A civilized dissussion: Christianity and paganism

[mactire]

I am having the following a conversation about Jesus with another member.

From the title I understand this is a discussion between paganism and Christianity. This is problematic since the term paganism of today is undergoing a problems of identification. There are forums that define not what paganism is but what it is not. There is a growing individualism in paganism which is focusing on avoiding beliefs common to pagans with emphasis on the individual beliefs. Within this umbrella of pagans there are some groups that do try to propose common beliefs for their particular form of paganism. Even organizations like the pagan federation has tried to place some definition and there are groups of reconstructionalists that are trying to reconstruct a pagan religion from the past that have a more defined approach. The Christian religion has also undergone vast diversification that make the division less clear. To compare it might be best to define what type of paganism in comparison discussion so you can draw from those beliefs to compare.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From the title I understand this is a discussion between paganism and Christianity. This is problematic since the term paganism of today is undergoing a problems of identification. There are forums that define not what paganism is but what it is not. There is a growing individualism in paganism which is focusing on avoiding beliefs common to pagans with emphasis on the individual beliefs. Within this umbrella of pagans there are some groups that do try to propose common beliefs for their particular form of paganism. Even organizations like the pagan federation has tried to place some definition and there are groups of reconstructionalists that are trying to reconstruct a pagan religion from the past that have a more defined approach. The Christian religion has also undergone vast diversification that make the division less clear. To compare it might be best to define what type of paganism in comparison discussion so you can draw from those beliefs to compare.

If I remember correctly, the member and I were discussing paganism from an earth-centered religious light. She/he was telling me about their truth in Christ. I was saying I believed differently.

We went off thr definition I gave based off what I believed not paganism as a whole.

 

[Whiterain]

I have to admit that I'm Heathen, however I'll be as unbiased as I can.

How I understand some theories on the development of Christianity starts in Israel with the Pagan Canaanites. There were four notable deities, being El, ruling God of the sky resembling Egyptian Ra, Asherah, fertility goddess and his wife resembling Egyptian Isis or Persian Astarte, Yahweh, war God resembling the wrathful Greek Ares, and Baal, storm God similar to Nordic Thor.

Abraham calls his God "El" or "El elyon", and later his "Elohim" which in the context of the time might be most appropriately translated as "patron God (of a pantheon)" suggesting Abraham was Pagan, honoring many deifies but giving one special attention in exchange for special treatment, as the Athenians were to Athena.

Later there was tension between the temple to Yahweh and the one to Baal. To emphasize Yahweh's status they syncretized him and chieftain El, and competed against Baal's priests. They only were successful by depicting El-Yahweh as a universally powerful God, who was jealous of others.

Full blown monotheism isn't established until Isaiah with "besides me there is no God". Before "God" or "The Lord" refers to an "us" and implies the existence of other divinities, making scholars thing Abrahamic Spirituality was henotheistic, monotheistic to one deity but vaguely agnostic to others.

The Hebrews (coming from Canaanites) were captured by Babylon and Babylonian creation influenced Abrahamic lore, particularly with creation and the Leviathan.

Satan wasn't evil in the lore until much later. "Lucifer" wasn't included in the book until after Roman adoption of Christianity. The story originally is talking about the fall of a mythical king, not an angel.

Satan was interpreted as an evil character in the New Testament at least. Later Christians would liken him to animal-like trickster gods like Pan, Cernunnos, Apophis and Loki. From Loki comes deceptiveness while Pan and Cernunnos give Satan a depiction of wearing hornes or bearing cloven feat. Apophis was the inspiration for the aspects of Satan being a) the serpent of Eden and b) the dragon of revelation.

Jesus was born at a vague time AD. He lead a cultural rebellion against Rome, attempting to make himself king by claiming royal blood from metaphorically or literally descending from Yahweh, as Caesar claimed do with Venus or Ragnar Lothbrok with Odin. "Son of God" was a title having nothing to do with divine genes, but everything to do with the right to be king of a land. Because he wanted to usher in The Israelite Kingdom (aka kicking Rome out), he was committing treason and was punished like all Roman trators and political rebels, through crucifixion. The Jewish Aristocracy only notified Rome of Jesus' movement, so Rome killed him, not the Jews.

The Prophecy of a Messiah of the Jews was understood to be written about someone to establish the Jewish kingdom, independent of Rome.

He was crucified for his political agenda but something unknown happened to compel his followers to think his message was spiritual and not political. This something is often assumed to be the alleged rebirth of Jesus.

Christianity's spirituality started resembling Buddhism and Mystic Judaism. In converting the local pagans of Greece and Egypt, Jesus as a dying God was given stories of native dying God archetypes like Horus and Osiris in Egypt (Osiris died and rose again and was called "King of kings, lord of lords" in the Egyptian book of the dead while Horus, born of virgin Isis Meri/Mary, performed weather miracles like calming storms and walking on water) Dionysus in Greece (died and rose, virgin born, miraculous with wine even turning it out from water, born in a cave or stable, started as mortal but rose into Olympianhood) Mithra in Iran and Rome (born of a virgin, called "the light/truth" worshipped on Sunday) Woden in Germany (died on a tree for the sake of humankind and arose again) etc. this suggests a syncretic attitude early Christians had with paganism, meaning they looked at Pagan mythic characters as being related to, maybe as different forms of, their familiar biblical ones, called "Interpretatio Christiana".

After Christianity was made official roman religion, Rome's colonialist attitude was intensified. The Christian Rome sought the conversion of Germanic and Celtic Europe first.

Already the winter solstice was a celebration from Saturnalia, but celebrating Christ rather than Saturn. The same day was called "Yule" or "Jol" to the Vikings, Goths and Anglo Saxons.

After a genocide on Germanic Royalty, destroying allegedly Odinic, Ingvic, Thorish and other bloodlines, England was easy to subdue into Christian power. Missionaries went into there (pre-conversion) as well as Scandinavia, Germany and the minor Celtic Ireland.

From the Heathens we get Christmas symbology, being Santa Claus, Holly, Evergreen Trees and Gold (from Odin, Mistletoe, Pine and Baldr) and the same with Easter, being eggs, rabbits and spring colors from Goddess Eostre's symbolism as well as Halloween from Celtic Samhain and Heathen Autumnal Festivals (whence comes the association with death, ghosts, demons and magic), called "All Hallows' Day" on Nov 1st, the day before being "All Hallow's Eve" shortened to "Halloween".

The story of Adam, Eve, a tree and a serpent bears suspicious similarity between the Viking world tree and world serpent, especially in the myth of Ragnarok which has a lot of parallels with Revelation:
Jesus-Baldr
Fenrir- the antichrist
Loki/ Surt- Satan/ the dragon
Jormungandr- The Beast
Both also have worldwide chaos by fire, trumpet blowing, darkening of the sun and an ending involving two giants or humans hiding in the tree, implying the ending of Norse Pagam Lore is the beginning of Biblical Scripture.

The Flood Archetypal myth is also repeating in Paganisms, most notably Greek, Egyptian, Middke Eastern and Scandinavian Polytheisms, involving a global flood and two or a few people to repopulate the human species.

The Mediterranean Biblical God was depicted similarly to Jupiter and Zeus, being interpreted as a just, celestial father even carrying the sky-ish and lightning-ish symbolism like the chief European sky God.

The New Christians believed very quickly the lies of the church. Recently pagan Saxons wrote Beowulf, a hero who fights a demon, his mother, a lake of serpents and a dragon, all understood as representing Heathens and Heathenism.

The word for "pagan" used by Christians has changed. Having first arrived in Greece, and the only interactions with paganism having been indigenously Hellenic, the word for "Greek" (Hellenes) was used to describes polytheists. Later in Rome, with it spreading there, the religion had been popularized in urban areas, and the country folk (called "paganī") were left unchecked to follow the older pagan ways. The word for "country dweller" came to mean instead "polytheist",carrying over to English as the word "Pagan".

The Cross comes from a pagan solar symbol of the sun wheel or sun cross. It has variances that look like what we would recognize as swatzikas, crosses and eight armed star like crosses.

"Heathen" is just and English translation of the word.

Hellás- Greece- adj Hellen
Pagus- countryside- adj pagānus- pagan
Hæthe- Eng. Heath- adj hæthen- Heathen

The shifts in this pagan meaning suggests Christians mostly interacted with polytheists firstly as Greek Polytheists, then Roman rustic folk, then as Anglo Saxon Heath folk.

The words "Heathen" and "pagan" then were more popular to use to describe any polytheist like the Vikings and Druids.

As Europeans came in America and Africa, the natives' ways (West African Voodoon and Native American shamanisms) syncretized with Catholicism turning into ideologies hailing saints or spirits who serve a great deity (Yoruba "God" or "Voodoo" and Native American "Creator", "Great Spirit" or "Sky Being").

Paganism is commonly ancestral, so the new converts had a preference to honor the characters from Biblical Mythology as their ancestors, making the depictions of say Abraham, Moses or Jesus as ethnically similar to the dominant race of the worshippers in Christian art.

To Sum it up, Canaanite Paganism combined the sky God and war God to become a monotheistic divinity of the Middle East. Yeshua ("Joshua" or Jesus) seemed to want to fulfill the prophecy of Israel's political liberation, and later was interpreted as an avatar of the monotheistic God. Pagan ideas and symbols from Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Germanic Europe influenced European based Christianity while West African animism influenced Voodoo, Santeria and the like, lastly Native American shamanic practice influenced Christian movements of the Cherokee, Comandchee, etc nations.

I don't think that the similarities between Christianity and Pagan Polytheisms need to necessarily devalue anything. Christianity is going to have to change tho with these parallels being more well known, but only has to change but not be considered less authentic.

Everything cultural, linguistic and spiritual came from something else. Heathenry, my own community, honors spirits and gods with the Germanic Culture in mind, evolved from a much more ancient Northern European religion with very different names, symbols, values and stories, which came from a much older European-mother culture that too was quite different on the surface. This worldview probably was also just a reinterpretation of an older polytheistic worldview.

I think to satisfy the intellectuality of the religious, the mindset of loose and abstract mythological interpretations and culturally liberal approaches are going to be the future of western spirituality, accepting that religion is metaphorical, subjective and pertains to the spirit and morality, but outside of that it has little practical application.

(I'm using my culture because I know it best) Heathens would tell you that although the lore says the Sun is Sol, a giantess, running away from a sky wolf around the earth or that Odin is a one eyed sage with a flying horse, that doesn't mean we need to accept this literally and become geocentric and looking up for Sleipnir. I'll tell you some are applicable very well in meditation and cultural matters, but have little use in literal interpretation. Although the lore says creation was consisted of a mythic giant who battled with Odin and whose body was used to made the world, I don't think this is scientifically relevant and I accept theories like evolution and cosmological Big Bang as valid.

So Christians I feel should accept their ideologies pagan roots, heritage and past, and, if they so chose, interpret the biblical scriptures with note of cultural biases at the time and the same people's scientific ignorance, leaving the interpretations abstract and strictly spiritual. I see these characteristics not only in Paganisms but Liberal Christian Movements and the Unitarian Universalist Movement.

Basically what I've been trying to articulate for 4 years.

Yes, Jesus is relative to other dying and resurrecting Gods.

Humans can do it to. Dying and coming back to life, while it can be a miracle, does not make you a God.

People die and are brought back to life everyday in hospitals, or even naturally.


What do I think of Christ? He had good philosophy's, maybe even the best. But he's not met the suffering of Man, unless he is truly entitled otherwise.

 

[mactire]

If I remember correctly, the member and I were discussing paganism from an earth-centered religious light. She/he was telling me about their truth in Christ. I was saying I believed differently.

We went off thr definition I gave based off what I believed not paganism as a whole.

If I remember correctly, the member and I were discussing paganism from an earth-centered religious light. She/he was telling me about their truth in Christ. I was saying I believed differently.

We went off thr definition I gave based off what I believed not paganism as a whole.

I am new to this forum and it took me a moment to find out where this started. I still could not find how you defined paganism for yourself. As I had said earlier paganism has diversified so much that it becomes more important to give more identity to the form of paganism you practice or believe in. This is probably true to even Christianity to an extend because of its diversity but Christianity does have a common book or books that gives it some definition. I would be interested in your perspective on paganism. I am sure you might have discussed it before but I am still learning how to find my way through the form.

Others have pointed out an interesting aspect of Christianity that many people are not aware of. Since Christianity developed from the Hebrew religion, then its roots go back to polytheism. This is apparent in the old testament where the Hebrews had their tribal god as did other groups in the surrounding area. Over time the conceptualization of the Hebrew god went from a primarily tribal god amongst many other gods and goddesses to a single god above all others. The concept of tribal gods and goddesses appears to have been the normal beliefs thought at least north western Europe particularly in the Germanic and Celtic cultures. Even in pagan religions there was change too best seen in the Greek and Roman religions where an organized pantheon of gods with more specialized duties develops. This is most apparent when Caesar tries to describe the Celtic gods in a pantheon pattern but has difficulty identifying a pantheon for the Celts. We try to see a pantheon in the Irish tales written by the Irish monks but this collection of gods and goddesses is most likely a fabrication in an attempt to make sense of the Irish gods and goddesses with the influence of Rome and its language. It is more likely that the different clans had a different god/goddess that they identified rather than and organized family of gods/goddesses. An example is anu who is a goddess associated with Kerry County.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Nice.

I cant remember which thread we spoke in. It was a DIR (Discuss Individual Religions) and DIRs arent for debate.

I do have a few separate threads that describe my faith in full.

It is paganism but more modern. I dont believe in multiple deities, reconstruct old religions, or do folk practices.

I revere the earth. I am holistic in mind, body, and soul. Which means, I do things all holisticly (literally speaking). I try and lve my life by the moon cycles. I try to eat in season. I celebrate new and full moons. They give me guidence and direction.

I believe that everything has a spirit (animism). I also believe that we can know spirits (specifically my ancestors and recently deceased) in prayer and ritual.

I dont believe in any form of deities. I am an atheist.

I developed interest in witchcraft, specifically, from my mother. Learning this is a whole thread in itself. My faith is based on practice not just belief.
--

My world view is diverse, as is everyone I assume. I used to practice Buddbism formally. I am heavily influenced by the Buddha's teachings. Specifically that we all have a Buddha Nature. We have a clear nature or self that is covered by ego. I practiced with Nichire. Buddhist who believed by chanting "the mystic law of cause and effect" the core of the Buddhas teaching, will help us be intune with change etc. Its not my religion. Its a world view that makes sense so much that I dont understand why people dont believe it.

I was never christian until three years ago when I prematurly took the sacraments of the Church. The Church has taught me sooo much that I cannot harbor ill feelings about her. Thats in a thread somewhere I wrote too.


--
This isnt all paganism. The first part is. My world view is multi faceted which makes it hard to pick sides.

The lady I talked to is Christian. She was telling me her truth and we swaped discussion about it, mostly what she wrote.

If you want, I can find those threads about my faith. The debates are interesting. However, what I said pretty much wraps it up.

Thanks for reading all this.

Cheerios!

I am new to this forum and it took me a moment to find out where this started. I still could not find how you defined paganism for yourself. As I had said earlier paganism has diversified so much that it becomes more important to give more identity to the form of paganism you practice or believe in. This is probably true to even Christianity to an extend because of its diversity but Christianity does have a common book or books that gives it some definition. I would be interested in your perspective on paganism. I am sure you might have discussed it before but I am still learning how to find my way through the form.

Others have pointed out an interesting aspect of Christianity that many people are not aware of. Since Christianity developed from the Hebrew religion, then its roots go back to polytheism. This is apparent in the old testament where the Hebrews had their tribal god as did other groups in the surrounding area. Over time the conceptualization of the Hebrew god went from a primarily tribal god amongst many other gods and goddesses to a single god above all others. The concept of tribal gods and goddesses appears to have been the normal beliefs thought at least north western Europe particularly in the Germanic and Celtic cultures. Even in pagan religions there was change too best seen in the Greek and Roman religions where an organized pantheon of gods with more specialized duties develops. This is most apparent when Caesar tries to describe the Celtic gods in a pantheon pattern but has difficulty identifying a pantheon for the Celts. We try to see a pantheon in the Irish tales written by the Irish monks but this collection of gods and goddesses is most likely a fabrication in an attempt to make sense of the Irish gods and goddesses with the influence of Rome and its language. It is more likely that the different clans had a different god/goddess that they identified rather than and organized family of gods/goddesses. An example is anu who is a goddess associated with Kerry County.

 

[Yoshua]

They only disobey when we set rules in how children is supposed to act. Without our "rules" children do not sin. They are being children.

Hi Carlita,

I don’t think that is true. Then why we set rules to them if they are already obedient and perfect in all their ways? Logical isn’t it?

Yes. The Buddha came down to our level (rather than wanting us to His as Jesus did) to help us help ourselves from suffering. He reached the point of nibana (peaceful state) where he "accepted" not cured that there is suffering. He said there is a cause (which is our ego creates by the outside world not inherit in ourselves as sinful nature). He then said there is an ens to suffering ane continued with saying how (the eight fold path)

He is not God. He knew that we will reach nivabana. In therevada sect, they feel by practice they will reach the rifht state of mind. I believe in mahayana who speaks that the Buddha is within us. The clean nature is within us. When we hear the Buddha's Law, it shines. He is also here (as I believe in spirits) to hear the Law when it is preached.

The Buddha within us is wisdom and peace that gives clear state of mind. Many Buddhas (people of perfect wisdom) still go through suffering. The difference between them and us is they accept it and Live witth it. The Path is devotion and practice, not just belief. Prayers Are the postrations not intent and postrations added.

Buddhism is about the Mind. Im Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, the summary of the Law, He says that we are to devote ourselves to the mystic Law which is that things will happen (cause) and the consequrences or benefits (affects) will come from it.

It is great that Buddha, actually I should say the Lord Buddha as so is His refered title, is not a God nor a savior of the human race. The definition of what He calls salvation is in ourselves.

It is interesting that the Lord Buddha never told us the final Law. He gave us idea but never indtructions. It comes from us.

The Lord Buddha's disciples could not comprehend why our Lord did not give them the answers (in the Lotus Sutra). We comprehend. The Lord Buddha predicted we will try to look outside of ourselves for answers and He is ie right. He would when He sees us. He would say "why are you looking elsewhere for answers? Everything you have out of suffering comes from you." He believed in no Salvational God (He did believe gods existed but thats different than believing In them). He rejected them when reaching enlightenment.

The POINT is why do each of us look outside ourselves for answers? Following the Lord Buddha means getting in touch with your true nature by means of practice and Living not just believing in it.ï

It is hard but I do believe in the supernatural. I see no reason to depend on it as if being supernatural it has some more importance than this life. I was not taught that and I dont believe that.

I am confussed and shocked that others do.

Thanks for reading this.

Buddha is seeking the truth. He saw the sufferings and reached the enlightenment through nirvana. He is dependent on himself (physical effort) and died. All his acts and principles had an answers. I believe that is the truth that Jesus Christ promised to us.

Like a top killer who killed a lot of people can be changed by the power of Holy Spirit. He can turned to be a good man—white as snow. But if he is dependent on his might (self), I’m assured that he cannot be totally changed as white as snow. He will also die like Buddha—who is dependent in physical effort.

Isa. 1:18
18. "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the Lord,
"Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.

On this verse, I believed that we are not commanded to use our own physical effort to produce good works, because it cannot be saved. It is by faith that we can be saved.

Eph. 2:8-10
8. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9. not as a result of works, that no one should boast.
10. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Jesus promised that He will give us rest to those who are tired because His load is light and easy. This is not dependent on oneself but dependent to God.

Matt.11:28-30
28. "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
29. "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.
30. "For My yoke is easy, and My load is light."

I believed that Jesus is only the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only one who said that.

John 14:6
6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.


Thanks

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita,

I don’t think that is true. Then why we set rules to them if they are already obedient and perfect in all their ways? Logical isn’t it?



Buddha is seeking the truth. He saw the sufferings and reached the enlightenment through nirvana. He is dependent on himself (physical effort) and died. All his acts and principles had an answers. I believe that is the truth that Jesus Christ promised to us.

Like a top killer who killed a lot of people can be changed by the power of Holy Spirit. He can turned to be a good man—white as snow. But if he is dependent on his might (self), I’m assured that he cannot be totally changed as white as snow. He will also die like Buddha—who is dependent in physical effort.

Isa. 1:18
18. "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the Lord,
"Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.

On this verse, I believed that we are not commanded to use our own physical effort to produce good works, because it cannot be saved. It is by faith that we can be saved.

Eph. 2:8-10
8. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9. not as a result of works, that no one should boast.
10. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Jesus promised that He will give us rest to those who are tired because His load is light and easy. This is not dependent on oneself but dependent to God.

Matt.11:28-30
28. "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
29. "Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls.
30. "For My yoke is easy, and My load is light."

I believed that Jesus is only the way, the truth, and the life. He is the only one who said that.

John 14:6
6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.


Thanks

I respect your belief. I dont share it.

Children dont sin unlese you have a rule that already set for them to possible break. If there were no rules (say no bible), then they are being children.

We teach them by guidence and explain consequences of their actions. We dont say "what you did was 'bad'" its "what you did could hurt someone This is what you can do instead". Its not instilling right/wrong in the childs head since hes a child. Its teaching him consequences of his actions based on knowledge and showing by example.

If there were no rules, no one could break them (sin)

 

[EyeofOdin]

As an agnostic, I'll try to respond likewise.



Actually you would be better concentrating on Ugaritic deities, and as we have no attestation for Thor until long after YHWH, and indeed basically the oldest Germanic extant texts are translations from the Bible into Gothic, comparisons are a priori problematic an untenable once one relies on evidence rather than either Jungian nonsense or Frazer-type outdated historical methods.


"Athena" wasn't a singular entity. It is standard for classicists and similar scholars to adfix a particular city or similar "community" to Athena's name to designate the Athena represented in that locale in that time.


Fully agree. In fact, the need for the texts to contain such an assertion suggest that other gods were believed in.


Hebrews didn't come from Canaanites.



It's absolutely true that the translation "Lucifer" wasn't a translation of "Satan". It was a translation of a "morning star"-like deity in Hebrew that was translated into the Greek equivalent of Lucifer in the LXX and the Latin "Light-bearer" in the Vulgate.


The word in Hebrew means "adversary" and was identified as an evil entity before Jesus (although after most of the texts from the old testament).


Nothing we know of most "trickster gods" exists independent of Christianized pagan deities, and Pan wasn't a trickster deity.


I personally tend to agree that part of his rebellion was cultural (to the extent this has meaning in antiquity). However, it is also true that many scholars do not regard him as rebelling at all (or at least not in the sense generally thought). Also, many scholars would say "political rebellion" was a more appropriate description.


Jesus lived in a part of the Roman empire that had minimal Roman rule (at least directly). Rome cared about movement in Judaism in Judaea mainly because of Jewish aristocratic movements like the Maccabean revolt. Jewish unrest meant a breach of the pax romana, and only if Jesus had incited Jewish aristocracy would the Roman-sanctioned rulers like Pilate have cared.


I agree.


All of this is either completely false or grossly inaccurate.


LONG after Constantine...

I'm confused, you didn't exactly contradict me anywhere except saying that Hebrews didn't come from Canaanites.

I will say that the origins of the Hebrews (in a non theological context) is debated. You're free to disagree about their origins but it's just my opinion that most likely happened.

 

[Yoshua]

I respect your belief. I dont share it.

Children dont sin unlese you have a rule that already set for them to possible break. If there were no rules (say no bible), then they are being children.

We teach them by guidence and explain consequences of their actions. We dont say "what you did was 'bad'" its "what you did could hurt someone This is what you can do instead". Its not instilling right/wrong in the childs head since hes a child. Its teaching him consequences of his actions based on knowledge and showing by example.

If there were no rules, no one could break them (sin)

Hi Carlita,

It seems that we cannot meet at a certain point regarding the children discussion, but you have your point. However, maybe your experience and my experience are totally different, but honestly, I already discovered that children lies and do naughty things. There is a certain age of accountability, I think 9 or 10 years old that they fully understand what is right or wrong.

Thanks

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi Carlita,

It seems that we cannot meet at a certain point regarding the children discussion, but you have your point. However, maybe your experience and my experience are totally different, but honestly, I already discovered that children lies and do naughty things. There is a certain age of accountability, I think 9 or 10 years old that they fully understand what is right or wrong.

Thanks

I dont have children. That could be why.

When I was a child, I broke rules because they were given to me. Why Not break the rules? Being a kid, that was my mindset.

If I did not have those rules, I cant break them. The difference between your faith and mine is the Bible has a strict rules and that without the Bible one wouldnt know it; therefore, they would sin.

I believe nature (real rather than metaphoric) takes care of us. We see the "rules" by interaction with her. That is the closest source of Truth is where we are born (Water) and where we pass (earth). We look to the sun for life. We look to the wind for guidence. Any act that discrupts the cycle of life is "a sin".

I understand children do childish things. To call it bad orngood depends on the morals we use. Children are innocent from the bias of one person's morals over another.

Anyway. Thank you for understanding my point. Thats all I realy ask on RF is understanding not to change minds etc.

 

[Joyce ODell]

Carlita, I have never in my life heard anything so well put. I am at awe wow. Thank you for your thoughts and words.