Ibis... a bible with red-highlighted jesus speech? ... I seriously doubt that the people around 200ad, let alone people nowadays know/knew what he actually said. It is impossible. See he had his scholars, and they spread his ideas, everyone after his interpretion because he didn't write anything down -> corruption 1.
Secondly around 200-300ad, and i don't know any exact dates i'M afraid, when Constantin allowed the christian religion in his state, they needed varification, they needed followers, they wanted power. So they hired some talented authors and let them write the new testament. So this book being written only because they had to convert people, wanted to seek power in the roman state, how much of it do you think is true?
The whole interpretation of it is individual bogus anyway, because each sentence can mean litterally everything, but to the point: I don't think jesus said, only remotely, what he does in the bible.

Well I gotta disagree with you on this ThanadoS, because the handing down of oral tradition is usually pretty tight and concise and ammounts to memorization and passing down of fact in an oral society ... which is what the persecuted Christian sect of first and second century Rome was.
They firmly believed and they knew they had a mission to spread the exact teachings, story and history of what their savior had done and said. It's hard for a society like ours which is bombarded constantly with media both spoken and written to understand how TRADITION can be passed down between the generations exactly.
If you've ever been around American Indian peoples, you might notice that although their creation stories and other religious teachings may make little sense to us - they know it by rote and can repeat the exact wording of the stories without referring to any books or scripts.

============

And I do know a bit about Emperor Constantine. His mother Empress Helene became converted to Christianity first, being swayed by the teachings of early Christian scholars who studied under the teachings of Paul, who was Saul persecuting Christians and was then struck by lightning and knocked off his horse and got up from the ground a believer.
Helene asked her son to convert. He did and freed the practice of Christanity from persecution. It was an age of a lot of Christian writing and yes, the Council of Trent was called to assemble the writing of the books of the new testament. Or choosing them, I think.
Constantine not only made Christianity a household word in his Eastern Empire but he also saved the "boat" (as Channler would say) of Rome from the Gothic hordes that had dessimatied it. The Eastern Roman Empire was temporarily established until Rome could right herself once more.
And of course, then came the Papal Corruption ... which vaguely leads us up to today... via a few Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Henry's Revolt, etc.

This post has been edited by Ibis: May 22 2006, 12:11 PM

Nevermind the fact that he deliberately changed christianity in nearly every way, shape and form in order to make sure its assimilation into Roman culture went "more smoothly" (IE most profitably). A lot of the oral traditions that were passed in, he omitted from the bible, and all the rest he subtly changed. (Example: Jesus' birthday, the date of his death, the date of his resurrection, just some easy, irrefutable examples I can give of things about the bible that changed after the oral tradition period)

But that's not the worst part, the worst part is when even those oral traditions that were perverted when written into the bible were taught to be ignored by the common people, these oral traditions lost so only the scribes even knew what was in the bible, only the highest class getting access to the religion in the purest form they had it in (which wasn't that pure, quite frankly). All the common people got were the trusting word of their priests, and we all know how trusting Catholic priests can be.

No offense to Christianity, as far as I know Jesus Christ was a great guy, a regular Gandhi, but you'd never guess that the way they manipulated his teachings.

This post has been edited by DoomedOne: May 23 2006, 06:10 AM

Welp, I have to admit that now I am agreeing with you guys ... after reading the msn webpage article about Mary Magdelene, woman of mystery. It seems that the first written accounts of Jesus Christ occurred about 90 years after his death by the Gnostic sect, which was pretty powerful in the fledgeling persecuted church.
But apparently, there was always a rift or jealousy between Mary Magdalene and Peter and the Gnostic account stemmed from Mary Magdalene teaching as an apostle but the account that won and that got handed down to the world, stemmed from Peter - and so it is very patriarchal and Magdalene totally disappears after the resurrection scene.

So anyway, I can see from this account of the different sects that apparently there were at least a few very different accounts of things. Interestingly though, it was a group of women disciples who cared for Jesus's financial needs. He was supposed to be quite egalitarian when it came to equality for women.
Also, it was in the 900's that Mary Magdalene was tagged a prostitute by none other than Pope Gregory in a speech at the Vatican. Pope John Paul II proclaimed in the 1980's that she was not. So even to this day, religion remains murky in it's historical content...but for me the inner message of Christ is still clear.

As is Agent Mulder's. Honest.

This post has been edited by Ibis: May 23 2006, 07:28 AM

To your first post Iibis, yeah i believe that oral tradition is important for people (and maybe even more accurate for them than for us), who don't have any telecommunication and the like. Though: There is always something that gets changed, even if it's not maliciously changed by order.
And: I don't care about all the conspiracy theories beginning in the bible itself, getting carried on over templers and all kinds of sects, culminating in dan browns stories... there is only one point i can say for sure. The erstwhile christian people where human beings just as we are. Which means they were new, had to wipe out the old tradition and use well known parts of it for their own purpose, then when people didn't join in the hordes they estimated, they had to lie something up, use jesus (may he be real-existent or not, king or slave, jew or raised in the roman tradition, again i don't care) as a protagonist. You know that would be as if... i don't know in fifty years, the republican party could point out that bush junior was a well needed messiahs, that will come back one day and kill the "boat(?)" of the islamic world or something...
Anyway getting away from the point again. Being so much wrong in facts and mystery in the bible, this thing loses all attraction to me. For ex: It is said (and in various commentaries) that mankind started off with adam some 3000 years before the arrival of jesus. Now what the hell? Seriously 3000bc we had already the great wonders of egypt, and maybe 5000bc and more, the chinese culture rose to magnificance, let alone all the paläolythic people, which are proven to have lived about 10 000years more or less cultured...
Finally, and that really is _my_ concern: Everyone should believe what he wants, but the institution of religion:
Moses and the burning bush = Pope = masskilling for money = king masskilling for money = 2 popes vs. 2 kings or whatever the hell combination = napoleon, fighting for money and power = hitler = stalin = mao' = in the end, every second american president = bush, the burning.

* Please do not flame me for this, I truly believe this *

I believe in vampirism...... Yes vampirism, there is no higher being such as a god. You are your own god, you create your own destiny. I believe in otherkin and that people I know are vampires, weres, ect......

NO, this is not like the movies where vampires are killed by sunlight and that crosses hold some "holy" thing over them or that the only way to kill a were is with silver..... They are still human and can feel pain and death just like any other. They just have tapped into their minds a little further than normal people and enjoy "activities" that may frighten some.

If you believe this than i have to tell you that vampirism is a legend based on a) the catholic church and Vlad III Dracula in walachia :/

People drinkin blood and thus being immortal, this story is old, ancient egypt, mesopotamia, india, they believed in it. The legend after dracula was, well formed by stroker on the one hand, oral tradition, and human buzz about super natural things.

Yeah, I agree that the immortal is ludacris and was made up by hollywood and the fact of Dracula being created by someone taking vampirism way out of context is also true ^^

I believe there are psy-vamps. And I believe that I want nothing to do with them. If you would associate yourself with psy-vamps, or worse are one...

No, i'll stop. I'll not flame you. I'm sure if you are what I think you are the Universe will flame you for me.

Well, Rainer is not as religious as he is spiritual.

And he would also say that Buddisim is more of a philiosophy than a religion.

It seems to be the clostest thing that Rainer is to being religious.


But Rainer once heard a very interesting quote:

"Religion is what the common see as true, the Wise see as false, and the Powerful see as useful."

Rainer found it very thought-provoking.

what the... is a psy-vamp?

And nice quote rainer, who said that?

I found that a good quote too, and I can understand if it is not only thought-provoking, but simply provoking to many.

Tis' a nice quote, and bloody true, too. There are a few instances when powerful people have happily used religion for their own ends. Constantine would be a good example of that. It's widely believed that he converted to Christianity not so much because he was christian, but because it was a politically shrewd move.

I've got no idea what a psy-vamp is (sounds like one of those LARP people), but I do believe in porphyria, which explains vampirism to an extent. And Haemophilia (which has nothing to do with vampirism, but does traslate to 'love of blood' or 'affinity for blood'). Both of which have screwed up the royal dynasties of europe, and both of which is why Vampirism is known in Oblivion as "Porphyric Haemophilia". So there we goes.

EDIT: Found out what a psy-vamp is on Wikipedia. Someone who drains the lifeforce of other people, like their chi. Apparently it's also used as someone who thrives off the pity and compassion of others. Sounds a bit crappy to me.

This post has been edited by Foster: May 24 2006, 08:11 PM

Lol... sounds like the prepies in High-school... suck my happiness away will you? *Hammer TIME!*

MC Hammer always did suck away my happiness too.

Source

Its good you don't know of it. That means chances are you aren't one of them miserable cretins.

Yeah, I have the satanic bible on my own bookshelf for reference, and if you read I believe it's the third post here, I did mention going through that phase. I'm not going to insult any particular religion, but Anton LeVay was a fraud. For instance, he shaved his hair on a dare, it wasn't part of some ritual pact as he claimed. His pet tiger? Beaten, and oftenly, and lived a miserable existence. That's to name just a couple things.

But, those aren't my main challenges of the religion. I jsut wholly disagree with the idea of self-worship, and with the way the whole religion sets itself apart of christian, almost offensively, even calling themselves satanists (and I know the intention behind it) to draw purposeful opposition ot christianity. Besides, only a fleeding number of last-generation catholics and orthodox jews still follow the ideas that everything natural is negative. Most christians today can follow their natural instincts, and have faith in an idol but not have it interrupt them (although many feel guilty).

Also, I chose not to be out for only my own gains. In order to help myself, I must help others, I don't recall that bit being in the satanic bible.

I have the satanic bible too, its so bad, I was just reading it out of curiousity and the non religious theme is sort of ok but uses great compassion examples and stupid explanations, most Atheists could come up with better developed arguements. And the only religion he put forward, that was just plain stupid. I think Anton LeVay just wanted to make his own religion but got lazy after the first page (or word).

Hope there is no Satanists here.

Just for being sure: The satanic church is a sect right? Ordinary satanists?
Strange enough those people, like every sect... in fact i often think how dumb one has to be to join a sect, give away all his possessions, and believe some ordinary dork's preachings...
And this psy vamp stuff... does that actually work?! I mean has anyone ever heard of ones "life force" being drained by some self proclaimed lunatic?

I believe in the "life force", "chi" in itself, though not in a way like hindu or buddhist people do, for me it's more like being conscious of you, your body, your mind and your deeds and your environment - more an intelligence thing to me.

This post has been edited by ThanadoS: May 25 2006, 08:31 AM

Not a sect as much as just a general philosophy this one guy decided to turn into a religion.

There's also satanism that, as strange as it sounds, actually does worship satan, and funnily enough it's very similar to Levay's satanism, worship of what comes naturally, of inner desires, etcetera.

And on giving up possessions and stuff, I think you're thinking of a cult, not just a sect, a cult being in the eye of the beholder, as I think all organized religions are cults.

Finally, I've had interviews with people who claimed to be psi vamps, and my conclusion, after talking to at least ten, is "No." I tend to believe whatever is most sensible, with the variation of accepting nothing as absolute truth, or as base-truth. But, that doesn't leave me as one of those crazies that thinks Oswald actually killed Kennedy or anything, I think of it this way, "eliminate the impossible and you're left with the truth." I found, after many, many interviews that psi-vamps are impossible, and that if there was any truth to it it would be psychological. The body is capable of doing funny things if the mind finds it capable.