today's Anglicans, and surely many other denominations with millions of good-natured, kind, and loving members, which includes some of its leadership, including H.M. The Queen.

That certainly does not mean I respect the Christian religion and think anything more of it than before.

When you own the name, you own the whole bag of tricks. Christians cannot disown their history, nor the totality of their cleric's activities. Too many Christian denominational preachers reflect blatant intolerance from their pulpits even today for me to be fooled into thinking that in general, sections of Christianity could be anything less than a direct threat and general danger.

That be as it may, I certainly will respect the Rule of this site. In other ways, this site is of merit and I find it most interesting.


The smaller they are, the more noise they tend to make, I think. Look at the Westboro Baptist lot: how many members do they really have? Enough to really be a danger? GWB may (claim) to be a Christian, but that's his personal beliefs rather than the religion itself being a threat and a danger.


Christians cannot disown their history, nor the totality of their cleric's activities. It's not only Christianity that has some dubious bits in its past, I think ... and atheism hasn't exactly an altogether innocent history.

[imapepper]

Well, I seemed to have upset the apple cart. However, I certainly did not intend to offend, especially as I was posting in a "Just Pagan" thread, took it to be literal, and felt comfortable speaking freely. Obviously, I was wrong.

I certainly do respect Christians that are peaceable and kind at heart, and they are many. That does not mean I am not aware of completely loving congregations, such as the American Quakers, today's Anglicans, and surely many other denominations with millions of good-natured, kind, and loving members, which includes some of its leadership, including H.M. The Queen.

That certainly does not mean I respect the Christian religion and think anything more of it than before.

When you own the name, you own the whole bag of tricks. Christians cannot disown their history, nor the totality of their cleric's activities. Too many Christian denominational preachers reflect blatant intolerance from their pulpits even today for me to be fooled into thinking that in general, sections of Christianity could be anything less than a direct threat and general danger.

That be as it may, I certainly will respect the Rule of this site. In other ways, this site is of merit and I find it most interesting.


I think extremists are a threat, period, don't you? Extremists exist in all religions, in many institutions of power for that matter, and are the real threat and danger, not Christianity, as you put it. There are elements of extremist thought and behavior in most subcultures, take animal rights activists, some believe in violence against those who commit crimes against animals (and I understand their anger and passion), but that doesn't mean I think animal rights activism as a collective whole, is a danger and a threat.

I think you're jumping the gun and taking a small fraction of people within a religion and basically judging the religion based on those people. Yes, Christianity has an ugly past, but that applies to pretty much the entire world. Just because something as atrocious as the Holocaust occurred in Germany in the hands of Germans, considering their past, does that mean we should hate Germans, fear Germans, and consider them dangerous, or a threat because of what they did? I've never met any Christian living in a bubble who denies the religions history or tries to gloss it over, then again I'm not a fundamentalist and I don't hang out with extremists of any kind for any cause, seeing as that I wholeheartedly believe extremism is the cause of wars and general discord in the world. I don't like them anymore than you do, but I would never say, for instance, that Muslims and Islam are a danger, and a threat just because there are terrorists who practice that faith, or considering their history, which isn't all that pretty either.

It's not religions that are bad, it's people and please remember, not all believers in Christ are created equal. I am Catholic, I believe in Jesus, and yet you take me and four other Catholics out of church, and we're all going to differ on opinions and attitudes regarding our faith. That applies I believe to almost anyone of any religion. We're not all 'fundies' who take the bible literally and believe everyone needs to convert or go to the big burning pot of lava called hell where little monsters dance with forks and eat your fingers, or something.

I know you didn't say this, but I just want to make that clear for future reference in the thread. Especially since so many people think you can't blend Christianity with Paganism, to which I'd have to agree if I were interpreting and practicing Christianity like the fundamentalists on TV who obviously seem to be converted by the masses as the uber representitives of all Christians, sadly. I hope some of the Pagans they show on TV aren't taken by the general population as what most Pagans are like, you know, like Charmed. It's pretty frustrating.

[David19]

I think extremists are a threat, period, don't you? Extremists exist in all religions, in many institutions of power for that matter, and are the real threat and danger, not Christianity, as you put it. There are elements of extremist thought and behavior in most subcultures, take animal rights activists, some believe in violence against those who commit crimes against animals (and I understand their anger and passion), but that doesn't mean I think animal rights activism as a collective whole, is a danger and a threat.

I think you're jumping the gun and taking a small fraction of people within a religion and basically judging the religion based on those people. Yes, Christianity has an ugly past, but that applies to pretty much the entire world. Just because something as atrocious as the Holocaust occurred in Germany in the hands of Germans, considering their past, does that mean we should hate Germans, fear Germans, and consider them dangerous, or a threat because of what they did? I've never met any Christian living in a bubble who denies the religions history or tries to gloss it over, then again I'm not a fundamentalist and I don't hang out with extremists of any kind for any cause, seeing as that I wholeheartedly believe extremism is the cause of wars and general discord in the world. I don't like them anymore than you do, but I would never say, for instance, that Muslims and Islam are a danger, and a threat just because there are terrorists who practice that faith, or considering their history, which isn't all that pretty either.

It's not religions that are bad, it's people and please remember, not all believers in Christ are created equal. I am Catholic, I believe in Jesus, and yet you take me and four other Catholics out of church, and we're all going to differ on opinions and attitudes regarding our faith. That applies I believe to almost anyone of any religion. We're not all 'fundies' who take the bible literally and believe everyone needs to convert or go to the big burning pot of lava called hell where little monsters dance with forks and eat your fingers, or something.

I know you didn't say this, but I just want to make that clear for future reference in the thread. Especially since so many people think you can't blend Christianity with Paganism, to which I'd have to agree if I were interpreting and practicing Christianity like the fundamentalists on TV who obviously seem to be converted by the masses as the uber representitives of all Christians, sadly. I hope some of the Pagans they show on TV aren't taken by the general population as what most Pagans are like, you know, like Charmed. It's pretty frustrating.

I agree with everything you and LostSheep said :).

[Adrianus]

I think extremists are a threat, period

For sure.

[plumedsnake]

Okay, the question of this thread is whether I think christianity is true or false. Not whether or not I respect christianity. Besides I think it is more respectful to point out to someone an error (and debate the issue mutually respecting each others intelligence) than it is to not saying anything while deep down you're thinking 'what a stupid idiot'.

I think that as a record of Facts the bible is such a total barrage of nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel. To the extent that christianity is based on the bible then christianity is the same. However if Christ said (to quote that nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel) that he would send the holy spirit to guide his followers in all things, NOT, mind you, that he was send them a book that they would have to adhere to, then Christianity is not founded or teleguided by the text in that book.

In other words, Christianity that has it's foundation in Spirit I can respect, but Christianity that is argued from a piece of trashy text I have absolutely no respect for. These two Christianities that I mention are as different from each other as Chalk and cheese. The only thing they in fact share is the name Christianity.


The mainstream exoteric tradition of christianity is not rooted in spirit from what I can tell. I believe in judging most things by their own criteria, in their own terms. The bible explicitly states that by their fruits you shall know them. An evil tree does not bear good fruit, neither does a good tree bear evil fruit. So what has been the fruit of this exoteric tradition of throughout it's history? . . . . yep! So we can easily conclude what kind of a tree we are talking about here. I refer not only to christianity here, but all religions of a book. In other words, religions based on texts.

[imapepper]

Okay, the question of this thread is whether I think christianity is true or false. Not whether or not I respect christianity. Besides I think it is more respectful to point out to someone an error (and debate the issue mutually respecting each others intelligence) than it is to not saying anything while deep down you're thinking 'what a stupid idiot'.

I think that as a record of Facts the bible is such a total barrage of nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel. To the extent that christianity is based on the bible then christianity is the same. However if Christ said (to quote that nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel) that he would send the holy spirit to guide his followers in all things, NOT, mind you, that he was send them a book that they would have to adhere to, then Christianity is not founded or teleguided by the text in that book.

In other words, Christianity that has it's foundation in Spirit I can respect, but Christianity that is argued from a piece of trashy text I have absolutely no respect for. These two Christianities that I mention are as different from each other as Chalk and cheese. The only thing they in fact share is the name Christianity.


The mainstream exoteric tradition of christianity is not rooted in spirit from what I can tell. I believe in judging most things by their own criteria, in their own terms. The bible explicitly states that by their fruits you shall know them. An evil tree does not bear good fruit, neither does a good tree bear evil fruit. So what has been the fruit of this exoteric tradition of throughout it's history? . . . . yep! So we can easily conclude what kind of a tree we are talking about here. I refer not only to christianity here, but all religions of a book. In other words, religions based on texts.

In a perfect world Christianity would be based on Christ alone, on His words, but even then as I've always said, we don't even know how much of that is true. I enjoy the essence of Christ and what He said, but I've never been a big fan of the bible, at least not in its entirety, because some books I do enjoy such as Ecclesiastes.

I think it goes further than religions based on texts, which is always going to fail because humans get involved with their interpretations, translations, and educated guesses. As I mentioned, you involve humans and God, or money, or any form of power, and you get trouble, such, as I mentioned, the Holocaust, which wasn't based on any religious text but rather, one mans vision. Here within humanity we have many mens visions, in a religious context or not, and there's bound to be ugliness somewhere along the line. Yet also, seeing as that not all people are the same, there will also be good thrown somewhere in the mix.

The bible yes, is contradictory, I give you that, even among Christians the in-fighting almost always has to do with what is more relevant, interpretations, etc. Yet even admist the perceived chaos or 'hateful drivel' as you call it, is some good stuff, and it would be sad to dismiss it just because humans aren't perfect. Perhaps the bible, in reality, reflects our world in its truest sense, something contradictory which has the potential to be enlightening or destructive. That is the nature of humanity after all, non-sensical beings who have moments of great light and moments of great darkness.

You believe Christianity is false because it is non-sensical and contradictory, I assume then, that you have very little faith in people themselves? Just a thought.

[David19]

Okay, the question of this thread is whether I think christianity is true or false. Not whether or not I respect christianity. Besides I think it is more respectful to point out to someone an error (and debate the issue mutually respecting each others intelligence) than it is to not saying anything while deep down you're thinking 'what a stupid idiot'.

I think that as a record of Facts the bible is such a total barrage of nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel. To the extent that christianity is based on the bible then christianity is the same. However if Christ said (to quote that nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel) that he would send the holy spirit to guide his followers in all things, NOT, mind you, that he was send them a book that they would have to adhere to, then Christianity is not founded or teleguided by the text in that book.

In other words, Christianity that has it's foundation in Spirit I can respect, but Christianity that is argued from a piece of trashy text I have absolutely no respect for. These two Christianities that I mention are as different from each other as Chalk and cheese. The only thing they in fact share is the name Christianity.


The mainstream exoteric tradition of christianity is not rooted in spirit from what I can tell. I believe in judging most things by their own criteria, in their own terms. The bible explicitly states that by their fruits you shall know them. An evil tree does not bear good fruit, neither does a good tree bear evil fruit. So what has been the fruit of this exoteric tradition of throughout it's history? . . . . yep! So we can easily conclude what kind of a tree we are talking about here. I refer not only to christianity here, but all religions of a book. In other words, religions based on texts.

Just wanted to say, that it's not just "religions of the book" that have led to death and genocides, just look at the Romans (they persecuted other religions, from the Druids to the Jews to the Germanic peoples to the Bacchic cults, even Witches, etc). And, while I agree that originally Christianity was based on mystical and esoteric practices (it was a Jewish mystery religion, afterall), involving magic, possession by their God, etc, that doesn't neccessarily mean that Esoteric things are "better" than exotericism as exoteric just means things available to the public, none is "better" than the other (e.g. someone who just worships their god, reads the myths, etc is not "inferior" to someone who spends their time in esoteric practices).

[LostSheep]

I think that as a record of Facts the bible is such a total barrage of nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel. To the extent that christianity is based on the bible then christianity is the same. However if Christ said (to quote that nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel) that he would send the holy spirit to guide his followers in all things, NOT, mind you, that he was send them a book that they would have to adhere to, then Christianity is not founded or teleguided by the text in that book.

In other words, Christianity that has it's foundation in Spirit I can respect, but Christianity that is argued from a piece of trashy text I have absolutely no respect for. These two Christianities that I mention are as different from each other as Chalk and cheese. The only thing they in fact share is the name Christianity.
. The bible doesn't set out to be a record of Facts, pure and simple; it's not one book, it's a whole lot of different books, poetry, history, literature , put together under one cover. Like a portable library, really. So yes, I think those who do try to treat it as one infallible and absolutely true record of Facts are taking it the wrong way, and a lot of the instructions and things like that in the old Testament weren't even very relevant by Jesus's time, let alone now. But equally, to treat the whole thing as just one "trashy text", i think is doing the same as the literalists do.


However if Christ said (to quote that nonsensical, self contradicting, hateful drivel) that he would send the holy spirit to guide his followers in all things, NOT, mind you, that he was send them a book that they would have to adhere to, then Christianity is not founded or teleguided by the text in that book. I don't think he ever did say that he'd send a book with everything laid down that people should beleive. The Jewish people already had one of those, and he said that he'd come to fulfil the parts of it that were still relevant, but he recognised that a lot of it - which was written maybe 1,000 years or more earlier - no longer held absolutely true, or shouldn't be thought of as being abosolutely true.

[plumedsnake]

The bible doesn't set out to be a record of Facts, pure and simple; it's not one book, it's a whole lot of different books, poetry, history, literature , put together under one cover. Like a portable library, really. So yes, I think those who do try to treat it as one infallible and absolutely true record of Facts are taking it the wrong way, and a lot of the instructions and things like that in the old Testament weren't even very relevant by Jesus's time, let alone now. But equally, to treat the whole thing as just one "trashy text", i think is doing the same as the literalists do.


I don't think that either you or I can claim to know the intentions of the original writers of the biblical books. Whether they set out to be a record of facts or not is beyond my knowing. However I do know what the majority of christians on this planet think of the text (or collection of texts). "It is one infallible and absolutely true record of FActs". That's what most christians that I know think.
That I consider the text trashy is based on a value judgement based on criteria of my own that I'm happy to share with you if you are interested. Being trashy however does not mean that nothing beneficial can be derived from it. Truth and meaning can be arrived at from any experience.:hehehehe:





I don't think he ever did say that he'd send a book with everything laid down that people should beleive. The Jewish people already had one of those, and he said that he'd come to fulfil the parts of it that were still relevant, but he recognised that a lot of it - which was written maybe 1,000 years or more earlier - no longer held absolutely true, or shouldn't be thought of as being abosolutely true.

No he hasn't been recorded as saying he'd send a book. That's my point exactly.
However he did go down on record as saying that heaven and earth would pass away before an iota of his law would pass away. Coming to fulfil the law is a lot different from coming to do away with the law.

[plumedsnake]

Just wanted to say, that it's not just "religions of the book" that have led to death and genocides, just look at the Romans (they persecuted other religions, from the Druids to the Jews to the Germanic peoples to the Bacchic cults, even Witches, etc). And, while I agree that originally Christianity was based on mystical and esoteric practices (it was a Jewish mystery religion, afterall), involving magic, possession by their God, etc, that doesn't neccessarily mean that Esoteric things are "better" than exotericism as exoteric just means things available to the public, none is "better" than the other (e.g. someone who just worships their god, reads the myths, etc is not "inferior" to someone who spends their time in esoteric practices).

I never said anything about christianity leading to death and genocide. death and genocides go on regardless of religion in human history.
As regards the eso vs exo -terica, I never said one was more superior to the other. I just said that christianity is properly an esoteric religion. However now that you bring up the subject of superiority, I would say that a religion that tries to connect a devotee to his divinity is superior if it is esoteric, because in my experience that is the way of spiritual things. However if the criteria is based on social cohesion and other such worldly things then obviously exoterism has a clear advantage. For me personally, the relevance of religion is totally rooted in spirituality.

[plumedsnake]

You believe Christianity is false because it is non-sensical and contradictory, I assume then, that you have very little faith in people themselves? Just a thought.

What . . . as a source of salvation? You're darn right I have absolutely no faith in people themselves.



Perhaps the bible, in reality, reflects our world in its truest sense, something contradictory which has the potential to be enlightening or destructive. That is the nature of humanity after all, non-sensical beings who have moments of great light and moments of great darkness.

You've made a very deep point here. Bible reflects the world . . .. Bible takes after the nature of humanity . . . Conclusion: Bible is a human construct. Bible is not a divinely inspired text. Therefore Christianity is a Human construct . . . it is not a divine construct . . . yet it claims to be therefor e it is false. Even if it were a human construct, shouldn't it retain some validity? Well only in so far as reflects the truth about the human situation. Yet it's cosmologies are wrong . . . . and on . . . and on .


In a perfect world Christianity would be based on Christ alone, on His words, but even then as I've always said, we don't even know how much of that is true. I enjoy the essence of Christ and what He said, but I've never been a big fan of the bible, at least not in its entirety, because some books I do enjoy such as Ecclesiastes.

I agree that christianity would be based on Christ alone, not even on his recorded words. Those are irrelevant. Rather the experience of Christ deep within ruling over every sphere of your life.
And from that emanates the spirit which guides you in all things. words need to take a back seat for the questers. Leave them to the lawyers and scribes. Oh and poets.

[Miaerowyn Elennulda]

I believe that the morals and God to be true in Christianity, but I don't tend to think of the bible as true. I mean, you look at it, and it isn't written by the hand of God, in other words, man wrote it, imposed himself and his beliefs upon it and how people should live their lives. Don't get me wrong, most of the commandments are good things, like not killing others for instance.
But the fact that it was man that wrote it makes me think that perhaps the Christian God wasn't almost as "I am the only one, if you believe in anything different, you're damned" as he appears in the bible. That's just man making the masses believe that anything they believed in was false and wrong, and that they must conform to this new unified way of thinking.

[imapepper]

What . . . as a source of salvation? You're darn right I have absolutely no faith in people themselves.

That's unfortunate, but I understand your feelings. I however, for myself personally, have to have some faith in humanity, I don't think God will help those who don't help themselves, which is why we have things like prayer and magick. So if we can't count on humans to help or save humans, then I guess the world will continue as it is, without any evolution in consciousness, especially if they're all seen as a lost cause.




You've made a very deep point here. Bible reflects the world . . .. Bible takes after the nature of humanity . . . Conclusion: Bible is a human construct. Bible is not a divinely inspired text. Therefore Christianity is a Human construct . . . it is not a divine construct . . . yet it claims to be therefor e it is false. Even if it were a human construct, shouldn't it retain some validity? Well only in so far as reflects the truth about the human situation. Yet it's cosmologies are wrong . . . . and on . . . and on .

Hmm, well I suppose that depends on how you view human constructs, some people see them as divine constructs because they see man as an extension of God or an incarnation of God; they see everything in the universe as divine since there's no difference between the hand of God and the hand of man. Then again that'd definitely not fall in with Christian thought, seeing as that they believe in God as an infallible being who is 'perfect', with their definition of perfection as 'all good' instead of harmony or a balance of light and dark.




I agree that christianity would be based on Christ alone, not even on his recorded words. Those are irrelevant. Rather the experience of Christ deep within ruling over every sphere of your life.
And from that emanates the spirit which guides you in all things. words need to take a back seat for the questers. Leave them to the lawyers and scribes. Oh and poets.

It's hard to communicate experiences to others, that's venturing into a level of mysticism most Christians don't ever touch, but I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. The essence of Christ is so much more powerful than the bible and even His own words, then again if most people could 'get' the essence of spirituality, period, the world might be a much different place.

[plumedsnake]

That's unfortunate, but I understand your feelings. I however, for myself personally, have to have some faith in humanity, I don't think God will help those who don't help themselves, which is why we have things like prayer and magick. So if we can't count on humans to help or save humans, then I guess the world will continue as it is, without any evolution in consciousness, especially if they're all seen as a lost cause.

ah . . . let me backtrack on my self a minute. What exactly do you mean by humanity? Because I consider there to be two aspects to the human being. The Idiotic and the Foolish. The Idiot is the machine run according to Pavlovian principles, utterly neurotic. (btw in case you never heard of pavlov, he's a scientist that did experiments on the mechanisms of the nervous system.)
Then the Fool is the part of man touched by the divine. Thanks to this divine folly, man (and woman) can rise above idiocy. I do have faith in humanity to the extent that humanity is capable of folly. Yet when I said that I had no faith in humanity earlier I actually meant specifically the Idiotic aspect of humanity.
Oh yeah, man is divine and divine grace is dispensed through man.




Hmm, well I suppose that depends on how you view human constructs, some people see them as divine constructs because they see man as an extension of God or an incarnation of God; they see everything in the universe as divine since there's no difference between the hand of God and the hand of man. Then again that'd definitely not fall in with Christian thought, seeing as that they believe in God as an infallible being who is 'perfect', with their definition of perfection as 'all good' instead of harmony or a balance of light and dark.

Yep. orthodox christian thought sees god as transcendent. I believe in Folly. And through folly our acts are the acts of God. The folly is right here suffusing the entire universe. But that 'infallible being who is perfect' perfectly underlines my point. It is an intellectual concept. It was arrived at by argumentation, debate, discussion etc. It is in fact a product of idiocy. Hence it does not tally with experience or reality.




It's hard to communicate experiences to others, that's venturing into a level of mysticism most Christians don't ever touch, but I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. The essence of Christ is so much more powerful than the bible and even His own words, then again if most people could 'get' the essence of spirituality, period, the world might be a much different place.


I kind of find the need to communicate spirituality like saying 'I love You.' When can you say it? especially as you don't want to scare your girl away, or have her misconstrue you on any level. I feel it's kinda like walking around with a shit knocking against your anal sphincter, and you are at a stuffy meeting. eventually getting away and getting to release the turd is such a gratifying relief. I think to comfortably be able to say I love you is kind of like that. A gratifying release. Some feelings are not completed until they can be expressed. Saying I love you is not in order to let the other person know what you feel, or to manipulate the person, or for any other reason other than the saying of it. Saying it is the final end or fulfilment of a process that starts with all sorts of sentiments.
Well certain spiritual experiences are like that. You've just got to express it. Not to teach people or to enlighten people. Just the expressing it itself , for it's own sake, is a release. It can happen as poetry, or just the way you walk and talk etc, but the purpose is not other than to just express it. How the listeners percieve it is their own issue. I am deeply suspicious of all forms of proselytising.

[imapepper]

ah . . . let me backtrack on my self a minute. What exactly do you mean by humanity? Because I consider there to be two aspects to the human being. The Idiotic and the Foolish. The Idiot is the machine run according to Pavlovian principles, utterly neurotic. (btw in case you never heard of pavlov, he's a scientist that did experiments on the mechanisms of the nervous system.)
Then the Fool is the part of man touched by the divine. Thanks to this divine folly, man (and woman) can rise above idiocy. I do have faith in humanity to the extent that humanity is capable of folly. Yet when I said that I had no faith in humanity earlier I actually meant specifically the Idiotic aspect of humanity.
Oh yeah, man is divine and divine grace is dispensed through man.




Yep. orthodox christian thought sees god as transcendent. I believe in Folly. And through folly our acts are the acts of God. The folly is right here suffusing the entire universe. But that 'infallible being who is perfect' perfectly underlines my point. It is an intellectual concept. It was arrived at by argumentation, debate, discussion etc. It is in fact a product of idiocy. Hence it does not tally with experience or reality.




I kind of find the need to communicate spirituality like saying 'I love You.' When can you say it? especially as you don't want to scare your girl away, or have her misconstrue you on any level. I feel it's kinda like walking around with a shit knocking against your anal sphincter, and you are at a stuffy meeting. eventually getting away and getting to release the turd is such a gratifying relief. I think to comfortably be able to say I love you is kind of like that. A gratifying release. Some feelings are not completed until they can be expressed. Saying I love you is not in order to let the other person know what you feel, or to manipulate the person, or for any other reason other than the saying of it. Saying it is the final end or fulfilment of a process that starts with all sorts of sentiments.
Well certain spiritual experiences are like that. You've just got to express it. Not to teach people or to enlighten people. Just the expressing it itself , for it's own sake, is a release. It can happen as poetry, or just the way you walk and talk etc, but the purpose is not other than to just express it. How the listeners percieve it is their own issue. I am deeply suspicious of all forms of proselytising.

I agree with everyone you just said. LOL. I was thinking "Yes, yes, mmhmm", but then again Plumed, that is why I'm at Mystic Wicks too, because most Christians won't bring me into their fold (despite the fact that I believe in Jesus or if you want, the Christ Consciousness, and am basically a practicing Catholic, albeit not run-of-the-mill)...not that I would want them too anyway. I wouldn't hear the end about how I'm going to hell or in a 'spiritual warfare' with Satan over my soul. I understand them, but I don't agree with them, and I just don't think Jesus would agree either.

I guess we'll all find out when the time comes.

This has been a great thread and it's been good exchanging words with you!

:wave:

[plumedsnake]

This has been a great thread and it's been good exchanging words with you!

:wave:

Likewise

[Amythyst]

Do you belive Christianity is a true religion, ie. there is a G!d and there was a Jesus (etc) or not? (You can also vote to abstain.) Why?


Obviously I don't believe in Christianity or I would be embracing it.

To each his own, everyone must find their own path.

Blessings...

[Doodlebug]

Christianity is somewhat true but mostly false. That is why I reject it. I simply cannot believe in most of the major tenants of Christianity.

[Mogget]

I don't believe it is Historically real as recorded in the BIble. That said as a afaith it surely exists, and i do not for a moment believe that there is only one path to truth, so it is as real and true as my own religion, and as any other.

[Babylon]

Do you belive Christianity is a true religion, ie. there is a G!d and there was a Jesus (etc) or not?

No I don't.

Why?

Because Christianity adopted already existing pagan beliefs to create this new religion. The Trinity, the Holidays, the belief in a divine mediator for the Father and a savior god, a Son of God, the virgin birth, had been conceived long before the new testament religion. These concepts and beliefs were not exactly something "new" just understood in a new way this time around.

God is nothing more than a re-interpretation of the old Near Eastern Fatherly Cosmocrators such as Enlil, El, and Marduk. All three pre-date Judaism. I see Jesus in the same way as a re-interpretation of the old "Son" of God concepts in Near Eastern lore, who took the form of mediator and comforter of the Father.

Just remember though this is only a scholarly opinion and has nothing to do with how the religion affects people who follow it.

[LibraMoon]

I think christianity is as real a religion as any others.. its all about belief.

its not for me though, I've read the bible, with a marker pen and sticky notes and I personally have a lot of problems with it, but that doesnt mean others dont believe in it or agree with it.

some people today say witches dont exist.. but people do believe they are witches.. are they any less real ??

[David19]

Because Christianity adopted already existing pagan beliefs to create this new religion. The Trinity, the Holidays, the belief in a divine mediator for the Father and a savior god, a Son of God, the virgin birth, had been conceived long before the new testament religion. These concepts and beliefs were not exactly something "new" just understood in a new way this time around.

God is nothing more than a re-interpretation of the old Near Eastern Fatherly Cosmocrators such as Enlil, El, and Marduk. All three pre-date Judaism. I see Jesus in the same way as a re-interpretation of the old "Son" of God concepts in Near Eastern lore, who took the form of mediator and comforter of the Father.

While Enlil can be one of the Gods who inspired YHWH, I don't think Marduk did. Also, could you show what other Middle Eastern son of God concepts there are, aside from Mithras, as, for me, I'm a Sumerian recon, and haven't seen anything that resembles Jesus as a Savior (except for, again, Mithras).


Just remember though this is only a scholarly opinion and has nothing to do with how the religion affects people who follow it.

But, just 'cause a religion borrowed from other cultures and religions, don't invalidate it, or would you also say Wicca isn't a "true" religion just 'cause it has borrowed from other sources too?.

[Babylon]

Of course it is a true religion,

but I don't believe the general protestant and R. catholic theologies are true as in Yahweh and Jesus are the only gods or are a unique universal God. I'm not the one to speak for these religions though, as that is their concern, I'm only trying to follow my own path. And Christian beliefs for "me" are invalid in that respect. To others it is different.

Nabu was considered the son of the great god Marduk, I see a lot of resemblence to Jesus as Nabu was also the mediator and messenger of his Father. They were also seen as co-equals in the cosmic order of heaven and earth, again quite like Jesus and his heavenly Father. Sarpanitu is like the holy spirit, as some consider that a feminine aspect of God. She is like a comforter for worshippers of her exalted King.

And what about Dumuzi/Tammuz?

Adonis, Attis, Sabazios, and Eshmun (a phoenician man who died and rose again to become a god of "healing" ).

Egyptian myths have Horus the son of Osiris and Isis, who greatly resembles the mother mary with Jesus in the way she is shown seated and holding her newborn child.

Then there is Dushara from Nabataea and Arabia. Some christian writers even took note that his rites were similar to the Christian ones and seemed to have been akin to beliefs about Jesus. Dushara was a divine being born and celebrated on Dec. 25th from a virgin mother. He was thought to be a king who rose and died again.

[Stoirmeacha]

Obviously it is a religion, so it is as true as mine is.
Who are we to judge another's religion? I personally really hate this thread for being put up...

[Lunar Raven]

Christianity is obviously a real religion, and as valid as any other. I don't believe everything stated in the bible, but that's me and my views. But as a religion, I don't have any reason to judge it. Like I said, it's as valid as any other.

[thought_on_a_wind]

I like the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There"... 'nuff said...

[plumedsnake]

I like the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There"... 'nuff said...

What's in the documentary?

[David19]

Of course it is a true religion,

but I don't believe the general protestant and R. catholic theologies are true as in Yahweh and Jesus are the only gods or are a unique universal God. I'm not the one to speak for these religions though, as that is their concern

I can agree with you there, that I don't accept that YHWH, Jesus, etc are the only Gods, but I still seem them as real existing divinities, just as real as my own Gods.


Nabu was considered the son of the great god Marduk, I see a lot of resemblence to Jesus as Nabu was also the mediator and messenger of his Father. They were also seen as co-equals in the cosmic order of heaven and earth, again quite like Jesus and his heavenly Father. Sarpanitu is like the holy spirit, as some consider that a feminine aspect of God. She is like a comforter for worshippers of her exalted King.

And what about Dumuzi/Tammuz?

Adonis, Attis, Sabazios, and Eshmun (a phoenician man who died and rose again to become a god of "healing" ).

Egyptian myths have Horus the son of Osiris and Isis, who greatly resembles the mother mary with Jesus in the way she is shown seated and holding her newborn child.

Then there is Dushara from Nabataea and Arabia. Some christian writers even took note that his rites were similar to the Christian ones and seemed to have been akin to beliefs about Jesus. Dushara was a divine being born and celebrated on Dec. 25th from a virgin mother. He was thought to be a king who rose and died again.

I knew about Horus and Aset (Isis was the Greek name, and the Roman Isis seems to be a very different deity to the Kemetic Aset). I didn't think Dumuzi was born of a virgin, I assumed he was a full God, not a demi-god (as in 1/2 mortal, 1/2 divine), I also didn't know about that Arabian deity, thanks for telling me, as I'm interesting in learning more about the ancient Arabian religion and Gods (if you have any resources on that, I'd truly appreciate it :)).

[thought_on_a_wind]

What's in the documentary?

you can download it off limewire, and I think it's on Youtube, it brings a coupla things to light (if one is to believe it)

[~Belladonna~]

Of course it's a true religion! Not for me, but true never-the -less.

[sari0009]

I abstain from answer the question "Christianity, True or False." It seems to be a loaded question that doesn't get into a lot of issues.

Personally, I prefer orthopraxy (correct actions) to orthodoxy (correct belief...dogmatic texts).

It's a problem when people identify by belief more than joy, compassion, virtues (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sari0009&nextdate=11%2f29%2f2007+23%3a59%3a59.999), character, and ability. The former (dividing people into different belief camps) makes it too easy to turn a focus on moral/ethical/spiritual improvement into hurtful "cultural wars" and bloodfests.

[Amanda Mitchell]

I chose "abstain" because I really have missed feelings. I think SOME parts are true.

[ravenhecate999]

Of course its a real religion, millions of people follow it. Just because we dont belive it dosent mean that it doesent exist.
I belive that Jesus was a real person. But just that... I person. There is just too much evidence to say that this person never existed. But there is not enough evidence to say he was a God.
I do not belive, however, that he rose from the dead, turned water into wine, ect. If people would pay more attention to what was really going on in that time period, the Bible would make much more sense.

[cheddarsox]

Christianity is a real valid religion.

I think Jesus was a real person, a Jewish man who preached a new message, and he was crucified because he caused unrest in an occupied territory.

I do not believe that the God they follow is THE Supreme force of the Universe.

I don't think their mythology accurately represents Ultimate reality.

Some of their moral teachings are very good rules for living in society.

I also expect that Christianity today, as it is practiced in my culture is very different from what Christ taught and the early church lived.

Any religion that hangs around for millenia, and is adopted by people of various cultures changes radically and repeatedly. It happened in Ancient Egypt, in Hindu, it is just the way of things. It may use the same name and have some common thread running through it, but for all intents and purposes, it is different religions at different times.

Sort of like evolution...it can be hard to decide when it stops being one species and is now evolved into something else.

cheddar

[LadyCelt]

Well, Christianity (as with any religion) is human made. The divine presence of Jesus or whatever facets of Christianity a person believes in, however, may be very real. For instance, Paganism is a human made concept to call it this specific name. However, the deities and elements are real in my view.

[Routhven]

I've ever thought that what is false is not Christianity but it's churches and other things......

It's well known that Chatolic Roman way of Christianity was founded centuries past the death of Jesus Christ. If he was a son of God or not..... I won't enter that kind of discussion, it's endless. First you have to ask for the existence of God and if you can resolve this, ask for He's son.... I do believe of Jesus Christ as the person he was, and the words he said. Not to the laws others did wrote arround him.....

[lunita]

I believe that Christianity is a religion, I believe all religions are a religion and I find them all really interesting.