History of Christianity

I never cease to be amazed around here. I have purposely limited myself in this discussion to two threads, and I didn't even start this one. I don't go all over the boards rubbing peoples' noses in my opinions, I have deliberately kept my opinions in this matter to myself for years here, and now only present on two threads, one of which is on the history board.

So...what I am hearing, evidenced by example, is that I should not be allowed to freely "speak" my opinions in this matter even though I have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate respect and courtesy towards those who disagree by not chasing this subject all over the forum, and by not denigrating or demeaning those who disagree with me...

Christianity has a checkered history. A very checkered history. That's the fact. If I cannot be allowed in the limited sense I have set for myself (two measly threads, don't like?, don't read) to speak of this glaring truth openly; then that says an awful lot and none of it is good.
 
How Ironic you find it comfortable to come into the Christian forum and plop down in a "proverbial chair" and slam those that believe this way.
If I plop down in my proverbial chair and tell you what I think of your beliefs about those who do not believe as you do - for clearly I have struck a nerve here, or else I would not gather such a reaction {who's the one sitting in his comfy chair now? happy to believe what he will, unless challenged, and shown how small his beliefs try to make others feel, how disadvantaged, how excluded, how - unprivileged} - then try not to take it as such a "slam." Perhaps I am simply showing how foolish you look when you carry on this way, about eternal hells and impossible heavens.

Quahom said:
You wouldn't try it in say oh, Islam, now would you...
If I had been brought up in a Muslim background, and saw the most cherished doctrines of that Faith being butchered upon the table of convenience ... and saw an opportunity to point out what the FOUNDER of that Faith had actually taught, then yes, I would gladly do so, however UNpopular my post might be with the resident bully and forum powermonger {practice what you preach, do you?}.

Quahom said:
Wouldn't do well in any other "faith" forum either. But you are comfortable here...why, I wonder.
No, Joshua. Not comfortable at all in your well-policed little clique. But that hasn't stopped me from sharing what I have to share, on occasion. And if this little bee stirs up an angry hornet, then from time to time it is worth the distraction. Once again, it gives you a chance to take a step back a moment, and THINK.

Quahom said:
Is it because we tolerate much more than others do? Perhaps we are a tad more long suffering for the likes of you? Or is it because you think Christians are weak kneed, and you can run rough shod over the bulk of those professing such?
Tolerate more than others? My friend, you are the first (literally in this case) to snap back - even to meet an eye for an eye, if you insist this is what it is ... the one who felt the need to try and quash an opinion which you neither understand, nor care to understand. "The likes of me?" Ha! Your true colors are showing ... and I don't like them. I especially don't like your Braveheart mentality, your saber-rattling and misplaced bravado, all because you can't stand to accept the truth. For I did include the Catholics, as well as the Baptists, Orthodox and Independents in my post, as I made clear. Now it's time to face the music, Joshua. I would like to hear a defense. Stop dodging the question. Stop trying to browbeat me. Stop playing strong-man, and take a look at these knees you keep kicking at. I am not interested in your dirty tricks, nor will I steal your crutches ... if all you can do is cry foul!

There is a difference - between kicking for a man's knees, proverbially, intellectually, or conversationally speaking ... and asking him to say something about EITHER of one good leg he OUGHT to have left to stand on.

Go on my friend; I'm scouting for you, but so far I only see the Adversary.

Joshua said:
Did you ever consider the fact that we don't laugh at your apparent anger? We simply pray about it.
As for prayer, try taking refuge FOR YOURSELF in prayer ... before asking it for others.

You cannot pray me away, for I am your fellow man. Your Prayers for me should include that "God's Will be Done." Such - is ever enough.

If I seem angry, then perhaps you have not considered that it is the distortions themselves which cause me the most sorrow, even more than those who are responsible. But regardless, if you yourself can see the grotesque images men have painted, why do you not hasten to tend to the Master's art? Why do you even speak of laughing at one who - likewise - seeks to serve Him? Why do you feel that it is LAUGHTER which I am seeking? Cry if you must, become outraged alongside me, or - if you cannot understand the reason for either, try Meditation. It's like Prayer, but - different. And both have their place.

Joshua said:
And if you are any officianado about history (and I know you are), you'll recall that Mahatma Ghandi, was of the same ilk, and you seemed to like him.
Mahatma Ghandi believed in using what was necessary for a given situation, in order to solve whatever was the problem at hand. Casting him in the light of a pure pacifist, a silent, meditating monk ... is like saying Jesus wore sandals.

Joshua said:
So, why you are so damn angry with Christians TODAY, is beyond me.

It saddens me.
Then I shall meet you in your sadness, and tell you mine. For that is what is more important than the anger, and the lashing out. The latter only protects what is closer to our hearts.

I am saddened because I notice that so many people aim low, because they believe low. Being told they are innately worthless, or of any less importance than others, young children begin to lose their God-given, nature-seconded INNOCENCE. Instead of receiving a positive self-image and self-esteem, being taught that every human has innate DIGNITY and Divine Potential, a young person in the Christian community has often had to wrestle with what he or she KNOWS AT HEART to be a flawed doctrine. Even though every child is perfectly in tune, on certain levels, with the Divine Father-Mother God, s/he must confront more and more as the years go by, the cunning, deceitful doctrines which the Church has hatched out of its scaly, reptilian underbelly ... until finally, s/he is asked to believe in such an abomination (sic) as the notion of an `eternal hell' - which any true thinker should long ago have discovered to be impossible.

Almost as disgusting, but certainly every bit as damaging, the sense of spiritual Responsibility which should develop naturally within such children - and which WOULD if nature could be allowed to take its course - becomes warped and bent around a facile fear-reward system, psychologically speaking, wherein "The worship of a MAN who lived and died 2100 years ago becomes demanded, the reward being an IMPOSSIBLE eternal stay in a ridiculous and logically impossible `heaven' ... while sin & moral error, though unavoidable due to our `degraded human nature' is met with the equally ridiculous impossibility, `hell.'"

Oh you have a right to brainwash your children thus, you say? Flesh of your flesh, yadda yadda? Think again. There is something called FREE WILL, Joshua my Brother ... and what that means to me is that you do NOT have the right to tell God's children what they can and can't, must or mustn't BELIEVE - including "in order to GET TO HEAVEN." HELLOOOOOO???? Am I making myself CLEAR???

And you see, what's saddest about all this to me, is that those who have been thusly brainwashed, of whatever background - or prior sense of sound judgment and anchoring in reality - become so sucked in by this underside of Christianity ... that they can only conceive of one thing: Let us bring MORE believers "into the fold," that we may increase our numbers, so that it be pleasing to the Lord, yadda yadda.

It is NOT pleasing to the Lord to make sheep of good, thinking men and women. These are ALL His Children, and I am as ashamed that you cannot see it in your brother(s) and sister(s) as that you fail to detect Him, or positive motivations, within me. What's wrong, Joshua, do I present a difficult case for you? Why is that?


If you don't understand me, just ask. If you don't understand my viewpoint, just ask ... and I will clarify it. Maybe, if you pick up on the anger I have toward the foolish and their foolishness (and it is mostly the latter, though it is the former who perpetuate it) ... you might ask yourself, Why is it that I am so disturbed by the Christian `clique' mentality - and by the belief system that underlies it?

Is it because Christians often try to remember others, and reach out to them in their times of need? Is it because Christians are often quite welcoming of visitors, and eager to share the Joy and Blessings with others which they have received in their Faith walk (or Path, as some would call it)? Or is perhaps because Christians choose a particular way to honor our spiritual origins, and insist on looking to the Divine for answers, comfort and guidance?​

No, Joshua, these - in my eyes - are what makes Christianity strong, and what I LIKE about Christians, even if I am asked to love you all ... despite the rest of the crap, and nonsense.

Do I feel left out, of your cliques and your heaven club, your A-lists and B-lists?

No, Joshua, I do not. I am content to stand here in my little corner, each time you direct me here, since what you cannot do - is welcome me AS I AM, without insisting that I believe as you believe, do as you do, speak as you speak, and appear as you would have me appear.

I know you believe differently, hold somewhat different values (perhaps not impossibly different) ... and that you choose to see within one man certain ideals which I believe we may equally well identify within dozens of others. And what of it? I can accept that difference. Can you?

While there are plenty of things that I can learn from Christians behavior-wise ... I'm sure a thing or two by way of Practical Wisdom along the way ... I find it curious that certain Christians seem convinced there is simply - no further insight to be gained along the lines of their convictions to which they hold so tenaciously ... some of which, ultimately, amount to nothing more than dust in the wind (by their own definition).

In short, many a Christian would not know Christ if s/he met him viz a viz ... as I believe Christ Himself tells you quite plainly in your `Holy Book.' And so it shall come to pass (as it does every, single day) - and no, I'm not sitting here feeling smug about it, or laughing, or doing the kind of finger-pointing that some delight in engaging in, except to clarify what a beautiful new suit the Emperor seems to think he has dressed himself with today.

Feel free to count me among that goodly number, btw, even if I am NOT, nor profess myself to be - a Christian. Just don't be so certain that you, yourself, are excepted. Remember, it is I who say that to pursue this Heaven/Hell business is to do the Devil's own bidding ... and of course, in time, each shall know whether I am full of crap, or not so full of crap.

Notice, for the record, that I did not say that ALL Christians have this superiority issue, and clique mentality, and awful confusion about the nature of cycles and such. I did not even say that MOST of them do. Funny how you took such offense, however, Q, and found it necessary to rush out to the defense of ... those who might - for whatever curious reason - feel slighted?

Hmmm ...

It's the words in blue, Q, the words in blue. For me it's usually those you can hone in on. Everybody wants a pat on the back, and only to be told, "Keep on doing more of the same!" What a pity, if more of the same ISN'T really where it's at. Oh, isn't it a pity. And yes, those who are on the right track probably do know it - well enough, often enough - for there is no lack of guidance, and no lack of leadership ... for the Righteous and Just. There could never be too many good examples, too many virtuous men and women, or too many children, maturing Children, in God's Heavenly Kingdom.

Why is it, that even when we express things in the positive, it still does not sit rightly with you, or seem proper, if we do not express it just so? ;)

Have no fear, friend, I don't sense a whole lot of bees dancing out of tune ... yet. All I hear is one, angry wasp, buzzing about the hive - and although you have accused me of being this wasp, I'm not so sure you realize yet: That Satan, cannot cast out, Satan.

In other words, try the fifth verse of the Twin Verses (ch.1) of the Dhammapada again. It's a good refresher - for a Christian. Just don't feel so obliged to smack me upside the head with Matthew 5:39 as with a dead and smelly fish. Live bait means living Teachings, and those of the Buddha are no different in this situation than those of the Christ. Is that really so hard to appreciate?

Back to my original statements, in the former post: IF you first hit me upside the head with a dead, smelly fish, THEN try to tell me that I can avoid future fish-deaths (?) ... let alone such an awful, fishy smell (yes, it's FISHY my friend, fishy as hell is more like it!) ... by bowing down before your god-image and declaring my unswerving allegiance ... you will have to understand why I make it plain to you that I prefer vegetarian fare, NO thank you sir, and I guess that's end of story.

The resident Catholics all feel, that as I have made it so official that I do not like DEAD, SMELLY FISH, I am in no wise qualified to make commentary on the rituals and practices associated with FISH-WORSHIP ... even while I insist that the bounty before the Lord (meaning, that which He has prepared, and is preparing for, US) is far in excess of any of these individual feasts, or meals, which we find it so important to daily, or weekly, place before HIM.

And do I say that there is no meaning, symbolism and Purpose for Prayer, the Eucharist/Holy Communion, or Worship?

You paint me something I am not, Joshua. Let me abstain, if I would return that unkindness to you.

Methinks I waste my time.
 
Triumphalism. That's the word Dauer used some time back and I've been wracking my brain for almost three days trying to remember. Triumphalism. And in combination with Imperial designs (Triumphalism *and* Imperialism) Christianity kinda lost sight of its roots.

Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire exemplify this.
 
Triumphalism. That's the word Dauer used some time back and I've been wracking my brain for almost three days trying to remember. Triumphalism. And in combination with Imperial designs (Triumphalism *and* Imperialism) Christianity kinda lost sight of its roots.

Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire exemplify this.

Christianity in the West is the story of Triumphalism. A case could be made that the current Muslim terrorism problem is a direct descendant of Western Christian Triumphalism plus Western Christian Millenarianism (much like Marxism also is).
 
Christianity in the West is the story of Triumphalism. A case could be made that the current Muslim terrorism problem is a direct descendant of Western Christian Triumphalism plus Western Christian Millenarianism (much like Marxism also is).

My bad. Yes, I would be inclined to agree. Christianity in the East did take a bit different path.

The thought I didn't want to lose is that I doubt Jesus taught triumphalism, and certainly not in combination with imperialism. Those, particularly in combination, seem to me inherently Roman attributes. That could probably be read as Platonic attributes.
 
My bad. Yes, I would be inclined to agree. Christianity in the East did take a bit different path.

The thought I didn't want to lose is that I doubt Jesus taught triumphalism, and certainly not in combination with imperialism. Those, particularly in combination, seem to me inherently Roman attributes. That could probably be read as Platonic attributes.

They are not so much "Roman" as "Latin". The "Roman" people were actually a fusion of two cultures by the time of Christ. The west was dominated by the Latin portion of the fusion while the east was dominated by the Greek. The Latin portion was always notably more violent and legalistic than was the Greek.

The so-called "Greeks" did not consider themselves to be "Greek" at the time. They were Romans, every bit as much as the Latins were.
 
Geologists and Geotectonic scientists have indicated that Santorini erupted in the huge explosion in 1630 BC.

My mistake. I was thinking of the ancient Proto-Indo-European original religion that may go back 8000 years. The Aryan religion split into Old Iranian and Hindu. Over time the Iranians were influenced by the conquered people and the Iranian religion existing long before the time of Zoroaster. Indo-European Core Religion is the father of Hinduism, Iranian and Zoroastrian, Tocharian, Scythian, Sarmation, Alan, Hittite, Thracian, Greek, Lydian, Baltic, Slavic, Teutonic, Celtic, Illyrian, Roman, and Ligurian. It took millennia for all of these Indo-European religions to evolve to their status of 100 CE.


Amergin

That is not true. The Aryan invasion theory is a propagated myth and it has been conclusively proven to be a lie. The Christians are always distorting history to fit their agendas.
Please google-The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India by David Frawley

Another good place for information is the website ckraju.net. Look in there for the History and Philosophy of Science.

p.s. sorry I dont have the required 10 posts for me to be able to post links.
 
That is not true. The Aryan invasion theory is a propagated myth and it has been conclusively proven to be a lie. The Christians are always distorting history to fit their agendas.
Please google-The Myth of the Aryan Invasion of India by David Frawley

Another good place for information is the website ckraju.net. Look in there for the History and Philosophy of Science.

p.s. sorry I dont have the required 10 posts for me to be able to post links.
Indeed, lol Aryanism is not that old, not even close...
 
I went over and looked at that site which exists to sell 11 books. It is assumed that infinite sums were not independently discovered in Europe, questioned if Hawking's 'Theory of singularities' is based on Christianity, also suggested that the book author hasn't received proper credit for the application of FDE's to quantum mechanics. While these are all ponderable, they are a lot of surmise to sell books. They aren't a reliable historical framework. Also many links wouldn't work.
 
I went over and looked at that site which exists to sell 11 books. It is assumed that infinite sums were not independently discovered in Europe, questioned if Hawking's 'Theory of singularities' is based on Christianity, also suggested that the book author hasn't received proper credit for the application of FDE's to quantum mechanics. While these are all ponderable, they are a lot of surmise to sell books. They aren't a reliable historical framework. Also many links wouldn't work.


No, I dont think that the sole purpose of his website is to sell books. Pretty much all the authors whose websites I have visited usually have all their works listed there. As far as credibility goes, he was one of the people responsible for India building its own supercomputer in 1991 alongside having a distinguished academic career. Hardly the sort of person I would label as crackpot. And its not like he is making things up as he goes along. Yes, he questions the dominant narrative of our times that science is western in origin and casts doubt at the intellectual integrity of western historians. He even has announced an award of around $3300 to anyone who can give valid, verifiable proof of existence of Euclid. IMHO he is doing yeomen service of educating the Indian people about their heritage. India had to endure the attacks by the Islamic hordes for quite a long period and then be a slave to the British which further impoverished its people. The first thing the muslim invaders did was burn the universities. It will take time to break free from the inferiority complex and contributions of people like CK Raju will be particularly invaluable.

And what would, according to you, be considered a reliable historical framework? I am not being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious. And just so you know, lot of stuff in the Bible has its roots in the Indian scriptures. I will briefly mention a few- Abraham, Noah and his sons story, Adam and Eve. So many similarities that it would be a mistake to attribute them all to coincidence. For example, in the Indian scriptures we have the story of Brahma and his wife Sarasvati. She was both his sister and his wife. He also had a fling on the side.The only difference is that we Hindus treat them just as ordinary historical stories, nothing earth shattering. If you think that I am just making this all up, feel free to ask for sources.
 
Ah, yes, everything is Indian. :)
Goodness Gracious Me - UK's Queen is Indian!! -


:D good one, that is funny. Some might find this interesting-

In the beginning was the word (Vai), and the word (Vai) was with Brahma (God), and the word (Vai) was Brahma (Prajapati vai

idam agra asit, Tasya vak dvitiya asit, Vag vai paramam Brahma)

-Source: Krishna Yajurveda, Kathaka Samhita, 12.5, 27.1



In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

- Source: The New Testament, Gospel of John 1.1


I will try to find a good website that carries a decent translation and post it here.
 
Sanskrit is not a language I know much of, but your translation does not look at all plausible. "Prajapati" is a proper name, not "in the beginning" but a creator-god; "vai" is not a noun "word" but apparently a verb form; "vak" is probably a copy error for "vac" which IS the noun "word" etc. The best I can do is "Prajapati said this first; his second utterance was, let Brahma speak in agreement."
 
A little Googling turned up this site which mentions a modern-day "Cult of Prajapati" which tries to identify Prajapati with Jesus, possibly the source for bathindian's translation.
 
Sanskrit is not a language I know much of, but your translation does not look at all plausible. "Prajapati" is a proper name, not "in the beginning" but a creator-god; "vai" is not a noun "word" but apparently a verb form; "vak" is probably a copy error for "vac" which IS the noun "word" etc. The best I can do is "Prajapati said this first; his second utterance was, let Brahma speak in agreement."


Prajapati is also one of the names of Krishna. It is a title of respect. and vak is not an error. I believe I missed the n in the end, should be Brahmana not Brahma. I will try to find a good website and post for you here.


:D i give you a link from a reputable mathematician and you call that a crackpot, then you post this cult of Prajapati website. I wouldn't suggest wasting time there.
 
Prajapati is also one of the names of Krishna.
The Krishna cult grabs many ancient deity-names and claims "That's really Krishna"; it is an embarrassment to them that "Krishna" does not occur in the Vedas, at all.
vak is not an error.
What does it mean, then? I can't find such a thing in any Sanskrit dictionary, but "vac" (cognate to Latin vox from which English voice derives) is indeed translated "word".
I believe I missed the n in the end, should be Brahmana not Brahma.
Then the text is, "Prajapati said it first; his second utterance was, let the priest speak in agreement."
i give you a link from a reputable mathematician and you call that a crackpot
Intelligence and insanity, unfortunately, often go together. It is clear from his site that he does have considerable mathematical skills, but everything he says about history is marked by paranoia. There was a "conspiracy" to ascribe to Einstein ideas that others really came up with: really? WHY? Einstein wasn't "Einstein" when his 1905 papers were published; he was a nobody, and would not have attracted any attention except that his ideas were recognized, by people already well established in the field, as novel and important; Raju seems to suffer from some terrible envy. And his theory that Euclid was a late-invented myth is far sillier than the "Jesus-myther" crowd: I might as well claim that the Vedas weren't written until the British Raj, and demand "proof" from him of the contrary.
, then you post this cult of Prajapati website.
I could not find any website for the Prajapati cult, just a site mentioning its existence, which might shed some light on where you are getting your stuff.
 
The Krishna cult grabs many ancient deity-names and claims "That's really Krishna"; it is an embarrassment to them that "Krishna" does not occur in the Vedas, at all.

Would you please give a few examples of these "grabs"? And btw does Vishnu occur in the Vedas, at all?


Then the text is, "Prajapati said it first; his second utterance was, let the priest speak in agreement."

Prajapati is a title. Brahman means the Supreme Soul and in the ancient days it referred to realized souls. Nowadays the latter part has been corrupted to mean those who are born in a particular caste. It is supposed to be based on your conduct and quality of your realization, nothing at all to where you are born.

Intelligence and insanity, unfortunately, often go together. It is clear from his site that he does have considerable mathematical skills, but everything he says about history is marked by paranoia. There was a "conspiracy" to ascribe to Einstein ideas that others really came up with: really? WHY? Einstein wasn't "Einstein" when his 1905 papers were published; he was a nobody, and would not have attracted any attention except that his ideas were recognized, by people already well established in the field, as novel and important; Raju seems to suffer from some terrible envy. And his theory that Euclid was a late-invented myth is far sillier than the "Jesus-myther" crowd: I might as well claim that the Vedas weren't written until the British Raj, and demand "proof" from him of the contrary.

:D When you cannot refute someone's accusations, label them insane. Bravo!! Pure Genius.
He has an article on the website about this question, please read it once.


Please google ckraju net blog 29, the article is called Wikipedia: Encylopedia of Ignorance-1.
Here is an excerpt from this article-
"Secondly, I provided proof that Poincaré had earlier postulated the constancy of the speed of light in 1904 (and had derived and published the Lorentz transformation) in 1905 before Einstein submitted his paper. Thus, Poincaré had published every bit of the theory of relativity before Einstein. In the last 16 years, no one could contest in print a single point I made. An accusation is one thing, solid proof that the theory of relativity existed earlier is another. But checking out those facts presumably calls for too much effort; so the Wikipedist goes by the common stories, setting aside the evidence, just like the devotees of godmen. "

As far as Euclid is concerned, Prof. Raju has a $3300 reward for anyone who can give proof of his existence. Maybe you would be kind enough to take him up on his offer and prove his views erroneous. I personally would be very interested in following such a debate. You don't have to join to post there and there is absolutely no spam.
 
Would you please give a few examples of these "grabs"?
"Vishnu", first and foremost.
And btw does Vishnu occur in the Vedas, at all?
About a hundred times-- as an assistant to Indra, who was the supreme god at the time.
Prajapati is a title.
What makes you think so? In the Vedas, it is just the name of that deity. It is very convenient to claim that the name was something else, but there is no textual justification for it.
Brahman means the Supreme Soul and in the ancient days it referred to realized souls. Nowadays the latter part has been corrupted to mean those who are born in a particular caste.
This is the reverse of truth. In the ancient texts, it is only used for a member of the priestly caste. Later texts give the word a more abstract meaning.
When you cannot refute someone's accusations, label them insane.
I OBSERVE the classic signs of paranoia in everything he writes.
...
He has an article on the website about this question, please read it once.

"Secondly, I provided proof that Poincaré had earlier postulated the constancy of the speed of light in 1904 (and had derived and published the Lorentz transformation) in 1905 before Einstein submitted his paper. Thus, Poincaré had published every bit of the theory of relativity before Einstein.
I read his stupid article. I have read many other accounts of the history of the period as well. Poincare' was unable to work out how it could be that the speed of light was a fundamental constant, although he saw that somehow it must be. It is one thing to see what direction it is necessary to move, and quite another to actually get there.
As far as Euclid is concerned, Prof. Raju has a $3300 reward for anyone who can give proof of his existence. Maybe you would be kind enough to take him up on his offer and prove his views erroneous. I personally would be very interested in following such a debate. You don't have to join to post there and there is absolutely no spam.
And Kurt Hovind has a reward for anyone who will "prove" evolution to him... but like Hovind, I am sure Raju will reject anything that is offered to him. I have no interest in wasting any time talking to someone who obviously cannot abide by any ordinary standards of evidence. The existence of Euclid is no more controversial than the existence of Alexander the Great or any other person from earlier times. Maybe I should challenge Raju to "prove" to me that there were any inhabitants of India before the British discovered it?
 
Back
Top