godnotgod
Thou art That
...and a prime example of this is in the horrific Jewish infanticide to the pagan god Moloch.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Christianity based upon Pagan ideas?
- Thread starter godnotgod
- Start date
...and a prime example of this is in the horrific Jewish infanticide to the pagan god Moloch.
The difference is that you believe in buddhist doctrine, not christian. To those of use who believe in neither, your belief in the power of breath is as baseless, superstitious, and irrational as a belief in the power of blood.
Wrong. The idea that their is a "higher consciousness" is a matter of belief.
Same can be said for breath. Ever heard of the placebo effect? Just because you think that you are experiencing a "religious state" doesn't mean you are. LSD, various other drugs, as well as hyperventilation or LACK of oxygen can mess around with your neuronal transmission.
No, it is based on faith, exactly as your beliefs are.
How ridiculous. There are plenty of chrisitians who can testify to feeling the presence of God, seeing visions of Jesus, experiencing power in the eucharist. This is all via "direct experience." However, if there is one thing psychological research has taught us, it is that people can experience things that aren't real.
Just because you can trick yourself into experiencing religious states via meditation does not make them real, any more than a christian seeing visions of the risen christ or whatever. Pleny of shamans in tribal religions report experiencing various religious states through breath control and other techniques. And plenty victims of their curses report experiencing them as well. Doesn't make it real.
One can believe that the blood has power, but that does nothing. It is the breath that can be controlled in such a way as to alter conscious states, and act as a pathway to direct transformative spiritual experience.
Like most of buddhist doctrine.
Because it isn't really seeing. There is no such thing as "inner seeing." It is superstitious belief. Seeing is a process of receiving sensory input via light waves into the PNS via nerves connected to the eyes, which lead primarily into the occipital lobe.
If only that were a historical example, and not something you obtained from a graphics designer.
This is so funny. You read modern texts of which are baseless reconstructions of practices like gnosticism, and think that is evidence. When you can quote an actual, authentic gnostic text, let alone a qabbalistic or sufi text, and not modern reconstructions based on cult-like groups who pretend they are actually anything like the ancient groups, get back to me.
godnotgod
Thou art That
No, it is you who is funny because you do not understand the approach of Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and Sufi, all of which are MYSTICAL practices. What that means, is that text, whether ancient or modern, are considered SECOND HAND to the immediate experience of gnosis, which is an INNER experience. To a mystic, there is no such thing as "authentic" as compared to "modern reconstruction", simply because the source they are accessing is without history, without memory. It is available only in the Present Moment as a living, breathing experience, and that experience is always centered around the breath, a fact which I have proven via of my examples.
You continue to nibble around the edges with your so called "scholarship", which is completely worthless until you decide to put it all aside and "go see for yourself" without preconception, without idea, belief, or any other notion in your mind. Until then, you are just playing games, on the outside looking in, through a glass darkly, and coming to erroneous conclusions with your conceptual mind about something that is not based upon concept.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I did not make my statement from a Buddhist point of view. I already explained the difference between the two from a logical point of view. One is a matter of belief, the other a matter of direct experience which can be validated by its results, and which IS validated daily by practitioners all over the world, in many different disciplines. It is a known fact.
The difference between what the prisoners experience in Plato's Cave Allegory and those who actually see the Sun is that one is delusion and the other reality. Seeing the Sun is not a matter of belief.
Wrong. It is a matter of experience, without belief. The experience of higher consciousness shows one the difference between reality and illusion beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is why it is called Higher Consciousness.
There are stages in the spiritual development of a meditator where he does experience visions which he believes are real. In Zen, this is a known phenomena, called makyo. Therefore, when a student comes to a Zen teacher with his 'vision', he is calmly instructed to return to his meditation mat and focus on his breath, much to the protest of the student.
No, the same cannot be said for breath, unless we are still in the realm of belief about the breath, as in your example of Homer's Greek culture.
Beliefs are not based upon faith; they are based upon ignorance. Faith is a condition without beliefs.
Of course! That is the whole point: to get to a place where you can tell the difference. We call that point Enlightenment.
How do YOU tell the difference?
The goal of meditation is not to trick oneself into anything. It is to see reality as it is. We are not talking 'religious trance' here, as you imply. Initial control of the breath and mind are not the goal, but a pre-condition to the play of Higher Consciousness, which only occurs when those conditions have been met. Higher Consciousness is liberation, not trance.
You are in a trance right now, but you don't realize it. Your mind has been conditioned since you were born, so you did not notice at what point it became socially indoctrinated, because the indoctrination is hard wired in. You are asleep, but believe yourself awake. Meditation breaks up the trickery of Reason that your mind has been conditioned into. When you awaken, you can then be liberated from all forms of trickery. That does not mean you cannot continue to use Logic, Reason, and Analysis, but you now use it in a different way, with an awakened mind.
The fact that it is confusing to YOU is because you have so much mumbo jumbo in the way. When you finally decide to put your psychological baggage down, what Buddhism has to say will be immediately crystal clear.
No, Oberon. You are totally confused. We are not speaking about ordinary vision with the eyes and optic nerves. We are speaking about spiritual sight in which one sees correctly the true nature of reality.
Can you tell me what the true nature of reality is?
"This hawk of truth is swift and flies with a still cry,
a small sweetmeat for the eyes of night"
Last edited:
When you haven't studied ancient Gnostic texts or the ancient qabbalic texts, you can hardly make a statement about what they do or do not concern. I don't care if a bunch of modern people want to call themselves gnostics, or what beliefs or practices are espoused by such groups. This says NOTHING about the gnostic groups in the hellenistic age. So, until you can provide actual evidence about ancient gnostic groups that coheres with your statements, nothing you say has any bearing on these groups, but only on modern groups.
First, this is only true if your understanding of ancient gnosticism (which you get from modern groups) is accurate. It isn't. Second, it isn't a matter of "authentic" so much as it is understanding the differences between modern groups which call themselves gnostic and the ancient groups, who not only did not call themselves gnostic (they name was given to them in the modern era) but were not at all similar.
You can give a person a sugar pill and they may very well get better. In fact, as far as mental illness is concerned, often enough sugar pills are equal in effectiveness as the actual medicine. Yet they don't actually do ANYTHING. It is the BELIEF that they are real which accomplishes everything. This is also a "known fact." Likewise, millions of practitioners experiencing various states is not evidence of anything if these states cannot be confirmed empirically. There is no evidence that such states are not caused by belief. You believe that meditiation achieves this effect, so intepret your experience accordingly.
Placebo effects are experiences. They yield measurable, empirical results. Yet they are produced by belief. Likewise, meditation and other practices which cause experiences you describe are nothing more than a type of placebo effect, produced by belief. You may argue otherwise, but you have nothing more substantial than a "sugar pill" experience to back you up.
More mumbo jumbo.
godnotgod
Thou art That
I never specified that the breath was central to any particular gnostic group in the historical sense. The fact of the matter is that modern gnostics employ use of the breath in a most essential way. I only stated that the breath was central to the spiritual disciplines of the East, and then went on to include Gnosticism, Kabbalah, and Sufism. If anything, modern Gnostic experience validates ancient Gnosticism. In other words, the way modern Gnostics can know if what the ancient Gnostics were saying about their experiences is to "go and see" for themselves. What you don't understand is that the source the ancients were accessing as "gnosis" does not change with time. It is the same gnosis the modern Gnostic experiences, because the source lies within the Present Moment.
Exactly, and that is what Voodoo and Christianity have in common.
That is where you are wrong. For some strange reason, you seem to think your measuring tool must be the standard by which all others are judged. Who says someone's spiritual experience must be validated by emprical means? There are other forms of knowledge, of which most people are unawares. A Zen Master knows beyond any doubt whether his student has achieved a certain point in his spiritual development by questioning him.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SHUZAN held up his staff and waved it before his monks.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"If you call this a staff," he said, "you deny its eternal life.
If you do not call this a staff, you deny its present fact. Tell
me just what do you propose to call it?"[/FONT]
One cannot believe oneself into the state of Enlightenment.
That would be true if I were operating under the same rules as you, but I am not. The moment you set foot into this area, it is YOU who must follow other rules; not the ones you are conditioned with by your social structure, no matter how "scientific" you fancy yourself to be. Science cannot determine whether someone has achieved an authentic state of Enlightenment. Science, logic, reason, analysis all must be put aside. You stand there with your measuring devices demanding empirical proof of something that is beyond all measurement, all analysis, all logic, all reason, and all I can do is stare. If you really were a true scholar, you would go see for yourself, but instead, you jeer at what you do not understand.
Enlightenment is not a placebo effect. Enlightenment shows you the difference between placebo effect and reality. Science is just recently beginning to confirm what Buddhism & Taoism has been saying for centuries.
You cannot understand the whole by first dissecting it into parts, and then think to reassemble everything back together into a functioning whole. It will be dead. That is the method of science. Science can show us how something functions, but cannot tell us what its nature is. Science begins by creating an artificial view: that of observer and observed. Buddhism, on the other hand, eliminates these distinctions, dissolving the boundaries between "self and other". Hinduism has been telling us for centuries: "Tas atvam asi". Thou art That. Western man has failed to understand because he has his "self and other" baggage in the way.
If insight into the true nature of reality is mumbo jumbo, then can you tell me how YOU differentiate between illusion and the true nature of reality? You seem to think that it is all relative, and that there is no Absolute; no point at which two observers see the same reality.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]A Cup of Tea [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring. [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!" [/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"
[/FONT]
Last edited:
If you haven't read the only sources we have for ancient gnosticism, you have no idea what they believed. Modern groups calling themselves "gnostics" are not descendents from these groups, and they can hardly "validate" ancient gnostic experience if they do and believe things which we have no evidence that ancient gnostics believe.
What you don't understand is everything about ancient gnostic groups. They did not call themselves gnostic. Various groups disagreed radically. You have not read our sources for understanding what these groups believed, so you can hardly comment on what they did or did not believe.
As well as buddhism. You keep citing the fact that practitioners "experience" certain states, and that therefore this is not belief. The placebo effect is an "experience" but it is a result of belief.
The same is true for christians, musims, and so forth. They all claim to no things "beyond doubt" and many have experienced things which "validate" their beliefs. Buddhism is no different.
At least not consciously. Of course, people who experience the placebo effect do not know they are experiencing it. They think their experience is genuine.
Which makes your belief system just as superstitious and based on belief as any other.
That much is all clear from your responses.
The whole point of the placebo effect is that those who experience don't know it.
There may be an absolute truth, but it is unverifiable. It must be accepted on faith.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Duh! Enlightenment cures that problem.
Ha! That is what the prisoners in Plato's Cave Allegory said when they were told about the existence of the Sun!
It IS verifiable, but not on faith. Faith is part of the path, but not the goal. And it is not verifiable by empirical means. And it is not a placebo effect. And it is not a belief. And it is not the same as Christian belief or any other belief. It is'nt even Buddhism.
So tell me: what else can it be?
It is just the direct experience of reality the way it actually is, without concept, without belief, without placebo. Nothing stands between you and reality, so there is no room for distortion.
Answer my question: how do YOU tell the difference between illusion and true reality?
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
"According to the Buddha, to hold onto any particular thought is to freeze Reality, to try to encapsulate the world into thought....The view of a buddha isn't an ordinary, frozen view....What the Buddha meant by Right View has nothing to do with a view being [morally] right or wrong, but not being caught by a particular view....The view of a buddha is of how things actually are--which, in light of the constant flux and flow of the world, is no one way in particular. Right View is all-inclusive; it is Whole View, and therefore cannot have any opposing view.
There are two kinds of knowledge and two types of views. One consists of beliefs, opinions, conjectures--having an idea of something. It's an intellectual grasping of concepts. This is how we commonly think of knowledge.
But this is not true knowing....By their very nature, all our ideas and beliefs are frozen views--fragments of Reality, separated from the Whole....Because we rely on what we think (conception), rather than on what we see (perception), there's unrest [and anxiety] in our mind. [and therefore, suffering].
There is a second type of view, what the Buddha called Right View, which is not a concept or belief...it's no particular view at all. Right View is simply seeing reality as it is, here and now, moment after moment. It's relying on bare attention--naked awareness of what is before conceptual thought arises. [metaphysic*].
If we are to ever find certitude--real knowledge that is beyond all doubts and misunderstandings--it's clearly not going to come from our vying concepts and beliefs. Rather, true knowledge** must appear before all our ideas and opinions. In other words, it's nothing other than immediate, direct experience of the world in and of itself. True knowledge is seeing thus.
Seeing thus is the unshakable ground we long for simply because it cannot be doubted. Herein lies freedom of mind..and fearlessness as well."
excerpted from: Buddhism Plain and Simple, by Steve Hagen
*Metaphysic: The indefinable basis of knowledge. Metaphysical knowledge or "realization" is an intense clarity of attention to that indefinable and immediate "point" of knowledge which is always "now", and from which all other knowledge is elaborated by reflective thought. A consciousness of "life" in which the mind is not trying to grasp or define what it knows.
excerpted from: Myth and Ritual in Christianity, by Alan Watts
**This "true knowledge" is Higher Consciousness, "higher" because it is not the ordinary conceptual, frozen, and therefore erroneous knowledge. It denotes, therefore, 'Higher Man'.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
So, I think I have adequately established that 'Higher Man' is not a condescension, and that higher states of consciousness, free of superstition and fear, are attainable, and that the elements contained within Christian doctrine are the exact same elements one finds in fear-driven and superstitious tribal practices, especially that of blood sacrifice, whether animal or human, as a means of appeasing an angry and punishing god.
The question has been raised as to the where the connections exist between pagan and Christian ideaology. One such connection is to be found in the Jewish practice of infanticide to the pagan god Moloch, and in the Passover ritual:
In the narrative of the Exodus, the Bible tells that YHWH inflicted ten plagues upon the Egyptians before Pharaoh would release his Hebrew slaves, with the tenth plague being the killing of all of the firstborn, from the Pharaoh's son to the firstborn of the dungeon captive, to the firstborn of cattle. The Hebrews were instructed to mark the doorposts of their homes with the blood of a spring lamb and, upon seeing this, the spirit of the Lord passed over these homes, hence the term "passover".
[this is a superstitious practice, equivalent to carrying a rabbit's foot to ward off harm to one's person]
The holy day of the Christian feast of Easter is actually called "Passover" (or a derivative) in most languages other than English and German, and its central theme is that Christ was the paschal lamb in human form - a human sacrifice by god.
Passover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Additionally, the Jewish practice of the scapegoat was another symbolic prefiguration of the self-sacrifice of Jesus (Leviticus 16). This theme of transference of guilt to a sacrificial host can be traced back to pagan practices from the 24th century BC.
Scapegoat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
15Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people,...
21And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
[so Aaron played the part of a magician, mysteriously transferring the sins of the Jewish people onto the head of a live goat...wah!...lah!....executed with a few mysterious-sounding, but impressive words of genuine mumbo-jumbo, of course!]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2016&version=KJV;NIV;ASV;NKJV;NIRV
Here [Leviticus 16] are typified the two great gospel privileges, of the remission of sin, and access to God....The slain goat was a type of Christ dying for our sins; the scape-goat a type of Christ rising again for our justification. The atonement is said to be completed by putting the sins of Israel upon the head of the goat, which was sent away into a wilderness, a land not inhabited; and the sending away of the goat represented the free and full remission of their sins. "He shall bear upon him all their iniquities." Thus Christ, the Lamb of God, [taken from the Passover ritual] takes away the sin of the world, by taking it upon himself, Joh 1:29.
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/Matthew-Henry/Lev/Sacrifices-It-Scape-Goat
The question has been raised as to the where the connections exist between pagan and Christian ideaology. One such connection is to be found in the Jewish practice of infanticide to the pagan god Moloch, and in the Passover ritual:
In the narrative of the Exodus, the Bible tells that YHWH inflicted ten plagues upon the Egyptians before Pharaoh would release his Hebrew slaves, with the tenth plague being the killing of all of the firstborn, from the Pharaoh's son to the firstborn of the dungeon captive, to the firstborn of cattle. The Hebrews were instructed to mark the doorposts of their homes with the blood of a spring lamb and, upon seeing this, the spirit of the Lord passed over these homes, hence the term "passover".
[this is a superstitious practice, equivalent to carrying a rabbit's foot to ward off harm to one's person]
The holy day of the Christian feast of Easter is actually called "Passover" (or a derivative) in most languages other than English and German, and its central theme is that Christ was the paschal lamb in human form - a human sacrifice by god.
Passover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Additionally, the Jewish practice of the scapegoat was another symbolic prefiguration of the self-sacrifice of Jesus (Leviticus 16). This theme of transference of guilt to a sacrificial host can be traced back to pagan practices from the 24th century BC.
Scapegoat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
15Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people,...
21And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
22And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
[so Aaron played the part of a magician, mysteriously transferring the sins of the Jewish people onto the head of a live goat...wah!...lah!....executed with a few mysterious-sounding, but impressive words of genuine mumbo-jumbo, of course!]
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2016&version=KJV;NIV;ASV;NKJV;NIRV
Here [Leviticus 16] are typified the two great gospel privileges, of the remission of sin, and access to God....The slain goat was a type of Christ dying for our sins; the scape-goat a type of Christ rising again for our justification. The atonement is said to be completed by putting the sins of Israel upon the head of the goat, which was sent away into a wilderness, a land not inhabited; and the sending away of the goat represented the free and full remission of their sins. "He shall bear upon him all their iniquities." Thus Christ, the Lamb of God, [taken from the Passover ritual] takes away the sin of the world, by taking it upon himself, Joh 1:29.
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/Matthew-Henry/Lev/Sacrifices-It-Scape-Goat
Last edited:
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
Facts to consider:
Saturnalia began as a feast day for Saturn on DEC-17 and of Ops (DEC-19). About 50 BC, both were later converted into two day celebrations. During the Empire, the festivals were combined to cover a full week: DEC-17 to 23.
By the third century AD, there were many religions and spiritual mysteries being followed within the Roman Empire. Many, if not most, celebrated the birth of their god-man near the time of the solstice.
Emperor Aurelian (270 to 275 AD) blended a number of Pagan solstice celebrations of the nativity of such god-men/saviors as Appolo, Attis, Baal, Dionysus, Helios, Hercules, Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Perseus, and Theseus into a single festival called the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun" on DEC 25 (mark it on your calendar!). At the time, Mithraism and Christianity were fierce competitors.
Aurelian had even declared Mithraism the official religion of the Roman Empire in 274 AD. Christianity won out by becoming the new official religion in the 4th century AD (...and now you know the rest of the story...).
Saturnalia began as a feast day for Saturn on DEC-17 and of Ops (DEC-19). About 50 BC, both were later converted into two day celebrations. During the Empire, the festivals were combined to cover a full week: DEC-17 to 23.
By the third century AD, there were many religions and spiritual mysteries being followed within the Roman Empire. Many, if not most, celebrated the birth of their god-man near the time of the solstice.
Emperor Aurelian (270 to 275 AD) blended a number of Pagan solstice celebrations of the nativity of such god-men/saviors as Appolo, Attis, Baal, Dionysus, Helios, Hercules, Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Perseus, and Theseus into a single festival called the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun" on DEC 25 (mark it on your calendar!). At the time, Mithraism and Christianity were fierce competitors.
Aurelian had even declared Mithraism the official religion of the Roman Empire in 274 AD. Christianity won out by becoming the new official religion in the 4th century AD (...and now you know the rest of the story...).
Herr Heinrich
Student of Mythology
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with godnotgod, I just wanted to point this out Odion. It is a pretty well known fact that the Church(probably due to much urging from the people of Ireland) did take the goddess Brigid and make her into a Saint. This was done more out of respect for the goddess than trying to convert anyone. I have seen this fact stated in many different books and websites. If you can show this not to be true please show me so I am not running around with a erroneous fact.
ps. I like your new Avatar
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with godnotgod, I just wanted to point this out Odion. It is a pretty well known fact that the Church(probably due to much urging from the people of Ireland) did take the goddess Brigid and make her into a Saint. This was done more out of respect for the goddess than trying to convert anyone. I have seen this fact stated in many different books and websites. If you can show this not to be true please show me so I am not running around with a erroneous fact.
I never said they did not take Brigid and turn her into a saint, it's quite evident that they did this.
Although I doubt that it was out of respect for the goddess as you say. The reason being that the Christians who were there to convert people would not have accepted a pagan goddess into their company of saints simply out of respect as it would go against their mission. They would have accepted her in the company of saints if they would have been able to use her in getting more souls to follow Christianity, however.
One only has to look at the middle age/late middle age view of the devil, which is far closer to Pan, to see how they would not have tolerated foreign gods without making them into something evil, unless they could use them for their own gain.
Thank you! I like it too.
Herr Heinrich
Student of Mythology
I understand what you are saying. I disagree that it wasn't partly out of respect. I mean they have nuns now tending her sacred flame. That is a very pagan site. You would think they would have put it out to prove that the goddess was dead. It seems a little to obvious of a move to just try to change the goddess to a saint for the sole purpose of conversion. Even to uneducated peasants could have seen this. I see respect in their actions. Most of the old god and goddesses were demonized.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
That's what I mean, if most of them were, why would she really be much different unless they were using her as a soft spot for 'the heathens'?
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
Ok, there are way to many posts for me to read through right now, but let me say this: does it matter? Does Christianity's roots matter this much? Any individual will grow, interact with others, develop ideas and questions, seek to follow/solve these, and eventually evolve. This would logically seem to hold true for belief structure as well. So one's roots are only as important as they are relevant to the person in question. If Christianity's roots were pagan, does pagan ideals still hold sway? It is true that Christianity has absorbed Pagan ideas and holidays, even some tools, but Christianity has developed and evolved away from paganism.
Herr Heinrich
Student of Mythology
I think part of it was that she was the goddess of compassion. It is pretty hard to demonize compassion.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Real evolution involves the shedding of old, dysfuntional ways towards those of higher intelligence, and therefore, of greater happiness and fullfillment. If Christianity has evolved away from paganism, why does it retain and nurture the central theme of symbolic blood sacrifice as a means of remission of sin?
To retain and nurture such practice is to nurture a fear-driven superstitious belief. Fear and superstition are hardly the hallmarks of an evolved being.
Do fear-driven superstitious beliefs still hold sway?
Do Christians believe that a bloodthirsty fiend stalks them night and day for the express purpose of capturing and enslaving their souls to subject them to everlasting agony in some Hell?
BTW, were you aware that there is a powerful movement within Judaism to restore animal sacrifice in the temples?
That, contrary to evolving, Christians are actually regressing backwards to thinking that was prevalent during the Inquisition. They are becoming more and more polarized, rigid and aggressive. Currently, Christian missionaries are carrying out aggressive, violent conversion campaigns throughout the world, especially in India, South America, and elsewhere. These movements are all fear-driven. Christians feel threatened by the resurgence of Gnosticism, interest in Zen and other Asian views, and essentially, all other non-Christian views. Christianity never seeks to work with existing religions; it seeks to first destroy them, then to replace them entirely with Christianity. In the process of forced conversion, many are killed, enslaved, or ostracized, especially since Christianity works hand in glove with the greedy monied interests who seek land and profit.
The propaganda war is currently carried out by GodTV, which seeks to flood the airwaves in 24/7 relentless, mind-numbing Christian broadcasting to every backwater in every nation of the globe. It is insane.
Last edited: