whay has the Christian myth got such a magnetic pull on some people?

[Mariatenebre]

You should respect it because if you don't respect your enemies you will constantly underestimate them.
And you should also respect it because it DOES contain a respectable set of morals and values.

Wow, it has faults. Really? What doesn't?

Trust me it is possible to never underestimate your enemies and not respect them

 

[Mariatenebre]

Actually, my favorite religion is that of ancient Ugarit.

As for the homophobia in Christianity, it is all Paul's fault. He was a misogynistic son of a bitch. If I could go back in time, I swear I would go back and kick that jerk in the nuts so hard....grrrrr. He was not even painted in an attractive light in the Bible. In every aspect of his character, he was an obscene prig and a jerk. If I could kick that guy's butt, I would pay money.

Anyway, Christianity did not create modern homophobia. People did. One of the earliest individuals to truly persecute gay people, in Christian Europe, was Theodosius I. That was the least of his crimes, but it did set a precedent that we are still untangling the consequences of today. Theodosius was not a nice man. St. Ambrose was generally appalled by him. However, Theodosius I ordered gay men to be sentenced to death by burning.

Earlier tyrants of Rome persecuted gay people, but some of those were not even clearly Christian. For example, Philip the Arab is considered by some thinkers to have been Christian, but this is really very dubious. One of his atrocities was the so-called "Secular Games," in which more than a thousand gladiators died as well as many ill-fated animals. One thing he tried to outlaw was male prostitution. He was not much of a Christian, though, even though Christianity was a very popular religion at the time.

No, I do not blame Christianity, per se, for homophobia. I blame evil men.

As for why I have respect for Christianity, I actually appreciate the fact that the Christians helped domesticate my Pagan ancestors. Although I am very proud of the traditions of my Pagan ancestors, their rituals involving human sacrifice had to go. Furthermore, Anglo-Saxon culture had annoying macho-ethics in which homosexuality was not unto itself an object of persecution, but the "receptive" partners were kicked around pretty badly and treated like dogs. As someone who is always the "receptive" partner in sex, I have a serious problem with that.

I find some present-day Christian sects to be utterly repulsive. That is different from my feelings about Christianity overall. Christianity is as divided about gay rights as society at large. And remember, because atheists are very much a minority, the majority of those who support gay rights are Christians, whether you like it or not.

But I am an atheist, just to be clear.

Actually the homophobia comes from the old testament in Leviticus.

As for modern homophobia, Christianity did not create homophobia but it spread homophobia across the Western world. As for humans sacrifice this was a rare thing in the European Pagan world. In fact the Old Testament are full of examples of human sacrifice to Yahweh. Also I wouldn't say that Christianity "domesticated" the Pagan world because in reality it tought them religious intolerance, sex and body hatred as well as extreme sexism and homophobia. Also as for the Anglo-Saxons from my research I don't think that receptive partners were treated like dogs as much as they were basically considered on the same level as women and thus did not have the full rights of a man.

I am aware that many Christians support gay rights however Christianity and all of the Abrahamic religions are springs of homophobia.

If it would be allowed to send a message that is only 2 letters long it would be "No".
And furthermore if you remain willfully blind to the good things that your opposition stands for (and this was a very important part of my earlier post) you are also a fanatic.

In actuality I think it is very possible to not respect your enemies and not underestimate your enemies. For instance if you don't respect them you realize that they are capable of anything. So any low down or cruel move they commit will never surprise you.

 

[Brian Smith]

Actually the homophobia comes from the old testament in Leviticus.

Leviticus is actually a very fascinating book.

Christianity did not create homophobia but it spread homophobia across the Western world.

It was already there. Ancient Europe was an extremely misogynistic culture, for the most part, and "passive" male homosexuals got very short shrift.

As for humans sacrifice this was a rare thing in the European Pagan world.

It was actually more common than you think, and so was slavery. Also, the ancient Pagans were often incredibly racist. Pagan Europe was not some fine utopia that Christianity rudely intruded upon. The truth about its history is a lot more complicated.

The rivals of Christianity did not just sit there quietly and peacefully. Try to comprehend in your mind a Europe in which there was not only Christianity, but there were many other religions there that were competing for absolute dominance. Each was literally intent on trouncing all other religions out of existence. This includes Tengrism, which was at one time a very strong contender for dominance in parts of Europe. The Pagans were not helpless cupcakes by any stretch of the imagination. They fought long and hard, and they were not intent on staying nicely in one place.

Now, as for how homosexuality was treated by the Anglo-Saxons, how it was treated in practice probably varied with the time period, but it was actually a crime in early Germanic law. According to Tacitus, those condemned for homosexuality, cowardice or infamy were thrown into a bog or something similar. This was before Christianity really took root in that culture.

It was actually a philosophical movement that really led to gay people being persecuted so widely, though. Under the idea of individuals like Thomas Aquinas, many governments outlawed a number of things that were deemed "unnatural," and homosexuality was on the list. This was not a theological movement as much as it was a philosophical movement in the context of a culture that was largely dominated by Christianity.

History is not as cut-and-dried as it is often made out to be.

 

[ludolfo]

and Brian Smith, it seems to me you thinks you know it all, and are 'teaching' us what history really was. Seems a bit arrogant to me. You provide no sources for these 'truth's you are expounding here.

Actually all of this you are putting out is your interpretation. I hope you can accept this?


What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

What matters now is Christian homophopbia, and how the myth of Christianity has caused so much misery in the world. You miss all this out in your praise of it. I am not accepting your version of history. It does not gell with mine.

 

[ludolfo]

I am also just expressing my opinion also. I in no way whatsoever am suggesting he shouldn't express his. But it could appear that what he is claiming is 'it'--'the real low-down of history', and I don't think it is. For a start 'paganism' was diverse. It isn't 'paganism' versus the Church, and also the Church has many denominations also.
There is a scholar who claims he follows authentic Gnosticism, John Lamb Lash, who is scathing about Christianity because he says it was so very violent and suppressive against the Pagan Mysteries. I agree with some of what he says regarding his criticism of Christianity, but not his making out the Gnostic myth is THE truth we now must look to. I also think there is a big difference between his meaning of 'learned' Paganism and the more rural indigenous 'countrydwelling' (a definition of 'paganism') kind. So I am just saying it is not just 'paganism' one side and 'Christianity' on the other.
I am more interested in NOW--but of course also understand the important of knowing roots. This is why I like to look at etymology of terms even, because often we use words and are blind to their roots and how their meaning has been hijacked by propagandists.

I have just done a little Googling Mikeylove and found this:

20 Reasons to Abandon Christianity
by Chaz Bufe

Table of Contents

Christianity is based on fear
Christianity preys on the innocent
Christianity is based on dishonesty
Christianity is extremely egocentric
Christianity breeds arrogance, a chosen-people mentality
Christianity breeds authoritarianism
Christianity is cruel
Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-scientific
Christianity has a morbid, unhealthy preoccupation with sex
Christianity produces sexual misery
Christianity has an exceedingly narrow, legalistic view of morality
Christianity encourages acceptance of real evils while focusing on imaginary evils
Christianity depreciates the natural world
Christianity models hierarchical, authoritarian organization
Christianity sanctions slavery
Christianity is misogynistic
Christianity is homophobic
The Bible is not a reliable guide to Christ's teachings
The Bible is riddled with contradictions
Christianity borrowed its central myths and ceremonies from other ancient religions

1. Christianity is based on fear. While today there are liberal clergy who preach a gospel of love, they ignore the bulk of Christian teachings, not to mention the bulk of Christian history. Throughout almost its entire time on Earth, the motor driving Christianity has been—in addition to the fear of death—fear of the devil and fear of hell. One can only imagine how potent these threats seemed prior to the rise of science and rational thinking, which have largely robbed these bogeys of their power to inspire terror. But even today, the existence of the devil and hell are cardinal doctrinal tenets of almost all Christian creeds, and many fundamentalist preachers still openly resort to terrorizing their followers with lurid, sadistic portraits of the suffering of nonbelievers after death. This is not an attempt to convince through logic and reason; it is not an attempt to appeal to the better nature of individuals; rather, it is an attempt to whip the flock into line through threats, through appeals to a base part of human nature—fear and cowardice. ff

THAT is also Christian history. I trained as an artist and whilst doing so I met two middle-aged women who didn't know each other, and both had had mastectomies, and both without any lead from me, claimed their disease was brought about though Catholic guilt!

I notice in the list of contents is presumes there actually was a 'Jesus Christ'. So I also question that premise, because there exists no historical evidence for that assertion. I cannot ignore that. Like I have said elsewhere, maybe not here, that say someone experiences seeing 'Jesus' in a Near Death Experience, or psychedelic experience, etc, I am not going to discount their experience. That is the way they are interpreting it, and these experiences can be deeply healing. But I am also going to question them, and I feel this inspires me and others to go deeper. The mystery is depthless.

 

[Brian Smith]

and Brian Smith, it seems to me you thinks you know it all, and are 'teaching' us what history really was. Seems a bit arrogant to me. You provide no sources for these 'truth's you are expounding here.

Well, I realize that most people aren't interested in reading about the history of the Khazars, but I think it is relevant that the Khazars actually sought out converting their people to an Abrahamic religion in order to improve their political standing, and I think it is relevant that the Tengrism that they converted from was not always a very nice religion in actual practice.

And there were other major religious groups that were competing for dominance. They were often cruel, often hideously so. The Christians were just a major player in a very filthy game. They didn't invent it. In a kinder world, they might have been less cruel.

What matters now is Christian homophopbia, and how the myth of Christianity has caused so much misery in the world. You miss all this out in your praise of it. I am not accepting your version of history. It does not gell with mine.

I acknowledge that the Catholic Church has often been on the wrong side of history, though. I don't refute your views, per se. I just have a different context for understanding the subject.

 

[ludolfo]

And it is so because of its mythology is my context:

The Apostles Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.

AMEN.

The Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Chalcedonian Creed (Definition)

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted. Before time began he was begotten of the Father, in respect of his deity, and now in these "last days," for us and behalf of our salvation, this selfsame one was born of Mary the virgin, who is God-bearer in respect of his humanness.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ-Son, Lord, only-begotten in two natures; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead, the "properties" of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one "person" and in one reality. They are not divided or cut into two persons, but are together the one and only and only-begotten Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus have the prophets of old testified; thus the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us; thus the Symbol of Fathers has handed down to us.

source

This is mythology. Do you agree?

 

[Brian Smith]

Nope! it is exactly what all Christians are supposed to believe in with out any doubts whatsoever.

Well, that depends on how far you are inclined to take the universalist doctrine, and there are movements, like the Moravians, that hold the belief that all souls will eventually be reconciled somehow to God.

Really, I strongly recommend looking into the Moravians. Their belief is essentially that God will get everything sorted out somehow, and their motive for worship is to rejoice in how wonderful this is. They are also a charming combination of old-time values and a traditional, time-honored liberal streak. They are strong believers in education. In college towns, their entire congregations are doctors, professors and other members of the intelligentsia. They tend to be really keen folk, and I actually genuinely admire them.

 

[ludolfo]

Nope! it is exactly what all Christians are supposed to believe in with out any doubts whatsoever.

I was actually asking Brian, but all can answer this and you have--not that I am surprised with your answer. I know you believe it like it is THE 'truth'. Like you say you are "supposed" to believe it and have no "doubts". I see this as very rigid, and it seems you have given up all your freedom to question to this chosen belief system.
So, for anyone to place a little doubt in you must be seen by you as close to your "Devil" or the very Devil himself, right?

 

[FirmaFan]

Nope! it is exactly what all Christians are supposed to believe in with out any doubts whatsoever.

I can not even begin to comprehend how a person could be so content with not thinking for themselves. To say something like this is to check your personal intellect at the door. Doubt and question is what advances knowledge; unquestioning obedience only propagates the ideas given by authority, regardless of merit or truth.

 

[HoodedRat]

Wrong! I will have nothing to do with the Father of all lies, Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, whatever you like to call him.

Mikey, have you ever actually read the read the bible? The 'father of all lies' and falsehood, is clearly the old testament's premier deity. As early as Genesis chapter 2 he begins lying to Adam and Eve, and as the various tales of the OT unfold the true depths of his dishonest nature are revealed.

 

[bankside]

Wow... Because you never act like Mr. Know-It-All. Arrogant eh?

And just by the way I think if we are talking about his very own people we can trust his expertise about their history, you know.

And let me ask you this:
Only Christian homophobia matters to you?
What about homphobia amongst atheists? What about homphobia amongst the members of other religions?
Why don't you confront Islam?

Whether Crhistianity is a good influence is debatable, but I think saying that it is plain wrong or plain good is stupid and tells of very limited immature perspective.

Homophobia among Christians comes about largely as a result of Christian teachings from the likes of the nearly departed Herr Ratzinger, who holds that being born naturally gay is actually "objectively disordered" and that the highest sign of character in a gay person is to sacrifice and suppress the inherent and natural potential to find fulfilment in the company of another gay person, allowing the emotional and physical capacity for love to wither into a hollow shell, in the name of obedience to an imaginary divinity. It is contemptible.

In comparison, no atheist philosopher has ever said "There is no God, thus homosexuality is wrong."

 

[bankside]

You still don't get my point.
Homophobia is not a religion-specific phenomena. It would exist even is there were no religions at all.
Atheists craft their own "arguments" to justify their hatred for homosexuality and gay people.

Plus we are not talking about philosophers here, we are talking about simple everyday normal people.

I however agree, that homophobia is strengthened by the Catholic Church, I just hate the naivety which makes some people believe that if the Catholic Church would disappear all their problems would be suddenly solved. They wouldn't.
People would still hate gays.

Okay let's talk about something else then: driving a car.

Within Catholicism, there is no creed that obliges Catholics to hold the steering wheel at the "10 and 2" position. Nor revelation about how long to indicate before a lane change. Nothing from the hierarchy or the most careful thinkers of the church is directly related to the functional task of driving. "God is my Co-pilot" bumper stickers on the back of rusted-out Fords do not count.

Similarly, there is no atheist philosopher or writer who has ever said "There is no God thus it follows that we must always shoulder-check." Again, a Volkswagen with an "Evolve Fish" bumper sticker is ruled out.

We can I hope agree that the particulars of driving are derived from human experience in the last hundred years or so about how best to maintain order and safety on the roads. Recognition of this should be fairly uncontroversial amongst both atheists and Catholics, and they can agree on what the rules of the road are, and that neither of their respective views on theological questions really have much to do with it..

A position on the relative merits or perils of homosexuality is different. An atheist cannot draw any inference about homosexuality from the absence of any kind of god, other than perhaps that whatever the merits of homosexuality, the sodomites will not be going to imaginary hell.

A Catholic however, if he is a conscientious follower of Church teachings, ought to feel opposed to homosexuality on the basis of scripture, tradition, and pastoral guidance, all of which are sources of "knowledge" (smirk) about what is wrong with the gays and their tragic, potentially sinful, objective disorder. A Catholic cannot claim his faith is irrelevant to the question: the bigotry is embedded in the religion itself. Quite unlike atheism, and quite unlike other questions such as the proper method of driving.

Incidentally I chose "philosophers" as being the closest thing to "cardinals" within their respective fields, for the purpose of pointing out that people exercising greater authority also have greater responsibility, and in that regard the cardinals fail miserably for the human suffering they have endorsed and provoked. The argument applies to "lay catholics" and "lay atheists" as well.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Gnosticism does not give you the truth on anything. The teachings of the Church is guide by the Holy Spirit, not Man. The core teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be changed by any Man in the course of History passed, present, and future.

The Catholic Church has changed their teachings on many things from limbo, to priestly celibacy. Hell Christianity is merely corrupted Judaism mixed with Paganism. So your religion has changed greatly over time. Christianity has had human founders and nothing to do with any holy spirit. In fact we know the history and development of your religion well.

Nope! it is exactly what all Christians are supposed to believe in with out any doubts whatsoever.

Except history, science and anthrology shows that your religion has as much truth as the Greek myths. This also shows the cult like nature of your religion are you are supposed to believe it without any questioning.

Wrong! I will have nothing to do with the Father of all lies, Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, whatever you like to call him.

Satan is a perfect example of the human construct of your religion. In Judaism Satan was not a fallen angel but an angel who served Yahweh as someone who tested mortals. It was only when Christians came about did they take Satan and make him into a bad guy. Also Yahweh in the Bible does far more harm, atrocity and murder then Satan every did. Of course this does not surprise me considering that he is the war god of the Canaanites.

 

[Brian Smith]

Christianity is actually pretty diverse, but most Americans nowadays are more Platonist than Christian. To assume that "Platonism" is a secular doctrine would be a failure in the proper understanding of Platonism. A true Platonist, who followed the teachings of the Platonist and Neoplatonist philosophers to the letter, would barely be distinguishable from a modern Christian.

There are also, of course, those who live more according to the Stoic tradition. The belief held by the Stoics was that virtuous behavior brought about spiritual happiness. They believed that the universe was made of a reasoning substance. They did not think of it so much as "God" but more the way we talk about "nature" as if it were a thinking substance somehow.

However, there are surviving relics of Olympianism in our culture. For example, there are still people who think of death in terms of Thanatos, and Thanatos appears very often in our art. Furthermore, Catholic demonology is littered with numerous old pagan gods, including many from The Levant. We don't admit to it and deride it as "mythology," but we still believe in and fear the old gods.

We still observe the idea of wishing wells or fountains. This is actually of Celtic origin, but the idea was also popular in Norse culture. Odin supposedly sacrificed his right eye for wisdom by casting it into a well. Today we routinely throw pennies into fountains, hoping that the small sacrifice will result in some degree of good fortune. When you do things like this, try to understand that you are continuing an ancient tradition of ritual sacrifice that has been around since before human memory.

It's derided as "superstition" and treated as backward and foolish, but that's because the Christians simply couldn't get rid of it. Oh, they tried to stamp it out. They tried to get people to realize that these pagan superstitions were backward and silly nonsense. A lot of people don't realize it today, but medieval Christians really thought of themselves as very enlightened and modern, and they made it their mission in life to educate all of our poor, backward pagan ancestors. People still do these things, though. They believe in these things. It surpasses their belief in God in how much it affects their behavior. This is the true religion of the common people.

It's not that Christianity has changed so much. It is more that we haven't changed as much as we fancy. Our culture survives, and what a tragedy it would have been to let it die.

 

[ludolfo]

It's derided as "superstition" and treated as backward and foolish, but that's because the Christians simply couldn't get rid of it. Oh, they tried to stamp it out. They tried to get people to realize that these pagan superstitions were backward and silly nonsense.

You say "we" more than several times so I'm assuming you identify with the Christian religion? You are part of the Church and follow its creed?
You make it out--give the image--of these poor Christians trying to stamp out 'superstition'...? And replace it with what?

 

[Brian Smith]

You say "we" more than several times so I'm assuming you identify with the Christian religion?

No, though I was raised United Methodist.

You make it out--give the image--of these poor Christians trying to stamp out 'superstition'...? And replace it with what?

Christianity, which was viewed by its adherents as a much more rational and scientific-minded religion. I was trying to explain how measures such as the Capitulato de partibus Saxoniae did not really succeed, as intended, in wiping out paganism. In fact, these old pagan beliefs still flourish in our culture. A culture is a hard thing to kill.

 

[ludolfo]

but the reverence for springs, and nature in general, is far more ancient than Saxony. Do you think that experiencing springs, and hills, trees, and rivers, and nature as sacred, is superstition?
I know that most Christians will often attack 'paganistic' love for nature using their cliche "love the creator not his creation". Their premise being there is a duality between a --usually masculine-- 'creator' and 'his' 'creation'

 

[Brian Smith]

but the reverence for springs, and nature in general, is far more ancient than Saxony.

That is what I was saying, yes. It goes back to before the memory of history.

Do you think that experiencing springs, and hills, trees, and rivers, and nature as sacred, is superstition?

Much of what we regard as "superstition" is composed of the remnants of our ancestral faith. They were quite serious about it. Even the belief that wood sorrel is associated with good fortune is based on the teachings of the Druids, and this was linked heavily with their belief that 3 was an important number. Wood sorrel can also be used to make a nice dessert.

I know that most Christians will often attack 'paganistic' love for nature using their cliche "love the creator not his creation". Their premise being there is a duality between a --usually masculine-- 'creator' and 'his' 'creation'

But it is pagan! If you have Celtic ancestry, your ancestors worshiped trees. They revered trees. This may be true of many cultures, but the Celts had an amazing number of beliefs about trees. Therefore, they are quite right.

 

[ludolfo]

I never meant it wasn't pagan. But whose side are you on? Do you agree with that typical Christian accusation against paganistic reverence for nature as loving creation more than its creator?
Where do you stand?