@ Daniel:

Huh? I didn't say a baby can choose a religion. I said the opposite! A baby cannot choose -- for, against or even indifferent.

Why do adults describe babies or children as being of a certain religion? I guess the same as adults describing those babies as being of a certain family. If you believe you have a heavenly father, for example, then you the adult might reasonably assume that your baby too is part of the family -- in this case, a religious family.

I see nothing wrong with parents guiding and "answering for" their children. After all, most parents don't give their children the choice not to attend school! But, of course, there comes a time when every child who comes of age must make his or her own choice. Note how most religions give each person a chance of affirmation (or reaffirmation) when he/she comes of age. And in any case, most all of us are free to choose -- to change religion or to not believe at all -- or at the very least remain silent and passive about the whole thing.

Edited by ben2world on 03/23/2012 13:47:12 MDT.

Just a couple if random thoughts here that may fit in some of the discussion.
As far as we know only humans have to deal with the awareness of their mortality. That in itself affects our behavior in innumerable ways.
Rituals are comforting; knowing what to expect at a certain time is comforting. Music with a rythm you can learn to predict is more comforting that random beats.
If you pet a horse, try patting it with a cadence to where it can expect the next pat; you will have a much more comfortable animal at your hands than if you pat it randomly. A lot of our rituals help us deal with some fear.

"The Catholic, and other Christian creeds. basically took over earlier 'pagan' cults/religions."

The part about the Catholic religion is incorrect. It is the Ministry of Christ that continued from Christ to his Apostles. (Simon) Peter is considered the first Pope.

Constantine was a later development. There has also been enough academic research done that confirms that Christianity spread in spite of the Roman Empire.

Of course it spread depite the Roman Emporer.

The Russian Tzar tried his best to stop the Bolsheviks, but repressed people still over threw him. My opinion is that Jesus was a revolutionary, trying to help his people. Other folk turned him into a god for their own purposes.

"My opinion is that Jesus was a revolutionary, trying to help his people. Other folk turned him into a god for their own purposes."

Jesus is a historical figure. Sadly, with 2,000 years past, we no longer have authoritative records -- such as court records -- to show us exactly what transpired. But right from the get go, Jesus' followers -- including eyewitnesses and those present with him -- claimed that Jesus himself taught them that he was the son of God. One or two "crazies" -- I can understand. But so many of those who were with Jesus were killed for refusing to say differently!

I believe that Jesus did make the claim. I believe he was either a charismatic but filthy liar -- or he told the truth. In any case, I do not believe his followers made up the deity story for their own purposes. The persecution didn't start hundreds of years later when things could have gotten convoluted. The persecution started immediately after Jesus' own death. So it makes no sense that hundreds of contemporaries would lie and be killed for it. I wouldn't have. And you wouldn't have either, if we were there 2,000 years ago.

"My opinion is that Jesus was a revolutionary, trying to help his people. Other folk turned him into a god for their own purposes."

And I think your opinion is just fine.

If you are Christian, you believe that he was the son of God and that he was a deity evidenced through the resurrection. Not that there was some ulterior motive for political or social power. Quite the contrary, actually. At the time, Christianity was completely against such power and this is what made the political and existing church leaders scared. Very scared.

Jan Irvin lays out a pretty compelling set of evidence for the true origins in his film Astrotheology and Shamanism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOCTL0nnh70

To my mind, Mithras was obviously the fore-runner of Christianity.
Some details here

Mike:

My view... we humans share tremendous similarities. Just as languages are taught a certain way across cultures, or basic mathematics taught a certain way across cultures...I would expect religions to share similarities as well. The basic theology may be a bit different -- but really, the choosing of auspicious calendar/astronomical dates for religious festivals, the techniques used to help one concentrate (such as meditation or chanting or prayer beads or talisman, etc., etc) have tremendous overlaps! Why would anyone expect differently?


No one would ever deny the validity of a subject just because it is taught similarly across cultures. Same with religion. That there are common or shared practices do not prove or disprove a theology.

All societies had Gods.

I feel sorry for all the ancient cultures, knowing there was a God, but not knowing how to form a rewarding and meaningful relationship with Him. It must have felt like they were doing it wrong, with the inconsistent results their ceremonies produced.

Now that we know there are only three forms of a single God, it just makes things so much easier. We pray, God answers, and we can be sure that we have opened the channel of communication with our creator.

Why be so mocking, Cameron?

Christianity from the perspective of societal norms and specific levels of dogma had roots in Judaism so this is not a surprise. The birth and death of Christ upped the ante.

Organized religion is making a mockery of spirituality!

(Also, Cameron, you rock.)

Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:

Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
Mithra ascending to heaven in his solar cart, with sun symbolHe ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers.

busted!
there is no true religion there is only myths and traditions and they nfluenced each other and constantly changed.

Edited by MAYNARD76 on 03/23/2012 14:27:48 MDT.

I would like to say that i respect folk who can find comfort in religion, and have no wish to insult their faith.

"Organized religion is making a mockery of spirituality!"

I disagree. What is organized religion than a deity(ies) with followers? And I supposed spirituality used here refers to the same deity(ies) but with just the individual?

I see both nobility and meanness in organized religion -- oh heck, in pretty much any grouping of humans!! Why? Because there is the same nobility and meanness in every human that makes up the group.

Spirituality can be a very good thing. But practiced alone -- to the total or near exclusion of others for reasons of disdain -- that can be narcissism.

Oh boy, we have a Zeitgeist follower. I have the CD's if anyone is interested in having a look.

Did those 12 disciples actually write gospels and travel the land continuing the ministry of Mithra? We have physical evidence of the Christ's apostles.

"The Roman god Mithras was born of a rock near the banks of a river under a sacred tree.[ii] As he came forth from the rock, he grasped a dagger in one hand and a torch in the other, which he used to illumine the depths below (from whence he came). So unless, there is some evidence that springing out of a rock meant the same thing in first century Rome as birth from a human female who had never had sexual intercourse, the first century Roman Mithraic followers did not believe Mithras was born of a virgin. There are no written accounts of the Roman Mystery of Mithras of any substantive nature.[iii]"

"In Franz Cumont’s 1903 account of this story, using the Iranian/Persian sources, he tells us that Mithra (not Mithras) partook of a meal with the sun, Helios, after completing his mission on earth to protect humans against the evil god, Ahriman. “He then ascends to the heavens with the gods. Borne by the Sun on his radiant quadriga, Mithra crossed the Ocean, which sought in vain to engulf him and took up his habitation with the rest of the immortals.”[iv] This is quite a different picture than that of just Jesus ascending to the Father after his resurrection."

"Mithra also never loses an earthly battle and he never dies; he is ever-victorious. The later Roman god, Mithras, was also popularly worshiped amongst the Roman soldiers because of his notoriety for being “invictus.” While there are some noted similarities between the gods, Mitra, Mithra, and Mithras, Mithraic scholars have argued for nearly a century whether or not the Roman version of Mithras is an evolutionary view of the antecedent Iranian/Persian versions.[v] By utilizing all versions of the stories blended together in order to set up a point, Bell did not portray an accurate picture of the historical Roman worship of Mithras."

There is literally no historical account of what you provide, Brian.

@Mike.

You certainly aren't offending me. My history with religion is a bit complicated and it has only been the past couple of years that I have read, read, and read some more. Often perspectives from academia that give me a headache. I am not even Catholic.

"[T]here is no true religion there is only myths and traditions and they nfluenced each other and constantly changed."

You may well be right, Brian. But then, you can't logically eliminate the possibility that there is a religion -- every culture feels it and reacts to it from time immemorial -- but that no human really gets it 100%??

As a Catholic, I feel "at rest" within my church (which is why I believe it is the right path for me) , and I feel that others too can gain from it. However, I do NOT deem to have exclusive answer because that would entail understanding how God works. My stance is that there is something animating us -- and whatever spiritual path -- we will know when we've found the right one for us because we will feel at peace and at rest. If an atheist feels the same, then perhaps that is the proper path for him or her... And my church does not deem itself to have the exclusive answers either.

Can we all just agree to disagree and move along...