Don’t you believe in the Holy Scriptures!" shouts one reader in amazement, when I urge tolerance towards homosexuals. Every day there is a letter in the Nation telling us that God said this or that. Whose God? In this multi-cultural society, many leading figures still fail to notice that not everyone is a Christian. You don’t have to go to the Coast to realize that almost 30 percent of the population is Muslim. In addition, there are thriving communities of Jews, Bahai, Hindus.

No matter how many times you point this out, it simply isn’t heard because the Bible that the missionaries brought with them in the 19th century is understood to be the one and only. Similarly, gospel truth means the single received wisdom even though literally it refers only to the books of the four apostles of Jesus.

Jesus himself started out life as a Jew and eventually gathered a following which parted company from the original faith. This piece of information regularly causes much surprise and confusion; perhaps it would make more sense to refer to him as an Israelite. Contemporary Jews acknowledge that he was indeed a character in history, but they do not recognize the New Testament whereas most Christians believe in both Old and New Testaments.

However, Judas is immediately identified as a Jew not just because of his name, but because he was the one who is said to have "betrayed" Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, a sin for which Jews have paid heavily over the centuries.

The three monotheistic religions which are most widely practised – Christianity, Islam, and Judaism – all put male gods at the top and consider the control of sexuality to be paramount: it is to be about procreation not pleasure. The role of woman is harnessed to house and family. Yes, of course the Virgin Mary is sacred especially to Catholics, but she is not directly worshipped in the same way.


Daily Nation

Wheweeeeeeeee.... I think I'll start running for the hills NOW, and avoid the rush.
This is fascinating Stuff, but imagine this Thread will burn up UM..... Lordy!!
Great Article, Al!

That's an interesting article Al! ...let's see what will happen...hope it won't burn the forum!

I posted the article as I found it interesting, one thing that I would not like to have to do because of it, is to have to lock the thread because of peoples differing beliefs.

I think that the article is very interesting Al. Thanks for posting it.

Very interesting article Al. I hope it doesn't get riddled with
remarks that will cause this thread to have a melt down.

I should know better, but.... I will venture into this controversial topic, feet first.

For most of my life, I was exposed to organized religion, supposedly based on "Truth, Love and Compassion" yet I found the opposite to be true concerning those who failed to practice what they preached.

As mentioned in one of my editorials, my way of looking at life and death changed dramatically in 1983 with the death of my father. Since then I see nothing to urge me back into the "fold" and am very comfortable in my beliefs and how I handle life on a daily basis. I do believe in "The Golden Rule" ....... And have no intention of imposing my beliefs on others.

needless to say, the woman is an idiot. typical triffling nonsense. that is my only contribution to this discussion. maybe the author of that article needs a history lesson. also, studying renaissance norms and customs would help as well. war is not such a simple thing that it is based on religion alone. its a convienient scapegoat for the simpleton.

A thing that allways upsets me when I talk to Christians, is to hear them telling that if you don't believe in Christ, you're lost burning in Hell...Then my question is : " Why wouldn't the man, who has allways been kind and good to his neighbour, and contributed to a better world, godbelieving or not, deserve Heaven?"

And another question that I often asked to myself : "Who is the man of merit : The one that does well spontaneously, or only by the fear of God..."

I think, even it if may have historical mistakes that I ignore, my knowledge being very limited, this articles deserves attention and raises some questions, and it is a little easy to cast the author idiot.

Firstly great article Al .

Secondly I quite enjoy a good debate so
Bizzaro , history as we are taught it is twisted by the beliefs of the historians that collect the facts . It's only human . Say if we were both historians and we studied the same artifacts , we wouldn't necisarilly come up with the same end result .

Clearly history also shows that the Romans invaded Britany centuries ago and incorperated many many parts of the Celtic and Pagan belief system into there own catholic religion .The wholy trinity , the cross and even the fact that Catholics regard Mary as a more important figure than other christianised religions, are all likely contenders for being direct corruptions of the celtic /pagan belief system .

One theory on why the Romans took on so much of the Celtic /Pagan religion was because if you can attack an enemy at his faith you can win them over with less blood shed , it works .. Osama Bin Laden used this technique to cleanse Afghanistan of it's budhists . If this was the case and there is a mountain of historic documents to prove that it is , then it would mean that the Roman Catholic Church's faith and religion was built on a few untruths ..... Thats quite a dillema ..

EDIT: just wanted to include the new word I learnt .... proselytizing.

lol @ Kismit...that's a good context to use it!

The invasion of Britany was purely a takeover by Rome with its greates weopan being religion . Particularly in the areas where pagan people were involved . The Pagans had more gods and worshipping shrines than you could poke a magik wand at . There deep spiritual beliefs were the door the Romans used to let themselves in .
At first the Romans invaded and tried to destroy the religions of the celts/pagans . Claim there sacred sites and generally bully them into submission . Only when the Romans discovered that the pagans /celts just let the Romans in , but couldn't be swayed by there religion they decided on a change of tact . Incorporating the beliefs was the next logical step .

I thought that the Romans incorporated the religious beliefs of the locals so they could get along betterwith them, one of the tings that fires a people up the most is someone coming along and questioning their religious beliefs, and by assimilating the beliefs of then locals you can help avoid this.

As I understand it, prior to the conversion towards Christianity, during the later period of the Roman Empire, the predominant religion was Mithricism (sorry if my spelling is off, doubt I could spell my own name at this point, haven't slept much lately) which in itself has many similar rites and ceremonial practices (such as communion, eat of my flesh, drink of my blood, ancient stuff, that). Baptisms of blood from the sacred "Sun God," which was also a sun of the God, were also common. Again, not unique, but definitely copied. Then again, as Althalus already mentioned, I believe those particular rites were also copied from yet another belief system, which was undoubtedly copied from another and so on and so forth.

Awhile back, due to a friendly but somewhat elevated debate with a fellow co-worker, I tried to point out this particular point, in how much of the elder religions the Christian Belief system had swallowed in order to make them, perhaps, more user friendly to the locals, such as cannonizing cernonos, brigit, and other gods and goddesses (and on a good nights sleep, I could probably rattle off quite a number more and provide reference, though I trust Althalus will be quick to that... sharp man, that one) In other words, with a little patience almost every religious system today owes in some part its origin to an earlier belief system.

As Althalus pointed out, it was far easier for the early romans to make a few points of concession in their faith in order to bring more people into the fold. Also consider, the easiest way to proselytize your particular belief system is to explain it to someone in terms they can understand. Especially if you are dealing with a people and culture so closely related with the land.

Hows this then Drakefyr:

St. Faith
A virgin-martyr variety saint. Based on "Bona Fides," Roman patron of legal agreements.

St. Catherine
Barbara Walker writes:"One of the most popular saints of all time -- despite the fact that she never existed. The famous Catherine Wheel hails from the Sinai region where she was depicted as the "Dancer on the Fiery Wheel" at the center of the universe. Greek "kathari" or "pure ones" performed dances in honor of this wheel of karmic progression.

St. Josaphat
"Christian corruption of the title Bodhisat; an inadvertent canonization of siddhartha Buddha."

St. George
The patron saint of England is also known as "Green George," a spirit representing the spring season. Geoge's feast day is also known to ancient Romans as the "Feast of Pales," a raucous fertility festival.

St. Restituta
The name means "restored one." Walker says that this saint's legend is most likely based on the vandalization of a pre-christian "half-burned" goddess statue "found on the isle of Ischia and replaced in her temple. According to Christian myth, Restitua as a 'virgin martyr' slain in Africa and considnged to a boat filled with burning pitch. The boat drifted ashore on Ischia where her remains were taken up by Christains" and care for. Walker offers a likelier explanation that the Ischians restored the statue to its original place after the christian attack on the icons in the temple.

St. Ursula
Ursula is the ancient Saxon deity represented as a she-bear -- a title shared by Artemis.

St. Blaise
Canonized around the 8th century, Blaise is equivalent to the Slavic horse-god "Vlaise," one of Diana's lunar consorts. In England, he is known as "Blazey."

Also, I found this at Link
The canon of Saints was the Christian technique for preserving the pagan polytheism that people wanted, while pretending to worship only one God. In fact, a good many of the same pagan deities were brought into the church, refurbished as phony saints so that popular devotion to them would bring profit to the church instead of diverting it elsewhere. The great age of saint-making began about the ninth century, when hagiographers busily attached fictional life stories and martyrdoms to former heathen heroes, and ransacked old cemeteries in their highly lucrative treasure hunt for purported relics.

Among the canonized pagans were Diana, Artemis, Castor and Pollux, Helios, Bacchus, Dionysus, Nereus, Aphrodite, Mercury, Silvanus, and even Buddha. Conversion of pagan gods and goddesses to saints usually accompanied the church’s takeover of their shrines. Some of the most famous saints still worshipped today are the least historical. The patron saints of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales were all fictional.

The martyrs of the famous Roman "persecutions" under such emperors as Nero and Diocletian, seven centuries earlier, were largely invented at this time, since there were no records of any such specific martyrdoms. Names were picked at random from ancient tombstones, and martyr-tales were written to order. In reality, it was the early Christian church that did much more persecuting and made many more martyrs than Rome had ever done, because religious tolerance was the usual Roman policy. The church that slaughtered the heathen for worshipping false gods was itself guilty of worshipping false saints - which, sometimes, were even the same deities as those of the heathen.

Christians surpassed their pagan ancestors in credulity, propagating and believing saintly miracles-tales apparently without limitations. The church never lost sight of practical common sense on one point, however; saints were leading sources of its income, thanks to the mandatory pilgrimage system, donations, and tithes.

The multitude of phony or commercial saints are treated by modern Catholic scholars with a rather amused tolerance, as if the saint-makers` fantasies held something of the same charm as tales invented by bright children. It is rarely admitted that these fantasies were not intended to charm but rather to defraud. The saints were made up to earn money for the church, and many of the made-up saints are still doing so, for the church refrains from publicizing their spurious origins lest such publicity might disappoint the faithful - which, translated, means the donations might cease.

Kismit-
i am not talking about what constitutes history here. let's use a modern example. the Israeli/Palestinian thing. on the surface, people would say its a religious thing, but its not. its a political thing that is justified through religion. it wouldn't matter if the Palestinians were also Jewish, if they had different customs the outcome would be the same. you have the whole issue of the Jewish settlements into Palestinian lands, the cultural differences, political dissent, etc. the root of conflict is never such a simple thing as religion. if that was the case, we would have fighting in the streets of most of the world as very few places are only one religion, but rather made of a combination of religions. you could just as easily argue that its a racial thing as much as a religious thing, but its not racial either. this author oversimplifies things way too much.

Outstanding, Althalus.
(Didn't mean to put you on point on that one though. I just enjoy reading a post from another person that shares a passion for history)

When I first came across this addition to the Forum, I held my breath, waiting for it to be locked, in a flash. I am pleasently surprised that the Posts have been full to the brim with detailed information and admittedly, have learned quite a bit.

Yet, what fascinates me is the "type" of responses, to date. To me, it shows the diversity of those who have taken the time to research and Reply. It also points out how my reaction to this Article is so far adrift from other Members.

When I read this, what grabbed my attention, is below... the very first paragraph.
Unless I'm more 'blonde' than usual tonight, no one has really explored what jumped out at me. The title of the article seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

Does anyone else feel this way? Meaning, "Not everyone is a Christian" and how many Christians attempt to force their beliefs on those who are not?

Nicely put Nancy ,
Perhaps this topic should be renamed the search for the first religion ..
Drakefyr that was absolutely bang on the religious assimilation was the main means used to gain power over the people at the time .
Al what can I say it's just so appropraite that your in love with the librarian . It brings a tear to my eye to think just how well suited you two are ... thank you for the research ...
Bizzaro I am really impressed with the way you are arguing this . I'ts intelligent and well worded , but I don't think we are both heading down the same track . I wont touch any current wars I've learnt that even just discussing these things can be bruising . I agree that polotics is usually the reason behind a war but in the case of the invasion of britany polotics was the reason but religion was the tool that was used to gain power .Also way back then the Church had alot more to do with polotics than it does now .