RCC is satanic

[Amanah]

Bro E

Meta gave me this on Hislop

I believe you are referring to Alexander Hislop, a British clergyman and scholar who lived in the 19th century. Hislop is best known for his controversial and influential book "The Two Babylons," which explores the origins of ancient Babylonian religion and its supposed connections to modern Catholicism.

In his work, Hislop indeed makes comparisons between various ancient deities, including:

- Inanna/Ishtar (Babylonian goddess) and Isis (Egyptian goddess)
- Tammuz (Babylonian god) and Horus (Egyptian god)
- Nimrod (Biblical figure) and Osiris (Egyptian god)

Hislop's theories have been widely criticized and disputed by scholars and historians, who argue that his interpretations are based on incomplete and inaccurate understandings of ancient cultures and mythologies. Despite this, Hislop's work remains a significant and influential contribution to the field of religious studies and comparative mythology.

[Amanah]

And when asked why Hislop was discredited, meta gave me this

Alexander Hislop's work, particularly "The Two Babylons," has been widely criticized and disputed by scholars and historians. While Hislop's theories were influential in their time, they are now largely considered discredited and lacking academic rigor.

Many experts have pointed out errors, inaccuracies, and methodological flaws in Hislop's research, including:

- Lack of primary sources and reliance on secondary materials
- Misinterpretation and mistranslation of ancient texts
- Failure to consider historical context and cultural nuances
- Overemphasis on superficial similarities between cultures
- Lack of peer review and critical evaluation

As a result, Hislop's work is not considered reputable or reliable by most scholars in the fields of ancient history, archaeology, and comparative religion. It is essential to approach his work with a critical eye and consult more credible and up-to-date sources for accurate information.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I suppose you think I'm, please enlighten me

Excuse me?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Excuse me?

Since you think I'm wrong l, please feel free to correct me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Since you think I'm wrong l, please feel free to correct me.

I was asking you a question.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I was asking you a question.

I was taught that the Trinity was paganism adopted by the RCC.

If so, there are lots of trinitarians who are incorporating paganism into their version of Christianity.

And there are other religions that also have trinitarian beliefs:

Here is a list of triune deities in various religions currently operating today ¹ ²:

- Christianity: One God in three divine persons - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (also known as the Holy Trinity)
- Hinduism:
- Trimurti (three forms): Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer
- Tridevi (three goddesses): Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Parvati (consorts of the Trimurti gods)
- Neopaganism and Wicca: A triple goddess (maiden, mother, crone) is a central figure in many Wiccan traditions
- Roman Polytheism: Diana as a "three-form goddess" (diva triformis) - goddess of the hunt, moon, and the underworld
- Celtic Polytheism: Brigid (sometimes one goddess, sometimes three sisters), the Morrigan (one goddess or three sisters), and the three goddesses of sovereignty (Ériu, Fódla, and Banba)

[Amanah]

As far as how prevalent these beliefs are:

Here is how prevalent the triune deities are in various religions ¹ ² ³:
- Christian Trinity: Central to Christian doctrine and the largest religion in the world
- Hindu Triune: Part of a larger complex of beliefs, widely accepted in Hinduism
- Neopagan and Wiccan Triple Goddess: Central figure in many Wiccan traditions
- Roman Polytheism: Not a central figure, but still an important aspect of Roman religion
- Celtic Polytheism: Not a central figure, but still an important aspect of Celtic religion
- Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Religious Daoism: Personalized trinitarian Godheads that are not central to the religion's beliefs, but are still important aspects of their respective religions
It is important to note that some of these trinities are more central to their respective religions than others.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Thank you

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

As far as how prevalent these beliefs are:

Here is how prevalent the triune deities are in various religions ¹ ² ³:
- Christian Trinity: Central to Christian doctrine and the largest religion in the world
- Hindu Triune: Part of a larger complex of beliefs, widely accepted in Hinduism
- Neopagan and Wiccan Triple Goddess: Central figure in many Wiccan traditions
- Roman Polytheism: Not a central figure, but still an important aspect of Roman religion
- Celtic Polytheism: Not a central figure, but still an important aspect of Celtic religion
- Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Religious Daoism: Personalized trinitarian Godheads that are not central to the religion's beliefs, but are still important aspects of their respective religions
It is important to note that some of these trinities are more central to their respective religions than others.

The triadic and trinitarian concepts seem to be a feature of Indo-European religious belief. Some of these you mentioned are later post-catholic developments so we can definitely see where they got their ideas from (Wicca and "theosophy" for example). Hinduism was actually influenced by both Iranian/Persian, Greek/Roman, and yes Catholic religious ideas. And Buddhism of course springs from Hinduism. Daoism is an interesting case, as it is more of a collection of various ideas that attempts to be held together by the philosophy of "the Tao". It is a mixture of chinese folklore and philosophy, possibly influenced by Persian/Iranian and Indian ideas.

In any event, the problem I have found is research into this area seems to be limited to 3 main groups or streams of thought, all of which have inherent assumptions that are problematic. The first is Hislop and those who base their ideas on his work (The Two Babylons). Hislop's sources were sparse, and he filled in the blanks quite a bit from his own suppositions. Later archaeological findings have shown that he was off base in several important areas. The second stream is the theosophical movement which came about around the same time as Hislop (maybe a bit earlier) and which likes to reinterpret all ancient religious belief in accordance with their own ideas. So they write as if the ancients were basically Theosophists, which is not a very scholarly approach to things. The third group is the modern secular criticalists, who have their dates all wrong and take a macro-evolutionary view of religion and anthropology.

From what I have been able to determine wading through all this, it seems the Indo-European peoples shared a common religious belief system (with many localised variations) that likely extended from the post-Flood era. These beliefs are a corrupted version of the Biblical reality concerning God, His Plan, etc. I have not figured out the origin of the triadism, but I suspect it is probably a natural development of thought - if you begin with God, then naturally the idea of "not-God" or even "anti-God" immediately comes into view. There is Light, then there must also be Dark. Good requires "evil", etc. This dualism then upon reflection raises the issue of the "source" of the dualism, and voila you have some kind of triadic concept.

Even in Genesis you have God (1) creating the heavens (2) and the earth (3). You have God (1) in the Dark (2) making Light (3). The creation Week is 7 days, two groups of three with a finishing one. You have three annual Feasts (Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles). Etc etc.

The problem is the pagans converted certain mathematical observations into religious beliefs, deified them, and worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. Kind of like Romans 1 details.

[Praxeas]

Hislops history is very questionable. For example his 'history" on Semiramis and Ninrod us a mixture of truth and blatant inaccuracies