Why does it matter if Christianity is a sun worshiping religion?

[Milton Platt]

Dawn, noon, dusk.

Midnight is also a "stage" of the sun if you want to play that game. It's the stage when it is on the opposite side of the earth. So what???

 

[Milton Platt]

You would be wrong. My mother does, each Easter morning when they have a sunrise service on Sebago lake. And btw, that is taken directly from pagan lore about Beltane which was the basis for Easter in the first place. Many churches continue to have sunrise services. Please explain how you know without a shred of doubt that God could not be contained within the sun?? Or a part of it? You seem so hooked on God being flesh and blood being that it staggers the imagination to be that closed minded when the simple truth is you have no proof of any of this.

There could be a planet in another solar system made of goat cheese as well. But until someone confirms that with hard evidence, I will assume there is not, thank you.

 

[Muffled]

What's sun and shield a metaphor for?

The sun is a metaphor for happiness (at lesst in the Tarot deck it is) and the shield is metapor forGod's protection.

 

[dust1n]

The sun is a metaphor for happiness (at lesst in the Tarot deck it is) and the shield is metapor forGod's protection.

I guess the shield thing I get. Ain't much one can do with a shield.

 

[Muffled]

@1robin
That was a wonderful, clear, understandable post.
Christians should avoid any connection with paganism and
"false worship".
Even avoiding ancient pagan images in places of worship.
Ever wonder where the halo originated that we see around the pictures
of Saints and Jesus?
Yup, sun god found it's way into Christian Churches thanks to the
old RCC back in the day & now it's an accepted fixture in Christian
worship.

I very much doubtany conncection can be made of the RCC to sun worship. My best guess is that the halo represents the radiance about a person who is full of the Holy Spirit.

 

[1robin]

Several points here Robin and I will have to attend to your other remarks a bit slowly. First of all, the Quran also has many peaceable verses and adherents, which you seem to ignore openly. I would ask you why you choose to focus on the negative of that faith? Do you do that with your own faith? Second, when you make remarks like "lopping off head, arms, feet, etc", you show your bias in blazing colors. Don't you see how using the word 'lopping' is incredibly insulting to the Muslims members of this forum we have? Third, you state that the Koran states to have people accept Allah or be second class citizens, etc. How is that different from the Bible which states that one either accept Christ or burn in hell for all eternity or considers people who do reject your dogma as less than those who accept Christ, whom you see are 'chosen of God'. Lastly, how is your remarks about money and Muslim people much different from what the RCC did with people who were considered 'serfs' or slaves even, in the middle ages? They lived in squalor while priests, a goodly number of them, lived as kings and were oft considered as heads of state or advisors to kings and queens.

Quote anything I have said about any Muslim one way or the other (besides Muhammad?. I was talking about doctrine. Their doctrine contains a higher degree of commands to violence than any other major faith and by a large margin. I am sure it contains peaceful versus. However the latter does not change the former. And I bet you did not know that most of the peaceful versus come before Muhammad had acquired and military strength. When he was run out of Mecca, and arrived in Medina he was given a small band of caravan raiders and asked to settle tribal disputes. He settled them alright, he suddenly started having visions of war a violence and wound up taking over the robbing of caravans. If you want I have already posted exactly when the violent verses started and Muhammad's first dozen battles. We can go back and cooperate them if you want. BTW Islam has a concept called abrogation where later verses are considered to replace earlier ones. So the later violent ones abrogate the early peaceful verses.

The difference between God placing a person in Hell (and btw I do not believe in an eternal fire filled hell), and all the open ended demands to subdue all the infidels until all worship Allah is this.

The first was made by an omniscient, perfectly moral being, who holds sovereignty over everything. Who does not leave that type of judgments in out imperfect hands. The latter places mass slaughter and judgment in the hands of the ones actually doing the mass slaughtering. One books core teaching is to turn the other check which our Christ actually did. The other's core message is fill the streets with the blood of infidels until all submit. Which their leader also did. One story has him yelling down a well where he threw some dead bodies, praying Allah would raise them to life so he could kill them again. I could launch into well vetted historical occurrences that were perpetrated by Muhammad or ordered by him but unless you like horror movies (I don't) I will not do so unless necessary. Find me a single unjustifiable violent act of any kind Christ or anyone in the NT did that was not instantly condemned and stopped that instant.

 

[1robin]

I disagree that there is no violence in the NT. I would refer you to several verses here. Such as Luke 12; 49-53. Also the violence of Christ in the temple is a clear example. Other verses could be used however, in the interest of being fair, one must remember context in the use of said verses. That would be Luke 22; 35-38, or the verse about bringing a sword not peace. But again, that must be taken in context. Finally, the book of Revelations is full of violence. Tons of it in fact. How can you ignore that one? Matthew has it's share as well. Such as 7; 13-14 about people going to hell. Other examples include 18; 23-35, 21; 33-41, etc. Mark has 6; 11, 7; 9-10 and so on. There are myriad examples of violence in the NT Robin. More than plenty.

I said find examples where the bible commands or promotes violence. And the type of violence you were talking about was physical causing harm to others. Turning over a few tables because they had turned his fathers house into a shopping mall does not let Muhammad off for beheading innocent Jews until he grew so tired he could no longer lift his sword, yet the killing went on, and on, and on done by others. Didn't you claim to be a theologian. Go to any preteen Sunday school class and ask them about the sword Jesus brought. A few won't know but the majority would tell you that the sword is constantly used to represent the word of God, it is a great metaphor because the word divides people. It separates the righteous from those in rebellion. If the verses are not clear enough as to emphatically explain an that obvious to you then pray tell me when did Jesus (who could call down legions of angels) have need of or posses a sword in scripture. The errors have been so gross and so easily made right I will wait and see if you grant that you were ignorant about them before I explain anymore.

As for revelations that is God's wrath. It is a period when virtually the entire world has aligned it's self with Satan, and the day of vengeance has come. It's the angels and God himself who execute this vengeance. I said give me a verse prompting or instructing us as imperfect and sinful humans to do things of this nature. Revelations is no battle strategy humans are to carry out. It is the foretelling of what the conditions will be like and how God will exact vengeance on an evil world.

Let me short circuit something before you mistakenly imply it. Muhammad began his first raids in his own words not because Allah told him to but because a trader had said the caravans that year were particularly wealthy. Caravan raiding was a accepted Arabic practice, Muhammad just killed all his rivals and made it into a monopoly. His first battle he chickened out, his second at Badr he was specifically asked if it was he or Allah who ordered it. He replied it was himself and the people they robbed were tortured and mutilated amidst dancing and cheering.

 

[1robin]

You are continuing to misunderstand what I said. I was talking about the symbolism of sun worship as used in the Bible from older sources. Ra was the sun, and also Horus was the SON of a God. These can be seen, IMO, as examples of the use of Jesus as the SON, as being a son was used with Horus. I did not say mom worshiped the sun as a god. I said her church often has sunrise services, glorifying the sun as a part of Jesus and God. My point is and was that the use of the son, as in Christ , predates the NT and was in influence in its development. Pagans often had sun services, such as Beltane, etc. And in order to attract them to this new faith, sun was used as a symbol.

The bible recorded events that it did not adopt, approve of, or God allowed. Moses wrote those books recounting their sojourn in Egypt. Those were Egyptian deities and practices. I am sure some weak Hebrews participated but the bible never acknowledged them as good, allowable, or not to be shunned.

I don't really care at this point but I believe you did say your mom worshipped the SUN, and I explained in detail why sunrise services are held early in the morning and how they have nothing to do with worshipping the sun. In the only Christian you said did worship the sun you now say did not. So where are all these sun worshipping Christians that require a debate over?

BTW: No church I ever heard of said the SUN was part of any divine being. That is not even a coherent statement. Show me the creedal statement from any of the pamphlets all church's give to everyone who attends that says this. Or just tell me the name and I will look up their creed. There are some weird churches out there but if this one is doing what you state they need some serious reformation. Find me a verse in the bible that approves of the idea that a ball of fire is deserving of worship or equating with Jesus or God. .

 

[1robin]

Of course I can make the claim that the Bible and your faith is untrue. Its my opinion and I am entitled to it. Where do I say that I created a God? And what makes you think that God could not be limitless enough to be able to appeal to all faiths and all peoples through various guises? God can be Allah, God can be Diana, or any of the other hundreds of gods and goddesses that exist in this world. IMO, you diminish God by believing God could not be any or all of these faces. Quoting Jesus has no meaning here. What makes you think that my church does not have God in God's many guises? And if we are talking about creating a God, is that not exactly what your faith did with Jesus? Or the Jews did with Jehovah? Do you have proof they were not created for the time they were considered to have existed? The Jewish community wrote the Tanakh and named God as they wished. They created God in a manner of speaking, just as Christianity did with Jesus.

I know very well that the rebellion in people will compel them to do exactly what you say they can't do, long ago. That is specifically why I state it like this instead:

What you can't or (should not do) is claim it is untrue because you do not like it.

Claiming something is not true because you do not like is irrational and [Should not be done].

If things we do not like did not exist because we did not like them then children alone would have eradicated all green vegetables and parental rights thousands of years ago.

You do not pay much attention to the way I say things do you? I know how the opposite side thinks in this context so well that I know very well what their going to say and try my best to show how what your going to do will be mistaken, irrational, and inconsistent. However a good 50% don't read carefully or care enough not to go ahead and make the mistake. The statement you replied to is written correctly, and in such a way as to dismiss your reply as not having actually addressed my claim as actually written. Sorry I did not read the parts after you shipwrecked your reply to what you should or should not do given specific circumstances.

Let me ask you again, are you the one who claimed to be a theologian at one point?

 

[outhouse]

Claiming something is not true because you do not like is irrational and [Should not be done].

Yet you do this constantly follow faith not evidence.


She is correct, on all counts.

 

[JoStories]

Yet you do this constantly follow faith not evidence.


She is correct, on all counts.

Thank you. Kiss kiss darling.

 

[JoStories]

Claiming something is not true because you do not like is irrational and [Should not be done].

How is it irrational? Do you now have absolute proof that the Bible is 100% accurate? If so, please post your proof that Jesus lived, or that God destroyed Sodom. Since I know you cannot do that, I can in all sincerity state that the Bible is not factual or true. And I can say that its allegorical and mythological import does not ring true for me each and every time you ask. If it were, each person on earth would be Christian and since we know they are not, your statement is false.

 

[outhouse]

Do you now have absolute proof that the Bible is 100% accurate?

It is factually not accurate in many places, under many different types of context.

Historically accurate it is factually not.


Why cannot people accept the mythological and rhetorical prose?


It ruins the beauty with a hatchet job literal interpretation.

 

[1robin]

How is it irrational? Do you now have absolute proof that the Bible is 100% accurate? If so, please post your proof that Jesus lived, or that God destroyed Sodom. Since I know you cannot do that, I can in all sincerity state that the Bible is not factual or true. And I can say that its allegorical and mythological import does not ring true for me each and every time you ask. If it were, each person on earth would be Christian and since we know they are not, your statement is false.

I can't believe you ask that question. Peanut butter exists but I hate it, wars exist but I hate them, our country is being ruled by people who are destroying it but yet there they stay. What you prefer has nothing what so ever with whether a thing is true or not. They are completely independent.

Somehow you got mixed up with that first part, the second part about Jesus. No I do not have 100% certainty concerning his existence. Different pieces of evidence would have different levels of certainty, not one of them having 100%, but many about lets say 75%. Now it is rational to believe in Christ given I have a lot of good evidence and his story is the best explanation for it.

So your determining what is true based upon what it is you like or do not like, and I actually chose Christ because I spiritually met him but I continue to believe in him because of a lot of reasons included evidence which is never certain but many times very close. This is a rational argument. In my argument one thing naturally results in the other, in yours the premise has no relevance to the conclusion.

Your or my liking or disliking anything in Egyptian history will have no effect what so ever on Egyptian history.

Why are you asking a man of faith to prove something supernatural. Your brain should have showed you the folly of that. I have said until my keyboards have worn out history, theology, and most areas of study are concluded to best explanations of the evidence.

I gave you 5 historical events among hundreds which have the consensus agreement among NT scholars and those 5 alone would make faith perfectly reasonable to have faith in Christ. However we don't have just five, we have libraries full of evidence that justifies the bible.

Let me give you a link to one of (if not the) greatest experts on testimony and evidence in human history. His paper is legendary, but it was mainly his cofounding of Harvard that made him famous.

I have done this so long I know you going to go to this link looking for the first excuse to dismiss it and stop reading but here it is anyway.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Or you can try another of the greatest minds ever produced in matters of history and testimony. He is the only man in history to have held every office in the high court of the largest empire in history.


Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

Now you can call them apologists and rule them out if you want. Their claims and credentials are so overwhelming some resort to such silliness but in the process you would rule out any scholar who ever defended a theory. That is what an apologist does. He forms a theory using evidence and then if satisfied defends it. Or you can try and point out some technical foul they made but your going to have too show that you have as much credibility as they in order to be persuasive about such simplistic matters.

In Summary.
1. What you like is irrelevant to what is true. It is an irrational test for reality.
2. I do not, nor ever claimed to have 100% objective proof for Jesus (I do claim to have 100% subjective proof but don't mention it much because you have no access to it). What I do say is that I have a mountain of evidence for which Jesus is the best explanation for.
3. I gave two of the greatest scholars in testimony and evidence and not only do they find in my favor they do so emphatically.

 

[outhouse]

In Summary.

You quoted NOTHING that is credible


It is desperate you have to cherry pick apologist from the 1700's

 

[outhouse]

Their claims and credentials

Ridiculous, they are factually NOT scholars.

 

[outhouse]

3. I gave two of the greatest scholars

Ridiculous.

You have been shown this not to be true countless times.

John Singleton Copley, 1st Baron Lyndhurst, PC, KS, FRS (21 May 1772 – 12 October 1863), was a British lawyer and politician. He was three times Lord Chancellor of Great Britain.


DO YOU NOTICE THAT NOWHERE DOES IT SAY HE WAS A SCHOLAR?


You do know we require honesty here ?

 

[Muffled]

How is it irrational? Do you now have absolute proof that the Bible is 100% accurate? If so, please post your proof that Jesus lived, or that God destroyed Sodom. Since I know you cannot do that, I can in all sincerity state that the Bible is not factual or true. And I can say that its allegorical and mythological import does not ring true for me each and every time you ask. If it were, each person on earth would be Christian and since we know they are not, your statement is false.

I am 100% sure Jesus is inme and He credits most of the Bible. He did take exception to a passage in Job. I sent a letter to a Biblical scholar and that person told me no-one knew how to translate the passage.

 

[Nada]

The connections between sun worship, other sun deities, and Christianity are more than apparent to any who look for them. My concern is why this should matter in any way, shape, or form. It's not like Christianity blatantly worships the sun like other religions have / do, in fact using the sun and stars as the basis for a religion who believes in an intelligent and interactive god makes perfect sense (in context). Why can't the three stages of the sun be the foundation of the Trinity? Is the sun manipulable by god? Why does it matter if the there wise men are the stars of Orion's belt? Perhaps God simply wanted to help physically illustrate spiritual truths.

My question is actually mainly direct by Christians who fight to the death against such views of Christianity. Why does it matter?

Correction! The "Christianity" you are describing is not the Christianity preached by Jesus Christ.The "Christianity" you are referring to is actually called Christendom.Christendom is the mother of counterfeit Christianity.They practice old Babylonian style pagan rituals and mixed them in with Christianity.It is all sun worship with these people.The Vatican is the place where all this takes place.It is common knowledge to those who study thoroughly.If you go to St.Peters square you can see an obelisk in the center there.This was brought to Egypt by Caligula in the 37A.D. There are more Egyptian obelisk in Rome ,more than anywhere else in the world.13 as a matter of fact.There goes that number.So, we can definitely see this is the empire of sun worship.

Everything they teach is based on traditional thinking and old practices dating back to the ancient days of Babylon.On one of the doors to the Sistine Chapel ,I believe it is,you can see a carving of Zeus with the eagle cup bearer.Pagan symbols surround this place.

Any organization that is involved with such practices is in no way representing the God of the holy scriptures preached by Jesus Christ.

http://archaeology-travel.com/street/vatican-obelisk-in-st-peters-square/

 

[outhouse]

Correction!

You did not write one credible thing that has any context to the religion, and chance you could read up on the topic before posting what amounts to false rhetoric?

It is all sun worship with these people

Factually false.