I am actually an occultist rather than out and out Pagan, and I use sacrifice valued more than blood in workings
It's a complete recreation and reinterpretation, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate religion. After all, Jesus was just a reinterpretation of Mithras
Well, I'm a "Highlander" fan, and in that old tv show he goes Zoroastrian! But with less joking for a few seconds -- I have a strong favoritism for the maxim, "If it's not broken, don't fix it" in all contexts. Eastern Catholic is the original form of Christianity, so, that's where I sit when I'm not playing with the Theravada Buddhists -- again going for the original form.
yep we have met but thanks for the welcome anyways. Its a shame no one here likes master wong. I thought he kinda acted like he knows what he is doing... I know I wouldn't want to get into a fight with him. But I guess it could all just be for show.
To be entirely fair, you're probably some type of evangelical, which is about as flimsy of a glass house as you can get, put your stones away buddy.
B.A. you are free to post discussion oriented criticisms or issues you have with Catholicism. I myself (as a member of the GLBT community and a Pagan who grew up Catholic) have lots of disagreements with the Catholic Church. But this is just Catholic bashing with no purpose towards constructive conversation. I will once again remind you that intolerant bashing an entire group of people is NOT allowed on MAP.
More accurately it is the original "official", that is state sponsored, version. And the oldest surviving -(as in living tradition)- version.
How far back do you go to find the "original" though? Judaism? Zoroastrianism? ...shamanic nature cult?
That's still a work-in-progress for me. The study of religion is my other hobby, and I come at it in an "integral theory" fashion, so little by little the perceived differences are being absorbed into a unified whole.
What non-surviving version of Christianity is older than Acts 11:26? ("The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch [Syria]") Or were you referring rather to Theravada Buddhism?
Yeah... it's a nice idea, but smacks of trancendental wishful thinking to me. I don't think there's evidence to suggest that we are any more spiritually "advanced" than we have been at any other time in history, and postmodernism put the brakes on the idea that progress is either inevitable, or a good thing in-and-of itself. I feel a discussion about the council of Nicea coming on...
Well,at least somebody understood what I meant. Yeah,Aiki,irrelevant what it says in Acts.Constantine wanted a unified religion for the empire,hence the "package" which came out of Nicea was the newly codified agreed on orthodoxy. After that,anyone who followed the teachings,gospels,etc. which were not "officially" recognized and agreed upon at the council were deemed heretics. Having been raised in a house bursting at the seams w/works from various religions and anthropological studies I'll say good luck on finding a unified whole as to the salvation part of the salvation religions.Irreconcilable differences with Buddhism's salvation and Christianic/Islamic salvation. Unless an individual just wishes to reinterpret things in one's own fashion for one's own purposes. But,y'know,contrary to popular sentiment,all MAs don't lead to the same place either. OK,ok.So stone me,that proves I'm a heretic.
Irrelevant?! Pfffttt, that's absurd. As a matter of definition, because that's what they were literally doing -- defining the faith -- whatever the several ecumenical councils decided is "Christianity." So, if I want the oldest Christianity, I must -- by definition -- remain within the ecumenical councils. When I go backwards from there I will end up in the Book of Acts. And if I want something else then I'll look elsewhere. No big deal. It's all about what I want. Intelligent minds will differ. I actually wrote on this topic. It's the 2nd link in my signature.