Posted on 10/27/2005 11:50:06 AM PDT by emiller
Here are some of my sources. I can't help that you delude yourself and still want to believe that Catholicism assimilated nothing (concepts, practices, sayings, etc.) from pagan Roman culture, Mithraism or any previous religion (outside of Judaism). Catholicism is nothing like the Christianity depicted in the Bible.
http://watch.pair.com/eucharist.html
http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/mithraism.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/index.htm
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/mi/mithraism.htm
Frenetic,
You wrote:
"Here are some of my sources."
Don't lie. You have tried to pull this together after the fact.
"I can't help that you delude yourself and still want to believe that Catholicism assimilated nothing (concepts, practices, sayings, etc.) from pagan Roman culture, Mithraism or any previous religion (outside of Judaism)."
If I am deluded you keep me in my delusion by provided zilch in the way of evidence from a reputable source.
"Catholicism is nothing like the Christianity depicted in the Bible."
And of course you offer no evidence of that either. LOL
http://watch.pair.com/eucharist.html
The above source is written by kooks and not scholars. How do I know? Take a look at their home page:
http://watch.pair.com/default.html. Also, please note that your kooks partly rely on some nut named Tarkowski who in fact was wrong on what he claimed. So how reliable would they be? Frenetic, do you understand what the phrase “reputable scholar” even means?
http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/mithraism.html
Another crack-pot, esoterica website. It is run by a Finnish group that believes a return to paganism will throw back the anti-semiticism of Protestant Christianity! They make that pretty clear on their home page:
http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/historia.html#arcana
And apparently this is the sum total of “evidence”: “Nevertheless Catholicism has preserved some of the outer form of Mithraism to name some; the timing of Christmas, Bishops adaptation of miters as sign of their office, Christians priests becoming Father despite Jesus specific proscription of the acceptance of such title (Matthew 23:9), and "the Mithraic Holy father wore a red cap and garment and a ring, and carried a shepherds staff. The Head Christian adopted the same title and outfitted himself in the same manner." (William Harwood, Mythology's Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus).”
The only problem is that that is all bunk. 1) Mitres or other headresses were used by all ancient religions including Judaism. 2) Catholic priests were always referred to as Father and that tradition started outside of Rome. 3) The sources used here by the author equate Christianity with the old pagan religions. That is not only a mistake in terms of scholarship, but is also a mistake for anyone to cite them!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm
Wrong again Frenetic. The article itself says in the very first paragraph: “Of late the researches of Cumont have brought it into prominence mainly because of its supposed similarity to Christianity.” Obviously the author of the article doesn’t believe what you believe. You do understand what the word “supposed” means don’t you?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
Oh, please. First of all, anyone who has ever looked at religioustolerance.org knows that the website is actually atheist and determined to make Christianity look bad. Even then the article you cite doesn’t seem nearly as conclusive as you need it to be. Look at the first paragraph: “The early Christians and Pagans shared many rituals and practices. Authors Freke & Gandy appear to assume that all of the copying was done by Christians from Pagan sources. 3 However, some might have gone in the opposite direction. During the 3rd century CE, Mithraism and Christianity were the main competitors for the religious affiliation the citizens of Romans. Some Christian practices might have actually been picked up by the Mithraites, rather than vice-versa.” Well, which is it? Face it, B.A. Robinson is a Unitarian who essentially wants people to not belong to traditional Christian churches because he thinks that leads to intolerance. Not a good source. Also, look at the sources he relies on for his article:
1. “J. Goodwin, "Mystery Religions of the Ancient World," Thames & Hudson, (1981), Page 28. Quoted in Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?" Acacia Press, (1999), Page 49. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
Now seriously, Jesus was a pagan god? Not a good source obviously.
2. "Mithra," Barbara G. Walker, "The Woman's encyclopedia of myths and secrets," Harper & Row, (1996), Pages 663 to 665. Read reviews or order this book
Uh, yeah, the title tells us everything.
3. Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries." Cited above.
4. "Celsus the Platonist," The Catholic Encyclopedia, at: http://www.newadvent.org/
5. Acharya S, "The Christ conspiracy: the greatest story ever sold," Read reviews or order this book "...an enormous amount of startling evidence to demonstrate that Christianity and the story of Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion. In making such a fabrication, this multinational cabal drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era, and reworked them for centuries into the story and religion passed down today."
Another kook book. Great.
6. Kersey Graves, "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," Adventures Unlimited Press, Chapter 32, Page 279. (1875; Reprinted 2001). Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store.
Another nutty book. All religions are really the same..be a Unitarian!
7. Tom Harpur, "The Pagan Christ; Recovering the Lost Light," Thomas Allen, (2004). ARead reviews or order this book.
Title tells us what we need to know.
So, definitely he used one scholarly source. Maybe one or two other were worthwhile. The others are nutty.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/mom/index.htm
Surprise! It’s Cumont. Perhaps we might have guessed he would have shown up sooner or later. He was a PhD in the late nineteenth- early twentieth century. He published widely. He was a promoter of the idea that all ancient religions were syncretic and so he saw syncreticism where it did not exist. It once cost him his job at a Catholic university no less. Although modern scholars, who know more about Mithras than Cumont did still use his books for their sources and translations, almost no one takes many of his ideas seriously anymore.
And even Cumont wrote this: “The resemblances between the two hostile churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity. From the third century, the Greek philosophers were wont to draw parallels between the Persian Mysteries and Christianity which were evidently entirely in favor of the former. The Apologists also dwelt on the analogies between the two religions, and explained them as a Satanic travesty of the holiest rites of their religion. If the polemical works of the Mithraists had been preserved, we should doubtless have heard the same accusation hurled back upon their Christian adversaries.”
“We cannot presume to unravel to-day a question which divided contemporaries and which shall doubtless forever remain insoluble. We are too imperfectly acquainted with the dogmas and liturgies of Roman Mazdaism, as well as with the development of primitive Christianity, to say definitely what mutual influences were operative in their simultaneous evolution. But be this as it may, resemblances do not necessarily suppose an imitation. Many correspondences between the Mithraic doctrine and the Catholic faith are explicable by their common Oriental origin. Nevertheless, certain ideas and certain ceremonies must necessarily have passed from the one cult to the other; but in the majority of cases we rather suspect this transference than clearly perceive it.”
So he suspects it, but has no evidence whatsoever. Great sources you got there Frenetic! LOL
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/m/mi/mithraism.htm
Your last source admits it was compiled from information in a wikpedia article. So an amateur compiled that artcile relying on another amateur source with no quality control whatsoever. Gee, that’s a keeper!
REPUTABLE SCHOLAR…
Do you understand the phrase? Apparently not.
Tell me where in the bible it says Jesus was born on Dec. 25th?
Tell me where in the bible it says Christ rose from the dead the first Sunday during the vernal equinox?
Tell me where in the bible it said to call a priest "father" when it is clearly forbidden? Matthew 23:9 - And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Tell me where in the bible it says that the Sabbath day is the first day of the week and not the seventh? Hebrews 4:4 - For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. Matthew 28:1 - In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week (Sunday), came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
You can't answer these questions, yet you stubbornly cling to the idea that Catholic beliefs, rituals and practices are both original and in line with the scriptures. Baptisms, virgin births, crucifixions, resurrections, dying for our sins, symbolic meals, these are nothing new, they all have been used in many previous religions and cults. Do your own research if you don’t believe me.
Furthermore, I listed the few sources I did knowing that they are inconsistent in order to make a point. Nowhere did I say these were my ONLY sources. Nowhere did I say that I believed everything in those sources. Here’s another one for the open minded http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html The Encyclopedia Britannica has given this page its "Web's Best Sites" award. Besides, this is a forum, not a master’s thesis. If I had time to write a thesis for you citing the myriad of “reputable” references you want I would have done so. So trying to discredit me by discrediting them is stupid and irrelevant. I posted what I could in haste to provide diverse views, my interest only in raising questions, not answers. It’s not my job to prove it to you. If you want that, GO TO A LIBRARY.
Keeping an open mind means not arbitrarily tossing aside contrary views even though they may seem like rubbish or biased. Why should I hold what the Catholic Church says on the matter in any higher esteem than Jewish historians, Atheist’s, etc.? Every view is going to be biased in one way or another. Finding the truth is nothing more than hearing all sides and finding the consistencies between them. History is always biased toward the victor.
Quite frankly I find your anger amusing; getting all bent out of shape, spewing insults, this is getting fun :)
"What are you, 14?"
- Tisk, Tisk, insults are for the weak minded.
"You're not suprising anyone"
- Wasn't trying to. And, it’s spelled ‘surprising’.
"Do a little more reading up, and this time, do it with an open mind and not only reading things that agree with your conclusion (That Christianity is a lie)."
- I already have. And show me my post where I said Christianity is a lie? You can't for two reasons, I never said it was and I'm a Christian myself.
"You'll find that there are more differences between Mithraism and Christianity than similarities"
- I don't care. This isn't a contest.
"and that similarities do not a cause-effect relationship make."
- Thanks Yoda. Seriously though the point was never to discern a relationship between Mithraism and Christianity, but to merely point out that Christianity absorbed local cultural practices of the Romans from where is sprang. Rome was the center of the world, to suggest its culture had no influence on Christian/Catholic practices when it made Christianity its official religion is absurd. Who at the time had the power or authority to contest it?
-
Frenetic,
You attempts at evading are hilarious:
"Tell me where in the bible it says Jesus was born on Dec. 25th?”
Since the argument at hand is about your claim that the Catholic Church borrowed things such as doctrines and practices from Mithraism how does your question apply? When will you present the evidence from reputable sources to back up your claims?
“Tell me where in the bible it says Christ rose from the dead the first Sunday during the vernal equinox? “
Again, since the argument at hand is about your claim that the Catholic Church borrowed things such as doctrines and practices from Mithraism how does your question apply? When will you present the evidence from reputable sources to back up your claims? No one is claiming that the Bible informs us about Christ’s specific birth date. That isn’t at issue. What you’re now trying to intimate is that because the Bible doesn’t mention Christ’s birth date as Dec. 25th then that means Catholics borrowed that date from the Mithras followers in imitation of them. I already demonstrated FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE that that was not the case. Do you understand how cause and effect actually relate?
“Tell me where in the bible it said to call a priest "father" when it is clearly forbidden?”
Once again, since the argument at hand is about your claim that the Catholic Church borrowed things such as doctrines and practices from Mithraism how does your question apply? When will you present the evidence from reputable sources to back up your claims?
“ Matthew 23:9 - And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
And you of course don’t understand the verse: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710fea1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0001fea2.asp
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/fath.htm
You apparently know even less about the Bible than you do about history.
“Tell me where in the bible it says that the Sabbath day is the first day of the week and not the seventh?”
Yet again, since the argument at hand is about your claim that the Catholic Church borrowed things such as doctrines and practices from Mithraism how does your question apply? When will you present the evidence from reputable sources to back up your claims? Also, do you deny that Christ rose on the Sunday? So what day should we celebrate His resurrection?
“Hebrews 4:4 - For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. Matthew 28:1 - In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week (Sunday), came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”
Thanks for proving my point!
“You can't answer these questions, yet you stubbornly cling to the idea that Catholic beliefs, rituals and practices are both original and in line with the scriptures.”
Your questions are idiotic. They simply have no bearing on this debate (which you already lost). I cling to what is true, because it is true.
“Baptisms, virgin births, crucifixions, resurrections, dying for our sins, symbolic meals, these are nothing new, they all have been used in many previous religions and cults. Do your own research if you don’t believe me.”
And you deny that Christ was born to a virgin? Is that not scriptural? Are you saying Jesus wasn’t crucified? Did He die in a chariot accident instead? You are now contradicting yourself. First, you claim everything must be in the Bible explicitly then you turn around and degrade what is in the bible by sayinhg it is found elsewhere too. Make up your mind. Be a Christian, or not.
“Furthermore, I listed the few sources I did knowing that they are inconsistent in order to make a point. Nowhere did I say these were my ONLY sources.”
Actually you hinted at it and we all know that you know almost nothing about the subject. You still have yet to even mention a single serious book by a reputable scholar. Don’t bother doing it now. We would all know you are just trying to say face after being beaten so badly.
“Nowhere did I say that I believed everything in those sources. Here’s another one for the open minded http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html”
Open minded? So let me get this straight. You believe what you read is reputable when it agrees with you, but when it doesn’t it isn’t and you pretend it doesn’t exist. Man, you really are a flamming liberal.
“The Encyclopedia Britannica has given this page its "Web's Best Sites" award. Besides, this is a forum, not a master’s thesis. If I had time to write a thesis for you citing the myriad of “reputable” references you want I would have done so.”
I’ve done two master’s degrees. You don’t have what it takes to do one on this topic.
“So trying to discredit me by discrediting them is stupid and irrelevant.”
I leave the discrediting of Frenetic to you and you alone. I need not help you in that regard. You do a fine enough job on your own. Also, your sources are not irrelevant to the discussion. They show us that you pich garbage as evidence rather than using reputable sources. That tells us about the worth of your argument.
“I posted what I could in haste to provide diverse views, my interest only in raising questions, not answers.”
Then find another interest. I asked you questions. If you had no intent of answering them then why bother posting as if you did? Are you useful for anything?
“It’s not my job to prove it to you. If you want that, GO TO A LIBRARY. “
Already did. Own one too. That’s why I had evidence and you still don’t.
“Keeping an open mind means not arbitrarily tossing aside contrary views even though they may seem like rubbish or biased.”
I do not confuse keeping an open mind with being ignorant. I am open minded. That does not mean I am ignorant. I know what I am talking about. You don’t. I am not going to claim that your kooky views are valid when they are not. Again, you are acting like a liberal. You don’t care what the truth is. You don’t care what the facts are. You just want people to be “open minded” – which really means not concluding that you are ignorant and embarrassing you. Grow up. The 1970’s are over.
“Why should I hold what the Catholic Church says on the matter in any higher esteem than Jewish historians, Atheist’s, etc.?”
Was the reputable scholar I cited a Catholic? I have no idea. Was he a spokesman for the Church? Nope. He was a scholar. Is this getting through to you? I look for scholarship. You look for people who confirm you in your ignorance. And even though I never once quoted a Catholic source (except the very same one you used) you have automatically assumed I use only Catholic sources. Again, that is clearly a sign of ignorance on your part.
“Every view is going to be biased in one way or another. Finding the truth is nothing more than hearing all sides and finding the consistencies between them. History is always biased toward the victor.”
Save your silly cliches and platitudes. I am a historian. I know how to find the facts of history. You don’t. The bias is yours. It keeps you ignorant.
“Quite frankly I find your anger amusing; getting all bent out of shape, spewing insults, this is getting fun “
I haven’t gotten angry nor will I. I am used to dealing with people of poor education regarding with history, logic, and the Bible because I deal with Protestants quite often. I also have not “spewed” any insults. I have merely described you accurately. You have yet to show that anything I have said is incorrect. You tacitly admit that I have been right about you since you first embarrassed yourself and immediately fled the scene to search the internet to desparately find “sources” that back you up. Having exhausted various Wicca, esoterica like sites and amateur encyclopedia sites and other sites you took out of context you are now trying to evade the who argument.
Thanks for proving yourself to be a liberal too by the way.
Frenetic,
You posts make less and less sense:
"Thanks Yoda. Seriously though the point was never to discern a relationship between Mithraism and Christianity, but to merely point out that Christianity absorbed local cultural practices of the Romans from where is sprang."
Except that neither Christianity nor Mithraism "sprang" from Rome. Both were from the East. Also, if you're saying that the point is "Christianity absorbed local cultural practces of the Romans" then that rules out "absorbing" doctrines since the two are not the same thing. Next, I already posted evidence that the early Christians adopted Dec. 25th in OPPOSITION TO THE MITHRAS CULT. How is adopting something in OPPOSITION TO MITHRAISM the same thing as absorbing local Roman cultural practices? Also, how is it that you now completely equate Roman cultural practices with Mithraism as if they were one in the same? Your arguments are completely illogical.
"Rome was the center of the world, to suggest its culture had no influence on Christian/Catholic practices when it made Christianity its official religion is absurd."
You have that backwards at the very least. When Christianity became the official religion of the empire what influence did it have on Rome? After all, who was shaping what here? Also, again, you completely equate Rome with Mithraism. That's a serious mistake.
"Who at the time had the power or authority to contest it?"
The Church. Ever hear of how Ambrose of Milan treated Theodoric the Great after the massacre of Thessalonica? No, I guess not. And to think it was Theodoric who made Christianitythe official religion of the Roman Empire!
"You sure seem like one. Reminds me of when I was a snot-nosed teenager and thought I was shocking my parents by saying "Christianity is just a myth!" Of course, with time, I learned that people of much more expertise than I, throughout the centuries had covered all the ground I thought I was breaking to the world, and had thoroughly debunked my silly statments that only seemed interesting on the surface level."
- Age is about irrelevant as your insults. Not that it is any of your business, but since you are keenly interested, I can assure you that I am well beyond 14, in my late thirties to be exact.
Also, why do you insist that I'm trying to paint Christianity as a lie? I've said no such thing and never would. What you are engaging in is called slander. Look it up “Christian”.
***The following is really none of your business but your last post was too condescending to let it slide. ***
I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I don’t attend mass anymore but I have retained Christianity as a way of life now rather than a structured set of rituals.
Here’s a little background as to ‘why’ to assuage the ignorant among us. My parents belonged (past tense) to a Charismatic Catholic/Christian organization-community (if you don’t know what that is I’m not going into details). In essence it is a cult for practicing Catholics/Christians. As a “snot nosed kid” I had religion crammed down my throat from birth till I was 18, forced to dress, pray, behave and associate how they wanted me to, I couldn’t listen to rock (4:4 beat was evil), I couldn’t wear shorts in the summer (too immodest), I couldn’t be friends with anyone outside of the community (they were too worldly), I couldn’t go to school where I wanted (too pagan), celebrated “baptismal day’s” instead of birthdays, attended prayer meetings called “gatherings” and watch as hundreds of people trance’d like zombies, prayed in “tongues”, were “slain in the spirit” and listened to prophesies and preaching’s.
So you can say that I have a unique perspective about religion unlike most others including you. I’ve studied Catholicism/Christianity most of my life (the years that count anyway) in the kind of detail that would make a priest blush, albeit, mostly because I had to, but study I did nonetheless.
So before you start going into some sentimental BS about thinking you knew it all…take a moment to realize that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about or who you are condescending to because you have never walked in my shoes and would never want to.
"You attempts at evading are hilarious"
- What am I evading? Because you can't answer what there is no answer for? Your long winded pomposity is funny. You're just pissed because if you answer the questions, you also have to admit that that came from somewhere other than the scriptures, which would prove my point that Christianity took ownership of popular cultural practices at the time and Christianized them.
Yes, in Kerala and Goa, they do. However, this is not a carry-over from Hinduism. The discrimination here is between the earliest converts a la St.Thomas, and the latter day ones, whom the former consider inferior, since they weren't converted by an apostle of Christ.
"Except that neither Christianity nor Mithraism "sprang" from Rome"
- I never said they did. Read the post again. I said local "cultural practices". Mithraism was the dominant religion at the time and it influenced the Roman culture, where it originated or whether it was outlawed in favor of Christianity is irrelevant. It was still part of the Roman culture at the time. Roman culture influence the early church, plain and simple.
"Man, you really are a flamming liberal."
- LOL. So now I am a flaming liberal? This is way too much fun. Keep piling them on.
Oh and by the way...your reference.
http://www.catholic.com/default.asp
"The Puritans were none-too-pleased that December 25 had been associated with Sol Invictus"
"Still, the vestiges of paganism found in Christmas festivities aren't to be overlooked. Holly, mistletoe, yule logs, singing, cooking special foods, and decorating the home were all once associated with this time of year in the non-Christian world. Once converted, people did not think of banning these things. They continued to sing, eat big meals, and decorate their homes because these customs were viewed as intrinsically compatible with the new faith. It was paganism that Christianity opposed, not the culture of the people being evangelized. This is why, for example, we still exchange rings and throw rice at weddings even though these customs are holdovers from paganism. Indeed, the early Christians would never have used the fish as a symbol of Christ if they'd disdained every token of paganism."
I other words, your own reference also states as fact that pagan practices and rituals were incorporated into the church. I'll accept your apology now :D
Frenetic,
You wrote: " What am I evading?"
The issue you raised in th ebeginning that you have been nailed to the wall on.
"Because you can't answer what there is no answer for?"
If there were no answers to the questions you asked then why did you ask them? You are admitting that your own questions were essentially worthless.
"Your long winded pomposity is funny. You're just pissed because if you answer the questions, you also have to admit that that came from somewhere other than the scriptures, which would prove my point that Christianity took ownership of popular cultural practices at the time and Christianized them."
Incorrect. I am not "pissed" at anyone here. You don't rate enough to "piss" anyone off. Also, do you think you could write a little more maturely than that? Can you try? And do you think you could finally learn about cause and effect and realize that even if something is not explicitly in scripture that doesn't mean it was adopted from paganism? And do you think you could muster enough intelligence to realize that "popular culture" then was not necessarily Mithraic? You keep making these idiotic assumptions WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF COURSE. Try thinking for a change.
Frenetic,
Please try to be honest.
You wrote:
"I never said they did. Read the post again. I said local "cultural practices". Mithraism was the dominant religion at the time and it influenced the Roman culture, where it originated or whether it was outlawed in favor of Christianity is irrelevant."
Mithraism was not necessarily the dominant religion of the time. There were actually more pagans of the Greco-Roman variety than Mithraic followers right into the fourth century.
"It was still part of the Roman culture at the time
Still? Can you prove it was a part in the first place to the dominant extent you claim?
"Roman culture influence the early church, plain and simple."
And you have yet to post evidence of such. I already showed your claim about Christmas/Dec. 25 was wrong.
Oh, and about this comment: "I never said they did. Read the post again. I said local "cultural practices"." You apparently forgot that you earlier wrote: "Why is this so outlandish? The Romans adapted many of Mithraism's rituals and practices into Christianity when it formed the Roman Catholic Church, in effect making Christianity an easier pill to swallow for the masses." Are you saying this supposed event or series of events didn't take place in Rome? Really they only took place in your imagination, but clearly you would like everyone to believe it was in Rome.
Make up your mind Frenetic.
If you did not mean Rome then please tell us all where it happened. Be specific. Show evidence.
"If there were no answers to the questions you asked then why did you ask them? You are admitting that your own questions were essentially worthless."
- To those that are reading these…this is a classic case of what’s called ‘circular logic’. It is the tactic of people who can’t answer the question because by doing so would prove themselves wrong. Here is why it is not worthless. If the date of Christ’s birth is not revealed in the bible, and Dec. 25th was picked from a host of other days it was being celebrated at the time, there must have been a reason to pick that day, and if that day had a reason behind it definitely had nothing to do with the scriptures or with Christianity itself making the celebration of that day pagan by definition. vladimir998 you posted what you deemed a “reliable source” in a previous post. In my last post to you I cited reference from your own source agreeing with me. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9312fea1.asp
"Also, do you think you could write a little more maturely than that? Can you try?"
- Have been all along. Have I insulted you in any way? Have I called you a liberal? Did I mock your intelligence? Did I suggest that you are immature? And I’m the one who needs to grow up? LOL...look in the mirror.
“Did I And do you think you could finally learn about cause and effect and realize that even if something is not explicitly in scripture that doesn't mean it was adopted from paganism?”
- Do you even know what the term paganism means? Look it up and then apologize to me later.
“And do you think you could muster enough intelligence to realize that "popular culture" then was not necessarily Mithraic? You keep making these idiotic assumptions WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF COURSE. “
- I just cited evidence from your own “reputable” source. Your own sources aren’t even good enough now? LOL. I never said Mithraism was the ONLY influence on Roman culture.
“Try thinking for a change.”
- Try apologizing; you could use a little humility.
Inculturation at work, badly. Supposedly Ghandi turned away from Christianity because its Indian incarnation preserved the caste system.
It's amazing how fast the East can repeat the sins of the west. Changing the liturgy as a defensive political move will never work. No credit will be gained, and ultimately everything will be lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.