Halloween after leaving the JW's

by TresHappy 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • mizpah
    mizpah

    Sirona:

    I'm sure you are aware of the ancient historians who reported the base practices of the Celts and Druids in their religous services. (Strabo, Ceasar, etc.) I'm also sure that you deny these by accepting the revisionist versions of the Neo-pagans. There simply is no reason to argue the sources since we will not agree on this either.

    Do I feel that these ancient religious rites that included human sacrifices are evil? Absolutely! And I think that the symbols and traditions of witches closely relate to Satanism.

    What I don't understand, though, is why you don't embrace Christianity if you really believe their origins are from primitive pagan sources.

  • mizpah
    mizpah

    Silverleaf:

    Bible criticism is fairly recent. It had to be. The Catholic church kept the Bible and the study of it as its own private domain for centuries. Until men like Wycliff and Tyndale made the Bible available to the average person, the Bible was not widely distributed and known. Those that were hunted down and persecuted were more likely to be other Christian groups that the Church considered as heretic or apostate. Later, the men that were persecuted and killed were those who desired to study the Bible and make it available to all. It was only after they successfully accomplished their purpose that Bible criticism came into vogue. By then, the Catholic church was helpless to stop the publishing and distributing of any literature. And most of these writings including Bible criticism still exists.

    Recent archeological discoveries of ancient Bible manuscripts have confirmed the general accuracy and purity of the text. (Example: Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah) Most of the changes of text are insignificant and do not alter the understanding ot it.

  • Silverleaf
    Silverleaf

    Mizpah:

    Bible criticism is fairly recent. It had to be.

    Maybe criticism of the 'entire' Bible - since the Bible as it stands in its current form is fairly recent, but criticism of individual books of the Bible, including some that were never allowed to be published as part of the Bible is not new at all - I don't know where you get your facts. Also criticism of the Bible today isn't punishable by death. Perhaps you think it still should be?

    Anyway, yeah, right, whatever you say since you obviously know a lot more about Paganism and Christianity and ancient history and the Church than anyone else here.

    I know you directed the question to Sirona, but if Christianity is based on ancient Pagan myths, you asked, why would she or anyone else not embrace it? I ask why embrace the copy when you can embrace the original?

    Silverleaf

  • Sirona
    Sirona

    Mizpah,

    LOL you've got a good one out of the bag with this:

    Do I feel that these ancient religious rites that included human sacrifices are evil? Absolutely!

    Well then, how about the fact that christians are documented to have killed many thousands, if not millions of people?

    http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tinq.htm

    A River of Blood

    And Yield They Did.

    In 1122 Christian crusaders swept over Jerusalem and slaughtered men, women and children, 'until their horses were knee deep in blood. We then went to the church to thank the Lord for his mercy.'

    In 777 , Charlemagne, a devout Christian, after conquering the Saxon rebels, gave them a choice between baptism and execution. When they refused to convert, he had 4500 of them beheaded in one morning.

    In the fourth century, Emporor Constantine, the first Roman Emperor to become a Christian, had over 3000 Christians executed because their interpretation of the Bible did not agree with his. That is more than the number of Christians who died at the hands of the Romans during the well known 1st century "Christians to the lions" persecutions.

    The above are from William Manchester's "A World Lit Only by Fire- The Medieval Mind and The Renaissance"..Little, Brown & Company, 1992

    Kettle calling pan!

    Sirona

  • mizpah
    mizpah

    Sirona:

    I make a clear distinction between true Christians and professed Christians. Christ said "...by their works you shall know them." After the death of the early apostles and disciples, the church became quickly corrupted. By the time of Constantine, it bore no resemblance to the early church. In fact, it was diametrically opposed to all the Christ taught. Once a person crossed over the line by breaking Christian principles they no longer qualified as real "Christians."

    It is worthy to note, though, that the corruption of the church came with the acceptance of pagan traditons and customs.

  • mizpah
    mizpah

    Silverleaf:

    I am sure you are aware that history and Bible scholars have a wide range of opinions and conclusions. It depends upon which author/historian one has faith in as to what conclusions one comes to. Obviously, you have faith in those who disbelieve and condemn the Bible. I do not.

    You wrongly judge me. I would never want Bible critics to be killed. I leave all judgment up to God. I would much prefer the critics to find God in their search. I remind you that it was those who published and read the Bible who were often persecuted and killed by the church. It was only when the authority of the church was broken primarily by the Protestant reformation that the spirit of religious freedom and human rights were established.

    Like you, I am only a student of these subjects. I make no claim as an authority. But like you, I do reach certain conclusions and feel the right to express them.

  • Silverleaf
    Silverleaf

    Mizpah,

    It is worthy to note, though, that the corruption of the church came with the acceptance of pagan traditons and customs.

    Sorry, I disagree with that completely. The corruption of the church came with the political agenda of church leaders who wanted power over the masses. Having a religion that relied on a truly individual path to enlightenment that could only be reached through knowledge and understanding rather than blind obedience did not sit well with the power hungry church leaders. That is what corrupted the true Christian belief system, absolutely not the inclusion of so called ?pagan? traditions ? which was a ploy again to entice indigenous peoples into giving up their own religions and capitulating with the church, since it was in all actuality, easier to convince them to comply than to kill them all.

    Silverleaf:

    I am sure you are aware that history and Bible scholars have a wide range of opinions and conclusions. It depends upon which author/historian one has faith in as to what conclusions one comes to. Obviously, you have faith in those who disbelieve and condemn the Bible. I do not.

    And that is your right. I have no problem with differences of opinion. I just have a problem with people spouting what they think are truths about Paganism that any practicing Pagan today knows are simply false and are only repetitions of the lies that were fabricated years ago as a means to destroy religions that did not agree with so called ?one true? faith. Religion as a whole, has a bloody and very unclean history, it doesn?t matter which one you choose. I have a problem when people place Christianity in a perfectly pristine light and blatantly ignore the historical facts about its past which is as unseemly as that of any other religion.

    You wrongly judge me. I would never want Bible critics to be killed.

    I wasn?t saying you did, I was asking if you did. And it was a rhetorical question.

    I leave all judgment up to God. I would much prefer the critics to find God in their search. I remind you that it was those who published and read the Bible who were often persecuted and killed by the church. It was only when the authority of the church was broken primarily by the Protestant reformation that the spirit of religious freedom and human rights were established.

    Says something about the church, doesn?t it?

    Like you, I am only a student of these subjects. I make no claim as an authority. But like you, I do reach certain conclusions and feel the right to express them.

    You have every right to express them, and to be honest I really enjoy a good debate on the subject. I mean no ill will to anyone but I reserve the right to refute any false claims and challenge any ascertations of fact.

    Silverleaf

  • mizpah
    mizpah

    Silverleaf:

    I guess we can both "agree to disagree." I still feel the church was corrupted as it accepted the pagan ideas. It's worthy to note that by Constantine's time pagan worship became the main influence in the church. (Constantine himself was a pagan sun worshipper.) I totally agree with you that the church leaders from this time on incorporated the pagan customs and traditions to convert the pagans of the surrounding nations. Their religious practices can still be seen in the celebration of the church's main holidays which strongly reflect the pagan's belief in the "birth of the sun" and the fertility rites. (Christmas and Easter) And it was obvious that part of the motive for converting them was for temporal power rather than for spiritual reasons.

    But one must separate the early beliefs and practices of the Christian church with those of later times. Early Christians sacrificed themselves rather than compromise. The early church persuaded with a message of love and compassion. It was the reason that so many pagans were attracted to it. It was the pagan powers that became alarmed and persecuted the early church.

    As far as "fabricated stories" one must not forget that the few historical records we have ot the Celts and Druids came from pagan sources. (Greek and Roman) These pagan historians put them in very bad light speaking of human sacrifices and other practices which even shocked them. It is no wonder that the neo-pagans attempt to dismiss these accounts.

    Like you, I enjoy the mind stimulation of these discussions. But I do get concerned when the discussions degrade to name calling and belittling.

  • Silverleaf
    Silverleaf

    Silverleaf:

    I guess we can both "agree to disagree."

    Mizpah, that's proabably the best course of action.

    I still feel the church was corrupted as it accepted the pagan ideas. It's worthy to note that by Constantine's time pagan worship became the main influence in the church. (Constantine himself was a pagan sun worshipper.) I totally agree with you that the church leaders from this time on incorporated the pagan customs and traditions to convert the pagans of the surrounding nations. Their religious practices can still be seen in the celebration of the church's main holidays which strongly reflect the pagan's belief in the "birth of the sun" and the fertility rites. (Christmas and Easter) And it was obvious that part of the motive for converting them was for temporal power rather than for spiritual reasons.

    This I agree with.

    But one must separate the early beliefs and practices of the Christian church with those of later times. Early Christians sacrificed themselves rather than compromise.

    And many of them martyred themselves as well. Many to add to the persecution mythos.

    The early church persuaded with a message of love and compassion.

    Sorry. I still disagree with this. Perhaps Gnostic Christianity did have this message, but Literalist Christians were about punishment and reward.

    It was the reason that so many pagans were attracted to it.

    Huh? Attracted to the church or attracted to staying alive and thus converted to save themselves being tortured into it?

    It was the pagan powers that became alarmed and persecuted the early church.

    Once again, nah. I absolutely do not agree with this.

    As far as "fabricated stories" one must not forget that the few historical records we have ot the Celts and Druids came from pagan sources. (Greek and Roman) These pagan historians put them in very bad light speaking of human sacrifices and other practices which even shocked them. It is no wonder that the neo-pagans attempt to dismiss these accounts.

    And Christians often dismiss accounts of the brutality of the early church. As I said before, all religion has a bloody history, not just Paganism and not just Christianity. To deny that is useless. What we practice today, whether we are Pagan or Christian or anything else is different from what was practiced centuries ago. If you don't want the brutality of early Christianity to color someone's perception of modern Christianity you must afford the same courtesy to Paganism.

    Like you, I enjoy the mind stimulation of these discussions. But I do get concerned when the discussions degrade to name calling and belittling.

    I do apologize for my tendency to become sarcastic. Circular arguments make me very frustrated. But I'm all for truly heartfelt debate.

    Silverleaf

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit