Subject:
|
Re: Pagans and Xtians (was Re: Sex Scandal etc)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 May 2003 23:03:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
285 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > Easter isn't scriptual, nor, btw, is Christmas. The Lord's supper is,
> > > though.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > Easter, not scriptural? I do remember being in Religion classes back in
> > school and be told that it was *the* most important Christian celebration!
>
> Easter and Xmas are both originally pagan holidays.
I know they are pre-christian; Easter I had always thought as having been
conveniently adopted by Christianity from Judahism. Which in turn may have
had it adopted from another pagan belief - quite honestly, I find that of
little consequence, just a funny preciosism.
> You might as well be
> worhshipping some ancient fire god like some of the peoples mentioned in the
> OT (at one point Abraham, prior to taking up with "I Am", was more into a
> guy called Moloch. The funny thing about Moloch was that he liked to have
> children sacrificed to him in a fire. Sound familiar?).
Yes.
> See? Right there.
> It's like a giant neon sign glowing above your head that warns everyone that
> you have never read the Bible yourself -- if you had, you would know these
> things. You would know these things just as easily as I, a non-believer,
> knows them.
I have never read the Bible from one end to the other, and quite frankly I
doubt that I will ever do such a thing: it is not a novel. And I don't like
the idea of a sacred text of any nature, so it would be way over my own
interest to read it as a source of inspiration - if anything, I'd read it
for the sake of curiosity. And I'm not feeling very curious about the details.
> The "Lord's Supper" is actually the more ancient Passover from the OT.
And what have I said in my post? (1)
> Jesus altered the meaning of the feast by instituting it as a ritual more
> akin to what you may know as a sacrament -- to do certain things in
> remembrance of his flesh and blood. It is the takeover of an ancient feast
> and then giving it a new meaning, but at least it is a true Judeo-Xtian holy
> day. And then again, Jesus may have said something about NOT changing even
> the tiniest aspect of Mosaic law -- so these kinds of tweaks might have been
> a way to do something new while still doing something old.
In the end, if you perceive Jesus Christ as a great philosopher,
independently of him being or not of divine nature, does any of these
details alter the overall meaning of his preaching?
I don't think it matters, really. I kind of *like* his overall way of
thinking, and happen to have very similar ways of conducting my own
behaviour. That does not make me a Christian!
What does make me wonder is the fact I was brought up in a deeply
conservative Catholic society, and was instructed that the Bible was not
relevant *in its entirety* for the everyday life. But of course Catholicism
focuses mainly on the New Testament (the part of "The Book" that was written
AFTER "The Man" came to Earth), and that may in part explain why I find the
OT of lesser importance?
Is it?
Pedro
(1) - For clarification, if that could not be understood by my previous
message, I consder Easter the time between Thursday's Supper and Sunday
(culture-specific, maybe?)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Pagans and Xtians (was Re: Sex Scandal etc)
|
| (...) In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes: (...) Easter and Xmas are both originally pagan holidays. You might as well be worhshipping some ancient fire god like some of the peoples mentioned in the OT (at one point Abraham, prior to (...) (21 years ago, 13-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
