reply to post by VeritasAequitas
Okay let me explain this to you in a simple manner.
Roman Catholicism is based on the same Sun cults as Amun-Ra, that is it is a modern mystery school. Its actions and leaders do not follow the words
of the book they claim to be preaching and according to that book they are blasphemers and 'anti-christ'.
You can site all of their rituals you like but note that the celebration of Easter is supposed to occur during the Jewish 'Pass Over' however whenever
the to dates coincide the Papacy changes the day in which Easter is celebrated. The eucharist ritual is based on the same solar cult rituals, yes.
Roman Catholicism, if one refers to the texts which their religion is based, is NOT Christian. This is why individuals such as Martin Luther pushed
for the reformation.
Christianity is based on the idea that God through Jesus came down and lived the perfect life following all the laws of God which were offered in the
old testament which mankind was never able to fulfill. This was done for all mankind and so to get into heaven one only needs to accept that Jesus
was God and lived the law of God for all mankind to gain access to heaven. That is Christianity in a nutshell for you.
The mysteries base access to heaven and/or becoming god on actions which people can accomplish in their lives which gives them authority over the
Most of the mysteries are based on solar cults whose inner doctrine is enlightenment/illumination and includes the likes of Baal/Tammuz, Amun-Ra,
Osiris/Horus, and the Nazi cult of the black sun. Others compare themselves to vegetation which is nourished by the light aka illumination such as the
Dionysian/ Eulesian, and green-man mysteries found historically through Europe.
The two faiths are based on entirely different approaches to heaven. Most of the mysteries preach reincarnation and if that is what you believe then
why do you have such an issue with the 'vulgar herd' who will merely reincarnate again after you have 'ascended'? Come on show a little backbone in
I am more interested in the truth of the matter and find far greater volumes of BS concerning the mysteries than I do of other faiths and so I have
grown rather tired of them. Not that there isn't legit information to be gleaned from them but it is so caked in crap that it hardly seems worth
Oh and to your comment about your solar cult preaching the world was flat and so on and so on about how they are anti-science you are actually fairly
mis-informed in this regard as well. It was a fairly recent claim of the religion vs science;
The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century
by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form, arguing
instead that it has been superseded by subsequent historical research indicating a more nuanced understanding
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that people
of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis and is
still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and
Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its
Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages," "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient
science," and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences," are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular
myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research. They help maintain the popular image of
"the warfare of science and religion."
While H. Floris Cohen states that most scholars reject crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White's, he also states that
milder versions of this thesis still hold some sway. This is because "it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new
science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time." Cohen therefore considers it paradoxical "that the
rise of early modern science was due at least in part to developments in Christian thought—in particular, to certain aspects of Protestantism" (a
thesis first developed as what is now sometimes called the Merton thesis).
edit on 5-1-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101