Christianity - Religious System, or the True Natural State of Man?

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is a spinoff from the Islam thread, where I wished to show that total relism's critique of Islam was somewhat hypocritical given his own beliefs.

First off, before people like PVC even comment - yes this subject might look old and tired, but I feel old and tired, and 12hr waking days are currently too long for me, hence this thread.

Now, total relism (TR from now on) criticized Islam on I would say 4 grounds. That it is based on paganism, that it is idolatrous, that it calls believers to acts of violence, and that it degrades women. I suggested that all of these (less so the third actually) might equally apply to Christianity (or what nearly anybody would mean by it), and so this thread is about the Christian, rather than Islamic viewpoint.

To be fair, I don't know what denomination TR is from, I may just be projecting things onto him, but if he's any sort of mainstream Christian then there's a 99.5% chance I'm not. But I'll have to just ask before I get into the nitty-gritty.

To start, paganism. To the average person, many of the most obvious features of Christianity are essentially pagan. Most obviously, Christmas. Contrary to the traditional story, Jesus was most likely born in September, Mary may or may not have arrived in Bethlehem on a donkey and she certainly did not arrive the night she gave birth. She then probably stayed in a house with relatives without talking with any inkeepers. The wise men (not kings, probably not riding camels, and their number is not stated) did visit Jesus, but by that time he was a toddler. As for the festivities, the date of September 25th, the practice of decorating trees, and the giving of gifts are all outright pagan ripoffs.

And Christmas is just an example, it's the tip of the iceberg. But the other examples sort of merge into the next point...

Next, idolatry. Idolatry is placing any sort of spiritual value in anything other than God, such as the use of religious rituals in worship. This includes water baptism (and especially infant baptism), ritual clothing for priests/ministers etc, communion/mass/the eucharist, and the observance of holy days. I challenge TR to justify any of these using scripture. I think it will be revealed they are either all a) pagan, b) a complete innovation, or c) a throwback to Judaism and the bondage of the law.

Thirdly, violence. Well, right off, I think we can agree that Christians are not called to violence in the name of their faith. But I have to say I think it is going to be very hard to argue that genocide isn't recorded as being carried out by the Israelites in the Old Testament. What about Joshua 6:21 in reference to Jericho: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword."?

And finally, the treatment of women. As I mentioned in the other thread, women are forbidden from speaking at an assembly of believers, they must cover their heads in church, and they must keep their hair long. TR responded with the various things women were permitted to do, which was a bit beside the point. If women are seen as equal in authority to men, why can't they open their mouths during a service, and why are they only seen as fit to tutor children?

And as for Eve, although she is of course like Adam in some sense created in the image of God, she was ultimately created as a domestic helper and was even given childbearing as a form of punishment. Which isn't really equality as most people would consider it.

So back to the thread title, which probably seem stranged for TR when I came across as an atheist. Of course I am not. For me, Christianity is quite simply the promise of a return to true natural state of mankind, and being a Christian is about striving for that right now. Both God-ordained and man-made problems will be removed. God-ordained problems being death, ill-health etc, and man-made ones being anything that is somehow related to the breakdown of our God-appointed and entirely natural social relationships (eg gender roles, family, nation etc) caused by man's fallen state. Everything will just work because people will be reconciled with God.

And that for me is the big difference between what I believe, and any mainstream religion out there. Religious systems are, as a philosopher would say, 'artificial and positive', based on rituals and observances etc. Whereas for me, Christianity is simply a description of our natural state. These two notions are the exact opposite each other, and yet it is these foundations that your faith really boils down to. Is the Bible a set of arbitrary commands, or does it offer a deeper meaning of who we really are and how we are meant to live? One detracts from the other, so it can't be both...

[total relism]

This is a spinoff from the Islam thread, where I wished to show that total relism's critique of Islam was somewhat hypocritical given his own beliefs.

First off, before people like PVC even comment - yes this subject might look old and tired, but I feel old and tired, and 12hr waking days are currently too long for me, hence this thread.

Now, total relism (TR from now on) criticized Islam on I would say 4 grounds. That it is based on paganism, that it is idolatrous, that it calls believers to acts of violence, and that it degrades women. I suggested that all of these (less so the third actually) might equally apply to Christianity (or what nearly anybody would mean by it), and so this thread is about the Christian, rather than Islamic viewpoint.

To be fair, I don't know what denomination TR is from, I may just be projecting things onto him, but if he's any sort of mainstream Christian then there's a 99.5% chance I'm not. But I'll have to just ask before I get into the nitty-gritty.

To start, paganism. To the average person, many of the most obvious features of Christianity are essentially pagan. Most obviously, Christmas. Contrary to the traditional story, Jesus was most likely born in September, Mary may or may not have arrived in Bethlehem on a donkey and she certainly did not arrive the night she gave birth. She then probably stayed in a house with relatives without talking with any inkeepers. The wise men (not kings, probably not riding camels, and their number is not stated) did visit Jesus, but by that time he was a toddler. As for the festivities, the date of September 25th, the practice of decorating trees, and the giving of gifts are all outright pagan ripoffs.

And Christmas is just an example, it's the tip of the iceberg. But the other examples sort of merge into the next point...

Next, idolatry. Idolatry is placing any sort of spiritual value in anything other than God, such as the use of religious rituals in worship. This includes water baptism (and especially infant baptism), ritual clothing for priests/ministers etc, communion/mass/the eucharist, and the observance of holy days. I challenge TR to justify any of these using scripture. I think it will be revealed they are either all a) pagan, b) a complete innovation, or c) a throwback to Judaism and the bondage of the law.

Thirdly, violence. Well, right off, I think we can agree that Christians are not called to violence in the name of their faith. But I have to say I think it is going to be very hard to argue that genocide isn't recorded as being carried out by the Israelites in the Old Testament. What about Joshua 6:21 in reference to Jericho: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and ass, with the edge of the sword."?

And finally, the treatment of women. As I mentioned in the other thread, women are forbidden from speaking at an assembly of believers, they must cover their heads in church, and they must keep their hair long. TR responded with the various things women were permitted to do, which was a bit beside the point. If women are seen as equal in authority to men, why can't they open their mouths during a service, and why are they only seen as fit to tutor children?

And as for Eve, although she is of course like Adam in some sense created in the image of God, she was ultimately created as a domestic helper and was even given childbearing as a form of punishment. Which isn't really equality as most people would consider it.

So back to the thread title, which probably seem stranged for TR when I came across as an atheist. Of course I am not. For me, Christianity is quite simply the promise of a return to true natural state of mankind, and being a Christian is about striving for that right now. Both God-ordained and man-made problems will be removed. God-ordained problems being death, ill-health etc, and man-made ones being anything that is somehow related to the breakdown of our God-appointed and entirely natural social relationships (eg gender roles, family, nation etc) caused by man's fallen state. Everything will just work because people will be reconciled with God.

And that for me is the big difference between what I believe, and any mainstream religion out there. Religious systems are, as a philosopher would say, 'artificial and positive', based on rituals and observances etc. Whereas for me, Christianity is simply a description of our natural state. These two notions are the exact opposite each other, and yet it is these foundations that your faith really boils down to. Is the Bible a set of arbitrary commands, or does it offer a deeper meaning of who we really are and how we are meant to live? One detracts from the other, so it can't be both...

As stated on this thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...lam-true/page2

None of those 4 are the objections I made in op, but the objections from the debates in OP. The others were brought up and I replied to as time went along.


The claim made was Christianity has been influenced by paganism.

1] paganism

I feel I have to point out that Christmas has nothing to do with chritianity or the bible. It is a celebration done by some [including me] to celebrate the birth of the messiah. He is actually almost 100% correct in what he says of chritmas, good source here
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post...e.aspx#Article

But this has nothing to do with bible or christanity. Same with easter etc. If you want to ask me why I do celebrate Christmas given its likely pagan origins, I am glad to do so.



2] idolatry
Idolatry is the worship of anything other than god.
Baptism- is not a form of idolatry at all, it is baptism is a sign of a covenant like rainbow circumcision, no one worshiping water in any way. Baptism is throughout the OT ans NT, many passages.Not once does anyone worship the water, it is a sign.

ritual clothing for priests/ministers etc
again not idolatry, also not found in NT, added by catholic church. OT priest did entering temple have certain garnets. Not in anyway a from of idolatry.

communion/mass/the eucharist, and the observance of holy days
I agree these were created by catholic church, all but holy days. Nothing wrong with holy days at all, ever heard of Sabbath?.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
roamns 14

Please show me were these are any form of idolatry?



Thirdly, violence
I agree fully, the conquest of cannan was ordered by god to be fulfilled by believers [OT jews] I disagree this is genocide. I love this topic and its a great one. But I ask of you as I did last thread, please allow me to have this as its own thread, it is great topic I love and have done on twc many times. But wish for it to be its own, when I have more time. Also I have no idea how this would disprove the bible, especially when it constant with archaeology. If you mean violence in koran is same as the conquest of cannan. I suggest you bring that up in other thread, or watch debates on the subject I posted on other thread.


And finally, the treatment of women.
admittedly this is a subject I know little of,but Rhyfhylwyr is taking one specific letter to a Corinth church, that contradicts other letters from paul and nt on woman. The reason being more is going on here than normal. As I pointed out woman are allowed to be teachers/leaders this is true in OT and NT.

In Galatians 3:28 the scriptures explicitly state that women hold a position of equal value and importance to men: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others(Acts 16:14,40).
This does not make the man superior, only placed in a different role than the woman. The best example of this I can think of is the tribes of ancient Israel. The Levites were chosen out of the twelve tribes to be the priests and to run the house of God, but this didn't mean they were superior to any of the other tribes. That is just the position in which God placed them. In the same way, men are to be the authority in the church. Women are allowed to teach other women, and instruct men. Even Timothy, the recipient of this epistle, was tutored by his mother and grandmother (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). God also commanded Abraham to listen to the council of his wife in Genesis 21:12. However, since the authority falls to the man, it is he who will be held accountable for improper decisions, such as also happened to Abraham when he followed bad advice from Sarah in Genesis 16.
So, God is not against women at all. Because each sex has a different role to play, doesn't make one role more important than the other.
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
gen 1.27

allow me time to look into specifics of church at Corinth.

Eve
she was created in the image of god 100%, created in the image and likeness of god gen 1 26-28 child birth was not punishment but gift, pain in childbirth was punishment just as adam was punished. That eve was created second means nothing to importance, what is more important NT or OT?. When eve is called a helper, that word is only ever used of god in OT, this in no way means inferior to man, but godlike. God is not inferior to man neither is woman. Sutible helper means "like opisite him" a mirror image.


I agree with most everything about last paragraphs.Gone will again bring the world back to its prefallen state.
4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[a] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
revelations 21.4

I disagree that god caused problems, it was man sin.

[lars573]

To start, paganism. To the average person, many of the most obvious features of Christianity are essentially pagan. Most obviously, Christmas. Contrary to the traditional story, Jesus was most likely born in September, Mary may or may not have arrived in Bethlehem on a donkey and she certainly did not arrive the night she gave birth. She then probably stayed in a house with relatives without talking with any inkeepers. The wise men (not kings, probably not riding camels, and their number is not stated) did visit Jesus, but by that time he was a toddler. As for the festivities, the date of December 25th, the practice of decorating trees, and the giving of gifts are all outright pagan ripoffs.

More than just that. There are those that theorize that the story of Jesus is a pastiche of Egyptian myths about Horus, Isis, and Osiris. With Isis being Mary (both have the title mother of God), and Jesus being a mix of Horus (who had the epitaph lamb of god) and Osiris (story of the resurrection). It's part of the Jesus was wholly mythological line of thinking.

[total relism]

More than just that. There are those that theorize that the story of Jesus is a pastiche of Egyptian myths about Horus, Isis, and Osiris. With Isis being Mary (both have the title mother of God), and Jesus being a mix of Horus (who had the epitaph lamb of god) and Osiris (story of the resurrection). It's part of the Jesus was wholly mythological line of thinking.

I have to ask for evidence, these comparisons are severely overstated or are clearly after jesus, or both. I would love a original source on this one. I have seen the "best" comparisons by atheist and Muslims ripped apart in debates, watch william lane craig.

[Strike For The South]

Here we go again. Mans inherit goodness forced into a Jewish Mysticism

Face it boys we are here alone

I realize that sucks but it is what it is.

Make the most of it,

[Rhyfelwyr]

Mans inherit goodness forced into a Jewish Mysticism

What I said contained about as much Jewish mysticism as a bacon butty.

And I don't believe things have to suck, I feel good knowing the big man's looking out for me.

[total relism]

To avoid getting in debate on things I disagree with you on, I will only suggest, a baptist church if you want freedom and not rituals.

[lars573]

I have to ask for evidence, these comparisons are severely overstated or are clearly after jesus, or both. I would love a original source on this one. I have seen the "best" comparisons by atheist and Muslims ripped apart in debates, watch william lane craig.

Impossible. It's based on interpretations of history and theology.

That was probably common among the monophysitists (strongest in Egypt) and influenced how they viewed the divinity of Jesus.

Actually I first heard it in a History channel program. Which was itself based on the works of some early 20th century writers, Gerald Massey and Alvin Boyd Kuhn. Who's works didn't survive Academic rigors. Massey believed that Herod the great was made up as well for example.

The argument against this has always been that the Gospels are about a man who is self conciously playing up existing myths - Jesus litterally goesout of his way to ape Joshua's movements through Israel, he does things just to fulfil the prophecies. In the most extreme example he openly states that he does miracles not to help individuals, but so people will believe he is Son of God.

The gospels were written from oral traditions, and were edited by their authors. It's possible that there was a man who called himself Jesus of Nazareth traipsing around Judea with a list of Messiah requirements knocking them off one by one. It's also possible that it was a group of men using Jesus of Nazareth like Red Hood, an identity used by all of the group at different times to pull off the Messiah miracles (some of which experimental Archaeologists have pulled off with first century Jewish knowledge). Short of a time machine it's not possible to know for sure if Jesus was a real individual person. It requires faith, something I'm not capable of. So I cannot believe he was real.

And I don't believe things have to suck, I feel good knowing the big man's looking out for me.

What a horrifying way to live.

[Hax]

Here we go again. Mans inherit goodness forced into a Jewish Mysticism

Face it boys we are here alone

I realize that sucks but it is what it is.

Make the most of it,

Strike​, I love you. Now let's find a motel room.

[Ironside]

Since I am curious on a fews ideas that occured while debating total realism.

First, moral absolutism. Is it more to it than "I'm freaking powerful so my words are the law"? Is it being not human, he can percieve things without being trapped with that viewpoint? Did he weave it in (poorly) to the universe itself?

Second, the notion on that God began alone. As I pointed out, there's no good and evil when being truely alone, since the notion stems from interactions. God learning morality fits the Bible much more than the other way. Mainly an interesting notion, since the idea of God's infinate wisdom means that he could come up with a perfect theoretical moral system and fully comprehend it before he even created any other living being. That he doesn't act this way is another matter.

[Ironside]

More than just that. There are those that theorize that the story of Jesus is a pastiche of Egyptian myths about Horus, Isis, and Osiris. With Isis being Mary (both have the title mother of God), and Jesus being a mix of Horus (who had the epitaph lamb of god) and Osiris (story of the resurrection). It's part of the Jesus was wholly mythological line of thinking.

That was probably common among the monophysitists (strongest in Egypt) and influenced how they viewed the divinity of Jesus.

[Papewaio]

Yes, and the golden rule appears in different forms and translations in most successful societies.

However the antithesis of the golden rule is becoming all too rampant: "He that holds the gold makes the rules."

[a completely inoffensive name]

More and more i find myself turning to my faith for comfort. The old me would have scoffed.

That's fine and all, but I have to ask why.

[Sigurd]

That's fine and all, but I have to ask why.

There are no atheists in a foxhole?

[Ironside]

Good question. Wish i had a good answer.

Disappointment in how society develops perhaps?

I might misremember, but I get the feeling that your opinions are leaning more to the left and are also more cynical nowadays.
You could do much worse than having Jesus as a role model.