It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Monotheists Must Fight

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

when he referenced it, he wasn't informing the disciples that they all had a death sentence on their heads for failing to help the needy. that would be the strangest criticism of the disciples, i've ever heard. lol

p.s. i know he wasn't directly addressing the disciples, but he was indirectly addressing them and anyone else who read it. YOU ARE ALL GODS, sons and daughters of the most high.
edit on 13-5-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: wasaka



Atheism is a word which describes other people.

It's a label. I only have one close associate who is honest to gods atheist. Meaning for her there is no one to argue with or about. She realizes that I will never be a complete atheist. She's cool with that. We laugh about it. I'm cool with her.


In "the book of eights" (perhaps the oldest sutra) the Buddha
said one ought to avoid "views" because it only leads to dukkha
(a Buddhist term commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety",
"stress", or "unsatisfactoriness").

Spending time on ATS is the opposite of avoiding views.
I see the wisdom in Buddha's instruction, but only a few
people (like your friend) really do drop their own views.
I try not to be attached to outcomes, but it's not easy.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: undo



i know he wasn't directly addressing the disciples, but he was indirectly addressing them and anyone else who read it. YOU ARE ALL GODS, sons and daughters of the most high.

Taken that way, would be an endorsement for individual judgment and responsibility. That's a pretty strong incentive for honesty and charity with discrimination.

Not to brag, but about 5 years ago there was expected to be a very severe Winter. I had some money and knew that there was a fairly large homeless population. I interviewed 4 different agencies and one Christian fellow seemed most active, so I interviewed him, looked around his facilities, saw what resourses he had and donated to his operation. That would seem to be a good example.
edit on 13-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka



Spending time on ATS is the opposite of avoiding views.
I see the wisdom in Buddha's instruction, but only a few
people (like your friend) really do drop their own views.
I try not to be attached to outcomes, but it's not easy.

That's the core meaning of the story, most everyone has a view about the divine. It is important to them to share those because to them it's superior. Out of love even they share. That's very difficult to maintain friendship when diametrically opposed views are encountered.

Emotion then is involved, you can't just reject a friend's 'view' without emotional pain. I think the pain is bearable as long as there is some goal in sight. That seems preferable to emotional withdrawal, although that is a defense mechanism which I have resorted to.

edit on 13-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

pssst...(that means I have a secret to tell you)....Athena, Sophia and Hochmah are all the same woman. psst...(another quiet on the down low), Wisdom in the Bible is a woman..but shhhhh, don't tell Christians that.

Goddesses of wisdom, yes, there is a goddess in the Bible, you just don't know because some men didn't want women to know.

Wisdom is justified of her children.

Christians don't want to know that because they think everything in the Bible is masculine, when the very Bible even tells us that God is both male and female. The Shekinah, that's female. El Shaddai, the God with breasts feeding children, that's female.

And that is not Gnosticism, even though Gnostics embraced it. Christians really aren't aware of the very roots of their faith. When I went with my Conservative Jewish friend to shul, I asked her why they addressed the Queen of the Sabbath to welcome her, the reply was, the Queen of the Sabbath was actually a goddess.

Sabbath Queen,

Shabbat is compared esoterically to a bride given to us by God, whom we long for her arrival - (source: Talmud Shabbat 119a).


Shabbat Hamalkah

She is in the Bible, represented all throughout and even Jesus addresses her. But Christians don't know that because they've been told that everything is masculine.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

the hermaphroditic god concept is wrong from what i can tell. it works like this:

a singular male elohim who was a life creator, in the royal we voice, created adam males and females from other elohim by cloning their dna, some who were males and some who were females. in the sumerian version, a singular anunnaki used his own dna and the dna of several birth goddesses, to create the workers. i think the "several" part of "several birth goddesses" is the various races. in effect, the birth goddesses were of various racial backgrounds who's dna was already predisposed to specific climatic regions (hot and dry, hot and moist, cold and dry, cold and moist, temperate).

but then i don't think the creation account, after genesis 1:1, is exclusively talking about the first creation of the earth (most of the time it sounds like a re-creation, a re-terraforming, so lifeforms are being re-introduced following a cataclysm, such as the events that caused the ice age. the water recedes to reveal dry land that was already there. even the second verse reveals this when it says: and the earth BECAME void and without form. the translators made a mistake there, when they said: and the earth was void and without form. the word there is not was, it's BECOME, and in past tense is BECAME, not was.




edit on 14-5-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy

the hermaphroditic god concept is wrong from what i can tell. it works like this:

a singular elohim who was a life creator, in the royal we voice, created adam males and females from other elohim by cloning their dna, some who were males and some who were females. in the sumerian version, a singular anunnaki used his own dna and the dna of several birth goddesses, to create the adam. i think the "several" part of "several birth goddesses" is the various races. in effect, the birth goddesses were of various racial backgrounds who's dna was already predisposed to specific climatic regions (hot and dry, hot and moist, cold and dry, cold and moist, temperate).

but then i don't think the creation account, after genesis 1:1, is exclusively talking about the first creation of the earth (most of the time it sounds like a re-creation, a re-terraforming, so lifeforms are being re-introduced


Can you please provide evidence that it is the language used for royal we?

Pluralis majestatis is the Latin term, but can we say the writers of the Bible applied it in that manner?


The royal "we" (pluralis majestatis) refers to a single person holding a high office, such as a monarch, bishop, or pope.
This is nosism.

The first usage in English was the 12th Century, and since the Bible was already used long before the 12th Century, the application of the royal we was not even part of the language by Christians.

Henry II used it in the concept of "we" as in God and him, because it refers to the divine right of kings. The Jews reject the Trinity, but at no time ever do Jews reject the Sabbath Queen, Hochmah or Shekinah. And because they aren't plural, they are individuals. So to apply the royal we, you have to prove that was the intent of the writers of the Torah, in which the Bible Old Testament is.

So if there is no royal we regarding Hochmah and Sabbath Queen, then they must be individuals. And if they are individuals then they are persons.

The royal we was used exclusively by persons in high office (human beings) to indicate they were united with God for the purpose of religious leadership, because the royal we means "God and I".

Divine Right of Kings Henry II was first to use it in the 12th Century.


The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal absolutism. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including the church. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute treason.


I think you misapply the concept of the term from it's original meaning.

The Jewish tradition limited the authority of the Israelite kings with reference to the Mosaic law and the oversight of the prophets, who often challenged the kings and sometimes even supported rival claimants to the throne in God's name.


Hence, the term is used by humans, not God. And the purpose for the usage was divine right.

I think you might just have to prove that was the intent of the writers of Torah. If you say Royal We was used by God (which does not appear to be the case), then Shekinah and Hochmah are individual women who were still revered and accepted and worshiped.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

the use of the word he / him while saying ELOHIM (a plural word). diagram the verse. how can a plural word for gods, be called he/him and yet produce males and females when copying his image? easy: he, as the head of the life creation team, in conjunction with other elohim (gods/goddesses) copied the dna (images) of these other elohim, to create male and female workers named adam.

he's either a he or a she. since it says he, yet calls him ELOHIM (a plural word) i think the translators were confused. it's a bit of a process of elimination.
edit on 14-5-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy

the use of the word he / him while saying ELOHIM (a plural word). diagram the verse. how can a plural word for gods, be called he/him and yet produce males and females when copying his image? easy: he, as the head of the life creation team, in conjunction with other elohim (gods/goddesses) copied the dna (images) of these other elohim, to create male and female workers named adam.

he's either a he or a she. since it says he, yet calls him ELOHIM (a plural word) i think the translators were confused. it's a bit of a process of elimination.


Elohim simply means "gods" in plural because "him" is not HIM as in male, but him as in plural.

Psalm 91 gives a good example of this...


He that dwells in the secret place of the Highest, He shall abide under the shadow of the Many Breasted One.
El Shaddai...


I will say to YAHWEH, He is my refuge and my fortress; My ELOHIM, I trust in Him.
The masculinity is placed onto Yaweh, the writer is now saying that under the name Yaweh, all Gods are now one under that name.


Only with your eyes shall you look, And see the reward of the wicked. For you, YAHWEH, are my refuge! You have made the Highest your habitation. No evil shall befall you, Neither shall any plague come near your tent.


Why should no plague come near the tent of Yaweh? This is direct reference to the tabernacle in the wilderness, the tent that the Shekinahcovered.


In the Targumim. The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper (see Anthropomorphism).


There WAS a time early on when they did accept the anthromorphism, but by the time of David, when the Psalm was written, somehow all the individuals became one and no longer anthromorphic.


Since the Shekinah is light, those passages of the Apocrypha and New Testament which mention radiance, and in which the Greek text reads δόξα, refer to the Shekinah, there being no other Greek equivalent for the word. Thus, according to Luke ii. 9, "the glory of the Lord [δόζα Ḳυρίου] shone round about them" (comp. II Peter i. 17; Eph. i. 6; II Cor. iv. 6); and it is supposed that in John i. 14 and Rev. xxi. 3 the words σκηνοῦν and σκηνή were expressly selected as implying the Shekinah. The idea that God dwells in man and that man is His temple (e.g., Col. ii. 9; II Cor. vi. 16; John xiv. 23) is merely a more realistic conception of the resting of the Shekinah on man.


There was no Greek equivalent to Shekinah so when the Bible was translated into Greek, the loss of meaning occurred. Lost in translation.

The very earliest in the religion included both male and female, but by the time of David, even though Solomon still included male and female representation in the temple, there was a turning toward masculinity, even though the names are still used, indicating both male and female.

The real fight among monotheists is not about other gods, but the nature of God. Maculine vs. feminine.

I am a Christian and have no objection to the concept of masculine and feminine. Like I said, Jesus said "wisdom is justified of her children" and the book of Proverbs continually call wisdom she.

That is kind of hard to get around, in my opinion, so as a Christian, I have to accept all of it and it does not make me a polytheist, because God isn't just this one single individual, it is all the individuals gathered into one, the echad.

God is Echad, unity, unified. And Yaweh simply means "I am that I am". The God that IS.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

my version is not misogynistic at all, explains clearly why there were female copies of a male elohim without resorting to calling him a hermaphrodite, indicates female goddesses existed before the creation of the adam males and females and helps to differentiate female adam from eve, who was a female adam who had been genetically modified to procreate, when before that, new workers were cloned. notice even the verse before this one talks about the elohim as WE, and talks about creating the adam (a whole race of people who were not homo sapiens yet, as they were all copies of elohim (gods)). and it agrees with its predecessor stories from sumer that state the creator of the adapa was enki, who used his own dna and the dna of birth goddesses to create the adapa.

part of the problem is people assume this verse is the same thing as the adam and eve verse, and it isn't. eve was differentiated from the female adam in that she was the first procreative female, when before that, new workers were cloned rather than procreated. she became that way when a male adam was made procreative and his procreative dna was then used to create a procreative female adam, who was then named EVE (mother of all living) by the male adam from whom her procreative ability was gleaned. that's why it says adam already knew (adam knew his wife and she begat).



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   


And Yaweh simply means "I am that I am". The God that IS.


hayah asher hayah

i'm reallllllllllllly having a hard time believing that asher meant "that"


but i do find something incredibly interesting about "hayah"
check this out:

genesis 1:2 states that the earth became tohu and bohu. the word became is derived from "hayah"
hayah is translated as "to be", "become", "exist" and is from the primitive root "hava" which means "to fall", "to be", "become", "exist" and that is from the primitive root, "avah"

why the phrase "to fall" is in there, is interesting.

hayah is also the root of jehovah and yahweh.
the h in hayah is semitic prefix so it would be ayah who is ea (ayah) who is enki.

so hayah asher hayah is ea asher ea. or if we want to go with isis, IS asher IS. now that's suggesting that asherah is who shows up to talk to moses, yet asherah worship is condemned constantly in the old testament. how interesting.

i've always thought it was a statement of mastery over time. but what's asher doing in there?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WarminIndy

my version is not misogynistic at all, explains clearly why there were female copies of a male elohim without resorting to calling him a hermaphrodite, indicates female goddesses existed before the creation of the adam males and females and helps to differentiate female adam from eve, who was a female adam who had been genetically modified to procreate, when before that, new workers were cloned. notice even the verse before this one talks about the elohim as WE, and talks about creating the adam (a whole race of people who were not homo sapiens yet, as they were all copies of elohim (gods)). and it agrees with its predecessor stories from sumer that state the creator of the adapa was enki, who used his own dna and the dna of birth goddesses to create the adapa.

part of the problem is people assume this verse is the same thing as the adam and eve verse, and it isn't. eve was differentiated from the female adam in that she was the first procreative female, when before that, new workers were cloned rather than procreated. she became that way when a male adam was made procreative and his procreative dna was then used to create a procreative female adam, who was then named EVE (mother of all living) by the male adam from whom her procreative ability was gleaned. that's why it says adam already knew (adam knew his wife and she begat).


I would not call you misogynist.

I think you are referring to the Annunaki, of Zechariah Sitchen's interpretation?

I don't quite agree with Sitchen, but that's for a different discussion. What I will say is this, that people who tend to follow the Sacred Name movement actually discount the fact that included in the earliest worship of the Jews were Tammuz, there is a whole month called Tammuz.

I heard a man named Jim Staley, a very prominent member in the Sacred Name movement, actually denounce Tammuz as being the son of Nimrod and Semiramis, trying to promote that Nimrod was Ba'al. He actually said that everything related to that was to be shunned, even to the point of not mentioning Tammuz was a month and then saying he celebrates everything Jewish. (WHHHHAAAAA!!!! was my reply in the comment section).

Then the poor man actually misrepresented Shamash in his presentation. He even called Shamash Ba'al. He had no idea of who Shamash was, saw a picture of Shamash and then declared Shamash to be Ba'al, while still celebrating lighting the menorah....while not saying the middle candle is called Shamash.

The religion of Judaism was never formally codified until Moses. They were 400 years in Egypt, (yes, they were there regardless of Israel Finklestein saying they weren't), so that was really a long time to become disconnected with the religion of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Bible says "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", but Joshua then tells them "you may serve the gods of your fathers from before the other side of the flood, as for me and my house, we will serve Adonai".

Joshua was really saying "go ahead, serve the gods of your fathers if you must, but for those of you who want to be in covenant relationship with Adonai, then serve Adonai".

This is the whole passage, that doesn't usually get preached in churches...

Joshua 24 And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. 2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.


Therefore, the God of Israel is Adonai (Yaweh, El Elyon, El Shaddai...) but there was still the understanding that there were other gods.


3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac
. The God of Abraham.


14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord.


Notice here, he says in Sumer and in Egypt. So there was still a lot of carry over for them.


15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.


He is saying that it is up to the individual as to what god they serve, if it seems evil to serve the God of Abraham, then serve other gods. As for Joshua and his house, they will serve Adonai.


16 And the people answered and said, God forbid that we should forsake the Lord, to serve other gods;


They chose the covenant relationship with Adonai. That was the basis of the founding of Judaism.


18 And the Lord drave out from before us all the people, even the Amorites which dwelt in the land: therefore will we also serve the Lord; for he is our God. 19 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the Lord: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. 20 If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good. 21 And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the Lord. 22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the Lord, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses. 23 Now therefore put away, said he, the strange gods which are among you, and incline your heart unto the Lord God of Israel. 24 And the people said unto Joshua, The Lord our God will we serve, and his voice will we obey. 25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.


And thus now was the concept of masculinity vs. feminine. However, even in the literature, God was presented as male/female, by the very language used. As God is always referred to The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, just how was God spoken of by them?

From Jacob to Moses was 400 years. Even Joseph was married to Asenath, a daughter of a priest of On. His sons Ephraim and Manasseh were beneficiaries of the religion of On. Do we really know how much Sumerian or Egyptian was absorbed into their worldview?

Joshua seems to indicate that there was a new religion now, and this new religion was a covenant with Adonai. He now calls it a national God. The God of Israel. And this is now referring to the God of Jacob, as Jacob was renamed Israel. And Jacob lived for many years in Midian, with his wives Rachel and Leah and the two handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah. They certainly taught in some ways to their sons their own religious views.

Jacob didn't really mention anything about how he perceived God other than he was against idols. We can't really say what Jacob believed other than that.

The fight among monotheists is really about masculine/female and which God is God. One can still be monotheist if they worship only Odin, saying all the gods are now one in Odin.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo



And Yaweh simply means "I am that I am". The God that IS.


hayah asher hayah

i'm reallllllllllllly having a hard time believing that asher meant "that"


but i do find something incredibly interesting about "hayah"
check this out:

genesis 1:2 states that the earth became tohu and bohu. the word became is derived from "hayah"
hayah is translated as "to be", "become", "exist" and is from the primitive root "hava" which means "to fall", "to be", "become", "exist" and that is from the primitive root, "avah"

why the phrase "to fall" is in there, is interesting.

hayah is also the root of jehovah and yahweh.
the h in hayah is semitic prefix so it would be ayah who is ea (ayah) who is enki.

so hayah asher hayah is ea asher ea. or if we want to go with isis, IS asher IS. now that's suggesting that asherah is who shows up to talk to moses, yet asherah worship is condemned constantly in the old testament. how interesting.

i've always thought it was a statement of mastery over time. but what's asher doing in there?




Asher Hayah Asher, v'hovay v'yavoh means Who WAS and IS and IS TO COME.

I AM that I AM is the tetragrammaton. Yod, He, Waw and He.


And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


I AM that I AM. I AM hath sent Moses to you.

Asher


The text of the Torah argues that the name of Asher means happy/blessing, implying a derivation from the Hebrew term osher (with the same meaning); the Torah actually presents this in two variations—beoshri (meaning in my good fortune), and ishsheruni, which textual scholars attribute to different sources—one to the Yahwist and the other to the Elohist.[1] Many scholars suspect that the name of Asher may have more to do with a deity originally worshipped by the tribe, either Asherah,[2] or Ashur, the chief Assyrian deity;[3] the latter possibility is cognate with Asher


Whatever Zilpah meant, she was happy about having a son.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


Athena, Sophia and Hochmah

Perhaps.

Let me cut to the bone here for a moment. The core of this thread is direct personal interaction between one person and another. Because you know this and I respect you does not and cannot translate to me giving a blanket endorsement for Judaism or Christianity.

My impression of you is that you view flip-flopping as a sign of error or weakness. Does that frighten me? Yes it does.

When I was posting a few years ago, sometimes I endorsed Christianity, sometimes Atheism. It depended on who I was conversing with, and who that person was arguing against. I was flip-flopping all over the place. That's the emotional crisis.

And if you read some threads I was making, you will see that I was exposing the "Jewish agenda for World domination". That involves the subversion of Christianity. I thought I was defending Christians against a threat. Do you see the difficulty when I don't particularly think Christianity as a blanket is worth a damn?

Individual Jews, yes, they are people. Individual Christians, yes, they are people.

I read some extreme rabbi's writings. It was clear to me that he actually was polytheistic, even including the name of a female deity in his name. But his teachings translated into direct physical violence to other people among his followers. The most embracing being the most violent? That's a bit much. How am I supposed to understand that?


edit on 14-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
oooooo will ya look at this

variant spellings of Asherah: Ashertu(s) or Aserdu(s) or Asertu(s)
AND
variant spellings of Osiris: Egyptologists transliterate the name variously as Asar, Asari, Aser, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, Usir, Usire or Ausare.

woop. there it is.

the guy who shows up in the desert to moses, is osiris (asher/aser)

that explains why jeru-salem is HERU-salem (heru is horus)




edit on 14-5-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
solomon's temple, 3d representation. looks quite egyptian, doesn't it? reminds me of a stylized sphinx.


edit on 14-5-2015 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   
pardon me, i'm celebrating my new discovery




posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Let me explain what I mean, I don't see flip flopping as an error or weakness. I think it is in the individual to what the individual understands or perceives.

I don't think that there can be a blanket Christianity, as we are too diverse in doctrines and teachings. Remember though, within Judaism also, they are also diverse.

There is the Orthodox (Hasidic) Jews who think only they are Jews, there is the Conservative Jews who think that the Hasidic are nuts and there is the Reform who the Hasidic think are not only nuts but also not really Jews. Then there are the Karaite Jews who reject Hasidic.

I think that people are most wary of Hasidic, even though the Hasidic (which most rabbis are) know the ancient religion, they want people to follow the traditions of the elders. Conservative, they are accepting of others and that is what my friends are.

Even within Judaism, they are divided and some really don't care about Maimonedes or Talmud and are quick to dismiss Talmud. It was my Conservative Jewish friend who told me about Queen of the Sabbath being a goddess.

I once saw a video of a Hasidic rabbi who said (talking to other Jews) that if one keeps at least one mitzvah, they are Jewish. So I asked him, on his website, "For those of us who are not Jewish but we keep at least one mitzvah, according to you, aren't we also Jewish?". No reply.

And as people get older, their worldviews change. That doesn't mean that they are flip flopping, only that they are going by their own understanding at the time. Even I have had my worldviews change.

UFOs, yes, they exist. Bigfoot, exists. Alien abductions, I don't know but if someone tells me about it, then I would believe them. Haunted houses, real. Ghosts, real. See, those are things a lot of Christians do not believe. So a blanket understanding of Christians, we are really an enigma because we don't see eye to eye on a lot of things.

Flip flopping, I do not see that as an error or weakness, only a person learning new things. Rabbis though, you probably heard a very Hasidic rabbi that was promoting violence, and the Conservative and Reform probably thought he was wrong and nuts.

What I say comes from years of reading and researching my own faith, discarding tradition. That is why I cannot be Orthodox Christian. I hope that helps.

The term monotheist simply means someone who believes in one god, so if the one god to them is Odin, then they are monotheist. I think the term has been applied to only three religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

I remember going a long time thinking "Who is she that the Bible keeps talking about?", after a long time of searching, I discovered she was Hochmah. I had to accept that.

I hope you don't see that as error or weakness on my part, I just am not Orthodox enough to disregard that fact of the Bible.

ETA: And let me just add this, now that I know, I can't lie about it. I have to admit it if I intend to be honest.





edit on 5/14/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


The term monotheist simply means someone who believes in one god, so if the one god to them is Odin, then they are monotheist. I think the term has been applied to only three religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

One of the first monotheistic non-Abrahamic religions I came across was Tengriism. It features shamanism, animism, totemism, both polytheism and monotheism.

In Tengriism, the meaning of life is seen as living in harmony with the surrounding world. Tengriist believers view their existence as sustained by the eternal blue Sky, Tengri, the fertile Mother-Earth, spirit Eje(Umay), and a ruler who is regarded as the holy spirit of the Sky. Heaven, Earth, the spirits of nature and the ancestors provide every need and protect all humans. By living an upright and respectful life, a human being will keep his world in balance and maximize his personal power Wind Horse.


Umay (also known as Umai; in Old Turkic: Old Turkic letter Y1.svgOld Turkic letter M.svgOld Turkic letter O.svg, Kazakh: Ұмай ана, Russian: Ума́й or Ымай ) is the goddess of fertility[1] and virginity in Turkic mythology and Tengriism and as such related to women, mothers and children. Umay resembles earth-mother goddesses found in various other world religions.

This appeals to me for what I see as confirmation of Gender Duality Sky/Male, Mother-Earth/female. If it stops there, I believe that that can be seen as a dual-monotheism. But once Umay is added as goddess of virginity and fertility it gets beyond simple Monotheism and dual-Monotheism.

There are other monotheisms and other Monolatrist religions (many gods acknowledged but one consistently worshiped)


I remember going a long time thinking "Who is she that the Bible keeps talking about?", after a long time of searching, I discovered she was Hochmah. I had to accept that.

I hope you don't see that as error or weakness on my part, I just am not Orthodox enough to disregard that fact of the Bible.

You sought her out and found her in the texts. This is not error. But if you find that Shekinah and Hochmah are not identical then you may be faced with the choice between dual-Monotheism and actual polytheism or Monalterim or even your own unique fusion of three.

I'm not qualified to offer advice there. Because they are your texts and your culture.

You're more qualified than I am in your texts and in your culture. And I can't think of anything more at the moment.

Thank you for posting the info and the links in your first post. They will be a valuable resource to people reading the thread.


Right now my brain isn't functioning at peak. All the blood rushed to my stomach after eating. I'll try again tomorrow.
edit on 15-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy
Lady,

I am sorry I hurt you. When you showed me your pearls I mistook your God/s for that guy's g.ds. I reacted with bigotry. What recompense will you have of me?


I hope you don't see that as error or weakness on my part, I just am not Orthodox enough to disregard that fact of the Bible.

At least I finally saw this: "not Orthodox enough ..."




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join