How much of Christianity is based on Paganism?

@Olivier5,

Moses relates in Genesis 4:26 that people began "calling on the name of Jehovah" We don't know what form this religion had, or even if it could be called 'religion'. The point is the name was known in pre deluvian times. 'Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' literally means "He who causes to become", or "He who creates". It is a name shared with no other.

Later, in Exodus, Jehovah explained to Moses that his name included the certainty of his purpose, that he would be whatever was necessary for him to be in order for his purpose to be fulfilled. You may recall his demonstration of this quality in his dealings with Pharoah.

2 Replies

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

Is not the code within DNA observable? or the structure of an atom? the laws of nature? This evidence may not lead you to believe in some sort of intelligent cause to the universe, but do you also assert that it is not evidence by any definition?

I don't know about "any" definition, but it's not evidence by the standard functional definition (Evidence, noun - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid) because it is too vague to indicate whether any belief or proposition is true or valid. For example, the same "evidence" could be said to indicate that Zeus is real, or Odin, or Nature. There is no causal link in the body of information.

Without a link to causation you could just as easily claim that a broken tea cup on the floor was caused by an elephant that walked through the room and knocked it from the table. Yes, an elephant might have caused it, but countless other things might also have caused it, and many of them are far more likely.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
No, no faith in that, either. Not sure how that analogy applies here, though. Anyway, things derived by inference necessarily involve a margin of error, including scientific knowledge. But if your claims are based on empirical observations, margins of error can be compared and minimilized through experimentation. If the claims are faith-based, they can't.
Returning to the legal system:
It is no doubt true that ajudications include a margin of error. I will admit my faith includes possible error. That is why I apply myself vigorously to examining my belief. I have to admit to myself that, first, I want to believe. So my first check is to determine whether I am engaging in wishful thinking. I don't make claims without sifting through a reality seive.

For example, when we examine the claim that God loves us, we first have to ask "How can we explain 6000+/- years of recorded human misery?" I contend the answer lies in the Bible, beginning in Genesis, ch 3. Then I examine the claim in Genesis, the examination of the examination, etc.

I would beg to differ a bit. When we examine the claim that God loves us, we first have to ask if that god even exists, seeing as how there doesn't seem to be any phenomena that have been proven to require its existence.

1 Reply

@Smileyrius,

Smileyrius wrote:

Quote:
A believer can look at the veins in a leaf, for example, and see the "hand of God" in it. However, this is motivated reasoning. Starting with a preferred conclusion and working backwards to find support for it

Without the intention of misrepresenting your argument, you still appear to contend that no man becomes a theist through consideration of data. The context of this statement suggests that all theists decide a god exists before he considers anything that may pertain to the existence of a god.

I try to avoid such blanket statements. I don't like "all" or "none" claims. Seems practically impossible to verify.

In my limited experience, it seems that the majority of believers were brought up in religious surroundings. All sorts of psychological factors come into play, both conscious and subconscious. I don't know of any adult who was raised in a non-believing household or social environment, then suddenly encountered the god hypothesis, gave it a thorough, objective, logical evaluation, then concluded that the evidence points towards a supernatural explanation. But I'm not saying that no such person exists.

0 Replies

@neologist,

Moses -- assuming such a person existed -- did not write the Pentateuch, neo. That's a pure myth. The styles are widely different, even Genesis is made of two stylistically different texts.

Moses' authorship is not even consistent with the exodus narrative: Mose by his own account is not good with words, and as a leader he must have been quite busy. I don't think he is ever described as writing the Torah, in the Torah text itself...

Anyway, even Moses was of pagan roots and culture. He had the brazen serpent built, the Nehushtan.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I would beg to differ a bit. When we examine the claim that God loves us, we first have to ask if that god even exists, seeing as how there doesn't seem to be any phenomena that have been proven to require its existence.

I start with the assumption that God exists.

I realize the danger in that. Conclusions must be carefully evaluated.

3 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I start with the assumption that God exists.

Then I think you should start any questions about God with a statement to that effect, just as you would when framing a question about any other unknown.

For example: "Assuming that Poseidon exists, how do we explain the mass beachings of whales and dolphin". Or "Assuming that Thor exists, why does lightning form sprites and jets in the upper atmosphere?". That way your questions or observations will at least be put into context.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

With the exception that I submit my assumptions to constant scrutiny. Many today accept the teachings of 'experts' with the same level of credulity as the Greeks who followed Zeus.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

FBM wrote:
I would beg to differ a bit. When we examine the claim that God loves us, we first have to ask if that god even exists, seeing as how there doesn't seem to be any phenomena that have been proven to require its existence.
I start with the assumption that God exists.

I realize the danger in that. Conclusions must be carefully evaluated.

OK, but why start with the assumption? That's what I was referring to as motivated reasoning.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

OK, but why start with the assumption? That's what I was referring to as motivated reasoning.

I think I hung myself out fairly well here:
http://able2know.org/topic/249087-1

1 Reply

@neologist,

Thanks for the link. I don't think I'd seen that.

First, to be clear, I don't consider it any of my business what goes on in your head unless it has a detrimental effect on me or society as a whole (faith healing, charlatanism, teaching/spreading medical and other science denialism, especially to children, etc.) or unless you invite me to comment.

Anyhoo, I'm trying to think of a concise position statement that fairly represents what you wrote in the (very well written and thought out) OP in the other thread. At the bottom if it, it seems, is your emotional desire to believe, motivating your choice (free will debate aside for the moment). Is that an accurate statement?

There was the claim in the other OP that your god promised that we would not die (I haven't personally witnessed a person in the final moments of death, but I have seen a human corpse or three). Would your reason for wanting/choosing to believe significantly or predominantly include a fear of death/non-existence of the individual consciousness?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I start with the assumption that God exists.

I realize the danger in that. Conclusions must be carefully evaluated.

This is a dishonest statement in that it is far, far less than a complete statement of the assumptions with which you start. You also start with the assumption that Judeo-Christian scripture is the reliable and literal truth--and the assumption that the teachings of Russell and his successors are correct. Finally, i see no evidence that you evaluate conclusions when it comes to so-called scripture and the watch tower teachings. A glaring and pathetic example is your continued claims about biblical "prophecy."

1 Reply

@Setanta,

So you don't think my evaluation of my belief is honest.

I can't help that.

Sorry

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Jehovah' or 'Yahweh' literally means "He who causes to become", or "He who creates". It is a name shared with no other.

Attempting to peddle more bullshit? You are wrong.

Yahweh is referenced several times with the full name of Yahweh Sabaoth which means, god of the armies. Yahweh was the Hebrew god of war. There was a time when the Hebrews were divided into multiple tribes and they each had their own god head. The Yahwehins wanted to elevate their god above those of the other tribes and set out to convert or conquer violently their rival tribes. Then rewrite their histories and proclaim their god, Yahweh as the one and only.

Historians, archaeologists and biblical scholars are all in agreement about these facts. Modern christians never get educated on the history of the formation of the bible nor the history of the Jews and how polytheism transformed into monotheism.

0 Replies

@neologist,

It's not just your beliefs about which you are dishonest. I responded to your post precisely because it is dishonest of you to speak of carefully evaluated conclusions. That's horsiepoop, you don't do that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Perhaps I woke up one day wondering what to do with my life and stuck a pencil into the yellow pages.
There it is!
Right between Janitor and Jeweler!

0 Replies

Don't give up your day job, comedy isn't going to work for you.

You are fundamentally dishonest. You attempt to shoehorn evidence into the conclusion at which you wish to arrive. Don't give us some pious crap about how careful you are in the process.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

It was not intended as humor

0 Replies

The name YHWH comes from the sound originated by the cosmological events that past generations experienced and that caused changes in the world.

Even Chinese records show an emperor called Yaho(o), who adopted that name when great calamities happened in his empire, perhaps by comet debris, meteorites, or another heavenly body perturbing our planet.

On the other hand, Christianity was never intended to supplant the traditional religion of the Israelites. The main function of Christianity was just to announce "the good news" that the Levitical priesthood has been debunked by the former priesthood of the order of Melchizedek.

The problem with Christianity was caused by the non-israelites who mixed their former religious habits with the new religion adopted from the Israelites.

The Israelites themselves were never completely observants of their religion anyway, the same prophets made reprimands on them because in the desert they worshiped other gods instead of their own.

If this was common with the Israelites, you can't expect less from other peoples adopting the Israelite religion.

And one curious thing: for the Hellenist, the Christian was the pagan.

0 Replies

Has anybody mentioned the Wiki page about it yet? Not saying Wiki is authoritative, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Paganism

Quote:

Pagan influences on Christianity[edit]
Further information: Hellenic philosophy and Christianity

Pythagorean mysticism influenced Christianity.
In the course of the Christianisation of Europe in the Early Middle Ages, the Christian churches adopted many elements of national cult and folk religion,[1] resulting in national churches like Latin, Germanic, Russian, Armenian, Greek and so on. Some Pagan ceremonies were brought in and the festivals became modern holidays as pagans joined the early church.[1] The Pagan vernal equinox celebration was 'Christianized'[1] and then referred to as the Annunciation to the Blessed Virgin Mary or Annunciation of the Lord and celebrated as the Feast of the Annunciation. The Germanic Pagan solstice celebrations (Midsummer festivals) are also sometimes referred to by Neopagans and others as Litha, stemming from Bede's De temporum ratione and the fire festival or Litha was a tradition for many pagans. This pagan holiday was basically brought in and given a name change, and in Christianity was then associated with the nativity of John the Baptist, which now is observed on the same day, June 24, in the Catholic, Orthodox and some Protestant churches. It is six months before Christmas because Luke 1:26 and Luke 1.36 imply that John the Baptist was born six months earlier than Jesus, although the Bible does not say at which time of the year this happened.[2]
One goal of the Reformation was to return the Christian churches to the state of early Christianity. Restorationists such as Jehovah's Witnesses continue to argue that mainstream Christianity has departed from Apostolic Christianity due, in part, to such Pagan influences.[3] See also Great Apostasy.
Influence on early Christian theology[edit]
See also: Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity and Hellenic philosophy and Christianity
Christianity originated in the Roman province of Judaea, a predominantly Jewish society, with traditional philosophies distinct from the Greek thought which was dominant in the Roman Empire at the time. The conflict between the two modes of thought is recorded in the Christian scriptures, in Paul's encounters with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers mentioned in Acts,[4] his diatribe against Greek philosophy in 1st Corinthians,[5] and his warning against vain philosophy in Colossians 2:8.[6]
...

Continued at link...

1 Reply

How much of Christianity is based on Paganism?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know