Christianity

[maroonlegions]

. I take it those telling us to read and study the bible  then make your mind up would also admit that me asking them to read and study "occult" based teachings and  literature  then make your mind up on the occult  is a justifiable demand then??  

 

Nothing has effect if you do not realise the cause.

 

If this bible is truly the word of a supreme being then why has it failed to bring about world peace, why have  religions got the the same old line of a saviour and redeemer.

 

Study the  ancient Babylonian concept of a holy trinity, there is a statue depicting a Babylonian woman  with a child which is a remiss of Mary and Christ???

 

.. then we have the same old  mother saviour child again manifesting in ancient Egypt with Isis,Osiris and Horus and Set being Satan..

 

The bible is one big fecked up mishmash of ancient religions, that stretch far back as ancient Sumerian  , Egyptian  and Babylonian  religious teachings,.

 

The church of Rome is in fact the ancient church of Babylon..  Anyone seeing a link here, mind fecking with morality and the fear of the unknown   .

 

I believe in a intelligence that wants you to experience and find out for yourself the true meaning of existence and not have you weigh down by the fear of dogmatic eternal damnation if one dares to stray or tow the line. 

[maroonlegions]

Ask any far right "neo con" Christian if they live by the bible or even understand it,  you might  find a lot of them involved in the American political circus..

 

"Lust oh man and fear not that any god will deny you" ...  

 

Crowley.. Libber 777..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Norm]

. I take it those telling us to read and study the bible then make your mind up would also admit that me asking them to read and study "occult" based teachings and literature then make your mind up on the occult is a justifiable demand then??

Sure. If someone asked if the teachings of the Zohar were correct or if The Book of the Law was all true, I'd say have a read and tell me what you think.

 

If they pushed me for an opinion, I'd say no as I don't believe in the existence of any "deities" or spirits, whether they're Judaic, Egyptian or otherwise in origin.

 

But if it's what floats your boat and helps you through the day, and doesn't infringe on anyone else's basic rights, knock yourself out. Believe whatever makes you happy.

 

Just make sure to stock up on smudge sticks.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

. I take it those telling us to read and study the bible  then make your mind up would also admit that me asking them to read and study "occult" based teachings and  literature  then make your mind up on the occult  is a justifiable demand then??  

 

Nothing has effect if you do not realise the cause.

 

If this bible is truly the word of a supreme being then why has it failed to bring about world peace, why have  religions got the the same old line of a saviour and redeemer.

 

Study the  ancient Babylonian concept of a holy trinity, there is a statue depicting a Babylonian woman  with a child which is a remiss of Mary and Christ???

 

.. then we have the same old  mother saviour child again manifesting in ancient Egypt with Isis,Osiris and Horus and Set being Satan..

 

The bible is one big fecked up mishmash of ancient religions, that stretch far back as ancient Sumerian  , Egyptian  and Babylonian  religious teachings,.

 

The church of Rome is in fact the ancient church of Babylon..  Anyone seeing a link here, mind fecking with morality and the fear of the unknown   .

 

I believe in a intelligence that wants you to experience and find out for yourself the true meaning of existence and not have you weigh down by the fear of dogmatic eternal damnation if one dares to stray or tow the line. 

 

500 years ago you would have been burnt at the stake for saying that Christianity had 'Borrowed' so much from other older religions.

 

What has always stuck in my throat, is if Christianity is a religion of peace and goodwill to all men, then why was everybody who dared speak out against Christianity ruthlessly killed and silenced.

[Sidelight]

Thanks, that certainly helps with perspective.

 

I disagree with those who say it is literally true, and think it causes problems and drives people away from the core messages, but I also know people who fervently believe that and they're kind and generous for the most part.

 

Bart Ehrman is Biblical scholar, a former fundamentalist, and now agnostic.  His book, "Misquoting Jesus" (Ehrman himself will tell you he didn't get to pick the title) is mostly about minor differences in the early versions of Biblical texts (most of which are things like spelling and punctuation), but his introduction gets into a lot of the reasons he couldn't continue to believe in Biblical literalism.  He has a follow-up (which his attention-seeking publishers named, "Forged") that covers a few of the epistles of the New Testament that claim to be written by Paul but almost certainly weren't.  (I personally have read most of Misquoting but have not read Forged.)

 

Marcus Borg has also written many books that engage in Biblical scholarship but which argue against Biblical literalism: http://www.marcusjborg.com/my-books/

 

Of course your relatives will disagree with me.  They will have resources of their own.

 

You'll have to sort it out for yourself, find out which voices seem trustworthy and coherent.  "Nobody else can walk it for you," as the song goes.

 

To me it seems disappointing that here the topic of Christianity should come to such a hopeless conclusion.

For me the theme that permeates your musings is the rejection of the authority of God?s Word as proclaimed in the bible. Dismantling and discrediting the foundational teaching of Genesis being the most obvious.

Sure you cite biblical contradictions and the actions of an angry god as reasons for your disbelief. However I thought it important to highlight especially for others that many scholars hold an opposed view and show that there is a logical explanation for the supposed error.

You suggest God has acted harshly or out of character in some OT accounts but with situations taken in context we clearly see great sin by the people, but also a God acting justly and always providing a means of salvation. The Egyptians and Canaanites peoples are perhaps the most obvious.

Jesus asked his disciples: ?who do you say that I am? (Matt 16:15)

My question to you is this. How can you be sure who Jesus is or is not, and what is true or untrue based on scripture, when you view much of it as a fallible and unreliable myth?

And for those who don?t know and perhaps don?t care Christianity is not a religious code or practice but rather about knowing the person of Jesus.

[That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.] Gospel of John 3: 15-18

The cross is still there and the above is an invitation to all.

UA I wish you nothing but the best for your life ? May God bless you and your family.

 

 

[maroonlegions]

Its my perception that Christianity was derived  from earlier religious based writings sand teachings.

 

From an occult perspective and understanding it is no surprise that similarities  can and do arise between all religions because they all embrace the same dogmatic  concept of peaching to the uninitiated or  those unaware of their own ability to realise that that all life is spirit,( inner dimensional), in a physical form and that they  have the ability to  expand consciousness to better understand who they really are, and why they are here, and were they can go by their own endeavours.

 

Easier to entertain  the concept that a region can do it for you ,that is get one to heaven by simply obeying and doing it their way..How can one  really understand from a non experience or non initiated ,(knowledgeable based consciousness expansion)., the true meaning of this physical life..

 

For me its a very dangerous game placing your faith or trust onto someone or some faith based religious institutions, lets say all religions have got it wrong , what then..    

 

Take the account of the Christian  Genesis ,(creation), and the ancient Babylonian creation called "Enuma Elish", there is a high % of  similarities between the two , although scholars differ on the dates of just what one was written first.

 

Also in the Babylonian myths,(religious), we have the concept of a mother,(Mary), and her son or a Jesus type god/saviour or righteous man.  

 

OLD TESTAMENT ANLYSIS

Gensis & Babylonian Creation Myths Compared

 

COMPARING TWO CREATION STORIES: GENESIS 1  & A BABYLONIAN STORY OF ORIGINS

Pasted from http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

 

 

Genesis
God creates all matter, but is independent 
of it Earth is in darkness and chaos over 
the deep (Tehom).

 

Enuma Elish
The Divine Spirits and cosmic matters 
coexist and are coeternal. There is a 
primeval chaos in which the gods war 
against the deep (Tiamat).
 

Genesis
1st day the creation of light
 

Enuma Elish
Light emanates from the gods

 

Genesis
2nd day the dome of the sky is created
 

Enuma Elish
creation of the firmament (dome

 

Genesis
3rd day creation of dry land
 

Enuma Elish
creation of dry land
 

Genesis
4th day creation of heavenly lights
 

Enuma Elish
creation of heavenly lights
 

Genesis
5th day creation of animals

--------

Genesis
6th day creation of man

 

Enuma Elish
creation of man

 

 

Genesis
God rests and sanctifies the sabbath
 

Enuma Elish
the gods rest and celebrate with a banquet

 

 

 

 

Now without trying to sound like a smart arse one can be forgiven to now look  suspiciously towards the ancient  Egyptian  Gods and Goddesses or their similarities and  again  the holy trinity of father, son and god surfaces.

 

We have Osiris, Isis and their son Horus.

 

Comparison of 1st Creation Story with Babylonian Creation Story;

 

The Babylonian creation story is called by its first two words "Enuma Elish." According to archeologists, it was originally written circa 1120 BCE. It was discovered in 1875 CE. It bears many points of similarity to the first creation story in the Bible: ₁

 

Item

Jewish Creation Story

Babylonian Creation Story

Source

Genesis 1:1 to 2:3

 

Enuma Elish

Date of writing (liberal belief)

8th or 9th century BCE

Late 12th century BCE

 

Date of writing (conservative belief)

13th century BCE, the time of Moses

 

Late 12th century BCE.

Author (liberal belief)

"P," authors of the Priestly tradition.

 

Unknown.

Author (conservative belief)

 

Moses.

Unknown.

Creator(s) of the universe

 

A single God, YHVH.

A God battling a Goddess.

Initial state of the earth

 

Desolate waste; covered in darkness.

Chaos; enveloped in darkness.

 

First development;

 

Light created.

Light created.

 

Next development

Firmament created - a rigid dome over the earth separating the earth and heaven.

Firmament created; also perceived as a rigid dome.

 

Next development;

Dry land created.

Dry land created.

 

Next development;

Sun, moon, stars created.

Sun, moon, stars created.

 

 

Next development;

Creation of men and women.

Creation of men and women.

 

Final development;

God rests and sanctify the Sabbath.

Gods rest and celebrate.

 

The many points of similarity between the two traditions is conclusive proof that one story was derived from the other (or that both were derived from a still older original). Sumerian..?? 

 

According to liberal theologians, the Babylonian account of creation was written in the 12th century BCE, centuries earlier than the Biblical account. According to conservative Christian theologians, the opposite happened: the Babylonian account was written afterthe Biblical account.

 

 

If one is entering a debate on rebuttals  of evidence, dates and comparability between Christianity and other ancient religious  accounts  then its imperative  that any personal religious  bias is left behind.

 

References:

1. "Liberals vs conservatives," 1999-NOV-11, Aus.religion.christian newsgroup, at:http://www.pastornet.net.au/
2. 
   http://www.cumber.edu/acad/rel/hbible/HebrewBible/hbmisc/enumaeli.htm 
   http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/sess4/enuma.htm 
   http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/7418/lk11.htm 
   http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_TC.HTM

[Watt-Zeefuik]

 

To me it seems disappointing that here the topic of Christianity should come to such a hopeless conclusion.

For me the theme that permeates your musings is the rejection of the authority of God?s Word as proclaimed in the bible. Dismantling and discrediting the foundational teaching of Genesis being the most obvious.

Sure you cite biblical contradictions and the actions of an angry god as reasons for your disbelief. However I thought it important to highlight especially for others that many scholars hold an opposed view and show that there is a logical explanation for the supposed error.

You suggest God has acted harshly or out of character in some OT accounts but with situations taken in context we clearly see great sin by the people, but also a God acting justly and always providing a means of salvation. The Egyptians and Canaanites peoples are perhaps the most obvious.

Jesus asked his disciples: ?who do you say that I am? (Matt 16:15)

My question to you is this. How can you be sure who Jesus is or is not, and what is true or untrue based on scripture, when you view much of it as a fallible and unreliable myth?

And for those who don?t know and perhaps don?t care Christianity is not a religious code or practice but rather about knowing the person of Jesus.

[That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.] Gospel of John 3: 15-18

The cross is still there and the above is an invitation to all.

UA I wish you nothing but the best for your life ? May God bless you and your family.

 

First off, alfajambo, you have never been anything but gracious and respectful in our conversations, and though we disagree on theology, I likewise wish you and yours all the peace and grace of Christ.

 

What I have observed, and what has been shared with me, is that the most powerful form of witness we can have is to be utterly truthful in testifying to our experiences of Christ.  In the same way that 1 John 1:8 says that when we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, likewise I say that if I were to say I were utterly sure of anything regarding God or Christianity, I would be deceiving myself and others.  My experience has been that when I testify to my own experience, which is a muddle of confusion and uncertainty but ultimately deciding that the act of believing bears good fruit, more people respond to it and are interested to hear more than when I declaratively say that I have the ultimate truth and all who disagree are wrong.  (It's far more enjoyable to declare I have the ultimate truth, and trying to retain humility of knowledge is a constant practice for me, lest others do the job of humbling for me.  The Spirit speaks to each person in different ways -- just because my voice and my views are not what someone needs to hear does not mean that person cannot hear.  As such, if people say, "what makes you so sure?" the most honest answer I can give is, "I am not sure."

 

For the church I am a deacon in and in which my wife is a teaching elder, the Presbyterian Church (United States of America), this is the ordination question that regards scripture:

 

"Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God?s Word to you?"

 

So to answer your question about how I can be sure about Jesus, my answer is the same as it is regarding evolutionary science -- we cannot be sure.  It is impossible. Certainty is a false pride.  Finding that as a truth in both the natural sciences and in the church was an immense comfort to me, and was the beginning of my reconciliation with the church.  Instead, if I accept for myself the Scriptures as the unique and authoritative witness, but accept them as fallible, I can retain the honest position of humility but still be comforted.  I find it the strongest position.

 

And so, yes, I disagree personally with this statement of yours: "And for those who don?t know and perhaps don?t care Christianity is not a religious code or practice but rather about knowing the person of Jesus."  This, historically, is not the norm for Christian churches in ancient times, and is largely a product of Gutenberg, Bacon, Descartes, Luther, and Calvin.  In the medieval period, neither the Eastern nor the Western church would have proposed the view that Christianity was not a practice, but simply a knowing.  The western scholastic, modernist turn to Christianity as a state of knowing rather than a practice is one which includes the PCUSA, but as the aphorism of the Reformed church goes, "reformed and always reforming according to the Word of God," we should never be above new discernment that may find error in our traditions.  I think discerning Christianity as simply a knowing of Jesus has hurt the Reformed church over the years, and think there's room for understanding practice without resorting to full Catholicism or Anglicanism.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

To maroonlegions -- as in other threads, I would generally find your posts easier to read if you wrote your own words and then simply provided links to the texts that you wish to cite, or at least made more limited quotations.  The big cut-and-paste jobs make my eyes glaze over.  But whatever...

 

To my eye it's undeniable that Christianity, and Judaism before it, were heavily influenced by prior religions.  (The similarities in the Epic of Gilgamesh at points are blindingly obvious.)  However, each has strongly unique and differentiating aspects that mark them as distinct from Zoroastrianism or the Egyptian cults or the various sundry other first millennium BCE religions.  Indeed, much of the Pentateuch is strongly worded differentiation from other gods -- there may be similarities on the face of it, but some of that can be jotted down to humans always testifying to their experiences in the context of the words and narratives they already know.

 

To my knowledge, Jesus is largely unique among deities or messiahs of the time in that he was born poor, declaimed military power, preached non-violence and loving ones enemies, turned down the chance at political power, and was tortured and killed in the most humiliating of ways.  None of the stories offered as parallels or precedents for the Gospel that I know of include those elements.

[Irufushi]

Jebus.

[Boris]

 

 

Now without trying to sound like a smart arse one can be forgiven to now look  suspiciously towards the ancient  Egyptian  Gods and Goddesses or their similarities and  again  the holy trinity of father, son and god surfaces.

 

 

 

I remember reading somewhere the theory that Moses, a Prince of Egypt, may well have influenced (or been influenced) by the Egyptian Pharoah who introduce monotheism in Egypty.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#Akhenaten_and_Judeo-Christian-Islamic_monotheism

[Norm]

I remember reading somewhere the theory that Moses, a Prince of Egypt, may well have influenced (or been influenced) by the Egyptian Pharoah who introduce monotheism in Egypty.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten#Akhenaten_and_Judeo-Christian-Islamic_monotheism

One of my favourite historical oddities. Transformed Egypt in to a monotheistic state almost overnight.

 

And then practically wiped from history by the Egyptian's after his death/probable murder.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

One of my favourite historical oddities. Transformed Egypt in to a monotheistic state almost overnight.

 

And then practically wiped from history by the Egyptian's after his death/probable murder.

 

Also picked up and moved the entire capital to one he built from scratch, which was abandoned just as quickly.

[maroonlegions]

Lets look at the comparable histories of Christ to  that of other religious deities and see if there are possibilities that each has fed of each other. Lets see if  these ancient priests /followers of different faith's and who had documented  these so called holy accounts  are in fact getting their holy wires crossed.

 

Yes the documentation of Christ and of other deities of his likeness  i may add, went through a "pass down" system from one priest/follower to another, until the finished story  was concluded.

 

 But in that documentation is there written similarities between the Christian saviour Christ to other religious  deities or Christ"s. If one looks at the terminology of the word "Christ" it is in fact not wholly attributed to Christianity only,. 

 

For me there just two many likenesses between the Christian Christ and other religious deities, the ten listed below is i feel a % that  cannot be over looked or swept under the carpet by religious bias.  

 

Buddha is one perfect example..as is Dionysus and especially  Attis of Phrygia;

 

 

 

 Several interesting books on the subject, such as;

 

1;The World?s Sixteen Crucified Saviours:

 

2;Christianity Before Christ by Kersey Graves,

 

3;and The Christ Conspiracy, and Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S.

 

 

Here are ten of the figures often sited:

 

 

10; Buddha;

 

Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty?seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:?When he [buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self?possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty?nine years of age? ?Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.? (Luke 3:23). 

 

Both were tempted by the ?devil? at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: ?Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.? 

 

To Jesus, he said: ?All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me? (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the ?devil?: ?Get you away from me.?Jesus responded: ??begone, Satan!? (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic?s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: ?If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.? (Matthew 5:29).

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

9;

Krishna;

 

Radha Y Krishna 1.JpgAccording to Bhagavata Purana some believe that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by ?mental transmission? from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother. Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Saviour, and the second person of the Trinity.

 

 Krishna?s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. 

 

The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna?s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as ?the seed of the woman bruising the serpent?s head.? Jesus was called ?the lion of the tribe of Judah.? Krishna was called ?the lion of the tribe of Saki.? Both claimed: ?I am the Resurrection.? Both were ?without sin.? Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

 

 Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured ?all manner of diseases.? Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

 

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

8

Odysseus;

 

Odysseus.JpgHomeric tales about Odysseus emphasize his suffering life, just as in Mark Jesus said that he, too, would suffer greatly. Odysseus is a carpenter like Jesus, and he wants to return his home just as Jesus wants to be welcomed in his native home and later to God?s home in Jerusalem. Odysseus is plagued with unfaithful and dim-witted companions who display tragic flaws. 

 

They stupidly open a magic bag of wind while Odysseus sleeps and release terrible tempests which prevent their return home. These sailors are comparable to Jesus? disciples, who disbelieve Jesus, ask foolish questions, and show general ignorance about everything. It?s amazing that either Odysseus or Jesus ever manage to accomplish anything, given the companions they have, but this simply demonstrates the power and ability of the one true leader who has a divine mandate to lead the people out of darkness and into a brighter future.

 

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

7

Romulus;

 

Romulus Warrior.JpgRomulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth god Vesta sworn to celibacy. His mother claims that the divine impregnated her, yet this is not believed by the King. Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, are tossed in the river and left for dead. (A ?slaughter of the innocents? tale which parallels that of Matthew 2:13-16). 

 

Romulus is hailed as the son of god. He is ?snatched away to heaven? by a whirlwind (It is assumed that the gods took him), and he makes post mortem appearances. In his work Numa Pompilius, Plutarch records that there was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus? death according to Mark 15:33). He also states that Romulus is to be know afterwards as ?Quirinus?; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a ?triple deity? similar to the concept of the Trinity)

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

.6

Dionysus;

 

Baby Dionysus-Reni.JpgDionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a travelling teacher who performed miracles. He ?rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.? He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an Eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25.

 

 He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called ?King of Kings? and ?God of Gods.? He was considered the ?Only Begotten Son,? Savoir,? ?Redeemer,? ?Sin Bearer,? Anointed One,? and the ?Alpha and Omega.? He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of ?Dendrites? or ?Young Man of the Tree? intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

5.

Heracles;

 

Heracles.JpgHeracles is the Son of a god (Zeus). It is recorded that Zeus is both the father and great-great- great grandfather of Heracles, just as Jesus is essentially his own grandpa, being both ?The root and offspring of David? (Revelation 22:16) as he is part of the triune God which is the father of Adam and eventually of Jesus.

 

 Both are doubly related to the Supreme God.Diodorus writes that,?For as regards the magnitude of the deeds which he accomplished it is generally agreed that Heracles has been handed down as one who surpassed all men of whom memory from the beginning of time has brought down an account; 

 

consequently it is a difficult attainment to report each one of his deeds in a worthy manner and to present a record which shall be on a level with labours so great, the magnitude of which won for him the prize of immortality.?Jesus is also said to have done a very large number of good works. John 21:25 says that: ?Jesus did many other things as well. 

 

If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.?Hera tries to kill Heracles as an infant by sending two serpents after him, yet Heracles survives by strangling them. This parallels Herod?s slaughter of the innocents in an attempt to kill Jesus (Matthew 2:13-16).Heracles makes a descent into Hades and returns from it with Theseus and Peiritho?s, just as Jesus descends into the ?lower parts of the earth? or Hades (Ephesians 4:7-8);

 

 Though Jesus does not bring anyone up from it. Heracles? body is not found and he is assumed to have been taken by the gods:?After this, when the companions of Iola?s came to gather up the bones of Heracles and found not a single bone anywhere, they assumed that, in accordance with the words of the oracle, he had passed from among men into the company of the gods.?

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

4;

Glycon;

 

Glykon-Statuette.JpgIn the middle of the 100s AD, out along the south coast of the Black Sea, Glycon was the son of the God Apollo, who: came to Earth through a miraculous birth, was the Earthly manifestation of divinity, came to earth in fulfilment of divine prophecy, gave his chief believer the power of prophecy, gave believers the power to speak in tongues, performed miracles, healed the sick, and raised the dead.

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

3;

Zoroaster/Zarathustra;

 

Zarathustra2.JpgZoroaster was born of a virgin and ?immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.? He was baptised in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptised with water, fire and ?holy wind.? He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgement, salvation and the apocalypse.

 

 He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a Eucharist. He was the ?Word made flesh.? Zoroaster?s followers expected a ?second coming? in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Saviour, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age

 

 

.2

Attis of Phrygia;  My favourite..

 

Phrygrian.JpgAttis was born on December 25   of the Virgin Nana. He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind. His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers. He was both the Divine Son and the Father. On ?Black Friday,? he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth. He descended into the underworld. After three days, Attis was resurrected.:

 

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

 

 1

Horus;

 

Horus 3.JpgBorn of a virgin, Isis. Only begotten son of the God Osiris. Birth heralded by the star Sirius, the morning star. Ancient Egyptians paraded a manger and child representing Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (about DEC-21). In reality, he had no birth date; he was not a human. Death threat during infancy:

 

 Herut tried to have Horus murdered. Handling the threat: The God That tells Horus? mother ?Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.? An angel tells Jesus? father to: ?Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.? Break in life history:  No data between ages of 12 & 30.   Age at baptism: 30. Subsequent fate of the baptiser: Beheaded. Walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, restored sight to the blind. Was crucified, descended into Hell; resurrected after three days.:

[Watt-Zeefuik]

maroonlegions, I'm trying to respond in good faith, but if you don't bother to read my posts and instead cut and paste a bunch of stuff that doesn't address the topic at hand, it's pretty hard to have any kind of conversation.

 

This was my post above.  In the God-knows-how-many lines you just posted, I can't find anything that actually disagrees with anything I've already said.

 

 

To my eye it's undeniable that Christianity, and Judaism before it, were heavily influenced by prior religions.  (The similarities in the Epic of Gilgamesh at points are blindingly obvious.)  However, each has strongly unique and differentiating aspects that mark them as distinct from Zoroastrianism or the Egyptian cults or the various sundry other first millennium BCE religions.  Indeed, much of the Pentateuch is strongly worded differentiation from other gods -- there may be similarities on the face of it, but some of that can be jotted down to humans always testifying to their experiences in the context of the words and narratives they already know.

 

To my knowledge, Jesus is largely unique among deities or messiahs of the time in that he was born poor, declaimed military power, preached non-violence and loving ones enemies, turned down the chance at political power, and was tortured and killed in the most humiliating of ways.  None of the stories offered as parallels or precedents for the Gospel that I know of include those elements.

 

But, see, I managed to do that in about 7 lines of my own words, instead of hundreds of someone else's.  Ye gods, it's a rare time when I'm undeniably on the side of brevity, but here we are.

[Norm]

maroonlegions, I'm trying to respond in good faith, but if you don't bother to read my posts and instead cut and paste a bunch of stuff that doesn't address the topic at hand, it's pretty hard to have any kind of conversation.

 

This was my post above. In the God-knows-how-many lines you just posted, I can't find anything that actually disagrees with anything I've already said.

 

 

But, see, I managed to do that in about 7 lines of my own words, instead of hundreds of someone else's. Ye gods, it's a rare time when I'm undeniably on the side of brevity, but here we are.

So, in modern parlance, what we're looking at is a new product with some USP's such as being born poor, declaiming the army, being a pacifist, avoiding politics and getting it pretty tight when he died.

 

There's a market for this but the board decide (the early Church) that they want to expand in to new markets, so chuck on some extra options such as the the Virgin birth and the Christmas birthday to appeal to other, newer consumers who are already comfortable and expect those features in their Gods.

 

Makes a fair bit of sense to be fair.

 

I actually quite like UA's version of Christianity,assuming I understand it right.

 

Basically, there was a guy called Jesus. He was pretty sound and did some nice stuff. It'd be nice to be able to live like he did because being pretty sound and doing nice stuff is quite cool. The stuff in the bible that is clearly nuts and insane was obviously written by people who were also nuts and insane or driven by a personal agenda so can be ignored. The essence is, Jesus was a nice bloke and everyone should be a bit more like him.

 

I can roll with that.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

So, in modern parlance, what we're looking at is a new product with some USP's such as being born poor, declaiming the army, being a pacifist, avoiding politics and getting it pretty tight when he died.

 

There's a market for this but the board decide (the early Church) that they want to expand in to new markets, so chuck on some extra options such as the the Virgin birth and the Christmas birthday to appeal to other, newer consumers who are already comfortable and expect those features in their Gods.

 

Makes a fair bit of sense to be fair.

 

I actually quite like UA's version of Christianity,assuming I understand it right.

 

Basically, there was a guy called Jesus. He was pretty sound and did some nice stuff. It'd be nice to be able to live like he did because being pretty sound and doing nice stuff is quite cool. The stuff in the bible that is clearly nuts and insane was obviously written by people who were also nuts and insane or driven by a personal agenda so can be ignored. The essence is, Jesus was a nice bloke and everyone should be a bit more like him.

 

I can roll with that.

 

Alfajambo will be on my case after this one! 

 

The description you give is what you'd generally call the Unitarian perspective.  I'll probably lose you here, but I do go further than that.  The insane stuff in the Bible can't just be ignored out of hand; one shouldn't take it as a literal instruction manual, but it's part of the authentic and unique testimony to the Word of God, so you still have to read it and try to understand where it comes from and why it ended up in the canon, even if you ultimately treat it as material to be de-emphasized.  (Like Elisha cursing the kids who call him fat and bald and God sending a bear to kill them all, or calling for the babies of your enemies to be dashed against the rocks, or a good half of Leviticus, or Lot offering his daughters to the mob to have sex with, and so on.)  

 

Jesus was more than a nice guy -- there have been a lot of nice guys through history -- he was the closest thing to God that could still be fully human, and importantly, unlike the rather common claim in antiquity by various rulers to be gods themselves, Jesus made abundantly clear that the most divine thing that a person could be is a servant to other people.  (Luke 22:24-30)  This is more than being nice -- it's turning upside-down the traditional understanding of how a human can be most divine.  Pharaohs and caesars and emperors had been claiming godhood for over a millennium at that point (and that's only the ones we have writing for), but the theology of Jesus is that the highest and greatest thing that mankind can do is to serve others, even if it means going willingly to your own destruction. 

 

But ultimately, and this is really important, Jesus is REALLY explicit in ways that many Christians historically really don't like to pay attention to about what you're supposed to do with all of this if you find it changing your life.  More important than any other commandment, aside from loving God, is loving ones neighbor, and by neighbor he means the unclean heretic and apostate bleeding on the side of the road.  After his resurrection he drives Peter bonkers by saying effectively the same thing three times -- if you love Jesus, the correct response is not to go tell everyone they're wrong, but to take care of each other (even the ones you don't think deserve it).

 

And the perspective that Paul adds is that even when we try to do all this the right way, we're still going to screw up, so don't get too high and mighty about it, but instead be honest and forthright about where we've screwed up.

 

Like I said, I've probably lost you by this point, but the distinction from "be nice like Jesus" (which is certainly not bad advice!) is important.

[Norm]

Alfajambo will be on my case after this one!

 

The description you give is what you'd generally call the Unitarian perspective. I'll probably lose you here, but I do go further than that. The insane stuff in the Bible can't just be ignored out of hand; one shouldn't take it as a literal instruction manual, but it's part of the authentic and unique testimony to the Word of God, so you still have to read it and try to understand where it comes from and why it ended up in the canon, even if you ultimately treat it as material to be de-emphasized. (Like Elisha cursing the kids who call him fat and bald and God sending a bear to kill them all, or calling for the babies of your enemies to be dashed against the rocks, or a good half of Leviticus, or Lot offering his daughters to the mob to have sex with, and so on.)

 

Jesus was more than a nice guy -- there have been a lot of nice guys through history -- he was the closest thing to God that could still be fully human, and importantly, unlike the rather common claim in antiquity by various rulers to be gods themselves, Jesus made abundantly clear that the most divine thing that a person could be is a servant to other people. (Luke 22:24-30) This is more than being nice -- it's turning upside-down the traditional understanding of how a human can be most divine. Pharaohs and caesars and emperors had been claiming godhood for over a millennium at that point (and that's only the ones we have writing for), but the theology of Jesus is that the highest and greatest thing that mankind can do is to serve others, even if it means going willingly to your own destruction.

 

But ultimately, and this is really important, Jesus is REALLY explicit in ways that many Christians historically really don't like to pay attention to about what you're supposed to do with all of this if you find it changing your life. More important than any other commandment, aside from loving God, is loving ones neighbor, and by neighbor he means the unclean heretic and apostate bleeding on the side of the road. After his resurrection he drives Peter bonkers by saying effectively the same thing three times -- if you love Jesus, the correct response is not to go tell everyone they're wrong, but to take care of each other (even the ones you don't think deserve it).

 

And the perspective that Paul adds is that even when we try to do all this the right way, we're still going to screw up, so don't get too high and mighty about it, but instead be honest and forthright about where we've screwed up.

 

Like I said, I've probably lost you by this point, but the distinction from "be nice like Jesus" (which is certainly not bad advice!) is important.

No, no, I get it. I was being a bit facetious with the nice guy remark, I obviously get that he's more than that to Christians. Your belief's are similar to my wife's. It was just to point out that Christianity, even if I don't believe in it, isn't all gay burning, no dinosaur, virgin birth weirdness. There's some stuff I can get behind too.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

No, no, I get it. I was being a bit facetious with the nice guy remark, I obviously get that he's more than that to Christians. Your belief's are similar to my wife's. It was just to point out that Christianity, even if I don't believe in it, isn't all gay burning, no dinosaur, virgin birth weirdness. There's some stuff I can get behind too.

 

Ah, cheers.  

[maroonlegions]

Liking this retired Bishops views on the Christian/ religions concept of a "Hell".. "control is the key, control by fear and ignorance..

 

 

 

Retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, 

I don?t think Hell exists. I happen to believe in life after death, but I don?t think it?s got a thing to do with reward and punishment. Religion is always in the control business, and that?s something people don?t really understand. It?s in a guilt-producing control business. And if you have Heaven as a place where you?re rewarded for your goodness, and Hell is a place where you?re punished for your evil, then you sort of have control of the population. And so they create this fiery place which has quite literally scared the Hell out of a lot of people, throughout Christian history. And it?s part of a control tactic.?

 

 

 

and this..

 

 

?The church doesn?t like for people to grow up, because you can?t control grown-ups. That?s why we talk about being born again. When you?re born again, you?re still a child. People don?t need to be born again. They need to grow up. They need to accept their responsibility for themselves and the world.

 

 

and more;

 

Every church I know claims that ?we are the true church? ? that they have some ultimate authority, ?We have the infallible Pope,? ?We have the Bible.?? The idea that the truth of God can be bound in any human system, by any human creed, by any human book, is almost beyond imagination for me.

God is not a Christian. God is not a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindi or Buddhist. All of those are human systems, which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honour my tradition. I walk through my tradition. But I don?t think my tradition defines God. It only points me to God.?

 

[Sidelight]

Liking this retired Bishops views on the Christian/ religions concept of a "Hell".. "control is the key, control by fear and ignorance..

 

 

 

Retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong, 

I don?t think Hell exists. I happen to believe in life after death, but I don?t think it?s got a thing to do with reward and punishment. Religion is always in the control business, and that?s something people don?t really understand. It?s in a guilt-producing control business. And if you have Heaven as a place where you?re rewarded for your goodness, and Hell is a place where you?re punished for your evil, then you sort of have control of the population. And so they create this fiery place which has quite literally scared the Hell out of a lot of people, throughout Christian history. And it?s part of a control tactic.?

 

 

 

and this..

 

 

?The church doesn?t like for people to grow up, because you can?t control grown-ups. That?s why we talk about being born again. When you?re born again, you?re still a child. People don?t need to be born again. They need to grow up. They need to accept their responsibility for themselves and the world.

 

 

and more;

 

Every church I know claims that ?we are the true church? ? that they have some ultimate authority, ?We have the infallible Pope,? ?We have the Bible.?? The idea that the truth of God can be bound in any human system, by any human creed, by any human book, is almost beyond imagination for me.

God is not a Christian. God is not a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindi or Buddhist. All of those are human systems, which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honour my tradition. I walk through my tradition. But I don?t think my tradition defines God. It only points me to God.?

 

The chaps a Jambo - nice top.

[Norm]

The chaps a Jambo - nice top.

Part timer though, obviously not a PHM. As any PHM could tell you, we do in fact know where hell is, as hell is clearly located at Easter Road.

[Sidelight]

Part timer though, obviously not a PHM. As any PHM could tell you, we do in fact know where hell is, as hell is clearly located at Easter Road.

Yeah agree, the collar is still white and not pink therefore unwashed.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Part timer though, obviously not a PHM. As any PHM could tell you, we do in fact know where hell is, as hell is clearly located at Easter Road.

 

No God no matter how cruel or twisted they were, would inflict so much suffering upon a set of supporters such as Hibs fans have to endure, surely not?

[Smack]

No God no matter how cruel or twisted they were, would inflict so much suffering upon a set of supporters such as Hibs fans have to endure, surely not?

You're saying Godzajambo?

 

Oh, wait...sorry. I'm off to stare into a postbox.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Spong's old church is just blocks from ours -- my cousin has met him personally.  He did them a good turn -- it was Jefferson Davis's old church (he was in the pews when word of the fall of Petersburg reached Richmond and someone came in and grabbed him and told him to GTFO of town), and so is loaded with Confederate memorial crap, but while Spong was there he managed to turn it into a place that my cousin can go with her African-American wife.

 

I agree with him on a lot, although he does seem to love the sound of his own voice a bit much.

[Norm]

Spong's old church is just blocks from ours -- my cousin has met him personally. He did them a good turn -- it was Jefferson Davis's old church (he was in the pews when word of the fall of Petersburg reached Richmond and someone came in and grabbed him and told him to GTFO of town), and so is loaded with Confederate memorial crap, but while Spong was there he managed to turn it into a place that my cousin can go with her African-American wife.

 

I agree with him on a lot, although he does seem to love the sound of his own voice a bit much.

An American church in Confederate heartland letting in a gay mixed race couple?

 

I did not expect that.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

An American church in Confederate heartland letting in a gay mixed race couple?

 

I did not expect that.

 

Funny thing about the south -- the cities are basically roughly as progressive as the cities in the north, they're just smaller and comprise less of the population of southern states than do the northern cities.

 

The wife's church was also allied with the Confederacy back in the day -- the founding pastor was effectively a chaplain to Confederate leaders -- but is now the most liberal Presbyterian church in Richmond.  (and which I should be getting ready for right now instead of farting around on JKB.)  We have multiple mixed race and gay couples in our congregation, and end up collecting a lot of folks who grew up in a conservative church then realized they were gay and were driven out.  For various reasons, the downtown churches tend to be the open/affirming/progressive ones. 

 

That said, St. Paul's Episcopal, Spong's old church, just went through a pretty painful process of finally agreeing to remove the last remains of Confederate symbology from the sanctuary (which is loaded with plaques and memorials).  They did it really well and really thoughtfully and carefully, but they were still getting hate mail from Lost Causers for months.

[maroonlegions]

 

Arty farty band  or anarco/punk.

 

 

 

A lot of these type of bands had songs about relgion/relgious themes and some quite on the ball , well from a non conformist  view. 

[Jambo 4 Ever]

One answer to Why do bad things happen if there is a God?

As mortals, we cannot know all of God's reasons. But, God loves us enough to give us free will. We are not robots. As a result, people make mistakes. People turn away from God's perfect goodness through sin. In other words, in order to create a world with free moral creatures, God had to make a world where evil is a possibility.

Thus, our own choices sometimes produce evil over good. Also, the choices of others (including previous generations) can produce suffering. The consequences of bad choices sometimes affect not only the person who makes the wrong choice but also their family, friends, and sometimes even society.

The Old and New Testaments make it clear that suffering can be a result of God's discipline in our lives?similar to the discipline a loving parent has for his child. A loving parent stops a child from putting his hand on a hot stove. The child "suffers" at the moment by being denied access and by the temporary pain of a spanking. But the parent sees the "big picture" and disciplines the child. So, too, can God discipline us. Hebrews 12:10-11 illustrates this point: "...but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it."

While God whispers to us in our comfort, suffering is God's megaphone to a deaf world. Suffering can produce benefits greater than the suffering itself. It can strengthen people, lead people to faith, help us to appreciate the good, and be a tool to influence others. Indeed, suffering can mold us. "Suffering produces perseverance... character... hope...." (Romans 5:3-5). The actual trials of faith are worthwhile and precious as is faith itself! Our faith is strengthened as we rely on Christ to see us through troubling times.

In Acts 8:1-13 we see the story of Stephen, the first martyr recorded in the Bible. He died a horrible death by stoning. Why would God let that happen? We are told that the persecution of the church led to Christians being scattered. Wherever they went they and preached the word. This scattering resulted in the good news being preached throughout the world (Acts 2:5, 19:10; Romans 1:8, 10:18, 16:25-27; Colossians 1:6, 1:23).

This interview with Tony Snow about his cancer gives a wonderful testimony of faith through suffering. Tony passed away in the summer of 2008. The title of the interview is: "Cancer's Unexpected Blessings" and the subtitle is: "When you enter the valley of the shadow of death, things change." Here is the interview from Christianity Today. 

We may not know the reason for suffering in any individual situation. But we can affirm, with relief and joy, that in "all things God works for the good of those who love him" (Romans 8:28). The Psalms are full of cries for deliverance from trouble as well as the assurance that God is with us and will deliver us from suffering.

Our observation is that this issue is used as an excuse by some to try to blame God or to deny God's existence. But on reflection, most will acknowledge that we really cannot blame God for our troubles. Actually, the reality of evil, suffering, and injustice?when considered fully?is an argument for the existence of a good God. Certainly, abandoning God does not make the problem of suffering any easier. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga, as quoted by Tim Keller in his book Reason for God, put it thus:

"Could there really be any such thing as horrifying wickedness [if there were no God and we just evolved]? I don't see how. There can be such a thing only if there is a way that rational creatures are supposed to live, obliged to live....A [secular] way of looking at the world has no place for genuine moral obligation of any sort...and thus no way to say there is such a thing as genuine and appalling wickedness. Accordingly, if you think there really is such a thing as horrifying wickedness (...and not just an illusion of some sort), then you have a powerful...argument [for the reality of God]."

In other words, evil is only defined by an objective standard. The atheist/evolutionist model has no such standard.

It is the knowledge that God sent His only son to suffer and die for us that our sins are forgiven and that our ultimate suffering will be relieved. As Paul Little proclaims, God is "not only aware of suffering?he feels it. No pain or suffering has ever come to us that has not first passed through the heart and hand of God...Comforting are the words of Isaiah the prophet, foretelling the agony of Christ: 'He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering' (Isaiah 53:3)."

And as Tim Keller comforts the believer, "The Biblical view of things is resurrection?not a future that is just a consolation for the life we never had but a restoration of the life you always wanted. This means that every horrible thing that ever happened will not only be undone and repaired, but will in some way make the eventual glory and joy even greater."

Why do bad things happen to good people? The Christian answer is that there are no good people! None of us deserves the life that we have, which is a gratuitous gift from God. (See Innocent People.) Even though most people would not blame God for natural disasters that create suffering, it can be argued that even these sources of pain are all a result judgment in a general sense for man's sin. No one gets caught up in suffering due to natural events is truly innocent.

Ultimately, Christianity offers a solution. God, through his mercy and grace, offers forgiveness, reconcilation, and hope in Jesus Christ. The skeptic can use evil and suffering as a stone against Christianity, but he has no consolation in his own worldview. Christianity is the only religion or worldview that has an answer to evil and suffering. Eastern religions ignore evil; Darwinism and Communism rely on it; atheism is clueless about it; and Islam has a superficial view of it. Only Christianity provides an answer?that we are living in an abnormal world which God will restore in heaven

[Maple Leaf]

My response to most of JiH's post above is that it is self-serving nonsense.  But the following statement caught my eye:

 

"Why do bad things happen to good people? The Christian answer is that there are no good people!"

 

If anyone is still wondering why Christianity is on the decline in Western countries, there's your answer.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

"As mortals, we cannot know all of God's reasons. But, God loves us enough to give us free will. We are not robots. As a result, people make mistakes. People turn away from God's perfect goodness through sin. In other words, in order to create a world with free moral creatures, God had to make a world where evil is a possibility."

 

 

Does God love all the little children who are totally without sin but die horrible painful deaths due to cancer or some other disease?

 

What sin did these children commit?  How did they stray away from God's righteous path? 

[i8hibsh]

See what I f'kn hate most is this "God loves you bullshit".  It is a f'kn insult to about 85% of the world's population who live in abject misery every second of every day.  Go away and f'kn do one with that shite. Please.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

To keep it as brief as possible, I categorically reject human suffering as divine punishment.  Yes, certain parts of the Bible clearly make the connection.  Others reject it.  Another instance of the Bible not providing clear, easy answers on difficult questions -- IMO that's not what it's for anyway.

[Sidelight]

See what I f'kn hate most is this "God loves you bullshit".  It is a f'kn insult to about 85% of the world's population who live in abject misery every second of every day.  Go away and f'kn do one with that shite. Please.

 

Are you saying that in most cases materialistic wealth brings contentment and happiness?

If that is the case then I believe that perhaps your perception is faulty.

We know that in western society there has been an exponential rise in prescription medication for those afflicted with anxiety and depressive illnesses, rich and poor. So that doesn?t fit.

I have experienced and entered into the lives of the have nots, particularly in southern Africa. Most had little in the way of worldly possessions, but many seemed happy, and content with their lot. This in no way makes light of the sometimes abject poverty and disease that many embrace every day.

Christians believe that we inhabit a fallen and broken world were rebellion and rejection of God?s authority to some extent reigns. Leading individuals and nations ultimately to places that they don?t want to go.  

By your own admission you are an ungodly man. I don?t mean that in a disrespectful way, but rather to suggest by your own admission that you reject Gods precepts and ways as ancient myths and rubbish. This is not a critique of your moral judgement or character.

As a result from your perspective you suggest that individuals who proclaim that God loves His creation are speaking BS. And from your perspective I can certainly understand why you uphold such a view.

However as a Christian my world view is in opposition to yours.

From a biblical context Christians believe that the greatest expression of God?s love for his creation, for the people that he made was to take the all the sin and disgrace of each and every one of us upon himself, when Jesus died on the cross. Such love providing a way back if we choose to accept it to a Holy God for those, indeed all of us lost in their sins.

That?s a message that you reject as most on here do,

However the cross is still here even after all these years.

 

 

[i8hibsh]

Are you saying that in most cases materialistic wealth brings contentment and happiness?

If that is the case then I believe that perhaps your perception is faulty.

We know that in western society there has been an exponential rise in prescription medication for those afflicted with anxiety and depressive illnesses, rich and poor. So that doesn?t fit.

I have experienced and entered into the lives of the have nots, particularly in southern Africa. Most had little in the way of worldly possessions, but many seemed happy, and content with their lot. This in no way makes light of the sometimes abject poverty and disease that many embrace every day.

Christians believe that we inhabit a fallen and broken world were rebellion and rejection of God?s authority to some extent reigns. Leading individuals and nations ultimately to places that they don?t want to go.  

By your own admission you are an ungodly man. I don?t mean that in a disrespectful way, but rather to suggest by your own admission that you reject Gods precepts and ways as ancient myths and rubbish. This is not a critique of your moral judgement or character.

As a result from your perspective you suggest that individuals who proclaim that God loves His creation are speaking BS. And from your perspective I can certainly understand why you uphold such a view.

However as a Christian my world view is in opposition to yours.

From a biblical context Christians believe that the greatest expression of God?s love for his creation, for the people that he made was to take the all the sin and disgrace of each and every one of us upon himself, when Jesus died on the cross. Such love providing a way back if we choose to accept it to a Holy God for those, indeed all of us lost in their sins.

That?s a message that you reject as most on here do,

However the cross is still here even after all these years.

No,I am talking about some people drinking dirty water contaminated with piss just to survive and some people having a bad day as their battery died on their mobile phone.

 

If God exists he is a major C word. An utterly vile notion.

[Craigieboy]

If sin is the cause of human suffering/death (Romans 5:12) then what about cats and dogs? Lions & tigers and bears?

 

How come they all die of the same illnesses as we do? Did they 'sin' too?

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/why-christian-fundamentalist-ken-ham-built-a-100-million-ark/news-story/113ca70c4e8b3233bfb688798ca7eee8?sv=dd43fcb155a341702fb2fbd36b97bbc6

 

The Aussie Noah!

[Maple Leaf]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/why-christian-fundamentalist-ken-ham-built-a-100-million-ark/news-story/113ca70c4e8b3233bfb688798ca7eee8?sv=dd43fcb155a341702fb2fbd36b97bbc6

 

The Aussie Noah!

 

That multi-millionaire fraudster claims to be a Christian, yet ignores the teachings of Jesus.

 

Matthew 10:25.  "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 

He's just built a huge tourist attraction that will allow him to pick the pockets of the gullible.  It's pathetic how people fall for this stuff.

[i8hibsh]

That multi-millionaire fraudster claims to be a Christian, yet ignores the teachings of Jesus.

 

Matthew 10:25.  "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 

He's just built a huge tourist attraction that will allow him to pick the pockets of the gullible.  It's pathetic how people fall for this stuff.

 

 

Remember the teachings of Harry Potter tho:

 

Page 48 book of the Sorceror's Stone, line 20

 

"Harry dropped the piece of sausage he was holding"

 

"Goblins?"

 

"Yeah"

[Jambo-Jimbo]

That multi-millionaire fraudster claims to be a Christian, yet ignores the teachings of Jesus.

 

Matthew 10:25.  "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

 

He's just built a huge tourist attraction that will allow him to pick the pockets of the gullible.  It's pathetic how people fall for this stuff.

 

Totally.

 

You could feed an awful lot of starving people with $100 Million Dollars.

 

For him to have that amount of money, just shows how thick and gullible some folks must be.

 

People fall for this kind of stuff because God talked to him in a dream no doubts.

[i8hibsh]

Totally.

 

You could feed an awful lot of starving people with $100 Million Dollars.

 

For him to have that amount of money, just shows how thick and gullible some folks must be.

 

People fall for this kind of stuff because God talked to him in a dream no doubts.

 

Or we could just not have starving people.  That pesky God testing us again.

[Sidelight]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/why-christian-fundamentalist-ken-ham-built-a-100-million-ark/news-story/113ca70c4e8b3233bfb688798ca7eee8?sv=dd43fcb155a341702fb2fbd36b97bbc6

 

The Aussie Noah!

 

I was thinking, maybe UA could go for a visit, and report back.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I was thinking, maybe UA could go for a visit, and report back.

 

Don't get over to Kentucky much -- that's about an 8 hour drive from here.  And I'd kind of rather not feed Ham's ego or his wallet.

[maroonlegions]

If one reads and even studies the workings/ books of Crowley then one cannot help to  grasps the concept of what that  mindfecking book the bible is manipulating.

 

To put ones evolution of ones spiritual soul  into the hands of anyone but ones  self is very dangerous and  is open to manipulations , control and even stagnation of ones spiritual awakening. After one looks deeply into the occult lore and teachings one cannot help but see the utter stupidity and madness of religious based promises of eternal heaven.

 

Like it or not there is no one but you who is responsible for your souls development or awakening, no one, and anyone trying to offer you the promises of heaven ( all religions), are the ones  to be avoided with extreme suspicion.

 

 

Life  is not a fecking sin, you were NOT born in sin, you have nothing to be ashamed off, feck those who  try and tell you otherwise for its them in their guilt attacking mindfeck religious garbage that seek to control others through their religious  "GUILT" trips. 

 

 

?I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.? 
? Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies;

 

 

 

Salvation from what??, life , nature,   one has to experiencing things so you can grow and learn from them, no dogmatic religious guilt tripping crap can offer you salvation why?? because there was nothing to be saved from from in the first place..  

 

?The joy of life consists in the exercise of one's energies, continual growth, constant change, the enjoyment of every new experience. To stop means simply to die. The eternal mistake of mankind is to set up an attainable ideal.? 
? Aleister Crowley, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography

 

 

Religions needed  a "guilt" trip and they manipulated humanity's ignorance of the "unknown" or  the life after death possibilities, they needed their  sin  concept as the primary control and fear weapon. 

 

 

 ?One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.? 

? Aleister Crowley, Magick: Liber ABA: Book 4;

 

 

 ?It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as valid for all men, and its own judgements for absolute truth.? 

? Aleister Crowley, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law;

 

 

?I've often thought that there isn't any "I" at all; that we are simply the means of expression of something else; that when we think we are ourselves, we are simply the victims of a delusion.? 
? Aleister Crowley, Diary of a Drug Fiend;

 

 

?The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.? 

? Aleister Crowley, Magick: Liber ABA: Book 4;

 

 

 

And finally this;

 

 

?Love is the law, love under will.? 
? Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law

 

 

?But it so happens that everything on this planet is, ultimately, irrational; there is not, and cannot be, any reason for the causal connexion of things, if only because our use of the word "reason" already implies the idea of causal connexion. But, even if we avoid this fundamental difficulty, Hume said that causal connexion was not merely unprovable, but unthinkable; and, in shallower waters still, one cannot assign a true reason why water should flow down hill, or sugar taste sweet in the mouth. Attempts to explain these simple matters always progress into a learned lucidity, and on further analysis retire to a remote stronghold where every thing is irrational and unthinkable.

If you cut off a man's head, he dies. Why? Because it kills him. That is really the whole answer. Learned excursions into anatomy and physiology only beg the question; it does not explain why the heart is necessary to life to say that it is a vital organ. Yet that is exactly what is done, the trick that is played on every inquiring mind. Why cannot I see in the dark? Because light is necessary to sight. No confusion of that issue by talk of rods and cones, and optical centres, and foci, and lenses;

and vibrations is very different to Edwin Arthwait's treatment of the long-suffering English language.

Knowledge is really confined to experience. The laws of Nature are, as Kant said, the laws of our minds, and, as Huxley said, the generalization of observed facts.

It is, therefore, no argument against ceremonial magic to say that it is "absurd" to try to raise a thunderstorm by beating a drum; it is not even fair to say that you have tried the experiment, found it would not work, and so perceived it to be "impossible." You might as well claim that, as you had taken paint and canvas, and not produced a Rembrandt, it was evident that the pictures attributed to his painting were really produced in quite a different way.

You do not see why the skull of a parricide should help you to raise a dead man, as you do not see why the mercury in a thermometer should rise and fall, though you elaborately pretend that you do; and you could not raise a dead man by the aid of the skull of a parricide, just as you could not play the violin like Kreisler; though in the latter case you might modestly add that you thought you could learn.

This is not the special pleading of a professed magician; it boils down to the advice not to judge subjects of which you are perfectly ignorant, and is to be found, stated in clearer and lovelier language, in the Essays of Thomas Henry Huxley. ? 
? Aleister Crowley;

 

 

 

 

[Sidelight]

 

If one reads and even studies the workings/ books of Crowley then one cannot help to  grasps the concept of what that  mindfecking book the bible is manipulating.

 

To put ones evolution of ones spiritual soul  into the hands of anyone but ones  self is very dangerous and  is open to manipulations , control and even stagnation of ones spiritual awakening. After one looks deeply into the occult lore and teachings one cannot help but see the utter stupidity and madness of religious based promises of eternal heaven.

 

Like it or not there is no one but you who is responsible for your souls development or awakening, no one, and anyone trying to offer you the promises of heaven ( all religions), are the ones  to be avoided with extreme suspicion.

 

 

Life  is not a fecking sin, you were NOT born in sin, you have nothing to be ashamed off, feck those who  try and tell you otherwise for its them in their guilt attacking mindfeck religious garbage that seek to control others through their religious  "GUILT" trips. 

 

 

?I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.? 

? Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies;

 

 

 

Salvation from what??, life , nature,   one has to experiencing things so you can grow and learn from them, no dogmatic religious guilt tripping crap can offer you salvation why?? because there was nothing to be saved from from in the first place..  

 

?The joy of life consists in the exercise of one's energies, continual growth, constant change, the enjoyment of every new experience. To stop means simply to die. The eternal mistake of mankind is to set up an attainable ideal.? 

? Aleister Crowley, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley: An Autohagiography

 

 

Religions needed  a "guilt" trip and they manipulated humanity's ignorance of the "unknown" or  the life after death possibilities, they needed their  sin  concept as the primary control and fear weapon. 

 

 

 ?One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.? 

? Aleister Crowley, Magick: Liber ABA: Book 4;

 

 

 ?It is the mark of the mind untrained to take its own processes as valid for all men, and its own judgements for absolute truth.? 

? Aleister Crowley, Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on The Book of the Law;

 

 

?I've often thought that there isn't any "I" at all; that we are simply the means of expression of something else; that when we think we are ourselves, we are simply the victims of a delusion.? 

? Aleister Crowley, Diary of a Drug Fiend;

 

 

?The sin which is unpardonable is knowingly and wilfully to reject truth, to fear knowledge lest that knowledge pander not to thy prejudices.? 

? Aleister Crowley, Magick: Liber ABA: Book 4;

 

 

 

And finally this;

 

 

?Love is the law, love under will.? 

? Aleister Crowley, The Book of the Law

 

 

?But it so happens that everything on this planet is, ultimately, irrational; there is not, and cannot be, any reason for the causal connexion of things, if only because our use of the word "reason" already implies the idea of causal connexion. But, even if we avoid this fundamental difficulty, Hume said that causal connexion was not merely unprovable, but unthinkable; and, in shallower waters still, one cannot assign a true reason why water should flow down hill, or sugar taste sweet in the mouth. Attempts to explain these simple matters always progress into a learned lucidity, and on further analysis retire to a remote stronghold where every thing is irrational and unthinkable.

 

If you cut off a man's head, he dies. Why? Because it kills him. That is really the whole answer. Learned excursions into anatomy and physiology only beg the question; it does not explain why the heart is necessary to life to say that it is a vital organ. Yet that is exactly what is done, the trick that is played on every inquiring mind. Why cannot I see in the dark? Because light is necessary to sight. No confusion of that issue by talk of rods and cones, and optical centres, and foci, and lenses;

and vibrations is very different to Edwin Arthwait's treatment of the long-suffering English language.

 

Knowledge is really confined to experience. The laws of Nature are, as Kant said, the laws of our minds, and, as Huxley said, the generalization of observed facts.

 

It is, therefore, no argument against ceremonial magic to say that it is "absurd" to try to raise a thunderstorm by beating a drum; it is not even fair to say that you have tried the experiment, found it would not work, and so perceived it to be "impossible." You might as well claim that, as you had taken paint and canvas, and not produced a Rembrandt, it was evident that the pictures attributed to his painting were really produced in quite a different way.

You do not see why the skull of a parricide should help you to raise a dead man, as you do not see why the mercury in a thermometer should rise and fall, though you elaborately pretend that you do; and you could not raise a dead man by the aid of the skull of a parricide, just as you could not play the violin like Kreisler; though in the latter case you might modestly add that you thought you could learn.

 

This is not the special pleading of a professed magician; it boils down to the advice not to judge subjects of which you are perfectly ignorant, and is to be found, stated in clearer and lovelier language, in the Essays of Thomas Henry Huxley. ? 

? Aleister Crowley;

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not off to visit Ken in Kentucky next vacation then, ML.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

He's quoting Crowley as someone to be taken seriously.  That's about all I needed to read.

 

"Sure, Christianity's a bunch of magical nonsense, here let me read your future with my tarot deck or else I'll use my pentagram to put a curse on you."

 

What a that guy was.

[Norm]

What is it about religion and it's obsession with shagging? Whether it's the bible wittering on about laying down with another man, Islam wanting women covered in case men just jump on them for a pumping or even Crowley's Thelemic ideas of sex magik and pumping anything that moves.

 

I know it's a big part of life but sheesh, it's like they're obsessed with who's shagging who and how.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

What is it about religion and it's obsession with shagging? Whether it's the bible wittering on about laying down with another man, Islam wanting women covered in case men just jump on them for a pumping or even Crowley's Thelemic ideas of sex magik and pumping anything that moves.

 

I know it's a big part of life but sheesh, it's like they're obsessed with who's shagging who and how.

 

Got a lot of thoughts about this, but the shorter version is sex wasn't a huge deal in Christianity until Aquinas came along and, after helping to invent modern science, built a whole theology around "natural law" that, at its core, was super obsessed with gettin' it on.  (He seems to be the first one who read the story of Sodom as telling people not to be gay.  Of course, sodomy by his standards includes oral sex or sex with birth control, because it's non-procreative.)

 

Just speculating personally, I think it's because sex can mess with your head like few other things can, so out of discomfort with that it gets bound up in rules and propriety and the lot.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

http://barbwire.com/2016/06/08/obama-invites-disaster-lgbt-pride-month/

 

Do some people actually agree with what this lady says!? Crazy!!