Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Arx]

Preliminary research and my gut feel suggest that that's pretty close to being a pack of lies. Nothing similar comes up in the entire Wikipedia page on Mithraism. And... yeah, no.

So yeah. Excrementum bovus.

[TD1]

Huh. You'd think you could trust the atheist with an agenda. Well, glad to know whether it was false or not. Wouldn't want to use it in a discussion and it be incorrect.

[wierd]

I DO know that there was a lot of "borrowing" from the mithraic religion(s) concerning architectural style for houses of worship, and quite a few other things.

Remember, for a very sginificant period in early christian history, opening practicing the religion would get you killed. Horribly. (See Tacitus's account of what happened in Rome, a few pages back.) As such, people worshipied on the down low, under the radar, and did not build elaborate temples or places of worship.

It was not until well after being embraced by the Romans, via emperor Constantine, that such houses of worship came to be.  At that point, the great "inclusion" of many pagan practices was initiated, which ultimately reached an apex during the dark ages in europe.

Over that course of time, the architectural style of places of worship dedicated to mithras came to be employed for christian churches, christmas as a holiday came to be, the lake of fire and perdition came to be known as "hell", and a great many others.

As such, there is certainly a connection between mithraism and modern christian dogmatic practice-- the question though, is how much of mithraism was adapted in the face of rising christianity, and how much was christianity adapting its dogma to convert mithras worshipers.

I dont really know the full extent of that.

[TempAcc]

Christianity adapted some pagan aspects as it melded with and adapted several aspects of mystery cults in Rome, both prior and after Constantinus. Several of the Roman Catholic Church's rituals could have come from that. Rome was a boiling cauldron of religions at the time, so its no surprise really. This phenomena has been prevalent through the ages as pagan peoples became more and more christian.
Not sure exactly about christmas being a thing from Mithraism, though, I always thought it came from the "Dies Natalis Solis Invicti" due to the worship of Sol Invictus in Rome, or a christian adaptation of Saturnalia.

For example, at one point, according to a Swedish friend of mine, as Scandinavia started to convert to Christianity, Jesus was worshipped alongside Thor in some places, which is one of the coolest examples of syncretism.

Of course, its unlikely these things happened to the extent people like Stephen Fry like to claim, given he's a politically active atheist actor with a very obvious agenda and a face that looks like its constantly melting :v

I always thought the english word "hell" came from "hel", though. Plus, hell has been subjected to mistranslations and syncretic interpretations so many times and called by some many names that nobody is completely sure of the original meaning. Judaism only speaks of "Sheol" as far as I know (which is a very different from the modern idea of the christian hell), while the early greek translations use "hades" and "tartarus".

[Arx]

Hades is much closer to Sheol than Hel is, and none of the above is particularly similar to Hell as it is commonly seen. Hel is the closest, I think.

[TD1]

Are there any unique aspects of core Christian doctrine?

[Arx]

The fact that you only have to believe is pretty unique, as far as I know. Other wise, well,

There is nothing new under the sun.

[TempAcc]

Well the whole "faith is enough to save you" is an element somewhat present in hinduism. Most hindu scholars believer we're currently going through the Kali Yuga, which is the worst among the 4 cycles the world goes through, in which man is the farthest from god as possible and there is much sin and conflict, altough it is said that, during the Kali Yuga, all you need to do to be eligible for transition into a higher realm is believing and reciting the name of god in prayer, because thats the best thing that is expected from a person during the kali yuga :v

And faith being enough to save you is mostly a new testament thing, IIRC, due to Jesus' sacrifice, but ye, I dont remember many religions having faith as the only actual requirement for salvation, altough there are "more forgiving" beliefs in which even faith isn't a requirement.

In hermeticism, for example, it is said that humanity will eventualy achieve true freedom (freedom from materiality/the body/etc), but seeking knowledge and distancing yourself from the wants of the body and material things speeds up the process quite a bit, and having faith does help (in hermeticism, one of the biggest sins is ignorance from god). Even spiritism, which is derivated from christianity, says that faith isn't a requirement, but having faith while also being a good person and helping others hastens your soul's development, etc.

You'd be hard pressed to find any religions with completely original elements anyway.

[UXLZ]

The more I see and hear of religion the more I am tempted to create my own scriptures.

[TempAcc]

Do it, but at least make it come from genuine belief, and not out of dislike for already existing beliefs, its not a religion if you dont believe in it yourself

[Adragis]

I've often wondered what would happen if someone with no true belief started a religion, sect or cult purely for the lols, but promoted it as 100% truth.

[TempAcc]

Scientology? Altough that was for the $$$, not the lols, unfortunely.

[UXLZ]

Scientology comes to mind, though that's less for the lols and more for the moneys. It seems Temp had the same idea.

@Temp: Of course, though honestly speaking something based purely and accurately on my own personal beliefs would be... Quite strange, to say the least.

[TD1]

What religion isn't for the £££? The Christian church wouldn't have survived if not for its avarice. Indeed, commercialism is still a large part of Catholicism. When I was young, there was a Catholic family we knew who wouldn't send their child to a Protestant primary school (the closest one available, with good standards) because they'd have to pay the church quite a large amount to pray for his soul.

[UXLZ]

Many people have used religious liberty as a means to pose themselves against people they dont like, but this doesnt mean religion itself is a problem, in this case, and you see that kind of argument being used on both sides. The "cherry picking parts of the bible to support my claim" thing is happening on both sides of the argument, be it LGBT/militant atheists or fundamentalist protestants/catholics/islamists/etc.

Yes, the bible does in fact say that homosexuals should be put to death, but you have to consider the fact the bible is nearly two thousand year old document formed from hundreds of documents written by different authors at different moments of history and under different cultural influences. IIRC, the anti homosexual part is from the old testament, and may or may not predate the 10 commandments, and which say nothing of homosexuality while condemning the killing of people.

I generally like to think that the Pro-LGBT parties are attempting to use those quotes to demonstrate that using the Bible as a basis for the legality/morality of LGBT marriage/couples is ludicrous. All evidence points otherwise, but I have faith.

More seriously though, extremism is bad for both sides of an argument save as a hypothetical scenario.