Ultimate Forum Rules Fail

[Annik]

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[Angrboda]

I can't help but be struck by the similarity between this style of forum management, and that practiced by the Loose Change forum and other 9/11 Truther forums. On such boards, truth is tolerated only so long as it falls within the prior established boundaries of what The Truth[TM] is. It's basically dogmatism itself as a principle of operation.

And I can understand Polaris' point, somewhat, that these forums are operated for the benefit of Christians and that allowing debate and anti-theism to disrupt that purpose is certainly a valid concern. However, if your truth is so fragile that you have to erect special barriers to its dismantling, maybe it's not a very good truth? ("If your faith can move mountains, it should be able to handle a little criticism.") All the same, there are goals which are more social, ministerial, shepherding, and concerned with the well being of others (in terms of the fate of their souls) which are not totally unjustifiable given that they are Christian forums. I've only ever participated on one Christ centered forum, and that is theologyweb.com. They handle this issue by segregating their forum to allow for conflict to occur in a controlled way. There is one section for duking it out, supposedly to let their members develop their apologetic skills, there's a section for comparative religion, there's a section or two for doctrinaire concerns, there's a section which hosts outside apologetics content, and there's even a section where non-theists can post, but theists cannot. (And there's a "Psychotherapy Room" section where, if you're ticked off about a forum rule or moderator action, you can rant to your heart's content — and not simply to defuse your objection, they make some effort to see if things can't be, in some measure, worked out.)

Anyway, tWeb is an interesting place, with considerable religious diversity combined with a strong Christ centered focus, and while I have some reservations still, I think they do a good job of being fair and accommodating to all. (As much as can be expected, maybe.)

[Polaris]

Dude. There are plenty of cultures where food is a key to ceremony and it's not even based on a religious background. Food ceremonies alone do not lean towards the similarity of religions.

Yeah I completely agree, but to say Mithraism was a gathering of neighbours over food at best is actually quite laughable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking you here, but I'm seriously wondering to myself if you're genuinely being serious with your view about Mithraism and their holy communion.

Because they served different purposes. It was not a holy communion, but more as a form of initiation....think stereotypical Iron Age Germanic paganism.

[FallentoReason]

Yeah I completely agree, but to say Mithraism was a gathering of neighbours over food at best is actually quite laughable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking you here, but I'm seriously wondering to myself if you're genuinely being serious with your view about Mithraism and their holy communion.

Because they served different purposes. It was not a holy communion, but more as a form of initiation....think stereotypical Iron Age Germanic paganism.

Justin Martyr blows your cover. He states that these devils had the same rituals and goes even further to say that Paganism is at times an exact mimicry of what Jesus did, which of course, must have been set up by the devil to derail the faithful. He mentions things like Dionysus (god of wine and winemaking) is only similar to Christ (who turned water to wine) because it's all a set up.

It's safe to say Justin was possibly one of the sloppiest apologists to ever live. Of course that sort of backwards thinking to prove Jesus was the truth over all other traditions that pre-existed for centuries was perfectly fine back then.

[Lion IRC]

No idea what that is.

Pslam 110 and Genesis 14.
Dodgy passages at best. Melchizadek in Pslam could be anyone from King of Salem to a high priest. Salem is traditionally taken as the old name for Jerusalem before the events of the Binding of Isaac.
Many critics have said that the mention of Melchizadek in Genesis 14 doesn't match the flow of the previous verses and would seem to be inserted.
Also I would like to point out that many of the passages in Genesis undermine themselves and have extremely suspect circumstances occurring that would not look out of place as a work of fiction. Using it as a historical document is a huge mistake.

Fact of the matter is even if we were to take all documents regardless of plausibility seriously then Mithra would still have been around long before Christ was even born. Considering how similar their stories are... well it doesn't look good now, does it. If I were Mithra I'd consider suing for plagiarism.
So yeah, try again Lion.

Melchizadek's Bread and Wine offering inserted in Genesis 14?
WUT? !!!

When do you claim that was done?

I dont think you know what you're talking about.
Melchizadek has been in Genesis since long before Roman Mithraism.