"The LORD is my Shepherd..."

a reply to: nenothtu

. . . essentially imparting divinity on her as well, creating a "goddess" . . .

I have some relatives who converted to Catholicism, I think just to take advantage of "goddess" worship.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: nenothtu

. . . essentially imparting divinity on her as well, creating a "goddess" . . .

I have some relatives who converted to Catholicism, I think just to take advantage of "goddess" worship.

I've had that conversation with a few Catholics, all of whom insist that it's not "worship", and that Mary isn't a "goddess" to them, but for the life of me I can't figure out how they get around that, given the nature of their attempts at interaction with her.

If they believe (and they do claim to), that Jesus is God, and then place Mary on the same level as Jesus, or in some cases even a bit higher than Jesus (ex: Mary was "sinless", since the "Immaculate Conception" requires that she was without sin, some believe she never died, all believe that she is an - or THE - intercessor between man and God, and it's always MARY in apparitions, NEVER Jesus), then I don't see how they convince themselves it's NOT "worship, or that she ISN'T a goddess.

I recently had a Catholic attempt to bless me by "The Two Hearts", of which Mary is one, and I suppose you can guess the other. It was a nice gesture, but an essentially empty one, and a gross attempt at Marian Deification - how else would her heart be included in a blessing purportedly calling on God?

Since, in Catholic thought, Mary is "The Mother of God", and God is The father of God (i.e. his own father), and unwed intercourse is a sin, it naturally follows that Mary is to them God's wife, since Mary cannot sin according to Immaculate Conception, and one would presume that God also cannot sin, although I know of no specific Catholic doctrine to that effect. One can only assume that God is at least as holy as Mary is, and so ought to be sinless.

Do you know who else was "God's wife"?

"Asherah". She was the wife of the Cannanitic El. Yep, Asherah - the same one who had all of her worship poles cut down.

Also known as "Ashtoreth", back through "Ishtar" and then back through "Inanna", before whom there is no recorded name for that goddess, because there was no writing to record it. The only record of her before writing is the "goddess figurines", among which are the European Venus figurines from the paleolithic, hence my identification of the Catholic Mary with the same.

Didn't Jezebel get into a bit of a mess over Asherah? Just sayin'...

a reply to: nenothtu

Didn't Jezebel get into a bit of a mess over Asherah?

I think it was over the general idea of a god of another country, namely, Tyre, which included a Asherah character, apparently, since it says that Ahab set up an Asherah pole.

a reply to: jmdewey60

Yep, that would be the one. My reading of it was that Ahab set up the Asherah pole at Jezebel's instigation, but hilarity did not ensue. Now, that Asherah was a goddess, a consort of Ba'al and at one time El in the Canaanite pantheon. She was a version, a variant, of the age-old Ishtar and Inanna and so on, in the same way that the Roman pantheon was built up from the Greek, Jupiter being a version of Zeus and so forth. Ancient middle eastern mythology is twisted and intricate, yet has disturbing parallels among the various pantheons. Goddesses abound, but they all seem to have cognates in other religions, suggesting a common ancestry for the concept... and the earliest possible ancestor for the goddesses I've run across is the paleolithic "Venus" figurines.

As I recall, Jezebel paid a pretty hefty price for polluting Israelite religion with Canaanite religion, but one of the main lessons I took from it was "don't go 'round worshiping a goddess". Odd indeed in light of the many goddess figurines that have been unearthed in Israelite contexts, but, you know, as far as I'm concerned, the law has already been laid down in the matter, in spite of the figurines.

I don't do goddesses, but other folks are welcome to see what kind of mileage they can get out of them. I suppose the ancient Israelites have already seen what kind of mileage they'll get - or not - and the Catholics are welcome to do likewise with their goddess.




.

a reply to: WeAllDieSoon

"I missed the part where humanity is excellent. Are we living on the same planet?"

Humanity excels among the creatures of this earth in terms of mental complexity.

This is a fact beyond dispute.

In terms of moral superiority, Humanity is still primitive.

We are not "better" than other creatures on this earth.

Yet.

a reply to: WeAllDieSoon

"I missed the part where humanity is excellent. Are we living on the same planet?"

Humanity excels among the creatures of the earth in mental complexity.

However, we are still primitive in the measure of morality.

With one foot planted in the savagery of our nature,

and with one hand reaching for the stars,

we shall one day become what we should be.

a reply to: nenothtu

"Should individuals control society, or should society control the individual?"

Dear nenothtu, This is a quite elementary question.

Do you honestly support a society that is controlled by individuals?

Well guess what! That is the dystopia that we suffer today.

Which individuals should control our society?

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: nenothtu

"Should individuals control society, or should society control the individual?"

Dear nenothtu, This is a quite elementary question.

Do you honestly support a society that is controlled by individuals?

Well guess what! That is the dystopia that we suffer today.

Which individuals should control our society?

There is no universal utopia - ALL is dystopian, and always will be, for as long as humans endure. The matter then falls to what sort of dystopia one prefers to dysfunction in. I prefer an individually oriented dystopia, where my dysfunction doesn't necessarily have to interfere or interface with your dysfunction - you can rise above me, or vice-versa, or perhaps more accurately we can agree to diverge, since "rise above" may mean different things to the two of us.

In a world of individuals, we are free to pursue our own goals.

Others, it seems, tend toward preferring a collectivist dystopia, wherein the All can hold the One entirely under it's thumb, under it's control. That is no less dystopian than total anarchy - it's only a different sort of dysfunction, where everyone shares the misery of everyone else, and none are free to pursue their own misery. That is the dystopia that the entire 20th century lived in fear of, and one that apparently the 21st century wants - which is why I'm glad that I'm old, and probably won't live long enough to see it's completion.

It boils down to the question of whether you prefer to control your dysfunction, or whether you prefer to have your dysfunction control YOU.

I absolutely support a society controlled by individuals, rather than a society that controls the individual. Collectivism will be the death of humankind, and maybe that's what's really needed. Collectivism will eat it's own collective, until there is no collective left, and will therefore destroy itself. A society in which all are held to the same level as the lowest common denominator cannot survive, for there are then none to excel and propel it. A society which thinks that it can collectively raise everyone to the same level is just another way of viewing holding all to the same low level - in that sameness, there is no room for those who would excel, and the result is stagnation and death of the society, for the same reasons whichever way you prefer to view it.

Damned shame that we all have to go down the drain with it, but them's the breaks.

Which individuals should control society? All of them. That was the whole idea behind forming a republic of, by, and for the People, and setting it up the way it was set up. Then the Collectivists came along, and threw sand in the grease, thinking that they could RAISE everyone to the same level, and unable to see that the same level is the same level, whether high or low, and will always, always, ALWAYS lead to stagnation and death.

When there is no longer room to excel, there is no longer any excellence.

I absolutely support a society controlled by individuals, rather than a society that controls the individual. Collectivism will be the death of humankind, and maybe that's what's really needed. Collectivism will eat it's own collective, until there is no collective left, and will therefore destroy itself. A society in which all are held to the same level as the lowest common denominator cannot survive, for there are then none to excel and propel it. A society which thinks that it can collectively raise everyone to the same level is just another way of viewing holding all to the same low level - in that sameness, there is no room for those who would excel, and the result is stagnation and death of the society, for the same reasons whichever way you prefer to view it.

Damned shame that we all have to go down the drain with it, but them's the breaks.

Which individuals should control society? All of them. That was the whole idea behind forming a republic of, by, and for the People, and setting it up the way it was set up. Then the Collectivists came along, and threw sand in the grease, thinking that they could RAISE everyone to the same level, and unable to see that the same level is the same level, whether high or low, and will always, always, ALWAYS lead to stagnation and death.

When there is no longer room to excel, there is no longer any excellence.

Wow!! Well said...nenothtu....well said..


Here is some additional informations to this and why the collectivist mind set is one of those things which makes such good sense on paper..but does not in actuality ..in real life...work or well function.



en.wikipedia.org...


The Pareto Principle is why socialism and or communism...group think never will work. Only short time and must be carefully crafted/subsidized by a controlled lying deceiving news and informations media and a public school system of the same ilk...by the body politic.

80% of any group only do 20% of the work and risk taking. 20% of the people do 80% of the work and risk taking that goes along with it at any given time.

You can easily spot this once you learn to see it in any given group...those who step foreward ..plan, think and initiate events...get them done....and those who stand back waiting for someone else to do their thinking for them...tell them what to do...etc etc. etc.

Once you go downt the socialist road...the 20% who do get things done are made limited and ostracized/punished for showing initiative or excelling and made to be another Xerox copy of the rest of the blandness. This 20% disappears...no longer exists.

The Pareto Principle is also a principle existing in nature herself as observed by Vilfredo Pareto in his observation of peas in a garden.

This understanding of the importance that individuality brings to the table in economically affluent nations..is downplayed by todays leaders and todays educational systems. It is also downplayed by many Churches and it ought not to be this way. It ought to be part of a moral lesson and understanding across the board.


Wealth Redistribution is not RISK Redistribution...

And Risk is what is taking place to generate capital...particularly by the 20%...not the same olde Xerox stamped out blandness of social thinkers and controllers.

Risk taking occurs best among individual thinkers..the 20%. This is where from came most of the products and ideas which made our economy what it is. Which produced the greatest plenty this world has ever known.

Social collectivism is the death knell of this crucial and important 20%.

Orangetom

Once you know about the "Parato Principle" or the 80/20 rule...what does that tell you when 20 percent of the people or workers do 80 percent of the work and risk taking.


Now do you understand how incredibly stupid it is for a leader to come up with this one ...mouthed off or quoted from someone else's work.

"You didn't build that??" Remember that one??

Or the 99% principle.


You get taken for a ride if you don't know the full story. "Victimization" can be a huge and easy emotional draw/scapegoat to those not well versed in history or some basic information's for which someone obviously does not want us to know or understand... or even to think for ourselves.

But how about those Redskins...?? Who is dancing with whom...?? American Idol ??...Dancing with the Stars??

Orangetom

The problem with the "Humanitarian " mind set when it begins to horribly infect leadership positions...in government.

They begin directly or indirectly promoting stuff like the 99%. This when common sense and logic indicate more towards the Pareto Principle where only 20% of the people do 80% of the work, thinking, and risk taking.

The 99% is textbook humanitarian politic or another word for it is a lie born of political expediency. This is Biblical terms is called Whoredom. The buying, selling, and trading of the very souls of people/nation to a lie and for political lucre.
Leadership needs this kind of propaganda to put everyone in a box that they can control...where equality will be found at the poverty level for everyone but leadership. Sound familiar???? Da...Tovarich???

"You didn't build that" is another lie and deceit for political lucre...whoredom. More commuinial thinking and religious belief systems at work. Da???


You are going to see many many more examples of this kind of Humanitarian lie and deception for political lucre and or votes as election time nears.


One thing becomes obvious as you see this pattern repeated over and over and over..in and for Humanitarian purposes...

Wealth Redistribution is not risk redistribution. It is bondage under the guise of humanitarian non reasoning.


More Humanitarian nonsense. This one does not even make good nonsense once you learn to think it through ..but the emotional claptrap and or dissonance surrounding these types of politics or biases tend to leave one not thinking and only emoting allowed. This way you never see the bigger picture or the nature of the lie.


Here..


Women make only 70 cents for every dollar made by a man.

The catch to this lie..is that if this is so...Why would anyone ever want to hire a man....ever???

This is an angle and understanding never promoted by politicians..of either party...nor by the media or public education...so that you never learn to think individually...or outside of the box...or think for yourself..but are instead corralled or boxed in by dissonance...censored.

When you buy into humanitarian beliefs..you often find yourself in arenas where you are left with all bad choices...but do not always understand why unless you learn to think individually and outside the box.

I go along with nenothtu in that I prefer to treat people as individuals..and not humanitarian crowds. Most crowds I stay away from ..even big crowd entertainment events. I find little pleasure in them.

As far as nature...when men historically follow and worship nature...nature conquers and subdues men. Not the other way around. Under nature worship in all it's various forms..you see little progress in these nations. Most real progress came from the nations outside these ...and from nations not worshipping nature.

Nothing wrong with being a good steward of nature..and that with which we are blessed..but I have no desire to worship nature and have it conquer or subdue me.

Thanks to all for their posts,
Orangetom

a reply to: orangetom1999

Cool. You taught me something as I did not know about this principle. It makes tons of sense... more than you realize.

originally posted by: Diderot
Few passages in the Bible tug at the heartstrings like this one:

~Psalms 23:1-6~

The LORD is my Shepherd, I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
He leads me beside quiet waters, He restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

The Lord was my shepherd as a child (I thought) and I want no more of it as I see its flaws.
He made me lie down in a rotted peat bog and lead me in ignorance to travel rapid waters, frightening my soul.
He failed to tell me the truth of my being in His name's sake forsake me in all of my pleas.
I walk the valley of the shadow of DARK seeing nothing/ no awareness (that being ignorance) of my reason for being.
Every day a death I know from birth each day awaits me.
There is no righteousness in ignorance even if ITS it's namesake;
I will fear evil because you have lied to me regarding my beingness (or just failed to tell me) and I trust no thing.
Your rod and staff are NOT symbols of freedom or comfort as they are tools of sublimation,
You prepare a table seated with your frenemies to show me your powers of persuasion (evil/good) components.
You anoint my head, body with whip lashes to demonstrate how you control through physical violence/murder the soul spirit body; your cup overflows with the blood of millions.
Surely goodness and love will follow if you managed your people as well as you thought the fairy tale/LESSON for the progression of the individualized soul would play out (most will not get the joke).
I will never 'dwell' in a 'God dominion' that perceived and implemented these rules as goodness and LOVE cannot co-exist in this world with this creator; as its left everything to chance and CHAOS (not that I disagree at all it just seems elitist).

The Lord was my shepherd as a child (I thought) and I want no more of it as I see its flaws.
He made me lie down in a rotted peat bog and lead me in ignorance to travel rapid waters, frightening my soul.
He failed to tell me the truth of my being in His name's sake forsake me in all of my pleas.
I walk the valley of the shadow of DARK seeing nothing/ no awareness (that being ignorance) of my reason for being.
Every day a death I know from birth each day awaits me.
There is no righteousness in ignorance even if ITS it's namesake;
I will fear evil because you have lied to me regarding my beingness (or just failed to tell me) and I trust no thing.
Your rod and staff are NOT symbols of freedom or comfort as they are tools of sublimation,
You prepare a table seated with your frenemies to show me your powers of persuasion (evil/good) components.
You anoint my head, body with whip lashes to demonstrate how you control through physical violence/murder the soul spirit body; your cup overflows with the blood of millions.
Surely goodness and love will follow if you managed your people as well as you thought the fairy tale/LESSON for the progression of the individualized soul would play out (most will not get the joke).
I will never 'dwell' in a 'God dominion' that perceived and implemented these rules as goodness and LOVE cannot co-exist in this world with this creator; as its left everything to chance and CHAOS (not that I disagree at all it just seems elitist).

Well...folks..here you have it..Humanitarian Xerox thinking.

I am good people..therefore I deserve good things..by default..from out of the starting gate.

Therefore If bad things happen..I can automatically by default play the blame card.

I hesitated at first to reply to a post like this..but after a day or so...I decided to show the difference.

This is textbook of todays political education...I'm good people ..therefore I deserve.



The Believer knows...that ..as I am of fallen Adam....what would happen if I got what I really deserve???

Be very careful of humanitarian thinking...it is often justification of the blame game.

" Deus Meumque Jus " ...god is my right..as they sometimes state. Or put another way...what I want is god.

When you think this through ..you can see it in variations of entitlement thinking and self justification peoples.

What this makes for in the long run ..is people who can justify making others ..expendable and disposable for their beliefs..And the religion of politics and public education is now turning out this kind of thinking in droves.
Because no one will see what we do...as the saying goes.

A more crude and crass way of stating this...is the feminine statement..

"I'm sitting on the only one in town."

This too covers a lot of what passes for leadership today. Humanitarian leadership.

Hope this helps,

Orangetom

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Hello vet,

I can hardly disagree with the many points you laid out.
There are believers and there are skeptics (like you and me) that have a true heart.
The love of Humanity is no less important
than the love of God.
Virtuous love is supreme.

a reply to: orangetom1999

Hello again orangetom,

"This too covers a lot of what passes for leadership today. Humanitarian leadership."

I am intrigued by you use of the word "humanitarian".
You quite effectively avoid the controversies of the word "Humanism",
which after all is one of those dreaded -isms.

I submit that Humanitarianism is a noble virtue
that is honored and respected by God.

The pursuit of the enrichment of humanity
is the essence of humanitarianism.

Any possible fault, sin, error, or iniquity that you might suggest
is a violation and rejection on the spirit of human virtue.

a reply to: nenothtu

Hello nenothtu,

"There is no universal utopia - ALL is dystopian, and always will be, for as long as humans endure."

Correct; there is no universal utopia, but there is no universal dystopia.

Nature is not dystopian.

We began as feral savages, and we have barely progressed.

But we have progressed.

In time we shall become the creatures that we should be.

a reply to: orangetom1999
Xerox thinking, I put my heart(ink) and soul(copy paper) into that; more a plaintiff CRY to "God" to see if he listens to what he might think is a thoughtful *one of billions* minion (which I am not as I have freewill, yet blessed be me as he created me with all of my flaws). What do mean 'if bad things happen' (you mean continually for eons playing out the same tired archetypes; someone needs to fix them finally and it won't be God). Entitlement!? to what exactly; this is a game we play in the 3rd dimension as individualized human God aspects; none of this is real here on earth whether you like or not the REAL deal exists in the higher dimensions; this is just a mirror of it as an advanced school: training ground. I am confused by your use of the word humanitarian regarding my post. What or whom are you alluding to in what context?

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing

Hello vet,
I can hardly disagree with the many points you laid out.
There are believers and there are skeptics (like you and me) that have a true heart.
The love of Humanity is no less important
than the love of God.
Virtuous love is supreme.

If God showed his love to humanity to a 10th of the degree humanity trusts and loves IT (without questioning its being/existence) this would be one beautiful world (instead its agenda is based in chaos and yin/yang chance change). Virtuous love as you call it I would expand as being IN Love with the Truth/certainty IT exists and also proclaim the same virtuous love for ourselves (we do count as well).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

It's time to cut to the chase.

"If God showed his love to humanity to a 10th of the degree humanity trusts and loves IT (without questioning its being/existence) this would be one beautiful world (instead its based in chaos and yin/yang chance change). Virtuous love as you call it I would expand as being Love In Truth without question."

God has not shown and will not show his love for humanity.

It is up to us.

If there is no God,

That does not mean that we should not strive to be God-like?

What could be more noble than to seek perfection?