http://catholicism.about.com/library/weekly/aa011903a.htm

Racism and the Catholic Church

What are Catholics doing to combat racism?

From the beginning of time, people have been combating the issue of racism. Racism is a dangerous and ineffective way to love your neighbor. Jesus asks us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. How can we do that if we discriminate people because of color of skin?

Martin Luther King challenged the country to look deeper in our minds and hearts. He wanted us to get to know the person and not the skin color. He hoped and dreamed a person's skin color wouldn't be an issue. Do you make skin color a factor? Do you judge a person by their actions or color?

Jesus is not racist. He loves us all no matter the color, age, gender, disability, or other qualities we have no control over. If we're supposed to strive to be like Jesus, then we need to free our minds from racism.

The Catholic Church has been working toward erasing racism. Many parishes in the country have implemented educational programs concerning racism. However, churches alone can't fight racism. Parents need to do their part by teaching children that we need to not judge a person based on color.

We were all created by God and are loved by Him. No one is better than anyone in God's eyes. The younger generations are our hope. If they learn that racism isn't loving or even Catholic, then maybe one day our world will be a better place.

Want a few hundred links to protestant or anglican anti-racism capmaigns? Just say the word.

Want a few hundred links to protestant or anglican anti-racism capmaigns? Just say the word.

All Christianity is vile in my view, and should be eradicated.

No it isn't. The 20th century abberation of it is.

- "All Christianity is vile in my view, and should be eradicated."


Luckily people like you are so lacking in mental and spiritual energy that you will never be able to pull it off.


Petr

No it isn't. The 20th century abberation of it is.

No, the religion in itself, including its "holy book", is vile. Just look at the early missionaries who went to the Third World countries, preached the gospel to the natives and had children with them.

- "All Christianity is vile in my view, and should be eradicated."


Luckily people like you are so lacking in mental and spiritual energy that you will never be able to pull it off.


Petr

Fortunately the wheel is already rolling, and would not even require my intervention. I am merely a spectator to the vile religion's demise.

No, the religion in itself, including its "holy book", is vile. Just look at the early missionaries who went to the Third World countries, preached the gospel to the natives and had children with them.
That Holy Book helped shape Europe into the beacon of civilization it is.

That Holy Book helped shape Europe into the beacon of civilization it is.

Myth number 101.

European civilization started long before Jesus Christ was even born.

Myth number 101.

European civilization started long before Jesus Christ was even born.
I said 'helped shape'. Do you disagree Christianity had a major part in shaping our civilization? Or do you just have problems reading?

I said 'helped shape'. Do you disagree Christianity had a major part in shaping our civilization? Or do you just have problems reading?

The fact that civilization started long before Christianity was even thought up, should tell you that the former is independent and unreliant of the latter. The fact that Europe progressed under Christianity, tells us more about the European race and intelligence, than about its religion. Europe would have prospered under Mithraism too.

The fact that civilization started long before Christianity was even thought up, should tell you that the former is independent and unreliant of the latter. The fact that Europe progressed under Christianity, tells us more about the European race and intelligence, than about its religion. Europe would have prospered under Mithraism too.
speculation

Of course the white race will always make the best ot of every situation, but under Christianity it achieved control over most of the world. Even protestantism chipped in ;).

speculation

No, it's called logic.

Of course the white race will always make the best ot of every situation, but under Christianity it achieved control over most of the world.

Pure coincidence.

Even protestantism chipped in ;).

The greatest Empire the world has ever witnessed, the British Empire, was thoroughly Protestant in confession.

- "The fact that Europe progressed under Christianity, tells us more about the European race and intelligence, than about its religion. Europe would have prospered under Mithraism too."


Let Nordicists say whatever they want, Chechens and Albanians are White. How has their civilization progressed under Islam?

And exactly how did Nordic people like Vikings prosper (except through plunder), until they came in touch with Christian culture?


Petr

That 'greatest empire' is miscegenating itself out of existance.

I can't help but notice how you brush off facts you don't like by calling them coincidental, then leave the topic without spending even a third wrd on it. Are you jewish? ;)

Finally, you say England was and is protestant: That's Christian too. I was the one who spoke of Christianity and European civilization, in reply to the following thread YOU posted and where you too spoke of Christianity, not Catholicism. Nice strawman.

The fact that civilization started long before Christianity was even thought up, should tell you that the former is independent and unreliant of the latter. The fact that Europe progressed under Christianity, tells us more about the European race and intelligence, than about its religion. Europe would have prospered under Mithraism too.

The greatest Empire the world has ever witnessed, the British Empire, was thoroughly Protestant in confession.

The wheels of the British Empire were set in motion by Catholics, and it drew alot of its manpower from Catholics through out its reign.
What do you think about people like Sir Thomas Stuckely?

The fact that civilization started long before Christianity was even thought upThis is not true at all. Western Civilization started with Christendom. The pagan Vikings, Gauls, Celts, Goths, Greeks, Romans, etc. were not Western. The fact that Europe progressed under Christianity, tells us more about the European race and intelligence, than about its religion.The fact that the pre-Christian Vikings acted like stereotypical gangstas, with their rape, pillage, hatred of learning and general barbarity should tell you something. Should I bring up the bark-eating and human sacrifice of the Celts? The savagery of the Gauls and Goths? They were not called barbarians for nothing.Europe would have prospered under Mithraism too.Now that is absolutely absurd. Mithraism did not even allow female members. How could that cult have possibly become universal to Europe?

Even our resident jewess is showing more common sense than you do. tss

Even our resident jewess is showing more common sense than you do. tssI'm a realist. Plus, Christianity would never have come into being without Jews. So you owe us a debt of gratitude. :D

I'm a realist. Plus, Christianity would never have come into being without Jews. So you owe us a debt of gratitude. :D
We owe you the asskicking of a lifetime, nothing more.

We owe you the asskicking of a lifetime, nothing more.You're too incompetent to even kick a bunch of muslim savages out of your country. And you do owe every Jew an asskissing for bringing civilization to your illiterate tribes. :D

You're too incompetent to even kick a bunch of muslim savages out of your country. And you do owe Jews for bringing civilization to your illiterate tribes.
Working on it my dear. We've come a long way. And unlike our American comrades, we're getting lots of popular support.

Stop editing posts while I'm replying to them.

This is not true at all. Western Civilization started with Christendom.

So Plato and Aristotle were Christians? :p

The fact is that Western Civilization and democracy is rooted in pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization and thought.

The pagan Vikings, Gauls, Celts, Goths, Greeks, Romans, etc. were not Western.

LOL, why not?

The fact that the pre-Christian Vikings acted like stereotypical gangstas, with their rape, pillage, hatred of learning and general barbarity should tell you something.

A lot of this is Christian propaganda, and a gross distortion of early Viking life and culture.

Should I bring up the bark-eating and human sacrifice of the Celts? The savagery of the Gauls and Goths? They were not called barbarians for nothing.

There is nothing wrong with tribalism or tribal religions.

Now that is absolutely absurd. Mithraism did not even allow female members. How could that cult have possibly become universal to Europe?

That is beside the point. Europe would have prospered under any religion, because of intellectual superiority. Modern Scandinavia is no longer Christian, but they have much higher standards of living than Christian countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain.... or southern Nigeria for that matter. :p

Do any Christians here consider pre-Christian Greek civilization inferior to Orthodox Christian Greece?

Do any Christians here consider pre-Christian Greek civilization inferior to Orthodox Christian Greece?
The present day orthodox Greece or the Byzantine Empire?

Do any Christians here consider pre-Christian Greek civilization inferior to Orthodox Christian Greece?

Jeez I hope not. Good point!

The present day orthodox Greece or the Byzantine Empire?

Either one.

Do any Christians here consider pre-Christian Greek civilization inferior to Orthodox Christian Greece?I've heard that some Christians have a problem with pederasty, slavery, and forcing people to drink hemlock. :D

Either one.
Present day greece is a shithole. Christian Byzantine gave the world, among other things, the Codex Iustinianus. It also had a lot more lasting power than Ancient Greece. I would put it on equal foot, both ahead of present day Greece. Far ahead.

I've heard that some Christians have a problem with pederasty, slavery, and forcing people to drink hemlock. :D

Jews don't have a problem with these things, I've read.

Jews don't have a problem with these things, I've read.Muslims are more likely to do those things. IIRC, you're quite fond of Islam.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are just a mix of Zoroastrianism (http://camel2.conncoll.edu/academics/departments/relstudies/290/iranian/influences/zoroastrianism.html) and Ancient Egyptian (http://www.ancientnile.co.uk/lb.php) cultic practices among other things. Islam, theoretically, is the most modern and progressive of the three. It takes a progressive people for it to 'work' properly, however.

Muslims at least wait until a girl is 9 years old to consumate the marriage. For Jews aparently it is "3 years and one day."

Bamidbar 31:17-18 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Numbers31.html)

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves

Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4]. Sanhedrin 7/55B

R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]."

For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."'

[37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]."

Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety." That is self-evident! - Abodah Zarah 36B-37A

:eek:

Muslims at least wait until a girl is 9 years old to consumate the marriage. This is your argument in favor of Islam? This is sig file material, baby!

I'm a realist. Plus, Christianity would never have come into being without Jews. So you owe us a debt of gratitude. :D

Your right! without the jews, we would have had nobody to hate :rolleyes:

To Tomas de Torquemada:


- "Present day greece is a shithole."


Whoa! I humbly suggest you'd watch your mouth when talking about another European country in this manner - how would you feel if I'd declare that present-day Belgium is a shithole?


Petr

To Gustavus Adolphus:


- "Modern Scandinavia is no longer Christian, but they have much higher standards of living than Christian countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain.... or southern Nigeria for that matter."


You are partying on the deck of Titanic, for your civilization is quickly going down the drain - nowadays you are imprisoning Christian pastors like Åke Green for offending the feelings of faggots.


Petr

- "Present day greece is a shithole."


Whoa! I humbly suggest you'd watch your mouth when talking about another European country in this manner - how would you feel if I'd declare that present-day Belgium is a shithole?


Petr
I'd say you're right. Why?

You are partying on the deck of Titanic, for your civilization is quickly going down the drain - nowadays you are imprisoning Christian pastors like Åke Green for offending the feelings of faggots.


Petr

I would rather that all Christian pastors in Scandinavia be imprisoned.

So Plato and Aristotle were Christians?They were not Westerners. The fact is that Western Civilization and democracy is rooted in pre-Christian Greco-Roman civilization and thought.That is an influence, but Western civilization developed as Western Europe was Christianized. The Romans agreed with me that Gauls, Vikings, Goths, etc. were utter barbarians. A lot of this is Christian propaganda, and a gross distortion of early Viking life and culture.Not at all. I'm a Jew. What I say is simply true, whether you like it or not. The pre-Christian Romans and Greeks made the same observations. Europe would have prospered under any religion, because of intellectual superiority.That is false. Religion affects social structure, parenting strategies, education, etc. An Islamic Europe would (or will) look very different from the one we now know. Had Europe stayed pagan and tribal, the idea of "whiteness" would never have developed. Europe would have been conquered by an Eastern power, such as the Mongols. Without the unifying and civilizing factor of Christianity, such a conquest would be inevitable.Modern Scandinavia is no longer ChristianWhat an utterly ridiculous statement.

For example, Sweden:

Religions: Lutheran 87%, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

So your statement is simply wishful thinking. Perhaps you would rather Islam triumph in Sweden?

They were not Westerners.

Of course they were. And why not?

That is an influence, but Western civilization developed as Western Europe was Christianized.

False. Western Civilization began on the shores of Crete, long before the birth of Jesus.

The Romans agreed with me that Gauls, Vikings, Goths, etc. were utter barbarians.

These "barbarians" managed to destroy the mighty Roman Empire. Besides, the Romans themselves were European pagans, so your point is invalid.

Not at all. I'm a Jew. What I say is simply true, whether you like it or not.

You would like to think so, yes. But we are not living in Moses' time anymore.

That is false. Religion affects social structure, parenting strategies, education, etc. An Islamic Europe would (or will) look very different from the one we now know.

An Islamic Europe may have been even stronger, since it would have caused a higher birth rate and thus larger population.

Had Europe stayed pagan and tribal, the idea of "whiteness" would never have developed.

Pure speculation. No way to prove or disprove.

Europe would have been conquered by an Eastern power, such as the Mongols. Without the unifying and civilizing factor of Christianity, such a conquest would be inevitable.What an utterly ridiculous statement.

Wrong conclusion. Pagan Rome was very powerful and unified, and conquered many nations and cultures. So was Alexander's pagan Greece.

For example, Sweden:

Religions: Lutheran 87%, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sw.html

So your statement is simply wishful thinking.

Sweden is nominally Lutheran. All ethnic Swedish citizens are automatically members of the state church at birth. That doesn't mean they actually go to church or practice the religion. Most Swedes are effectively atheists, and never practice any religion.

Perhaps you would rather Islam triumph in Sweden?

No.

False. Western Civilization began on the shores of Crete, long before the birth of Jesus.

Ah yes, the nordish cretans.

Ah yes, the nordish cretans.

Ah, you know about them too! :D

Wrong conclusion. Pagan Rome was very powerful and unified, and conquered many nations and cultures. So was Alexander's pagan Greece.

Irrelevant. After the Roman Empire fell, the pagan tribes in Europe had great fun bashing eachother's skulls 24/7, and it indeed was Catholicism that united them to some extent.

- "Pagan Rome was very powerful and unified, and conquered many nations and cultures."


Yes, it was so united that it was constantly racked by bloody civil wars.

Yes, it enthusiastically practised race-mixing and gave great privileges to the Jewish religion.


Petr

Irrelevant. After the Roman Empire fell, the pagan tribes in Europe had great fun bashing eachother's skulls 24/7, and it indeed was Catholicism that united them to some extent.

"United", huh? Rather, these Christian crusaders (Charlemagne) effected genocide on certain Germanic tribes, like the continental Saxons - just because they were pagan.

Political consolidation in post-Roman Europe had more to do with the ascent of the Franks as the most powerful Germanic tribe, than with their religion.

It did bitchslap the jews in Palestina though. have to give them credit for that Petr.

It did bitchslap the jews in Palestina though. have to give them credit for that Petr.

Just a pity they didn't crucify all Jesus' desciples also...

- "Rather, these Christian crusaders (Charlemagne) effected genocide on certain Germanic tribes, like the continental Saxons - just because they were pagan."


You call a few thousand dead Saxons a "genocide"? Sounds more like a holohoax to me.

And that most famous massacre of 4,500 Saxons (could well be an exaggeration) happened because Saxons had betrayed Charlemagne in his war against pagan Slavic tribes (they were supposed to be his allies against them), causing Charlie to lose battle and lots of men - it was essentially a My Lai type of vengeance-massacre on these traitors.


Petr

Assuming that church tradition is correct (yeah, I know) all the apostles were martyred, except for Saint John. So you kind of got your wish.

Just a pity they didn't crucify all Jesus' desciples also...
They tried.

Just a pity they didn't crucify all Jesus' desciples also...

You sound like your pushing a jew agenda to me you yid. :jew:

You sound like your pushing a jew agenda to me you yid. :jew:

You're obsessed with "jews". It would be less annoying if you would start capitalizing.

You sound like your pushing a jew agenda to me you yid. :jew:Why the paranoid mindset? Must you see conspiracies everywhere? I see no need to hide the fact that I'm Jewish. This forum is not under the control of antisemites.

You're obsessed with "jews". It would be less annoying if you would start capitalizing.

I'm from the old Stormfront board, we never capitalize " jew", and of course it is annoying, a jew does not want to be exposed. :eek:

False. Western Civilization began on the shores of Crete, long before the birth of Jesus.You have an odd definition of Western Civilization.These "barbarians" managed to destroy the mighty Roman Empire.The barbarians were only one factor. Besides, the Romans themselves were European pagans, so your point is invalid.They still shared my observations. My point stands.
You would like to think so, yes.I'm just going by history. But we are not living in Moses' time anymore.What does that have to do with anything?An Islamic Europe may have been even stronger, since it would have caused a higher birth rate and thus larger population.An Islamic Europe would not have been Western. What exactly are you fighting for anyway? Pagan Rome was very powerful and unified, and conquered many nations and cultures. So was Alexander's pagan Greece.Had you lived in either of these non-Western empires, the odds are that you would have been a slave. Sweden is nominally Lutheran. All ethnic Swedish citizens are automatically members of the state church at birth. That doesn't mean they actually go to church or practice the religion. Most Swedes are effectively atheists, and never practice any religion.A significant minority still practice the religion. Otherwise there would be no Swedish pastors for you to arrest and lock away. Certainly fewer take the religion seriously. That's why the Left is so powerful in Scandinavia.

Why the paranoid mindset? Must you see conspiracies everywhere? I see no need to hide the fact that I'm Jewish. This forum is not under the control of antisemites.

I'm not talking about you ,your honest enough to say your jewish, it is the ones who pretend they are goyim and just try to stir up trouble between different white relgions, nationalitys etc.

I base my conspiracy opinions by looking at the motive and what a poster is trying to accomplish.
This continuous attacks on Catholics is not normal in the real world, their are millions of Catholics of all white nationalitys and races, and their are no jews, athiests, etc who will ever overcome us and their will be blood in the streets of our enemys.

BTW! If I ever saw any group of people attack Catholics because they were Catholic, I would shoot to kill them, and that is the God's honest truth.

What exactly are you fighting for anyway?

The survival and prosperity of my race.

The survival and prosperity of my race.

If you ar any other group goes against us Catholics, you will all be exterminated.

If you ar any other group goes against us Catholics, you will all be exterminated.

Does that include South American & Mexican mongrel Catholics, and Philipino Catholics?

Does that include South American & Mexican mongrel Catholics, and Philipino Catholics?

I am only intrested in Catholics who are European or European descent here in America or any other country they live.

Those negroes can worship according to our ways, let's call it a gift of civilization.

I am only intrested in Catholics who are European or European descent here in America or any other country they live.

Does the Vatican approve of this view of yours? Or are you a heretic?

Does the Vatican approve of this view of yours? Or are you a heretic?
There's no heresy in merely disagreeing with the Vatican. You have to violate scripture or dogma for that.

There's no heresy in merely disagreeing with the Vatican. You have to violate scripture or dogma for that.

You are violating Vatican dogma by being a racialist. See www.vatican.va

Does the Vatican approve of this view of yours? Or are you a heretic?

I don't go by all the rules of the vatican, and many Catholics don't either, many of the rules of the vatican were made by man, not Jesus, that's why God put a brain in our heads when he put us on this earth, it was to protect us from manipulators of all kinds and for us not to be sheep but to be independent thinkers and not act in a herd.
All leaders of every religion are manipulators who try to control the mind and behavior of their flock and want you to just react to what they preach without questioning their motives.
I only listen to one man, and that is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and would sacrafice my life to protect his honour.
:jew: the anti-Christ, atheist and pagan worshipers will all rot in hell when they die.

I only listen to one man, and that is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and would sacrafice my life to protect his honour.


Almost brought a tear to my eye. :o

You don't sound very Catholic to me.

You are violating Vatican dogma by being a racialist. See www.vatican.va

The Vatican is not God, but a body of men who manipulate the bible like all religions do, to suite their own agenda.
Jesus does not send them messages every day telling them what rules people should follow everyday according to the political climate of the time.

I stopped following organized religion when the church committed blasphemy, when it contridicted the teachings of the bible by declaring that the jews were not reponsible for the death of Christ, by taking the orders of the Rabbis and whining jews who said that it caused anti-Semitism.

Well ain't that to fuckin bad for them.

Almost brought a tear to my eye. :o

What do you mean almost? better a tear in your eye, then a bunch of tears in your pants. :rolleyes:

You don't sound very Catholic to me.

I am a free thinking Catholic, and what I don't like, I don't go by that rule.

I don't care what the pope says about it, no man should let any other man lead him around in life, you make the decisions according to what you beleive is right or wrong.
So if your wrong, be ready to take the punishment without whining about it.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." - Matthew 28:19

"One is Bait, one is Hathor, one is Akori - to these belongs one power. Be greeted, father of the world, be greeted, God in three forms." - Amulet (falcon-headed Bait, frog-headed Hathor & winged serpent Akori - 100 C.E.)

"Virgin birth stories were farely common in pagan myths. The following mythological characters were all believed to be have been born to divinely impregnated virgins: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, Dionysus." - Hayyim ben Yehoshua, "Refuting Missionaries, Part 1: The Myth of the Historical Jesus"

"Like many other such deities Tammuz, for example, the god of ancient Summerian and Phoenician mystery teachings, had been born of a virgin, died with a wound in his side and, after three days, rose from his tomb, leaving it vacant with the rock at the entrance rolled aside....It is significant that Bethlehem was not only David's city, but also the ancient center of a Tammuz cult, with a shrine that remained active well into biblical times." - Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, The Messianic Legacy

"Wittoba, one of the Hindu gods, is represented with holes pierced in the hands and arms outstretched in the form of a Roman cross (but not fastened). The figure is crowned with a Parthian coronet, typical of all incarnations of Vishnu. The feet are also pierced.

In Anacalypsis by Godfrey Higgins, the god Indra is described nailed to a cross with five wounds representing nail holes. In the oldest accounts of Prometheus, it is stated that this saviour was nailed to an upright beam of timber to which was affixed arms of wood. The cross was situated on Mt. Caucusus, near the Caspian Sea. The story of Prometheus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection was acted in pantomime in ancient Athens 500 years before Christ".

"We find no less that twelve mythical-historical personages before the advent of Christ, who are said to have suffered crucifixion/death and to have risen from the dead. Among them are:
Krishna
Wittoba
Osiris
Attis
Indra
Prometheus
Mithra
Dionysus
Hesus
Aesculapius
Adonis
Apollonius of Tyana
Several of these figures are said to have been crucified at the spring equinox and to have risen on the third day." - The Christian Conspiracy: The Orthodox Suppression of Original Christianity

"Savior-gods and fertility-goddesses held their resurrection festivals at the full moon following the vernal equinox. Christianity celebrated its resurrection feast on the same date. One of the best-known fertility-goddesses was Easter, also spelled Ishtar, Astarte and Ashtaroth." - William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

Mithras, the Saviour

"Be of good cheer, sacred band of Initiates, your God has risen from the dead. His pains and sufferings shall be your salvation." - Words uttered by Mithraic priest

"Like Christians, the Mithraists believed that their savior had descended from heaven to earth; had shared a last supper with 12 followers; had redeemed mankind from sin by shedding blood; and had risen from the dead. They even baptized their converts [though in bull's blood] to wash away past sins." - Quest for the Past

Mithraism also has the following correspondences with Christianity:
Mithras was said to have been sent by a father-god to vanquish darkness and evil in the world
Mithras was born of a virgin (a birth witnessed only by shepherds)
Mithras was described variously as the Way, the Truth, the Light, the Word, the Son of God
He was also known as the Good Shepherd and was often depicted carrying a lamb upon his shoulders

"A third-century mosaic from the Mausoleum of the Julii underneath present-day St. Peter's in Rome actually portrays Jesus as Sol Invictus, driving the horses of the sun's chariot. That Constantine himself mixed Christianity and the Sol Invictus cult is clear form a second commemorative medallion issued by him within two years of the first, on which he represented himself with a Chi-Rho monogram on his helmet, and with a leaping Sol chariot below.

"It was only when he was approaching death that he asked for, or was accepted for, Christian baptism. As was still the custom, he received this naked, thereafter renouncing forever the purple of his imperial rank." - Ian Wilson, Jesus, The Evidence

"The Roman emperor Aurelian found his Sol Invictis, or Hellos, at Palmyra - the god whose birthday was on the twenty-fifth of December. Ammon Ra was the sun, his solar disk becoming the Aten, the one true god proclaimed by Egypt's heretic pharaoh, Akhenaten."

"In the Palmyra temple's courtyard I found a huge stone block bearing the image of a solar deity, with the sunburst nimbus behind his head that would eventually become the trademark halo of Jesus - and not long after Emperor Aurelian had dragged Queen Xenobla through Rome in chains, and made December twenty-fifth, birthday of his imported sun god, part of the most important holiday in the Roman calendar." - Paul William Roberts, Journey of the Magi (1995) p. 345

"The central figure of the ancient Egyptian Religion was Osiris," wrote the late Egyptologist Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "and the chief fundamentals of his cult were the belief in his divinity, death, resurrection, and absolute control of the destinies of the bodies and souls of men. The central point of each Osirian’s Religion was his hope of resurrection in a transformed body and of immortality, which could only be realized by him through the death and resurrection of Osiris." Wallis Budge explained: "the belief that Osiris was the impartial judge of men’s deeds and words, who rewarded the righteous, and punished the wicked, and ruled over a heaven which contained only sinless beings, and that he possessed the power to do these things because he had lived on earth, and suffered death, and risen from the dead, is as old as dynastic civilization in Egypt..."

Egyptian and Pagan Themes in Christian Tradition (http://www.mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/pagan.html)

People can beleive in any religion and scriptures they want, but don't attack mine and then tell me how perfect yours is.

This is not true at all. Western Civilization started with Christendom. The pagan Vikings, Gauls, Celts, Goths, Greeks, Romans, etc. were not Western.

LOL. If the westernmost populations of Europe were not "Western", I would like for you to show us who was!

The fact that the pre-Christian Vikings acted like stereotypical gangstas, with their rape, pillage, hatred of learning and general barbarity should tell you something. Should I bring up the bark-eating and human sacrifice of the Celts? The savagery of the Gauls and Goths? They were not called barbarians for nothing.

They were called barbarians because they did not speak Latin or Greek.

LOL. If the westernmost populations of Europe were not "Western", I would like for you to show us who was!"Western Civilization" does not refer to mere geography. Otherwise, cavemen from 50,000 BC would be civilized Westerners if they happened to live in Norway. :D
They were called barbarians because they did not speak Latin or Greek.That they ate bark, worshipped tree spirits, painted themselves blue, roamed about naked, sacrificed each other to the gods, and generally acted like savages may have also had something to do with it. :p

barbaros is a greek word which refers to people who can't speak greek properly

Sarah, none of that "pagan Christ" borrowing nonsense is taken seriously by real scholars.


On Mithraism:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html


On Osiris:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html


On all sorts of kooky pagan-borrowing claims:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html


Petr

I stopped following organized religion when the church committed blasphemy, when it contridicted the teachings of the bible by declaring that the jews were not reponsible for the death of Christ, by taking the orders of the Rabbis and whining jews who said that it caused anti-Semitism.

.


this pretty much completely sums up my own feelings on the organized religion sham. Many of these "churches" are not only sucking up to the Jew, but are also accepting all forms of blasphemy, like homosexuality. It is truly sickening to see how these so-called religious leaders are completely disregarding the words of the Bible. Catholisism, or what it has become, seems to bring new meaning to inventing myths to suit their agenda. There could be some degree of truth in some people's beliefs that Vatican II is Satanic.

I stopped following organized religion when the church committed blasphemy, when it contridicted the teachings of the bible by declaring that the jews were not reponsible for the death of Christ, by taking the orders of the Rabbis and whining jews who said that it caused anti-Semitism.



Wasn't that in the 60's? How old are you, Nemo? :p

Wasn't that in the 60's? How old are you, Nemo? :p

I wasn't in ww11 but I know it happened, I read about it. :p

That they ate bark, worshipped tree spirits, painted themselves blue, roamed about naked, sacrificed each other to the gods, and generally acted like savages may have also had something to do with it. :p

I understand your motives, but you could use some more restraint.

I understand your motives, but you could use some more restraint.I mean "savages" in the same sense that Congo tribesmen or Aussie aboriginals are "savages." Personally, I have no problem with these "uncivilized" people. Our planet can benefit from such diversity. I disagree with the view that such people are inferior merely because they are different. I have gone on record, for example, in supporting the traditional black folks of Sudan against their Islamic enslavers.

What I criticize is the racist tendency to disparage non-European aboriginals as "savage" while ignoring that European tribes, by the same standards, have been no less "savage."

What I criticize is the racist tendency to disparage non-European aboriginals as "savage" while ignoring that European tribes, by the same standards, have been no less "savage."
Why does that matter? They are refering to people who are savages in the present.

Why does that matter? They are refering to people who are savages in the present.For one thing, it shows that the supposed superiority/inferiority is cultural rather than genetic in basis. A blue-eyed, blonde-haired Norseman can act just as "barbaric" as any Zulu. His "superior white genes" never civilized him; Christianity and imperialism did.

For one thing, it shows that the supposed superiority/inferiority is cultural rather than genetic in basis. A blue-eyed, blonde-haired Norseman can act just as "barbaric" as any Zulu. His "superior white genes" never civilized him; Christianity and imperialism did.
No, it doesn't show that at all. Why did he become civilised and imperialistic whereas the Zulu did not (Zulus were kind of imperialistic, but it's your example, so don't bother nitpicking)? There's nothing concrete out there to say that genetics has no role in such a social development.

But, assuming your thesis is correct and the racists in question accept it as such, why do you criticise them for calling people savages who actually are savages in the present?

I mean "savages" in the same sense that Congo tribesmen or Aussie aboriginals are "savages." Personally, I have no problem with these "uncivilized" people. Our planet can benefit from such diversity. I disagree with the view that such people are inferior merely because they are different. I have gone on record, for example, in supporting the traditional black folks of Sudan against their Islamic enslavers.

What I criticize is the racist tendency to disparage non-European aboriginals as "savage" while ignoring that European tribes, by the same standards, have been no less "savage."

Good to have that in writing. :)

No, it doesn't show that at all. Why did he become civilised and imperialistic whereas the Zulu did not (Zulus were kind of imperialistic, but it's your example, so don't bother nitpicking)?

Circumstances.

I have never, in all my time, come across an arguement to convince me that determinism is incorrect.

Genetic composition is a circumstance.

Genetic composition is a circumstance.

It seems negligable to me.

No, it doesn't show that at all.It absolutely does, as I will further demonstrate.Why did he become civilised and imperialistic whereas the Zulu did notThere is no comparison. The Vikings were conquered, occupied, and underwent a process that lasted many centuries. By contrast, for the most part, the Western colonization of Africa was aborted with relative quickness. Many Zulus still stick to their old pagan, tribal ways. The same is not true for many Swedes.
(Zulus were kind of imperialistic,Yes, and the objective observer will notice that they were also quite innovative, with advanced battle tactics and such. Europeans found that out firsthand. There's nothing concrete out there to say that genetics has no role in such a social development.There is overwhelming evidence that socialization is far more important in this regard. But, assuming your thesis is correct and the racists in question accept it as such, why do you criticise them for calling people savages who actually are savages in the present?Because the same racists tend to argue that they are "savages" for immutable genetic reasons. They often deny that such "savagery" has existed in Europe. Not to mention the fact that savagery is in the eye of the beholder. The traditional Zulu culture is beautiful in its own way. Like traditional Southern culture, it has a place in the world, and should be preserved in its native habitat.

It absolutely does, as I will further demonstrate.
It seems not.

There is no comparison. The Vikings were conquered, occupied, and underwent a process that lasted many centuries. By contrast, the Western colonization of Africa was aborted with relative quickness.
What is your point in describing these circumstances, how does this establish 0 genetic influence? That is your argument to prove, you phrased it as such, so please follow through in a simpler manner without all this wasteful runaround.

There is overwhelming evidence that socialization is far more important in this regard.
Such as? Do you have any figures? And, is this argument not also a de facto admission of genetic influence? Your original phrasing was "cultural rather than genetic" which implies mutual exclusion. I think you should clarify your positon.

Because the same recists tend to argue that they are "savages" for immutable genetic reasons.
I asked why you would criticise someone who does accept your previous argument as correct. It is possible to be a racist without believing there are immutable genetic reasons for civilisation/savagery.

They often deny that such "savagery" has existed in Europe.
Who? I would hazard that any such denial is merely the result of a non-association between European history with African, and if the abstract conditions that constitute savagery were explained properly they would concur. This claim is not necessarily made by all, most or many people who use the term 'savage' in my experience. Actually in my experience, it's most often used by people who have a special appreciation for their culture's civilisation, and are aware of what life in Europe would have been like without it.

It seems negligable to me.That is basically my position. Not necessarily 0%, but so small that it scarcely matters relative to other factors.

What I criticize is the racist tendency to disparage non-European aboriginals as "savage" while ignoring that European tribes, by the same standards, have been no less "savage."

"Savage" is a problematic word generally used to describe people who live as hunter-gatherers instead of in civilizations. I do not have any problem with hunter-gatherers, but I think it's the nature of civilizations to look down upon them, spread, and gobble them up in their path.

I think many Africans would be much better off as traditional tribal people than as prostitutes and dealers in squalid urban cities.

"Savage" is a problematic word generally used to describe people who live as hunter-gatherers instead of in civilizations.Absolutely. Hunter-gatherers (and others of "uncivilized" ways) are going to act differently than civilized people. This is as true for tribal black Africans as it was for the Vikings. Yet white racists point to such behavior as genetically determined.
I do not have any problem with hunter-gatherers, but I think it's the nature of civilizations to look down upon them, spread, and gobble them up in their path.Bingo. This is exactly the attitude American settlers had toward Indians. Western colonialists felt the same way about black Africans. As a rule, "barbaric" behavior can be explained by socialization and environment. Hmong are such a pain in American cities because they're hillbillies from an Asian backwater, not because of their Mongoloid genes. Put some Vikings in the middle of New York City and you'd have the exact same problems. Before welfare and crack, blacks had stronger families, far lower crime and were culturally similar to white southerners. I think many Africans would be much better off as traditional tribal people than as prostitutes and dealers in squalid urban cities.Ásatrúar have much in common with many tribal black Africans or American Indian nationalists. They value their ancient roots and oppose Western modernity. Yet many WN who claim to be Ásatrúar know next to nothing about their ancient roots, and spend much of their time posting tirades against "niggers."

Edana: "Savage" is a problematic word generally used to describe people who live as hunter-gatherers instead of in civilizations. I do not have any problem with hunter-gatherers, but I think it's the nature of civilizations to look down upon them, spread, and gobble them up in their path.

Let us say instead they co-opt said savages as the new leaders of their civilisation. ;)

"Savage" is a problematic word generally used to describe people who live as hunter-gatherers instead of in civilizations.

I think 'Civilization' is just as problematic. I've asked for a definition of 'Civilized' many times, and all I ever get is:
An advanced state of...
A highly developed state of...
etc. etc.

But how 'advanced' is 'advanced' and how high is 'highly developed'...


I do not have any problem with hunter-gatherers, but I think it's the nature of civilizations to look down upon them, spread, and gobble them up in their path.

true.

"Western Civilization" does not refer to mere geography. Otherwise, cavemen from 50,000 BC would be civilized Westerners if they happened to live in Norway.

Well, you did not not say they weren't a part of Western Civilization, you said they weren't western. Had you meant they weren't a part of Western Civilization it would be equally confusing, as you would have said:

"The pagan Vikings, Gauls, Celts, Goths, Greeks, Romans, etc. were not Western."

If the pagan Greeks were not a part of Western Civilization, I'm sure many historians would be shocked.

That they ate bark, worshipped tree spirits, painted themselves blue, roamed about naked, sacrificed each other to the gods, and generally acted like savages may have also had something to do with it.

barbaros is a greek word which refers to people who can't speak greek properly

Could you provide me with documentation that the Celts ate bark?

Myth number 101.

European civilization started long before Jesus Christ was even born.

The only myth around is that picture in your sig. That argument about Mary has long been refuted.

I think 'Civilization' is just as problematic. I've asked for a definition of 'Civilized' many times, and all I ever get is:
An advanced state of...
A highly developed state of...
etc. etc.

Civilization is basically the stage where people develop cities.

Say what you want, but civilization starts when people invent soap.

Civilization is basically the stage where people develop cities.

I can see what your getting at, but even 'cities' can be a blur. I mean, Rome started off as 7 Hill Forts beside a river(Tiber)...then the valleys between these hills became populated with people looking to be protected by the Hill Forts...

I've heard of histrians and archealogists calling the simplest Hill Forts 'the city of the area' or some such.

When does a settlement become a city?

P.S. I'm not looking for an answer, just trying to point out that the whole idea of Civilization is very subjective.

P.P.S Cities can be pretty barbaric places too.