Why do you believe in *Insert Religion Here*?

reply to post by Republican08


Thanks for asking Republican08.

Why do I believe in Pastafarianism?

1) What was the defining moment that made me believe?

It was September 19, 2007 and I was invited to participate in "International Talk Like a Pirate Day" by a Pastafarian friend and the spirit of the buccaneers, the "absolute divine beings", took hold of me that day. Yarrrrr! Sorry, I'm easily inspired and often wear me heart on me puffy sleeves.

2) What makes me like Pastafarianism better than any of the other religions out there?

It would have to be the rejection of dogma and formalism. Second to that, I'm partial to celebrating our holiday known as "Holiday". I enjoy the "Holiday Season" very much. The promise of beer volcanoes and strippers in heaven is not such a bad thing either. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an awesome god with his meatballs, and noodly appendages! Well, what's not to like?

3) Do I HONESTLY believe that what Pastafarianism preaches would allow me to go to 'my' heaven?

No. I'm not delusional. I do think though, that for a few moments, Pastafarianism allowed someone reading my response to escape from 'their' hell.


WWFSMD?

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Republican08

 

The biggest idea that seemed to tear at the Christians belief was the prospect Jesus married Mary Magdalene and sired children with her. It was common for a rabbi (which is what Jesus was) to marry and have children. Since Jesus was also directly descended from David through his father Joseph, he would of been expected to have an heir to the bloodline. I never thought there was anything wrong with that finding, and was shocked when I found out the Catholic Church claims Jesus had no brothers and sisters.

I thought I'd add a little fuel to your fire here Kid. The brothers and sisters thing, I think they accept that. I'm a couple years out of the loop so bear with me. There are some Catholics that claim he had cousins mentioned in the scriptures but these same people are often described as being constantly around Mary and so cousins would be a stretch. Half-brothers and half-sisters ("He" did not have an earthly father) are the more typical interpretation.

Now when it comes to the marriage deal consider that at the Wedding at Cana it would have been an embarrasment to a Jewish family not providing adequate wine for the wedding feast. For Mary to prod him and for Jesus to step in there makes no sense unless of course it was His own wedding feast. Hmmmmm!

reply to post by Hemisphere


John the Baptist was Jesus' cousin. John's mother and Jesus' mother Mary were sisters.

Also, it is more than likely Jesus was a real person as there have been records found of his birth. The records of his children are the ones that the Knights Templar supposedly found and used the information to gain their power and wealth. The Church back then did not want a direct descendant of Jesus to have a claim of religious leader, which they would of had to honor. (The Hapsburg line is supposedly the direct descendants now, although there are claims the Stuart line of Scotland is another one.)

reply to post by kidflash2008


I'm hep to the cousin of John the Baptist deal. Before becoming a smartass I was Roman Catholic for the first 50 years.

There are other vague references to siblings or mistaken for siblings around Mary. But I suspect you're correct with the belief and overall scriptural clues pointing to Jesus being an only child. That also keeps the RC point that Mary was "ever virgin" intact.

John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

If Mary had other children to care for her what would be the point of this?

The sometimes confusing verses include this:

Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" And they were offended at him.

Consider that the list of men here are the brothers of Jesus but not referred to as "sons of Mary". And so they could have been cousins, adopted children of Joseph and Mary or even half-brothers from Joseph and a previous wife. The term for "brother" was used in a more general way than it is today. I also read that Hebrew did not have a word for cousin and so "brother" could have meant cousin, relative, kin or the like. And that would be in keeping with Jesus as an "only child" to an otherwise infertile Hebrew couple.

KF, you mention records found of Jesus' birth. What are these and by whom? Do you have inside information here? "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in."

reply to post by Hemisphere


The Council of Nicea tried their best to edit out references to Jesus and his heirs. There is a reference in Revelations to Jesus having a consort (wife) that is still intact, so they missed some spots.

Constantine wanted to be considered a son of God and a messiah, but he ended up being a saint. Constantine was also a Sun worshiper, as he worshiped Sol Leviticus.

reply to post by kidflash2008


I had always heard "Sol Invictus". But back to my original question regarding your statement "Also, it is more than likely Jesus was a real person as there have been records found of his birth." What records?

Now by "wife" in Revelations; was not the "New Jerusalem" referred to as "the bride" and "the Lamb's wife". I think that's the "wife" reference and that's not a woman.

Kid, I think you would find this book fascinating: Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill

Here's a brief description from the author's site:

CAESAR'S MESSIAH ; A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

I think you've probably heard of or read this next author but Bart Erhman touches on the same biblical inconsistencies in his various books. This guy is a major Biblical scholar, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill among many accomplishments. If you check his Wiki page you get an encapsulation of his themes and expertises which include various corruptions of the Biblical manuscripts. What I find missing from both his Wiki page and the biography on his own website is that he was a fundamentalist pastor if I remeber correctly and now he's a self-described "agnostic". I suspect an out and out "atheist" would not be allowed to continue as "Chair of Religious Studies" at North Carolina. But because he has multiple New York Times best sellers and world-wide notoriety they allow him to be "agnostic". It's good business this religion thing. After all, who are they to question his theological authority? Erhman's credentials are second to none.

reply to post by Hemisphere


The Jews kept very good records of the peoples (especially aristocrats like Jesus' family). I have to get a copy of some of the books that reference the early writers of the period so I can give you a few names. The book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and a sequel "The Messianic Legacy" (1987) had much information about Jesus and his family. Those well researched books also have information about the records and historians from back in the early Roman period when Christianity was just starting out.

I will check out the books you reference on this fascinating subject.

reply to post by kidflash2008


Thanks KF, I've already looked and...

"Holy Blood, Holy Grail: The Secret History Of Christ: The Shocking Legacy Of The Grail" by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln
is available to read in PDF form on-line on a number of websites.

While checking into your selections one of the sites mentioned in a list of similar authors Dan Brown of course and to my surprise Bart Erhman. I think I recall that Brown has been accused of using threads from the books you mentioned in composing his fictional bestsellers. Am I correct in that? I've scanned the beginning of the "HB,HG" PDF and it would appear so to me.

If the historic Jesus was just another cog in Jewish aristocracy and nothing more then there's been much ado about nothing. Kid, it will be interesting to see how and if they confront the "virgin birth" concept in the book. Maybe there was no need in that the concept was invented and inserted into the scriptures long after the historical Jesus died. Thus transforming a human aristocrat into God made man.

reply to post by Hemisphere


Dan Brown was sued over his ideas he used in "The Da Vinci Code". He changed enough in his books to win the lawsuit, but the fact remains that he got his ideas from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". I get upset when he gets all the credit for the ideas he took. His book is fiction, and he changes many of the facts in such a way to avoid being stuck with a plagiarism charge.

Also of note is the use of December 25th by Christians. The god Mithras was very popular in Rome (especially for the soldiers) and his birthday was on that date. That was also the time of Saturnalia, the huge festival giving thanks to Saturn (Kronos). The Council of Nicea picked December 25th to be Jesus' birthday, and to make the very popular Saturnalia part of a Christmas season. As I have also stated, the Mother Goddess Isis was also extremely popular, so the Virgin Mary was set to replace her gradually. Can you imagine how the Church would look today if those changes weren't made? Isis would be the main Goddess, and Mithras' Day would be celebrated on December 25th.

reply to post by kidflash2008


Yeah, I've been hip to the Mithras and Saturnalia for a while. And later Easter was borrowed from Eostre the Mother Goddess of the Saxons. There was a lot of blending and borrowing to get everybody on board the Jesus train. It's hard to control a diverse bunch and so the lock step approach. It was the Church of Rome and what was Rome known for? Regimented control.

Check out Kersey Graves' "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" written in 1875. The Romans were not the first borrower blenders by a long shot.

reply to post by Hemisphere


Wow you guys just jumped onto another religion plane for me?

Any good site you would suggest, i'm not real savvy with paganism, and such.

Just the three Islam, Christianity, Hinduism..... suprisingly i've had bosses of each type...

reply to post by Republican08


I win Rep08, the only boss I ever had was Jewish in heritage and atheist in belief. The main reason he hired me, I later found out, was he figured a practicing Catholic would be an easy and honest employee to deal with. He was right but that was many moons ago. After decades of polite debate on the existence of God he won and I agreed. He was dead two years before I agreed but he won. And now his family deals with me engrained in their company with a very different attitude/world view. I’m still easy and honest but brutally so. Some times it pays not to win.

Anyways,

Now as to Paganism I think Kidflash might have better info than I. There is the following site and keep in mind that Pagan encompasses many things excluding Christianity, Judaism, Islam and atheism. (Correct me if I'm wrong there!) Paganism is interesting to me as I am of Celtic ancestry. In my very mixed ethnic background (the list would bore you), I am predominantly Irish Catholic with Czech and Austrian thrown in for good Celtic measure. I always thought that considering I was Irish that at some point back in time my ancestors were likely Pagans. That’s not much of a stretch. This site is not bad and has umpteen links to related topics within Paganism:

Sorting Out The Pagan Traditions

Are there more scholarly and recognized sources? Certainly but this person appears to be steeped in the tradition and that would seem important.

Here’s an interesting side-note to my Celtic and possibly Pagan background. In my early twenties I was hospitalized with a blood disorder that couldn’t be identified initially. After seeing a number of specialists a doctor hit on a genetic disorder that causes an enzyme deficiency and a subsequent loss of red blood cells, hemolysis. In a nutshell if the hemolysis is triggered I wind up extremely anemic. This can be a pain when it happens but the condition is not regarded as life threatening.

The genetic anomaly is generally believed to be a mutation that evolved perhaps thousands of years ago in response to malaria in the Mediterranean. There are two forms of the deficiency one affecting peoples from African backgrounds and the other people from Mediterranean backgrounds. To make a long story short I have the Mediterranean type and yet as far back as anyone knows I have no Mediterranean ancestry. Here’s an excerpt that demonstrates where I’m going with this:

“The 6,000 year reign of Druidic leadership of the Celts was permanently altered by the rise of the Roman Empire in the centuries just prior to the Piscean Age, or "Christian Era". When Roman colonies began to expand northward into the lands of the Gaels, the Celtic tribes retaliated with an invasion that conquered Rome in 390 BC. They released the capitol city for a large ransom, but continued to occupy northern Italy. By 278 BC the Gaels had expanded into southern Germany and Britain, while other tribes spread eastward to establish a Celtic state in Asia Minor called Galatia, now a part of central Turkey.” – excerpted from The Rise of the Roman Empire on the webpage link that follows.

The Rise of the Roman Empire

I’m not certain of the historical validity of this webpage but it closely mirrors other information I’ve read regarding this topic. And so my point was that despite my not knowing a familial link to the Mediterranean, apparently the Celts had “been there and done that”. Somewhere, sometime, someone in my line had “hooked up” with someone in the Middle East, Italy or even Spain as the Celts made it there too. And so maybe my Pagan ancestors helped conquer Rome. It could happen. You know the old line that if it were not for whiskey, the Irish would rule the world. Just thank your lucky stars there be whiskey! How that ties back to your Paganism question, who the hell knows? I’m just prone to digress. And so I throw it back to KF who likely has better Pagan info. Sorry to have sidetracked your thread Rep08!

reply to post by Republican08


There really isn't any site I look to for Paganism. I usually get books about the subjects and read up on them. I can only suggest the library or a bookstore and just browse around. You will be surprised at what you find.

reply to post by Republican08


I am a Christian due to the evidence as well as a series of supernatural encounters and divine revelation.

1) What was the defining moment that made you believe in your religion?

At the age of 19, I was reluctantly dragged to church with my family for a guest pastor. They were worried about me since I was pretty much the sole non believer in my very devout family. That night I put God through a series of 'tests' to decide on whether or not He was real and cared about me at all. All I can say is that every single one of them was answered and fulfilled in a way a human could not have accomplished (and please realize I am a hardcore skeptic about most things and it takes a lot to convince me of something, especially supernatural). So I accepted Jesus that night.

Then a few years later, I began to stagnate in my faith. While studying the prophecies in the book of Daniel one afternoon, it was like a slap in the face and I just remember thinking, 'This is real. This is really real.' And that got me started in the field of apologetics, which is basically studying the faith on a factual and evidence basis.

2) What makes you like this religion better then any of the other religions out there?

It really wasn't a matter of liking it more because there are some things about it I do not particularly care for. But it's not a matter of what makes me feel warm and fuzzy- it's a matter of facing the facts. So I could have lied and told myself it was bogus and the things that bothered me about Christianity didn't even exist but that would have felt like hiding from reality. So I didn't pick it because it was nice, I picked it because I believe it is factual.

But to answer the question, I suppose what is beautiful about it is that the king gave His life for the peasants. All other religions focus on what man can do to achieve the grace of God. However, in Christianity it is reversed and God came to our level. He did the 'hard stuff.' All we have to do is accept.

3) In the religion you have chosen, do you HONESTLY believe that what it preaches would allow you to go to 'your' heaven?

Yes.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Republican08

 

2) What makes you like this religion better then any of the other religions out there?

It really wasn't a matter of liking it more because there are some things about it I do not particularly care for. But it's not a matter of what makes me feel warm and fuzzy- it's a matter of facing the facts. So I could have lied and told myself it was bogus and the things that bothered me about Christianity didn't even exist but that would have felt like hiding from reality. So I didn't pick it because it was nice, I picked it because I believe it is factual.

Good answer. This indicates to me you are thinking about what you are following. It has proven true to you and you have considered there are bothersome parts and are not simply unaware of or ignoring them. I think that's a key.

"To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." - William Shakespeare

I enjoyed reading your answer.

reply to post by AshleyD


I'm stunned by your final answer, well seems like your a one in a million!

Although, i'm sorry but i'm curious, mainly because you say you put god through a series of test that night (bible says do not test your lord god) and that he/she deity, passed all the tests.

What were the test it passed, what proved it, i'm sorry but I need a little bit more then I put a test they passed.

Imagine this is a test on physics, I put Joe blow through a test and he passed, but I do not tell the University what the test was about what percentage he passed time alloted blah blah blah.

THe physics university would need to know the tests and see it.

So if you see this post, please describe these tests.

Although no offense honestly, but i'm swaying to believe you purposely didn't post them because you were afraid they would be discounted by normal consistencies. Although if as you say your very skeptical of these things, your evidence should throw all that out, and prove it definely.

reply to post by Republican08


Or it could really be none of your buisness and she was simply answering your question and not seeking to convert you?

Just saying..............

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


My business or not it is now!

Curiousity. I need to know, what it is that makes people believe, it's the goal orientation of this very thread! The defining moment, not the vague defining moment! Sorry for the maybe rude sounding texts in this, but I cant use my witty pronounciations in online talk!

I'm strongly curious to, these 'miracles' that were the tests that proved her to beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a One true god.

Aren't you the least bit curious too???

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I'm also not looking to be converted, just simpling a man looking for answers to things he's unsure of and that internet searches cannot answer quite as well.

I like my religion, pokes avatar, it's neat and definitive. I have my reasons, and support them and show them, I simply want to see others.

reply to post by Republican08


There is a story somewhere in the bible, I can't remember it right off the top of my head, but god speaks to him, and he believes he is going crazy. It takes 3 times before the man realizes he is not crazy.

This I can also relate too. I had my experience, and as I wasn't religious and such, I thought I was going crazy. I did not change that overnight, it took a bit of time and alot of understanding gained before I just said "well, maybe I'm not going crazy". The weird part is right as it happened and right after, I knew it was true. It was when I got to thinking and such later that I started doubting. Pretty much any question I asked I got understanding for, but in the strangest ways.