quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:
urbansun,

Provided that willywill3 watched both documentaries (or segments) in there entirety, he state:

quote:

This video is titled, "Mithras- Pagan Origins of Christianity"

However, wouldn't Judaism be the origins of Christianity. Also, in the video, though the Mithras would be a 1000 years older than Christianity, it's not older than Judaism, really it maybe 300 years younger than Judaism if Mithraism practice began about 1400 B.C.E and Judaism being about 2000 B.C.E-15OO B.C.E. We all know that Christ birthday is not on Dec. 25 and that is only because thanks to your Roman Catholic church for setting it up (following their old beliefs) as being the birth of the "Sun God".

____________________________


The video is comparing the roles of Jesus Christ, Mithra, Orsis in their religion as being quite similar. That is really it. Besides all of that, it's not a surprise that religions borrow things from one another, nothing is original. But the term it as being of "Pagan" Origins, saying Christianity's is mainly borrowed from the Mithra's is not true at all, or even Egypt...it's of Jewish origin. I knew about certain themes of angels and views about God being adopted by the Zoroastrian religion, but their religion isn't even Pagan either.

How are you going to even give a sex or even a preferences to God which is suppose to be a spiritual being? Bi-sexual, Homosexual, Heterosexual? Male, Female?


In the Bible, the Midianites are described as worshiping a multitude of gods, including Baal-peor and the Asherah. How is Yahweh including in this thought if God had Moses and the Isarelities strike them down for leading them into sin and being turned away from God? That makes no sense.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Madianites

...Your thoughts on his comments as it relates to the documentary(s)?

quote:

Originally posted by urbansun:

quote:

How about a NATURE based origin to most religions making literalized exclusivism ridiculous... This illusive 'truth' you mention.. Where does it fit in? I only here the Abrahamic traditions harp on it... Most other traditions speak of balance...

That is irrelevent Oshun. Simply because most, many or some, believe this that or the other does not make it correct. Of course you know that. Secondly, ridiculousness is based upon the perspective of the one perceiving it ridiculous based upon the fact that it contradicts what they perceive is normative. What makes your normative views correct or your assumption of normalcy strong enough in your eyes to adequately define something as ridiculous?

Let me pull somethings from the thread:

quote:

1. How about a NATURE based origin to most religions making literalized exclusivism ridiculous...

- There is exclusivism in everything. Without exclusivism there is no way to define what is from what is not. Literal interpretivism is just drawing a different set of 'exclusive' boundaries than what you prefer. If you can define a nature based religion then you have subsequently defined what is not a nature based religion, hence exclusitivity, just one in which you are more comfortable with. And I don't have a problem with that.

quote:

2. I only here the Abrahamic traditions harp on it... Most other traditions speak of balance

- Again, what is balance? In a complex system, such as human behavior, emotion, thought etc. do we have the mental faculties to even understand what balance is. Why know we are finite in a system with infinite possibilities where things are constantly moving. So how do we know we are "balanced". And isn't balance then truth as it becomes either individually or collectively what we recognize the right way to be is. Because balance doesn't have a specifically identifiable reference point, doesn't absolve it from being truth.

quote:

3. since there is a RECOGNIZED natural genesis to most traditions

- Who recognizes it? You, me? This board. Those who recognize justify, but if I don't recognize it why am I wrong and you right? I can right now say that I am Dell, but I was also Dell when I was born. I am both the same yet different, so in the 'genesis' of tradition what are you referring to, the essential self or the current self?

4. From your following paragraph in that same thought. Literalization does not equal unadaptibility. That is a fallacy. To argue that simple because a religion is natural, and I would question your definition of natural, means that it is adaptably and preferrential has no logical leg to stand on outside of you personal preference. Hence my persuasion argument.

quote:

5. Belief only comes into play if you are specifically dealing with literalizing the myth...

- Oshun, "Belief" is simply the process of organizing your mind so you can structure your existence. Our mind chunks, steriotypes, filters, and structures perception otherwise we would go crazy. Within the mental process we form beliefs which allow us to be functionally human. Religion is part of that structure. Simply because one holds to a 'nature' based approach, nature as i believe you are defining it not me is not indicative of the lack of a belief. It is simply a different belief. That then gives it no more objective correctness, rightness or wrongness than any other belief or belief system.

You simply prefer a diffent structure of organization but it is neither superior nor inferior to literalism from a relativistic standpoint. It just is. Hence either you belief or your don't and that isn't a false dichotomy, it just is what it is.

Egungun, Egungun ni t'aiye ati jo!
Ancestos, Ancestors come to earth and dance!

"I'm sick of the war and the civilization that created it. Let's look to our dreams, and the magical; to the creations of the so-called primitive peoples for new inspirations."
- Jaques Vache and Andre Breton

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
-John Maynard

"You know that in our country there were even matriarchal societies where women were the most important element. On the Bijagos islands they had queens. They were not queens because they were the daughters of kings. They had queens succeeding queens. The religious leaders were women too..."
-- Amilcar Cabral, Return to the Source, 1973

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:
He seems like he is very surprised that there is some sort of borrowing going on, which isn't some thing new to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:
He seems like he is very surprised that there is some sort of borrowing going on, which isn't some thing new to me.

How'bout his dreads, willywill3? What do you make of his dreads?

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:
He seems like he is very surprised that there is some sort of borrowing going on, which isn't some thing new to me.

How'bout his dreads, willywill3? What do you make of his dreads?

He has awesome dreads.

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:
He seems like he is very surprised that there is some sort of borrowing going on, which isn't some thing new to me.

How'bout his dreads, willywill3? What do you make of his dreads?

He has awesome dreads.

If I recall, dr. beckford stated that churches were built on top of these 'pagan' temples (like mithra). Now, why would a belief system and its characters, that came later, burrow itself under the church?

Let see how far you take cognitive dissonance.

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:
He seems like he is very surprised that there is some sort of borrowing going on, which isn't some thing new to me.

How'bout his dreads, willywill3? What do you make of his dreads?

He has awesome dreads.

If I recall, dr. beckford stated that churches were built on top of these 'pagan' temples (like mithra). Now, why would a belief system and its characters, that came later, burrow itself under the church?

Let see how far you take cognitive dissonance.

Why do people build parking lots over grave yards? lol

So what churches actually have done this besides the Catholic church? Orthodoxy seems pretty original as it was before.

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:
He seems like he is very surprised that there is some sort of borrowing going on, which isn't some thing new to me.

How'bout his dreads, willywill3? What do you make of his dreads?

He has awesome dreads.

If I recall, dr. beckford stated that churches were built on top of these 'pagan' temples (like mithra). Now, why would a belief system and its characters, that came later, burrow itself under the church?

Let see how far you take cognitive dissonance.

Why do people build parking lots over grave yards? lol

So what churches actually have done this besides the Catholic church? Orthodoxy seems pretty original as it was before.

The church that declares its original and had no outside influence in the creation of the religion known as xianity, nor its characters. Past or present.

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

Does all of Christianity claim this?

quote:

It can not be true if they had Judaism as a base for their central figures as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

Does all of Christianity claim this?

Does not claiming your grandmother means...your grandmother is no longer your grandmother?

"Claims" don't change what had previously taken place.

quote:

It can not be true if they had Judaism as a base for their central figures as well.

What can't be true WillyWill3?

That churches weren't build on top of pagan temples?

Would you like an email address to contact dr. beckford?

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

Yes, sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Raptor:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

Yes, sure.

http://robertbeckford.co.uk/contact

For your convenience review:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SblyuFUM9Q&feature=related