God Without Bible?

Here's my problem. I was brought up by the bible. The bible, and Jehovah go hand in hand, right? Well... if so much of it was altered, and translated wrong. And man's views were imprinted along with the divine.. which is truth, and which is not?

So suppose I choose to believe Jesus was real. Or maybe not. Doesn't matter, but what if I choose to believe in the good loving God that the bible teaches, but I don't buy most of the bible. I like the basic teachings of the bible, but how will you say peace peace, and then, sword death... all in one book? I think governments love the bible. It gives them structure and they don't have to really threaten because the bible says you'll go to hell if you don't live the "right" way.

If someone believes in a good God, how can they worship that God, without going along the bible? Make sense? it sounds totally confusing, but I don't know how else to say it.

Can you believe in God, without the bible? And yes.. I'm talking about the God OF the Bible. lol

Who do you all worship? I'm currently an agnostic without a devout belief in God, but if I did.. I would believe Him to be deeply loving. On a level we can't even comprehend. Your thoughts?

reply to post by EagleTalonZ


Hi ETZ

I appreciate your honesty regarding your own path to date. I also have to agree that governments use the Christian faith to their own advantage. Politicians ingratiate themselves to adherents of faith-groups and other potential lobbyists in order to obtain mass block votes. Sadly I believe many feign agreement with the principled beliefs of such groups and even pretend to have a particular faith - all on the alter of self-promotion.

No wonder people are sick of politics. Not to mention politics and religion mixing.

If someone believes in a good God, how can they worship that God, without going along the bible? Make sense? it sounds totally confusing, but I don't know how else to say it.

Can you believe in God, without the bible? And yes.. I'm talking about the God OF the Bible.

When Christ was on the earth there was an entire people-group that thought this way: the Samaritans. He made a deliberate diversion at one point to talk the whole issue through with them.

You can read the account in John's Gospel ch.4 v.1-42.

There is probably little I can add to that, although I'd be happy to reply to any questions that arise from it.

As regards the reliability of the Bible itself, have you come across this?

www.worldinvisible.com...

It is a thorough yet brief explanation of why many of the doubts people have as to the authenticity of the Bible we have in our hands today are often based on hearsay and urban myth, but under scrutiny prove groundless.

All the best.

Originally posted by EagleTalonZ
Can you believe in God, without the bible? And yes.. I'm talking about the God OF the Bible. lol

Yes and no.

When you say "God," a concept comes to my mind. That concept, btw, is futile to personify. It can be done for metaphorical purposes, for the purposes to communicating to other people, but you cannot slap a word on what is truly "god," the "ultimate source of creation" or whatever else you want to call it. It is an abstract, non-physical, non-existent ideal or process. The closest physical manifestation you can get is the entire universe and everything in it. You can only point to the experience of realizing what is truly around you in a greater or lesser number of empty and meaningless words.

When I read the Bible speak of God, I get meaning out of it, but it is not the same meaning that people that go to church would understand. It is a much richer interpretation, that I would say is less naive and assuming.

How do you know the disciples did not have the same conception in mind? It is nearly impossible to put into words, without being figurative and creative yourself in the process. You could read the Bible both ways (literal, or not), and both ways will make (some) "logical" sense. Of course the "prover" in you will always want to validate the "thinker" in you.


Truly anyone can reach any number of interpretations of the Bible, and which is "right" or "wrong" are also meaningless concepts, as "right" and "wrong" do not actually physically exist. However, by realizing this, my view here encompasses all other more literal views and comprehends them at the same time. I would say it's therefore the greater one.


Imo the Bible is ultimately a pretty dull text either way, compared to others, but I don't want to step on any attachments to it or any particular belief system. The links in my signature all point to sources of information that I at least find much deeper and enlightening than the Bible.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

Truly anyone can reach any number of interpretations of the Bible, and which is "right" or "wrong" are also meaningless concepts, as "right" and "wrong" do not actually physically exist.

ETZ specifically said he was talking of the God of the Bible, who is by definition the one, true, eternal designer and maker of all. He is perfect in moral purity, in knowledge (past, present and future) and in understanding, and is everywhere present. He knows every person not only on a personal level, but at the deepest level of the heart: no thought or motive is unseen or miscomprehended.

He is in every way 'right' and anything or anyone who differs from Him is correspondingly 'wrong'. That is why He is able to judge each of us when we meet him in such a way that no-one can ever dispute. Even those He condemns will agree it is just and deserved. Those who have found the forgiveness He offers marvel all their lives at how so perfect a judge found a way to remain fair and just, and yet still pardon them entirely: the Cross.

The concept that right and wrong are just relative concepts is the result of not knowing the God ETZ has named. This concept has only been around a short while and it will probably fade into philosophical history fairly soon as soon as another fad comes along. It's just a tragedy that so many people base their moral compass on such flimsy ground. A quagmire, to be more precise.

You claim your view - that the Bible can be understood in a seemingly infinite number of ways -

encompasses all other more literal views and comprehends them at the same time. I would say it's therefore the greater one.

Well you would say that, my friend, wouldn't you? In fact such a view is an admission that you have not understood the one constant theme and message of the entire Bible, from beginning to end, which is so clear even children can comprehend it:

Jesus Christ is God, come in the form of a man to take the punishment for our corruption upon himself so that we, believing, might love God and live with him forever.

Christ said it himself when speaking to the disciples after his resurrection from the dead:

He said to them, "How unwise and slow you are to believe in your hearts all that the prophets have spoken! Didn't the Messiah have to suffer these things and enter into his glory?" Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted for them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures.

The Bible is its own interpreter!

Originally posted by pause4thought
He is in every way 'right' and anything or anyone who differs from Him is correspondingly 'wrong'.

No, there is no such thing as "wrong."

What I am talking about encompasses all, you are correct, but within that "all" is that which people define "good" and "bad."

That is why He is able to judge each of us

There is no judgment as you think of it! I beg to be proven wrong by any means.


Saying the Bible interprets itself, is only showing your blindness to yourself. The Bible is words. It has no inherent meaning until it is read. It takes a person to read.

reply to post by bsbray11

There is no judgment as you think of it! I beg to be proven wrong by any means.

Firstly, I believe your conscience (as opposed to your philosophical stance), which sometimes condemns you, and sometimes justifies you, is evidence that moral judgement is inescapable.

Secondly I humbly submit this evidence, not to win an argument, but in the hope that you may reconsider your apparent certainty that there is no judgement, and seek the one, true God, to your eternal blessing:

video.google.com...

Of course you can believe in God and not the Bible. You can actually believe whatever you want. You have the right.

I would only believe the Bible if God had sat down and written himself. He didn't. It was written by men. The most suspect of the whole Bible, is of course, the New Testament. A marvelous work of fiction, written by those in powerful places that wanted to control the masses.

The Bible is also political. Religion is really a form of politics anyway. Just ask this guy:



What is this guy's deal?


[edit on 7-5-2008 by Excitable_Boy]

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy

...

I would only believe the Bible if God had sat down and written himself. He didn't. It was written by men. The most suspect of the whole Bible, is of course, the New Testament. A marvelous work of fiction, written by those in powerful places that wanted to control the masses.

The Bible is also political. Religion is really a form of politics anyway. Just ask this guy:



[edit on 7-5-2008 by Excitable_Boy]

Im going to have to disagree there on that last point..... Its only seen as politics because that guy makes it - and other people seem to want to blend the two.... which in my opinion shouldnt be done any way.

On that first point Im going to have to disagree as well.... The new testiment was written as a guide by the first church - it was written indirectly by God but I think that its purpose was to serve as a guid for later churches to follow.... Studying in depth shows this... maybe if you get some type you should cheak out James chapter 1 - theres a lot you can get out of that book.

I'll re-read James and let you know what I think.

BTW: Welcome to the show! It's a dynamo! Know what I mean?

to the OP:

i guess the question would be why? why would you need to separate the bible from god?

if the bible is god's inspired word and you disagree with it in some way, what does that say about your faith. im not personally questioning your faith, im simply pointing out a conflict.

if one says he loves god, and wants to be close to him, it would not makes sense to reject his word.

i notice alot of people saying god is evil because of this or because of that. its nice to be politically correct and say god loves everyone and noone needs redemption because we are all perfect the way we are,and because there is no right or wrong, but its simply not true. if we were living in a utopia, maybe i might believe that, but we dont.

a majority of the planet suffers everyday. and its because of evil people. selfish people. the evidence is simple, if people (generally) were good, the planet would be a nicer place to live, but the majority are the bad apples.

so the bible says that the majority will be destroyed, is that bad? a person who says yes to that is apperantly oblivious to injustice.

im not saying that is your issue, but im saying you should look into the reasons why. if its because you disagree with the bible, then look into it. do your research. if after you still disagree, then you disagree.

excitable boy is right, you can believe anything you want to. its your god given right.

Originally posted by Excitable_Boy
I'll re-read James and let you know what I think.

BTW: Welcome to the show! It's a dynamo! Know what I mean?

Awesome, thanks for the welcome.... Im looking forward to hear what you think on it.

-fm

Originally posted by pause4thought

There is no judgment as you think of it! I beg to be proven wrong by any means.

Firstly, I believe your conscience (as opposed to your philosophical stance), which sometimes condemns you, and sometimes justifies you, is evidence that moral judgement is inescapable.

How do you think you know what I think or feel on the inside? When does my "conscience" ever bother me? When I tell you I'd kick Jesus in the face if I had the chance? That is, if I thought he was even a real person (I certainly do not). Now, it's not in my nature to be a violent person at all, but even the Bhagavad Gita makes an unbiased case for not only seeing beauty, but even finding enlightenment in the goriest battles, where good fathers and sons are slaughtered, for no apparent reason.

These are amongst the creations your god brings forth into this universe. To say this isn't the case is to deny your god as the ultimate source of every manifestation, but I believe in some ultimate source of all things anyway.

You've never noticed none of the famous historians from that era, from the relevant locations, ever wrote of a Jesus fellow? Never noticed similarities between the Jesus story and other Jewish parables? Probably don't know a mystery religion is, either, or what the concept of "initiation" is.

After saying all that do you think I feel the least bit of guilt? I'm not attached to your way of looking at things at all. I'm familiar with it; I was raised around it. I grew out of it. And I tell you, I found the real religion, which is beyond a single name, and it encompasses the origins of your religion, which came from the Jews. Have you ever heard of the Kabbalah or considered Jewish mysticism, which is among the most ancient wisdom in Judaism, and which of course is much older than Christianity? What do you think you might find there if you looked? I don't see how you can form an opinion until you look. If you open up to it and look deep enough I promise you will find the real inspiration, and it will change your life.

Secondly I humbly submit this evidence, not to win an argument, but in the hope that you may reconsider your apparent certainty that there is no judgement

When has there ever been coherent and consistent judgment, save what man does to himself (and even then for various and inconsistent reasons)?

The best you can offer is that this judgment comes after death, which is just a convenient cop-out for you because you don't know what comes after death.

[edit on 7-5-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

Now, it's not in my nature to be a violent person at all, but even the Bhagavad Gita makes an unbiased case for not only seeing beauty, but even finding enlightenment in the goriest battles, where good fathers and sons are slaughtered, for no apparent reason.

That is precisely the kind of twisted nonsense that puts people off faith in God. I don't care how many people believe the source is a holy book - it's man-made religion of the worst kind. I hasten to add that I am not decrying people who believe it, however sincerely - many have never tasted the message of the book in which God reveals Himself, as opposed to men's thoughts about God and his ways.

The very idea of so-called beauty and enlightenment appertaining to the senseless slaughter of human beings angers me. And I rarely get angry.

Have you ever heard of the Kabbalah or considered Jewish mysticism, which is among the most ancient wisdom in Judaism, and which of course is much older than Christianity? What do you think you might find there if you looked?

Sure I've heard about it: the Bible specifically warns against it:

...avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.

Titus 3:9

Just because something is ancient does not mean it contains wisdom.

The best you can offer is that this judgment comes after death, which is just a convenient cop-out for you because you don't know what comes after death.

I beg to differ.

I have offered as evidence:

1) The Bible, constituting the testimony of the prophets God sent. They proved themselves genuine by predicting countless details relating to the life, miraculous powers, purpose, death and resurrection of God's own Son hundreds, sometimes thousands of years beforehand. Moreover the unique Son of God himself repeatedly predicted he would rise from the dead, then did just that, appearing at one point to over 500 people at once.

2) The testimony of your conscience, which your Maker placed within you so that you, as everyone else, will be without excuse on the day of judgement (-even if you choose to ignore it now).

3) The video testimony of several people still alive today who experienced clinical death but were able to return and clearly relate their experiences as a result of modern resuscitation techniques.

The final piece of evidence alone totally disproves your assertion that the belief in a final judgement is a cop-out - I can only assume you did not watch it through.

I am not expecting that you, or everyone presented with such evidence will necessarily change their mind, or even give it serious consideration. However ignoring it and then talking about a 'cop-out' is a more extreme reaction. It smacks of a closed mind, and is certainly not debate.

Despite my strong reaction to what you have said I would actually be pleased if you continue to contribute. You bring a different perspective to what we often hear, and I would be interested to try and understand your current beliefs.

I recognise that the source you have quoted originates in a culture very different from my own. Nevertheless questions like 'Is killing human beings glorious or grotesque?' or 'What happens after death?' are, I believe, universals at the heart of which there can only be one absolutely true answer.

Finally I have to deal with one blatant falsehood:

You've never noticed none of the famous historians from that era, from the relevant locations, ever wrote of a Jesus fellow?

The historical evidence you claim does not exist, exists. It seems you have never noticed it.

If you wish to be better informed, here it is:

www.rationalchristianity.net...

Originally posted by pause4thought
That is precisely the kind of twisted nonsense that puts people off faith in God.

Good. I don't believe in your god. And I certainly don't believe in your kind of "faith."

The very idea of so-called beauty and enlightenment appertaining to the senseless slaughter of human beings angers me. And I rarely get angry.

Why? The Bible even glorifies the bashing of infants' heads against stone in the Old Testament, from Psalm 137:

"O Babylon, you devastator,
Happy shall they be who pay
you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall be they who take
your little ones
and dash them against the rock!"

Not to mention just how gruesome and cruel any war is, yet they are all allowed and permitted here on Earth, and anywhere else in the universe as far as we know. So was the Holocaust, and all number of other mass executions and etc.

What the Bhagavad Gita actually says, is that the material world is not to be placed on any pedestal. Including your body! It wastes away. It will waste away. Your body will eventually die. But your soul is indestructible.

The whole context of the Gita, is that a brilliant warrior is standing on a battle field, mourning, because he realizes so many good men are about to die, at least partly because of his own actions. He feels as though he has somehow "sinned."

His chariot driver changes into a human personification of the divine, and consoles him with such advice, that everything in this world is just sense-play, and ultimately meaningless except for the shapes and patterns it creates. This may sound disturbing to you, but it is also closest to the objective truth as far as I have ever been able to experience in this universe. All divine experience comes from within the being. And Krishna, the human embodiment of god, tells this warrior to charge into battle with sword in hand, and to not fear death, for as soon as he dies he will be reborn.

Sure I've heard about it [the Kabbalah]: the Bible specifically warns against it

Stay a slave to your book then. It doesn't do anything for me.

It doesn't do anything for you, either. You just don't realize it, and have confused spirituality with memorizing a book and "believing" in it.

The best you can offer is that this judgment comes after death, which is just a convenient cop-out for you because you don't know what comes after death.

I beg to differ.

I have offered as evidence:

1) The Bible, constituting the testimony of the prophets God sent.

But I "believe" neither in your bible or your god.

So, this is NOT a "proof," because you have to first establish to me that this book is even worth considering in such a context, before you make blatant references to it. I wipe my ass with the bible's pages. That is my attitude, my "position" on it as a literal text. I am not going to accept internal references to it as proof of anything except what it says: and I already know what it says!

2) The testimony of your conscience

You keep asserting this, but it's only a product of your imagination. Maybe other people feel as though they have a "conscience" too. That doesn't make it a universal feature. I don't have a "conscience" as you think of it. I have been truly moved by my experiences, and I don't even think the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have any real meaning anymore. Only in the eye of the beholder, like they say.

3) The video testimony of several people still alive today who experienced clinical death but were able to return and clearly relate their experiences as a result of modern resuscitation techniques.

I've been familiar with NDE reports for years. Christian experiences are not the only ones reported. Also visions of Hindu gods, Buddha, and even completely non-religious NDEs where the person just 'floats around' have been reported, and I have read them.

What am I going to tell you? When you die, your consciousness leaves your body, and you will find whatever you are expecting to find. And you will linger with it until you have enough sense about you to realize your mistake. This is your "judgment."

However ignoring it and then talking about a 'cop-out' is a more extreme reaction.

You deserve an extreme reaction. How many Christians are there today? Millions? That mostly all believe just slightly different things than one another. I live in the South. You think this bible stuff is new to me? I wonder how special you must think you are, to have this religion, like the rest of the gross masses, and yet you clearly aren't getting anything out of it. When have the masses ever been historically enlightened? You should not have very big expectations to align yourself with such a mundane way of seeing the world, unless you want to work with it. At least reading a book and having "faith" in what it says is not my idea of religious experience.

The historical evidence you claim does not exist, exists. It seems you have never noticed it.

If you wish to be better informed, here it is:

www.rationalchristianity.net...

I have never seen this particular web page, but I've read books on the subject before.

The one passage there that I read, that I haven't seen before, is prefaced with this:

Josephus' Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) refers to Jesus in two separate passages. The common translation of the first passage, Book 18, Ch. 3, part 3, is disputed and is most likely from an altered source.

Tacitus refers to a "Christus," I have heard as much before: it is an actual word/concept used in allegories that comes down from the Jews. Specifically "Christos" is the word for the Jewish Messiah, the concept of which existed well before Jesus supposedly did. The rest seem general recounts of Jewish persecution towards the end of the Roman Empire. This, I do not have any particular reason to dispute.

If Jesus did exist, and this could be shown, then the only thing I would change my mind about, is whether or not Jesus was likely to have even existed. Someone that was at one point titled "the Buddha" may have also existed at one time, but the name has become transcendent, and all number of people have written what equate to scriptures and attributed it to his name though they are not actually Siddhartha himself. Similarly I have read gnostic-like texts that attribute things to Jesus that "he" probably never really said, or attribute "miracles" to him that make more sense as metaphors and allegories than they do as things he actually physically did for whatever bizarre reason (ie turning water into wine). And in Hindu texts, it is blatantly obvious that the gods are conceptual and thought of as having infinitely many manifestations in the physical world, including in people.

reply to post by bsbray11

I wipe my ass with the bible's pages.

Well at least you are showing your colours. The beauty of your religion is shining through.

I don't have a "conscience" as you think of it.

Liar.

I don't even think the concepts of "right" and "wrong" have any real meaning anymore.

People can just rape their children and abuse others as much as they see fit. Nice philosophy. Maybe that guy in Austria shares your beliefs...

I wonder how special you must think you are, to have this religion, like the rest of the gross masses, and yet you clearly aren't getting anything out of it.

Only knowledge of and communion with the Creator of the Universe in this life, and eternal life with him in the next. Not much, I suppose...

Regarding the historical evidence for Christ you said:

I've read books on the subject before.

You then claim to have seen virtually all the evidence I presented before. Despite all this you started by saying there was no evidence! Again you were lying.

But then lying has no meaning or consequences when you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong...

I certainly wouldn't value your testimony in a court of law.

...in Hindu texts, it is blatantly obvious that the gods are conceptual and thought of as having infinitely many manifestations in the physical world, including in people.

It all makes sense really, doesn't it?!

And by the way, if you want to believe people who say they've had a near-death experience in which they saw elephant-gods and multi-armed shivas - hey, be my guest.

Man I'm just choking with laughter. Water, WATER!

Just stop it, please. I can't breathe...

Hmmm... well, glad to see a "healthy" debate going on. I feel perhaps I should elaborate more on my op. The purpose of this question was this:

I hear people quote from the bible and get COMPLETELY different meanings. For instance, some believe in hell... and my friend Miriam, (btw... good to see you've joined this thread, I figured you would) corrected me on that belief, and now I feel there is no place of eternal torment.

Then, you have all the religions which spawned from Christianity. Or have taken several views from the Bible and made their own. And I don't think I have to give examples on this. lol

So if they can easily just make their own religion based on Christianity. And if men can preach entire doctrines off of a misquoted scripture... where do you separate the divine, from man's thoughts? Which part is "God breathed and inspired" and which part is just men saying, "Oh... this is a good idea. Let' add that!"?

It's all about perception and interpretation. It won't be resolved. And some men believe they have been told to kill from scriptures in the bible, while another man doesn't believe he should kill even to defend his home.. from the very same scripture.

It was told to me, that we have no real concept of God. We only have paintings, poems, songs, and stories that do a poor job of accurately describing Him. Which means His love for us is much deeper. Which could be the reason there is no place of eternal torment. Sure.. we think they're worthy of burning forever as punishment for their sins. But that is MAN'S idea. Or could be?

I think it's possible to worship the concept of God without the Bible. I think you would live the philosophies of love, grace, mercy and patience. Don't be rude, or evil. And can we really ever determine WHO God is? I doubt it. So why couldn't we worship Love itself? After all, that is who He is, right?

[edit on 9-5-2008 by EagleTalonZ]

reply to post by EagleTalonZ

The Bible is The Living Word of God.
I wouldn't know Jesus, except for the Bible I read and accepted.

God is Love. Love is NOT God.
Through the freedom and wisdom of the Bible, nations have come out of slavery, human sacrifices and superstition.

reply to post by EagleTalonZ


I believe in God without following the Bible for pretty much the same reasons you explain in this post. I do accept the idea that the bible is inspired by God, however I also believe that men put plenty of their own two cents into that book as well. Especially the part that basically says no matter how many sins you commit, as long as you accept jesus as your saviour...you will be saved.

So now we have so-called Christians who go to church every sunday, proclaim their faith in jesus and then go throughout their lives sining every day and they think they are ok in the eyes of God just because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.

Now another question, can you follow the teachings of Jesus without believing that he was the begotten son of God boirn to a virgin?

reply to post by bsbray11


Hinduism is predated by Babylonianism. Both are predated by the faith of Noah.

The Hindu creation accounts match much of the Tenach (or Jewish Old Testament).
The Earth was void. Man was created, folowed by a woman being made out of man.
A great flood....
Eggs were part of the creation myth of babylon and middle eastern cultures as well;
The cosmic Egg



This is an extremely good read by the Rev. Alexander Hislop;
The Two Babylons

* The Indian Vedas that now exist do not seem to be of very great antiquity as written documents; but the legend goes much further back than anything that took place in India. The antiquity of writing seems to be very great, but whether or not there was any written religious document in Nimrod's day, a Veda there must have been; for what is the meaning of the word "Veda"? It is evidently just the same as the Anglo-Saxon Edda with the digamma prefixed, and both alike evidently come from "Ed" a "Testimony," a "Religious Record," or "confession of Faith." Such a "Record" or "Confession," either "oral" or "written," must have existed from the beginning.

Now, coming down from Noah, what would that succession be? We have evidence from Berosus, that, in the days of Belus--that is, Nimrod--the custom of making representations like that of two-headed Janus, had begun. Assume, then, that Noah, as having lived in two worlds, has his two heads. Ham is the third, Cush the fourth, and Nimrod is, of course, the fifth. And this fifth head was cut off for doing the very thing for which Nimrod actually was cut off. I suspect that this Indian myth is the key to open up the meaning of a statement of Plutarch, which, according to the terms of it, as it stands, is visibly absurd. It is as follows: Plutarch (in the fourth book of his Symposiaca) says that "the Egyptians were of the opinion that darkness was prior to light, and that the latter [viz. light] was produced from mice, in the fifth generation, at the time of the new moon." In India, we find that "a new moon" was produced in a different sense from the ordinary meaning of that term, and that the production of that new moon was not only important in Indian mythology, but evidently agreed in time with the period when the fifth head of Brahma scorched the world with its insufferable splendour. The account of its production runs thus: that the gods and mankind were entirely discontented with the moon which they had got, "Because it gave no light," and besides the plants were poor and the fruits of no use, and that therefore they churned the White sea [or, as it is commonly expressed, "they churned the ocean"], when all things were mingled--i.e., were thrown into confusion, and that then a new moon, with a new regent, was appointed, which brought in an entirely new system of things (Asiatic Researches). From MAURICE's Indian Antiquities, we learn that at this very time of the churning of the ocean, the earth was set on fire, and a great conflagration was the result. But the name of the moon in India is Soma, or Som (for the final a is only a breathing, and the word is found in the name of the famous temple of Somnaut, which name signifies "Lord of the Moon"), and the moon in India is male. As this transaction is symbolical, the question naturally arises, who could be meant by the moon, or regent of the moon, who was cast off in the fifth generation of the world? The name Som shows at once who he must have been. Som is just the name of Shem; for Shem's name comes from Shom, "to appoint," and is legitimately represented either by the name Som, or Sem, as it is in Greek; and it was precisely to get rid of Shem (either after his father's death, or when the infirmities of old age were coming upon him) as the great instructor of the world, that is, as the great diffuser of spiritual light, that in the fifth generation the world was thrown into confusion and the earth set on fire. The propriety of Shem's being compared to the moon will appear if we consider the way in which his father Noah was evidently symbolised. The head of a family is divinely compared to the sun, as in the dream of Joseph (Gen 37:9), and it may be easily conceived how Noah would, by his posterity in general, be looked up to as occupying the paramount place as the Sun of the world; and accordingly Bryant, Davies, Faber, and others, have agreed in recognising Noah as so symbolised by Paganism. When, however, his younger son--for Shem was younger than Japhet--(Gen 10:21) was substituted for his father, to whom the world had looked up in comparison of the "greater light," Shem would naturally, especially by those who disliked him and rebelled against him, be compared to "the lesser light," or the moon. *

* "As to the kingdom, the Oriental Oneirocritics, jointly say, that the sun is the symbol of the king, and the moon of the next to him in power." This sentence extracted from DAUBUZ's Symbolical Dictionary, illustrated with judicious notes by my learned friend, the Rev. A. Forbes, London, shows that the conclusion to which I had come before seeing it, in regard to the symbolical meaning of the moon, is entirely in harmony with Oriental modes of thinking.

Originally posted by pause4thought

I don't have a "conscience" as you think of it.

Liar.

Nope. But you're screwed, because you can't see inside my head.

People can just rape their children and abuse others as much as they see fit. Nice philosophy.

Well, it's true. And it does happen on a daily basis.

I'm not saying I condone it, I'm saying this is the creation your God has made. "Someone" "bigger" than me, allows these things to happen, all over the world, every day. Lots of people probably get away with it, forever.

Only knowledge of and communion with the Creator of the Universe in this life, and eternal life with him in the next. Not much, I suppose...

Empty words.

You then claim to have seen virtually all the evidence I presented before. Despite all this you started by saying there was no evidence!

Yeah, I still believe that. Did you not read my reply? None of what you posted was conclusive of anything. That was actually what my reply to you was supposed to convey.

But then lying has no meaning or consequences when you believe there is no such thing as right or wrong...

True, it only has what consequences other men give it. Be on your toes. Maybe everyone is lying to you! Including your bible!

I certainly wouldn't value your testimony in a court of law.

I don't value courts of law. Depending on what I'm there for, hell, I just might lie to them. Over the Bible? Why not. You got me. I'm horrible.

And by the way, if you want to believe people who say they've had a near-death experience in which they saw elephant-gods and multi-armed shivas - hey, be my guest.

No stupider than thinking you are looking at "god" or "Jesus," who was caucasian, too, of course.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by bsbray11]