Heathen Superstitions

[SallyF]

Treatise on the Heathen Superstitions that Today Live Among the Indians Native to this New Spain, 1629

"The Treatise of Hernando Ruiz de Alarcón is one of the most important surviving documents of early colonial Mexico. It was written in 1629 as an aid to Roman Catholic churchmen in their efforts to root out the vestiges of pre-Columbian Aztec religious beliefs and practices. ... With great care and attention to detail Ruiz de Alarcón collected and recorded Aztec religious practices and incantations that had survived a century of Spanish domination (sometimes in his zeal extracting information from his informants through force and guile)." https://books.google.com.au/books/about ... edir_esc=y

Paying particular attention to the belief that Jesus was a human sacrifice to assuage the anger of the mythological Jehovah god (of whom there is no evidence offered other than belief and human writings) and that Christians pretend to eat the meat and drink the blood of the human sacrifice: is Christianity also full of "heathen superstition" ...?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 30 by rikuoamero]

I take it then that either you haven't been paying attention to what's been said in this thread

Yes, you are correct, I pay little attention to the spin that many introduce. Yet, it seems that you are unaware that the OP's point was related to heathen superstitions, where the attempt was made to try and tie this statement to Christianity! Quote: "Paying particular attention to the belief that Jesus was a human sacrifice to assuage the anger of the mythological Jehovah." This statement and the rest of the OP's comments are not biblical, thus not truth.

Or you are ignorant as to the existence of Roman Catholicism, the largest denomination of Christianity.

Well, as far as, being ignorant as to Catholicism, you surely have no idea of the extent of my knowledge related to Catholicism and making such a comment, without this knowledge, is a clear indication of the weakness in your argument…

However, transubstantiation is clearly a doctrine and not a superstition! Which, (again) is the main point of the OP. Yet, the bible shows that this doctrine is not supported, thus is in error and non-Christian. The reality of true Christianity is not determined by men or organizations, but by the teachings of the Christ. So, when these teachings are ignored or misunderstood by man, they cannot be labeled as Christian. So, bringing them up, adds no real value to the topic. Since, the Christ doesn't support this doctrine, it is labeled as a false doctrine and non-Christian…Hence, not a part of true Christianity!

I see no differene between someone who refuses to walk under a ladder, or avoids a black cat, or crosses themselves when near a church, or sprinkles themselves with what is believed to be magic holy water, or eats a wafer and drinks wine

Yet, the religious really don't care what the anti-religious claim about their doctrinal structure...except to show the errors of their (anti-religious) ways. This is the same attitude that the anti-religious take concerning their doctrinal position. However, they (religious) should be concerned about what God and His Son think about them. So, as I will continue to state: The points of the OP are not considered superstitions. They are doctrines, which relate to God and His Son.

So, some doctrines (today) "that many support" are non-Christian or teachings that are not from the Christ and must be rejected. Thus, the problem facing the anti-religious and the religious in general, is correctly determining: which is which…

Oh! By the way, it seems that you are unmindful that in Catholicism, the general parishioners do not partake in the drinking from the cup…Thus, in the Catholic Eucharist service, they do no drink the wine, nor any "figurative" blood…

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 31 by FWI]

However, transubstantiation is clearly a doctrine and not a superstition!

If it's someone else's culture, it's superstition. If it's Christianity, it's doctrine.


If it's someone else's culture, it's magic. If it's Christianity, it's miracle.


If it's someone else's culture, it's fortune telling. If it's Christianity, it's prophecy.


If it's someone else's culture, it's a false god. If it's Christianity, it's "God".


If it's someone else's culture, it's mythology. If it's Christianity, it's "scripture".


If it's someone else's culture, it's Joshua. If it's Christianity, it's Jesus.


If it's someone else's culture, it's a zombie. If it's Christianity, it's the "Risen Lord".


If it's someone else's culture, they're all bound for Hell. If it's Christianity, they're the ONLY ones bound for Heaven.

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 31 by FWI]

The reality of true Christianity is not determined by men or organizations, but by the teachings of the Christ.

I'm pretty sure that's the determination made by ALL men and organisations concerning the determinations they make about the teachings of the Messiah/Christ/Politically Anointed One. Including, I suggest, yours.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by FWI]

Oh! By the way, it seems that you are unmindful that in Catholicism, the general parishioners do not partake in the drinking from the cup…Thus, in the Catholic Eucharist service, they do no drink the wine, nor any "figurative" blood…

Pull the other one! I'm a former Catholic! I know all about the drinking of the magical wine-turned-blood.

Everything you said in this reply is a completely biased outlook on the question of superstition. As Sally says in the reply before this one, if it's your own religion, you regard it as doctrine, as truth, as scripture, as a miracle, but from your viewpoint, the other people from the other religions are the ones with superstitions...whereas from my point of view, you're both superstitious.
The reason some people don't walk under ladders, while you or other Christians drink the wine at Mass (don't deny that this happens) is more or less the same - there is a belief of a causal connection between the act (or the non-act) and what happens to you later.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 32 by SallyF]

It seems that you are trying to connect religion with culture here! This is in error…

True religion is something that has been started by God, who has given humans a set of rules and regulations to follow. These instructions were given in varies forms, until God decided to write them into the minds of His true followers. Thus, there are no interventions or interpretations by the human being, which can change these instructions, even though they try. This is why I claim that there is Christianity and True Christianity, which both are quite different from each other.

While, culture is something that people themselves start. It can be their way of living, depending on circumstances and what type of area they are living in and many other factors.

Religion comes from a single entity, and everyone has the right to practice it on their own, without any outside influence. Culture, on the other hand, is the collective action of people living in a particular place and the actions of others do have an effect on individuals.

So, with this understanding I will agree with your comments 1-7, but include True Christianity, instead of just Christianity. Because, of the huge difference between the two terms. Yet, I disagree with #8. There is no such place as a hell! And, those who claim that they go to heaven (after death) is not biblical. This is clearly outlined in Revelation 21 of the bible. However, it is truly a mystery why anyone would want to reject this, not just for ourselves, but also for our loved ones and fellow man…

[Zzyzx]

.
“True God� and “True Christianity� are matters of OPINION. No one has a copyright or authorization to decide the matter except for themselves.

“True God� = The one I worship

“True Christianity� = My sect / denomination / cult (and maybe a few others that agree with us)

Regarding why anyone would reject the promise of heaven: It is rational to reject promises that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate. People can promise anything – delivering is another matter. "Take my word for it (or his or this book)" isn't convincing to many.

A wise person is likely to reject a promise of wealth 'after you die' in return for investment now, but many accept the promise of heaven (or 'salvation') after you die in return for worship (and perhaps donations).

[SallyF]

[Replying to post 35 by FWI]

True religion is something that has been started by God

I going to go way out on a wild limb and guess that you belong to the "true religion" ….?


Which helpfully reinforces the points I was making above.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 33 by SallyF]

Quote from FWI:
The reality of true Christianity is not determined by men or organizations, but by the teachings of the Christ.

I'm pretty sure that's the determination made by ALL men and organisations concerning the determinations they make about the teachings of the Messiah/Christ/Politically Anointed One.

There are many religious groups that claim to be Christian, which hold different beliefs concerning their understandings of God, the Christ and the Spirit of God. Yet, you seem to suggest that all (who claim to be Christian) are correct, because each group thinks they are. This is counter to the teaching of the bible. There can be only one true belief system given by God…All others are a counterfeit.

The Christ clearly reveals that his true followers will be a "little flock" and not numbered in the hundreds of millions. Where, this "little flock" will come from the time of the Christ, until the end of man's rule on this earth. The Christ also stated that many are called, but few are chosen…So, your premise is non-biblical.

Including, I suggest, yours.

This also is incorrect (this should be clear through my postings). I am not a Christian, as you understand one! I attend no religious gatherings, nor do I receive my understandings from men. Which, I suggest you have…So, the labeling of myself is futile.

Note: As to your comment in post 37: Only God and His Son knows who is included in the true religion. What I may believe is useless in this area. However, I try to live according to the understandings given me…Therefore, your points are not reinforced by my beliefs…

[1213]

...and that Christians pretend to eat the meat and drink the blood of the human sacrifice: is Christianity also full of "heathen superstition" ...?

If Christian “pretend to eat meat and blood�, I think they are not really disciples of Jesus and not living by the teachings of Jesus. If I eat meat, I really eat meat, I am not pretending to do so.

People who are pretending should know this:

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

It is really not about flesh.

[Tcg]

...and that Christians pretend to eat the meat and drink the blood of the human sacrifice: is Christianity also full of "heathen superstition" ...?

If Christian “pretend to eat meat and blood�, I think they are not really disciples of Jesus and not living by the teachings of Jesus. If I eat meat, I really eat meat, I am not pretending to do so.

People who are pretending should know this:

It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63

It is really not about flesh.

Jesus disagrees. In the very same sermon he said this:

• John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day."

It is the pretenders, as you claim they are, who have eternal life. In this version of what it takes to have eternal life, it isn't righteousness, nor belief, nor baptism, but rather this specific superstitious practice that qualifies one.



Tcg