Christianity is NOT (just) the "White Man's Religion"!

[Bacsi]

@Bacsi - you are great, and I could swap one-liners with you all night but my eyes are getting heavy ;-) Good night, and God bless my Tengrist friend!

Good night!

 

[Bacsi]

No, we don't talk to/follow the same God. Still, it was interesting to hear your answer.

We have one Creator, and we do follow him whatever we do. Even atheists follow him. All works towards evolution of Spirit, and everything is good eventually. It's his plan for us. Learning.

 

[rainerann]

One example being the idea of punishment in hell. It's not of God and is untrue.

Can you prove that? I think what you are saying is the main problem with any belief system. The person thinks something is true without any way to prove that it is or it isn't, and they expect other people to see something as true because they have realized it is true.

Personally, I am a fan of a scientific pursuit of spirituality in the respect that I expect there to be some evidence of this experience. There has to be some change that demonstrates whether something is true in the same way that you can't fry chicken in water. You just don't get the result you are looking for. So there has to be some evidence that something is true in order to believe it is true.

As a result, a lot of these themes are rooted in the development of language, which may or may not be accurately describing or conveying a spiritual reality. Over thousands of years, several ancient cultures have been engaged in the process of naming the experiences of love, fear, hate, sorrow, etc. We have grown to create themes and ideas that have been passed on because of this. Every word that describes an emotion like fear or love, is invisible. Yet, we agree to label something like this with the word "love," even though this is not something that can be seen or exist separately from spiritual experience. It is all really very complex and it makes me think a lot about what you are saying. I have been in the process of learning Koine Greek over the past couple days and because the Greeks were big on studying philosophy, there is a lot of history in labeling things that can't be seen like the idea of punishment in Hell.

So, I think it is important to remember that when you are saying this is something that is not true, you are simultaneously creating opposition when what is actually happening is that something may not be expressed as well as it could be with written language. Does this make sense?

In addition to this, I was reading some of "The Babylonian Genesis" last night, and it is common to hear that there are shared themes with the Bible within these writings. This is true, but I realized while I was reading this that the Bible is still altogether unique. So that it is inaccurate to say that because different writings may have served the same purpose, that they are equal because of this. There may be some word of wisdom here or there in other writings, but they are not the same. There is a distinct difference between the Bible and other ancient writings that has caused it to exist in the modern world the way it does.

 

[Bacsi]

Can you prove that? I think what you are saying is the main problem with any belief system. The person thinks something is true without any way to prove that it is or it isn't, and they expect other people to see something as true because they have realized it is true.

Personally, I am a fan of a scientific pursuit of spirituality in the respect that I expect there to be some evidence of this experience. There has to be some change that demonstrates whether something is true in the same way that you can't fry chicken in water. You just don't get the result you are looking for. So there has to be some evidence that something is true in order to believe it is true.

As a result, a lot of these themes are rooted in the development of language, which may or may not be accurately describing or conveying a spiritual reality. Over thousands of years, several ancient cultures have been engaged in the process of naming the experiences of love, fear, hate, sorrow, etc. We have grown to create themes and ideas that have been passed on because of this. Every word that describes an emotion like fear or love, is invisible. Yet, we agree to label something like this with the word "love," even though this is not something that can be seen or exist separately from spiritual experience. It is all really very complex and it makes me think a lot about what you are saying. I have been in the process of learning Koine Greek over the past couple days and because the Greeks were big on studying philosophy, there is a lot of history in labeling things that can't be seen like the idea of punishment in Hell.

So, I think it is important to remember that when you are saying this is something that is not true, you are simultaneously creating opposition when what is actually happening is that something may not be expressed as well as it could be with written language. Does this make sense?

In addition to this, I was reading some of "The Babylonian Genesis" last night, and it is common to hear that there are shared themes with the Bible within these writings. This is true, but I realized while I was reading this that the Bible is still altogether unique. So that it is inaccurate to say that because different writings may have served the same purpose, that they are equal because of this. There may be some word of wisdom here or there in other writings, but they are not the same. There is a distinct difference between the Bible and other ancient writings that has caused it to exist in the modern world the way it does.

I understand. That's why unlike people of other religions we Tengriist Shamanists don't proselite. Each have their own truth anf nobody is right in everything. I gave one example about hell, but there are others that I already mentioned such us exclusivity of faith in Jesus etc. There is no and there can't be one and only true beleif system. I label myself a Tengriist, but apart from telling about the rituals I perform, such as Jetee Shelpek (ceremonial flatbreads offered to spirits of deceased ancestors) it doesn't say much really. My personal beleif system is the result of being subjected to many influences of all kinds. Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrism, Buddhism, atheism, Marxism etc etc you name it. Not necessarily directly. It's so for most people. Very few these days are shaped by one ideology, unless you were born into a Christian communal sect or in Saudi Arabia. Even then day by day segregation and isolation are becoming more a thing of the past.

The Bible is just a collection of texts. As you well know, complete beleif systems always involves a fair amount of interpretation and extra-scriptural knowledge. So the Bible in itself isn't everything. Otherwise, we get weird "KJV Bible-beleiving" sects where music and dancing are sin, but polygamy with child wives and stoning your children for rebellion is okay.

We can't know the other reality because we can fully experience only this physical reality. The spiritual realm is like a fleeting dream to us. We know we've seen the dream and it was so detailed, but can't remember much. Language only reflects our experience. That's why we so often hear from people who experienced something otherworldly that "it can't be described in words".

I don't see all of the above as a problem, because I know that our purpose on this earth is learning. As long as you try your best to understand why you're here and strive to improve yourself accordingly, it's good. So, to me, it doesn't matter if you've found the truthest of the truths so to speak as long as you've lived sensibly. By that I mean being good to people, animals, plants, inanimate things . At the end of the day that all it matters.

Jesus said the same thing (sheep and goats, doers and not listeners only). Hell is an allegory. If you haven't completed your life's mission, the result is a "hell".

 

[Bacsi]

Can you prove that? I think what you are saying is the main problem with any belief system. The person thinks something is true without any way to prove that it is or it isn't, and they expect other people to see something as true because they have realized it is true.

Personally, I am a fan of a scientific pursuit of spirituality in the respect that I expect there to be some evidence of this experience. There has to be some change that demonstrates whether something is true in the same way that you can't fry chicken in water. You just don't get the result you are looking for. So there has to be some evidence that something is true in order to believe it is true.

As a result, a lot of these themes are rooted in the development of language, which may or may not be accurately describing or conveying a spiritual reality. Over thousands of years, several ancient cultures have been engaged in the process of naming the experiences of love, fear, hate, sorrow, etc. We have grown to create themes and ideas that have been passed on because of this. Every word that describes an emotion like fear or love, is invisible. Yet, we agree to label something like this with the word "love," even though this is not something that can be seen or exist separately from spiritual experience. It is all really very complex and it makes me think a lot about what you are saying. I have been in the process of learning Koine Greek over the past couple days and because the Greeks were big on studying philosophy, there is a lot of history in labeling things that can't be seen like the idea of punishment in Hell.

So, I think it is important to remember that when you are saying this is something that is not true, you are simultaneously creating opposition when what is actually happening is that something may not be expressed as well as it could be with written language. Does this make sense?

In addition to this, I was reading some of "The Babylonian Genesis" last night, and it is common to hear that there are shared themes with the Bible within these writings. This is true, but I realized while I was reading this that the Bible is still altogether unique. So that it is inaccurate to say that because different writings may have served the same purpose, that they are equal because of this. There may be some word of wisdom here or there in other writings, but they are not the same. There is a distinct difference between the Bible and other ancient writings that has caused it to exist in the modern world the way it does.

As for the Bible being above Babylonian or Ugaritic or Sumerian or Chinese or other "Genesises". Well, the Bible Genesis is superior only in the sense that it's the youngests of all these and surely most carefully edited story. Even though it has two conflicting versions of creation in chapters 1 and 2. The fact that only the Bible survived and was spread so much is explained by chance. It happened to be part of beleif system picked by a mighty empire as a state religion - the Empire that our modern civilization is built upon. The great value of the Bible that in it, a version of a mix of previous stories from the region were conserved and lived till our day.

 

[JoChris]

As for the Bible being above Babylonian or Ugaritic or Sumerian or Chinese or other creation stories. Well, the Bible is superior only in the sense that it's the youngests of all these and surely most carefully edited story. Even though it has two conflicting versions in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The fact that only the Bible survived and was spread so much is explained by chance. It happened to be part of beleif system picked by a mighty empire as a state religion - The Empire tgat our modern civilization is built upon. The great value of the Bible that in it, a version of a mix of previous stories from the region were conserved and lived till our day.

You make a lot of claims there. Can you show factual evidence to support them?

Re differences Genesis 1 and 2. Ist chapter is general big picture. 2nd one focused on Adam's creation. Different emphasis does not equal contradiction. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-2&version=KJV

Chance only? That is a faith statement of yours.

There is a lot of evidence that pagans' myths are built on bible, not other way around. E.g. http://christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

 

[rainerann]

I understand. That's why unlike people of other religions we Tengriist Shamanists don't proselite. Each have their own truth anf nobody is right in everything. I gave one example about hell, but there are others that I already mentioned such us exclusivity of faith in Jesus etc. There is no and there can't be one and only true beleif system. I label myself a Tengriist, but apart from telling about the rituals I perform, such as Jetee Shelpek (ceremonial flatbreads offered to spirits of deceased ancestors) it doesn't say much really. My personal beleif system is the result of being subjected to many influences of all kinds. Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrism, Buddhism, atheism, Marxism etc etc you name it. Not necessarily directly. It's so for most people. Very few these days are shaped by one ideology, unless you were born into a Christian communal sect or in Saudi Arabia. Even then day by day segregation and isolation are becoming more a thing of the past.

The Bible is just a collection of texts. As you well know, complete beleif systems always involves a fair amount of interpretation and extra-scriptural knowledge. So the Bible in itself isn't everything. Otherwise, we get weird "KJV Bible-beleiving" sects where music and dancing are sin, but polygamy with child wives and stoning your children for rebellion is okay.

We can't know the other reality because we can fully experience only this physical reality. The spiritual realm is like a fleeting dream to us. We know we've seen the dream and it was so detailed, but can't remember much. Language only reflects our experience. That's why we so often hear from people who experienced something otherworldly that "it can't be described in words".

I don't see all of the above as a problem, because I know that our purpose on this earth is learning. As long as you try your best to understand why you're here and strive to improve yourself accordingly, it's good. So, to me, it doesn't matter if you've found the truthest of the truths so to speak as long as you've lived sensibly. By that I mean being good to people, animals, plants, inanimate things . At the end of the day that all it matters.

Jesus said the same thing (sheep and goats, doers and not listeners only). Hell is an allegory. If you haven't completed your life's mission, the result is a "hell".

hmm, I think you are still creating a sort of opposition by comparison. In Christianity, we share the Gospel, but as you said yourself, we all seem to go our own way. I believe the body of Christ is healthy when it has the opportunity to create new denominations. This freedom gives us opportunity to cultivate individual gifts. Christianity is very much about growth and learning. What you suggest as "one and only true belief system," is simply believing that Christ is the Son of God. Do you believe Christ is the Son of God as a Tengriist?

 

[Bacsi]

You make a lot of claims there. Can you show factual evidence to support them?

Re differences Genesis 1 and 2. Ist chapter is general big picture. 2nd one focused on Adam's creation. Different emphasis does not equal contradiction. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1-2&version=KJV

Chance only? That is a faith statement of yours.

There is a lot of evidence that pagans' myths are built on bible, not other way around. E.g. http://christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

Literature unearthed from the region and beyond compliment certain Biblical motifs. Then there's textological, archeological dating.

In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals. In the second story, humans were created before the other animals. In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. In the second account, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

There is even an older creation story in Isaiah, which originates in my native region - Central Asia:

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-where-did-creation-story-come-from-1.5404560

 

[rainerann]

As for the Bible being above Babylonian or Ugaritic or Sumerian or Chinese or other "Genesises". Well, the Bible Genesis is superior only in the sense that it's the youngests of all these and surely most carefully edited story. Even though it has two conflicting versions of creation in chapters 1 and 2. The fact that only the Bible survived and was spread so much is explained by chance. It happened to be part of beleif system picked by a mighty empire as a state religion - The Empire that our modern civilization is built upon. The great value of the Bible that in it, a version of a mix of previous stories from the region were conserved and lived till our day.

It happened to be picked because after three centuries of persecution including the deaths of many people professing to be Christian, it still continued to grow. Therefore, there was some evidence to support adopting it as a primary religion. Obviously, centralized theocracies don't work well as a system of government, but it isn't like the powers in Rome just went eenie, meenie, minie, moe; and picked Christianity. The first few hundred years Christian pursued faith in Christ and were killed for doing this over and over again, unfortunately. Christianity was never a religion of the elite. It was created by people of all walks of life who were persecuted for it even though they followed Christ and did not form their own armies or initiate physical battles.

 

[Bacsi]

hmm, I think you are still creating a sort of opposition by comparison. In Christianity, we share the Gospel, but as you said yourself, we all seem to go our own way. I believe the body of Christ is healthy when it has the opportunity to create new denominations. This freedom gives us opportunity to cultivate individual gifts. Christianity is very much about growth and learning. What you suggest as "one and only true belief system," is simply believing that Christ is the Son of God. Do you believe Christ is the Son of God as a Tengriist?

It's great to have different opinions and have freedom to express them. Pagan Greeco-Roman traditions are to thank. It makes Christianity very weak, I think, and it'll be conquered by Islam eventually.

Jesus is not known to Tengriism because my faith comes from long before the time of Christ. We worship Father Creator Tengri the Blue Sky, Mother Umai the Brown Earth, the power of five elements, spirits of deceased ancestors. The general consensus is that Jesus was a good man, great spiritual teacher, not God. He was a prophet to the Jews. We the Turks have our own ancient native faith. As for the title of the Son of God, we're all God's children. In that sense, he's a son. I sometimes converse with the spirit of Yeshua ha-Mashiach (Jesus the Anointed One), and I know he's extremely compassionate and powerful.

 

[Bacsi]

It happened to be picked because after three centuries of persecution including the deaths of many people professing to be Christian, it still continued to grow. Therefore, there was some evidence to support adopting it as a primary religion. Obviously, centralized theocracies don't work well as a system of government, but it isn't like the powers in Rome just went eenie, meenie, minie, moe; and picked Christianity. The first few hundred years Christian pursued faith in Christ and were killed for doing this over and over again, unfortunately. Christianity was never a religion of the elite. It was created by people of all walks of life who were persecuted for it even though they followed Christ and did not form their own armies or initiate physical battles.

I know the history. Persecution is exaggerated, btw. I didn't mean that it was picked by accident, I was saying that all of the circumstances are pure chance. If the strongest empire in the world was, say, China or Persia, then we would have ended up with a different set of world religions today.

When Constantine decreed Christianity to be the state religion, he also chose one version among several that were popular in the day. That way a Pagan ruler single-handedly created the mainstream Christianity of today, including the canon of the New Testament.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

As for the Bible being above Babylonian or Ugaritic or Sumerian or Chinese or other "Genesises". Well, the Bible Genesis is superior only in the sense that it's the youngests of all these and surely most carefully edited story. Even though it has two conflicting versions of creation in chapters 1 and 2. The fact that only the Bible survived and was spread so much is explained by chance. It happened to be part of beleif system picked by a mighty empire as a state religion - the Empire that our modern civilization is built upon. The great value of the Bible that in it, a version of a mix of previous stories from the region were conserved and lived till our day.

The dating of the text of the Bible and its correlation to verifiable archaeology in Exodus is very intriguing to me. I first started looking into this in the early 90s but much has been discovered since.

This film is an mine of information on the subject which will leave your head spinning with the undeniable physical evidence for the historicity of the Bible.

Enjoy!

 

[JoChris]

Literature unearthed from the region and beyond compliment certain Biblical motifs. Then there's textological, archeological dating.

In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals. In the second story, humans were created before the other animals. In the first creation story, the first man and woman were created simultaneously. In the second account, the man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.

There is even an older creation story in Isaiah, which originates in my native region - Central Asia:

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-where-did-creation-story-come-from-1.5404560

Can't follow link without subscribing.
Yes I am aware there is much conflicting research and that data can be manipulated to suit researchers' hypotheses RE dates etc. New archeological finds in Middle East consistently support biblical accounts.

Naming of animals by Adam does not mean they were created *after* Adam. http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=643

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

This clip had me laughing out loud!

 

[pumkinspice]

Bacsi you worship another form of Babylonian religion. All mankind knew of God, Holy Spirit and Son because they were from the beginning. Only it became distorted, perverse and more personalized to each nation as they spread out among the earth. The fact that there are similar histories all throughout the earth prove there is a creator. But of course mankind is succeptible to seducing spirits. There are many gods but one God/Creator of them all.

To see the sky or earth or the elements as objects worth praying to is just praying to a created form, often a representation of whatever spirit you are praying to, but not the creator himself. This is one thing I notice that sets the Bible apart from all else.

God doesn't need a image because nothing can..what's the word? Fulfill, be enough? For him. He created everything. Why not just pray to him directly, instead of some created being or element?

Mankind is taught everything, that's how we operate. God knew it would come to this point, so he set aside a people to keep what would eventually be lost. This life is a teaching moment, we are learning what is good and bad, and seeing for ourselves the result of both, specifically what evil can evolve to in this time. The decision is ours to make which one we choose.

Also, I'm sure you know this but the Bible just a collection of scrolls. Some scrolls didn't even make it into "canonical" literature. They were written during various points of history. To say it's the "newest" of all religious literature isn't true. And to say it's the most edited, I'm not sure why you say that?

We weren't there when any ancient book was written, so it's all a matter of faith no matter your perspective. We all have faith in something, even if it's nothing. I just think your spirit doesn't identify with the Spirit of the Bible, and that's okay. It's not meant for everyone. God gives us the choice to choose to serve Him or not.

 

[pumkinspice]

I had to get my last 2 cents in, but the topic seems kind of redundant at this point or is it just me?? lol

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I had to get my last 2 cents in, but the topic seems kind of redundant at this point or is it just me?? lol

Well yes, but I'm easy going - I think we have covered tome interesting related ideas...

 

[Bacsi]

Bacsi you worship another form of Babylonian religion. .

No.

 

[Bacsi]

The dating of the text of the Bible and its correlation to verifiable archaeology in Exodus is very intriguing to me. I first started looking into this in the early 90s but much has been discovered since.

This film is an mine of information on the subject which will leave your head spinning with the undeniable physical evidence for the historicity of the Bible.

Enjoy!

The Torah, written and compiled by numerous authors over a long time, is a collection of the older religions of the region with western-semitic traditions. It's a great soirce with interesting wealth of information. However, there are other interesting historical and religious sources from all over the globe.

 

[Bacsi]

Can't follow link without subscribing.
Yes I am aware there is much conflicting research and that data can be manipulated to suit researchers' hypotheses RE dates etc. New archeological finds in Middle East consistently support biblical accounts.

Naming of animals by Adam does not mean they were created *after* Adam. http://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=643

It's interesting how you dismiss all the scientific data as if it's nothing. Years and years of serious work.