Origins of Christianity: Is it the "White Man's Religion"...?

[Ingledsva]

Lol, I don't give a damn about what the Qur'an says about anything.

I understand that in your case, but for the rest of us, the plot thickens.




*

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I understand that in your case, but for the rest of us, the plot thickens.

That's nice, but it makes no sense to trust a 7th century source over the 1st century sources when it comes to Jesus' life. No Muslim has ever tried to give me a logical non-religious reason why I should.

 

[nash8]

Excuse you, but I am a Catholic and the dogma that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God born to the ever-virgin and ever-sinless Blessed Mother Mary through miraculous events is a cornerstone of our Faith.

I recently read a Bible verse, I believe it was on these forms, but I can't seem to find it now. I'm sure you know which verse it was. I believe it was in Acts if I recall correctly.

The just of the verse was Jesus rebuking the Jewish Bureaucracy that was accusing him of being the Son of God. His reply to them was a reference to a Psalm that states that we are all are sons of God, and it was THEM that was committing blasphemy by not believing that THEY were children of God. So if I claimed to be the literal Son of God, would I be committing blasphemy, or would I be saying exactly the same thing Jesus said?

So the cornerstone of Christianity is that Jesus was the son of God, which he also claimed we all are, and that he was born of a virgin, sinless mother. Not that his love for all peoples led him to sacrifice himself for the redemption of all humanity, should they choose to accept it? So if Mary wasn't a virgin, then his sacrifice was in vain?

You cannot brush it aside or downplay it. It is the central Mystery of the Christian religion. It is not some "superficial" aspect and for you to say as much shows that you do not understand traditional Christianity.

Trust me, I have an in depth understanding of Christianity, both traditional and otherwise. I spent the good portion of the last 5 years of my life studying Jesus' life, and Christianity in general. Both from a historical and spiritual aspect. I might not adhere to some of the more fundamental aspects of Christianity, but I am definitely aware of them, and understanding of them.

And I'm not telling you to necessarily brush it aside or downplay it. I'm simply saying that you should not react in anger when other people do. Would you not agree that Jesus would tell you to do the same?

Our beliefs about Christ aren't based on Him being a "nice guy who did and said good things", but are based on Who He is and what this means for humanity. So we start with the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and God Incarnate and then we move on and put everything else about His life into perspective.

I'm not saying that Christian beliefs about Christ are based on him "being a nice guy who did and said good things". What I'm saying is, that you should focus not on who he is, but rather what he did, and why he did it. He sacrificed himself for redemption of humanity out of a genuine love for all of mankind. If he sacrificed himself for any other reason other than his love for humanity, and his desire to redeem them, that's what would make the faith fall apart in my opinion. Not whether or not his mother was a virgin, although I understand why you defend her, as well you should. I'm just saying, I think you can defend Her, Jesus, and your Faith without being hateful towards other groups of people, and even more important: the person that made comments that you felt were disrespectful to your faith.

If Jesus was not the literal Son of God, born to the Virgin, the impact of His life is greatly lessened and our theology ceases to make any sense.

The Son of God part I understand, but the son of a Virgin not as much. I understand where being born of a Virgin adds mystique, but Mary not being a Virgin, not saying she was or wasn't, in my opinion, in no way takes away from the sacrifice of the Son of God for the redemption of mankind because of his pure love for humanity. That is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, according to me.

So don't you dare tell me what I should or should not be offended about when people insult my God and His Holy Mother. To us, this is great blasphemy to say that Christ is the son of an adulterous fornicator.

I'm not telling you what you should or should not be offended about. I'm telling you to strive to be more like Christ. When people say things you find offensive to your beliefs, be kind, show love, show compassion, show understanding. Defend your beliefs in a way that demonstrates that you love the other person, regardless of how disrespectful you might find their comments. This is what it means to be a Christian in my book. Defend His Holy Mother like He would have defended Her.

By the way, Cynthia believes much the same as I do about Christ and His Mother. She was merely pointing out that discussions of Christ's parentage don't have much to do with the conversation on Christianity and "race".

In all honesty, I believe much the same way that you do with regard to Christ and His mother as well. I hold Jesus and Mary with very high esteem, for many reasons some more esoteric and spiritual than others.

The point I was trying to make was that you applauded Cynthia for saying essentially the same thing as Luis did. There were just different circumstances around the post, but the core message was much the same.

That's nice, but it makes no sense to trust a 7th century source over the 1st century sources when it comes to Jesus' life. No Muslim has ever tried to give me a logical non-religious reason why I should.

Just so you know. There are no complete Bible manuscripts until well after the 1st century. Considering the almost complete annihilation of any documents opposing the orthodoxy, and the length of time between the events of the Bible and their composition, it's hard to derive much accuracy from either source.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Where was I being hateful towards anyone? The only one I'm annoyed with in this thread is you for telling me that I shouldn't be offended over what I view as blasphemy and to stop defending my religion.

You're not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian and you obviously hardly view it the same as we do. This is not the place to have this discussion, anyway. I said what I had to say to you.

 

[sojourner]

But it does make it a good possibility.

And for me it actually gives him more credibility, and reality -

Because, in the Sacred Sex tradition, - since the male is enacting God, - with a resulting birth of a male, - the child is considered a Son of God.

I've written about this idea here before.


Basically - the idea that the people reeling under the Roman Yoke, and yearning for the awaited Messiah - may have decided to use their Old religious practice - of Sacred Sex - to bring him about, - by finding a perfect Virgin - and a perfect male to represent God -in an attempt to bring to birth - The Messiah - The Son of God.


I would not find such to be a slur in any sense of the word.


*

Tsk, tsk! You've been watching The Manchurian Candidate again, haven't you?!

 

[sojourner]

Ya know, after having read the posts following my own here, I confess my continuing confounded state with self-avowed "Christians" .

Jesus is:

"Whatever you seem Him as..."
"A non-white guy"
"All things to anyone that believes..."

If this were some description of a perpetrator of some alleged crime given by some eyewitness in (say) Brooklyn, any line-up would be a while in the making, and prosecution would likely never occur.

This is the foundation of a religious belief?

Religious beliefs are based upon metaphor and paradigm. Perps are neither of those things.

 

[sojourner]

How does all this controversy about Christ's birth fit into the topic at hand? Is the faith and teachings of Jesus a "white man's religion"? Jesus reached out to both Jews and Gentiles, it is taught by his apostles that there are no issues of race in Christ. That all are equal before God. If anything I think that the Europeans who adopted Christianity have largely perverted and failed the message of Jesus to their shame. So is Christianity a white heterosexual man's religion? No, they perverted it and they failed it. It doesn't belong to them. It belongs to the poor and the weak and the downtrodden that Christ promised hope and salvation.

Thank you for saying this. I was just going to say to the OP that when God can be born to an unwed teenager; when Jesus stooped to touch a dead body in order to restore life (which was unlawful for him to do); when Jesus talked to a Samaritan woman (that culture's equivalent of a black woman from the ghetto); when Jesus compares God's kindom to leaven that a woman mixed with dough (remember that leaven was poison -- not yeast like we know of today); when we realize that the core theological position of Christianity is this: that humanity cannot clean itself up enough to be restored to God, so God became dirty (leaven) for us -- then we come to realize that Xy is patently not the religion of the socially-privileged; it is the provenance of those who have historically and systematically experienced the violence of oppression at the hands of said privilege. In other words: it belongs to black women as much -- if not more -- as it does to white men of privilege.

 

[sojourner]

Not all Christians are white.

There are plenty of other concerns about Christianity without the need to bring race into it.

There's every reason to bring race (and sex) into it, because white males have held the Faith in a stranglehold of privilege and power for so long. The OP's poor mother has been browbeat by the system into believing that the resulting twisting of the Faith is "the Way It Is." The message need to be put out there that Xy does, indeed, belong to the black woman.

 

[sojourner]

The Qur'an, and other sources tell us Mary was a Temple Woman. (Temple Virgin?)



*

That little nugget of information is not cogent to the discussion. The Koran is hardly qualified to be a credible or authoritative source of information about Christian theology.

 

[Ingledsva]

Tsk, tsk! You've been watching The Manchurian Candidate again, haven't you?!

Never seen it - what is it about?


Is it worth watching?



EDIT - OK, I found and watched a trailer for the move. How is that connected to me, or what I said?



*

 

[Ingledsva]

That little nugget of information is not cogent to the discussion. The Koran is hardly qualified to be a credible or authoritative source of information about Christian theology.

I said - "and other sources."


It is actually a traditional Catholic teaching that Mary was consecrated as a Temple virgin at the age of three and lived in the temple precincts till the age of fourteen.


Heavenly Tabernacle



"And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to (High Priest) Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20)




*

 

[sojourner]

Never seen it - what is it about?


Is it worth watching?



EDIT - OK, I found and watched a trailer for the move. How is that connected to me, or what I said?



*

Because it has to do with conspiracy theory. Same as your post.

 

[sojourner]

I said - "and other sources."


It is actually a traditional Catholic teaching that Mary was consecrated as a Temple virgin at the age of three and lived in the temple precincts till the age of fourteen.


Heavenly Tabernacle



"And the virgins also that were shut up, came forth, some to (High Priest) Onias, and some to the walls, and others looked out of the windows. And all holding up their hands towards heaven, made supplication. (2 Macc 3:19-20)




*

Still no need to bring the Koran into it to muddy the waters.

 

[outhouse]

That's nice, but it makes no sense to trust a 7th century source over the 1st century sources when it comes to Jesus' life. No Muslim has ever tried to give me a logical non-religious reason why I should.

True.

There is not one aspect of their books one should use for any historical aspect.


The gospels are not that good of evidence as it is, let alone some intepretation hundreds of years after the NT/s final compilation

 

[nash8]

Where was I being hateful towards anyone? The only one I'm annoyed with in this thread is you for telling me that I shouldn't be offended over what I view as blasphemy and to stop defending my religion.

Comments towards Jews and Muslims, one which would constitute slander, and the other a direct insult to their holy book. You ask for respect for your beliefs, but show very little for other peoples.

You're not a Catholic or Orthodox Christian and you obviously hardly view it the same as we do. This is not the place to have this discussion, anyway. I said what I had to say to you.

I've actually started following Catholicism much more closely due to the direction I believe they are heading in, as well as from some inspiration from some members on this cite. But you are right, this is not the place to have this discussion, and I apologize for derailing this thread with my ranting.

Thank you for saying this. I was just going to say to the OP that when God can be born to an unwed teenager; when Jesus stooped to touch a dead body in order to restore life (which was unlawful for him to do); when Jesus talked to a Samaritan woman (that culture's equivalent of a black woman from the ghetto); when Jesus compares God's kindom to leaven that a woman mixed with dough (remember that leaven was poison -- not yeast like we know of today); when we realize that the core theological position of Christianity is this: that humanity cannot clean itself up enough to be restored to God, so God became dirty (leaven) for us -- then we come to realize that Xy is patently not the religion of the socially-privileged; it is the provenance of those who have historically and systematically experienced the violence of oppression at the hands of said privilege. In other words: it belongs to black women as much -- if not more -- as it does to white men of privilege.

Very well said sir!!!

There's every reason to bring race (and sex) into it, because white males have held the Faith in a stranglehold of privilege and power for so long. The OP's poor mother has been browbeat by the system into believing that the resulting twisting of the Faith is "the Way It Is." The message need to be put out there that Xy does, indeed, belong to the black woman.

Very well said again!!!

 

[Ingledsva]

Because it has to do with conspiracy theory. Same as your post.

How exactly would my post be a conspiracy theory?


Everything was written after the fact. We don't know what is correct.


What I wrote is just another idea - which uses the Jewish information on the subject.


*

 

[roger1440]

It is how my mother is introducing it to me... I am african american. And she makes it out to seem like Christianty was created by white people and it is for them. And they stole a lot of their ideas from "our people." I'm sorry if I cam across as racist. I was trying to get my conflicted ideas and feelings across.

The term “african American” means black American doesn’t it? If so, then it’s a racist term. Unless you can take race out, it’s a racist term. I simply refer to myself as an American. I was born in the United States of America. My parents were born in the U.S.. My grandparents were also born in the U.S.. Who is “our people”?

 

[gnomon]

I am finding myself very wary of posting this thread in fear of negative backlash but I am very curious to know others opinion of this topic. My mom has introduced well... more like forced me to watch multiples videos about the origins of Christianity. I even had to do a paper on it. Anyway.. a condense version of what I have learned that the Christianity is not a original religion. It has roots in many other cultures, non European cultures. The cultures include Sumeria, Babylon, and Egyptian references some more obvious then other. What I remember off the top of my head is the similarities between Aset (Isis) and Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. Also Jesus and Horus. I can go into that if anyone would like me to. That is not to say I am an expert at that, I am NOT.

I am asking this because I recently went to a women's christian fellowship thingy with my step-mom and I was very moved by what went on... But I have a hard time with accepting Christianity when I have the things like "White Man's Religion" "The Patchwork Religion" running through my mind. Those aren't the reason I find it difficult to accept but those are the currents issues at the moment.

/watch?v=oWjmbEglYk4
Just add it to the end of the youtube.com/insert it here... I can't add url's yet... bummer.

That is one of the things she had me watch.. or something similar by the same guy. It's "Ray Hagins: What is Christianity" for anyone who doesn't trust urls. I would really love to have someone else's opinion on this. I am pretty confused by all this...

Christianity is not a white man's religion. At it's origin it is a Semitic religion. That it spread across Europe, the so called "white man's domain", a misnomer in itself, is just a bunch of B.S.

As far as original religions only the animist and naturalist religions among those few remaining human cultures that have avoided contact with the rest of the world can lay claim to original religions. Even Judaism, yes Judaism, the root of Judeo-Christian-Islamic Semitic religions, is not original. It is an amalgam of earlier theistic traditions colated into a monotheistic concept. The monotheism development among Judaic thought may lay claim to originality but that underscores a larger picture about religion. Namely that religion is not about god but about the structural cohesion of ethnic identities.

All the major religions from Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, etc are about maintaining cultural views. They are all derived from earlier religious traditions.

The idea of a "white man's religion" sounds more like a neo-liberalistic philosophy that serves zero intellectual interest.

 

[Riverwolf]

The idea of a "white man's religion" sounds more like a neo-liberalistic philosophy that serves zero intellectual interest.

I always felt it seemed far more conservative.

Either way, I absolutely agree. Even the Euro-Pagan religions aren't "White Man's Religion", since foreigners were often allowed in on the ceremonies. Belonging to a Tribe didn't necessarily mean being born into it. It meant being accepted as a member by the other members.

 

[gnomon]

I always felt it seemed far more conservative.

Either way, I absolutely agree. Even the Euro-Pagan religions aren't "White Man's Religion", since foreigners were often allowed in on the ceremonies. Belonging to a Tribe didn't necessarily mean being born into it. It meant being accepted as a member by the other members.

I'm going on the philosophy of liberal education and the advent of the white man's projection of power on the rest of the world provided by such an education.

That Christianity is a "white man's religion" adopted by neo-fascist groups in the U.S. and historically among Western Europe would be another argument showing how both extremes of thought adopt such and attitude.