It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is Yahweh really the prime creator?

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 02:24 AM
try this for the answer. It will swing a direction you never saw coming.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:57 AM
Sorry to emphasize it again, but to avoid misunderstandings: I'm talking from a position of non-doctrinal pragmatism (not meaning anti-theism).

The manifested cosmos demonstrates a great deal of the predatory principle. It can be considered 'natural' or not, according to what doctrines you lean on; but it is there. And no doctrines can give an ultimate explanation of it. At best such are just wishful guesses trying to fill the knowledge gaps. A hidden 'god', bhakti, original sin.. whatever.

Predation is best observed in various kinds of territorial fights (living space, food, mating hierarchy).

But to make things worse in a human perspective, there's the special version of predation, where bioenergy is part of the food-pyramid. The predator eats more than just the physical part. By creating fear or similar emotions in the victim bio-energy is released. Mankind, which so often is ridden by its own inability to balance 'instinct' with a potential of higher consciousness, has even turned such bio-energy eating into a perversion: Sadism (kz-camps, South american sacrificial religions, the inquistion and some very specialised sexuality).

The archont theory, based on more than only doctrines, can add to our knowledge on this both practically and theoretically.

Obviously predation doesn't stop, if you submit passively to it. Including lowly animals in a greater cosmic context of predation, submissive rats get eaten more often than flee or fight rats (rats can actually gang up successfully against a cat). On the other hand is 'attack-is-the best-defense' like an open invitation for creating unending conflict.

In the context of this thread, the special branch of the cosmic predation-principle manifesting amongst mankind, called ideological invasion, is a manifestation of forces both human and (most likely non-corporeal) other species. There are entities above us in the food-chain, and they involve humans in their schemes.

As I myself (possibly explained as being bonkers) have experienced such non-corporeal entities, the subject has naturally interested me.

Relating to ideological invasion/predation can range from the mundane to the non-corporeal level. In normal life a small, non-offensive private territory can be guarded. "See, I have not much worth stealing, but if you pass my limits, I will defend myself as a lion". It's simply not worth it for the average physical predator hiding inside a violent ideology.

As to the human 'believer' ideological predator, it's necessary to mark the limits. As some of us are doing on this forum: "So far, but not further". For the average fanatic this can ofcourse be taken as a personal affront, but 'the live and let live' types can make a formidable common opponent, also not worth fighting until the predator has sufficient force.

The real dangerous predators are those, who mess with our minds. Directly or indirectly. But that will be for a possible later post, I'll just end up saying, that I sympathize with pepsi78's approach.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by memyself
Consider this scenario:
You see a soldier with a machine gun who is going to kill a whole group of civilians. You have access to a gun and you have the opportunity to kill that soldier. You have seconds to decide before it is too late. What do you do?

My friend,

We can what if things to death and come up with all kinds of scenarios which may or may not ever find either one of us. From these scenarios we can declare how we will or will not act as if we really know, when the truth of the matter is we don't. None of us knows where we will break from our perceived morality. None of us knows how much horror we can handle before we commit horror ourselves.

Therefore, I won't go down this road. I have been down it already in this life. At times I was stronger than I thought I could be, and at times I was weak. That is the nature of being human.

What I can say, is that learning to love God's creation has made things much easier, and infinitely more joyful. The bad times do not have near the edge to them, and the good times are heavenly bliss. But, this is my life, my world. It took a lot to get here. It was not easy.

You have your life, you have your path you must walk to get to where I am, or where ever it is that you are going. I am just here to provide encouragement when you need it, if you need it. That's all any of us can do for each other. That's what we SHOULD do for each other.

With Love,

Your Brother

edit on 16-9-2010 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:14 AM
On the death of Jesus according to the Gnostics - a historical record about JHWH = Yaldabaoth = the demiurge being the one who wanted Jesus dead
From the book Cristología Gnóstica vol. II by Antonio Orbe (Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, Madrid, 1976) pp. 407-408 (translated; remarks by me in […]):

The demiurge and the Archons
There were also those who ascribed the death of Jesus to the demiurge, and not to the devil.
So did the Audians, according to a remark by Agapio:
‘While (Christ) preached to the people, he disturbed the works (= introduced a new order) of his lord, and the father of life (= the demiurge) became furious against Christ and killed and crucified him.’

Bar Hebraeus informs us similarly:
‘God (= the demiurge) is subject to destiny and at the end dissolves and finishes with his collaborators [= the archons]; and God is the one who crucified Christ, and Christ is a creation…’

The supreme Christ, sent by the highest God, started his Gospel – after the baptism in Jordan – and with that attracted the hatred of the creator, who he practically dethroned. The demiurge and founder of laws became furious against him and brought him to death on the cross.

The same attitude was ascribed to Yaldabaoth according to the works of Irenaeus and, finally, the archons of the Dianoia:
‘(The Archons) knew about one of those who followed (Jesus)… He handed him over, because none (of the Jews) knew him. They seized him… and they handed him over to Sasabek for nine bronze coins.’ [Cf. “The Concept of Our great Power” 41:15-30 in The Nag Hammadi Library.]

According to the 1st Apocalypse of Saint James, the apostle expressed much resentment against the Jews because of the passion of the Lord. The Lord eased him [as he appeared to him] and explained that the Jewish people is not responsible of the crime. The Archons are the ones to blame. [Cf. “The First Apocalypse of James” 31:14-39 in The Nag Hammadi Library.]”

Who is here called “creator” is, of course, the one who declared himself to be one, i.e., the demiurge, and not the prime creator.

posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by IAMIAM

Of course we don't know how we would react ... it is just a kind of exercise or maybe meditation to contemplate on how such a situation would be and what may be a proper way to act ... if the we really could ...

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 10:39 AM
Really nice energies coming from you through this thread IAMIAM. I think its important to remember we will all have that moment of studying everything we can get our hands on in the Earthly books to discern for ourselves what is going on. As you said, youve been there, done that...dont care to do it over again, for now you have discoved God is love and the best way of knowing this (I assume) is through personal relations now outside of the Earthly books.

I think its great that the OP is on this path of seeking through the texts and mans past of what they understood for this is more then many are willing to do or open enough to do.

Encouraging the all you can, take it within you and discern the natures of the words and events. Your inner nature will find things that resonate with you and it sounds like you have a great discernment between the nature of things of Earth and nature of things of Spirit.

I would not disregard, that alot of what you read, is allegorical. A allegory of the difference between the effects of 'flesh' and the effects of 'spirit'. Yahweh, Yalbadoath, they may very well be personifications....of the body of flesh, the reactions and responses of how humans void from Spirit act and respond to the world around them. It may very well be stories of man trying to explain how things happened. You will find learning through every cultures past (and yes, dont limit yourself to just one peoples writings or past, learn them all) that there is a similar thread that runs through the whole quilt of history. Man trying to explain and personify, the story of 'flesh and spirit' entangled together.

When I had my fill of the words from the books and went to Thee on my own with a open mind and honest heart...I can only describe it similar to the stories of when a man goes off in the desert alone and comes back with a different understanding then what he had before he entered the desert.

Something that I gained outside of the books.....if a perfect higher vibration of spirit, would have no mistakes or errors, so everything that has ever emanated from this perfect spirit of life....would have purpose and have meaning for the divine plan and design. Placing faith in the idea that there was no mistakes, no errors, made me look out into the world every day with a different perspective. Seeking what the purpose would be with all the things that seem so 'imperfect'. I know think that Yahweh is a archetype of humanity....and the same with yalbadoth. They personify humanity when humanity is unawakened of the spirit within them.

All the stories for me boiled down to one personification.

Humanity has a choice, as individuals and then later, as a unit. Do we live more for the flesh of our bodies (yahweh/yalbadoth) or do we awaken the breath of life within and live more for spirit (the only part of us that is without beginning and end). One is finite, one is infinite.

I look at the Spirit (wisdom) coming into matter (flesh) not so much as a 'choice' to create but more as a needed mechanical processes that the Spirit must do for cycles of purification. As the Spirit broke down into vessels.....the sifting process begins. As the Spirit awakens in the vessels, the sifting process starts the purification's. A world of duality is just a tool, offering us a place where we can learn to discern things as conscious beings and follow our feelings and reasoning of 'what is spirit' and what if of the flesh. Of the flesh are things like pride, greed, selfishness, living for the individual body more so then living for the body of humanity as a whole, lust, desires, ect. These archetypes WOULD NOT exists, without the experience of braking into individual vessels and experiencing 'separation'. In time, all beings will start to see they are not really separate at all...they are a part of a whole unit (in Spirit we are only ONE) and to harm another or take from to harm ourselves, take from ourselves. As the spirit awakens in us as individuals, there is then another event that will happen naturally in this sifting process....and that is humanity living as a whole unit. This is the process of purification of Spirit, not being forced or commanded, it will and must happen naturally, when each vessel is ready to understand what we really are.

There is a path after the books and texts of Earth, remember, Earthly books are limited, things of Spirit can not just be given unto man. When ready for things of Spirit, you must be willing to go 'alone' and seek Thee. I think you are on your way, to that path, and its beautiful. In your own time, you will know what you are in need of.

Even right now, you can ask sincerely, for the Holy Spirit or the mind complex of the one they call Jesus, to guide you through discernment of the natures in the Earthly books. Maybe you have already done this.

All my best

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by bogomil

And no doctrines can give an ultimate explanation of it.

Thought this needed repeated, these words can alone stand on their own providing so much.

Enjoyed your posts and your vocabulary you use

In the violent consumption of life needing life to live...there is a wisdom to behold.

Life in itself, the cycle that nature needs, shows us a snake eating its own tail. It shows us cycles and must have life to live. All life holds within it the Spirit of life....therefor, no life can live by consuming something that does not hold life within it. It seems violent and primal....but there is a 'word' within this order to be found.

posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 02:09 PM
I do not think so. All human creation to fill his void in the brain that acting like a blackhole and sucking him into suicide.

Humans are happy when they stopped thinking. GOD concept help them to offload responsibilities and free his brain of thinking load.

The problem is always not all humans has the capacity or ability understand because of heavy brainwashing by human society.

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 07:07 AM
Hi Leo,

I'll leave out all the later IMO'ing and just state it here at the beginning of the post.

You appear to have a high level of understanding (both theoretical and experienced), but I like even better your ability to communicate about it.

To go straight to the heart of this thread's present situation, I'm glad, that my thoughts on predation slowly are getting housebroken. I may seem to be too pre-occupied with the subject of predation, and this is probably my own fault. I often anticipate myself, and skip some steps on the way.

If I had started with taking about 'suffering' and from there continued step by step, I might have looked less ivory-tower'ed.
I just concluded from years of buddhist and christian speculations, and omitted to present details of the process.

Hope I have made myself more comprehensible now.

In the constellation predation/suffering-dualism-divinity, I think, I (as an option) can point to an important question:

"Does the manifested cosmic dualism origine from a source, which has a positive aim with it (the dualism). Or is it just the gnostic 'error', which we better get the heck out of as quick as possible?"

It's no secret, that I have my own preferences on this question, but for a start I would just like you to consider the question from a semantic perspective and wait with answers (involving possible doctrines) until later.

Just consider the question as a question, with all that implies. It being a centerpoint in much of human speculations.

If interest, we can later unfold the arguments in different directions.

edit on 19-9-2010 by bogomil because: spelling

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 07:17 AM
Re Pokerking:

It sometimes happens, that communication is brought to a level, where doctrines aren't used as heavy artillery to 'prove' a point.

Personally I can be loudmouthed, sharp and sarcastic, and ofcourse this leads to confrontations with people who have opposite positions. The whole situation will be of entrenchment.

But when I meet with those, who are willing to at least CONSIDER my propositions as not totally imbecile, even if I represent a different doctrinal view-point, then exchange can take place. I can also consider my sparring-partners as not imbecile.

It's a long and slow reciprocial process, just to learn to communicate, but I believe it's happening here.

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 01:13 PM
reply to post by bogomil

Ill leave any answers to your questions that arose in trade to tell you I think you should venture in the path of writing your thoughts in a form of poetry, and even maybe publishing them.

You have a unique way of using words that have a chiming sense together in them. Its always a nice read, easy on the eyes but makes the mind tinker (which is good).

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:16 AM
Re Leo,

thanks for your kind words, but to make me more real, I can assure you, that I have my share of human shortcomings.

If you're around on the forum, you may have noticed, that IAM and I continue our friendly joust on NO MORE, as he calls it. And honestly, I'd prefer to have it here, rather than in the general dung-throwing taking place elsewhere.

This is a good place to be, and when you feel ready or interested, let's go on. I learn a lot from having to 'defend' my opinions in a friendly and co-operative atmosphere. It's not only about 'winning'.

It's only when a supposed 'good god' is proved by someone throwing brass-bound bibles at me, I get sore. High velocity brass can be rather painful.

(For the very serious minded: That was a metaphor).

edit on 20-9-2010 by bogomil because: Impulsivity clouded my typing. Why does anybody want to know this?

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by bogomil

I was reading some of that earlier between you and IAM...I think I stand in the middle of you both. I can see both sides.

As much as I want and believe in, standing ground in peaceful meassure, similar to the way the story of Jesus portrays...and as much as the Spirit of me would be willing to play that part....

I also have to ask myself when I see horrid things happening to people, should someone not tolerate hate and abuse to others> ?

Will we have to stand up in a militant manner to show others we will not stand by allowing starvation, abuse, and hatred to occur, in the hopes that this action wont then create more hatred? Before...we can make the notion of being the example of sure footed with guns down....

I do not know, I stand on the fence. Im willing to be of IAM's work...but a part of me is willing to not tolerate ignorant actions no longer.

We need examples....we need leaders that can set examples for the world...not for separate nations.

If the world stands divided, it will keep falling.

My view is beyond a nation, its global.

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by LeoVirgo

It is a tough fight my friend, between good and evil. Never should a good man sit quiet while evil runs rampant. However, when confronting evil, one must use special care to ensure he does not succumb to evil designs himself. A firm showing of love and understanding, and evil loses its fire. It is not always easy, particularly on an internet forum, but it is effective. Remember that whoever you are dealing with is human at its core just like you. At their very center, they want the same things as you. Give it to them in abundance, they will lose the urge to fight.

But, this is my way. Others will have to make their own decisions and figure out their own way. The old maxim, evil begets evil will always hold true. So, be careful.

With Love,

Your Brother

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:49 AM
To reconnect a bit with the original aims of this post:

Is Yahweh Marduk?
Zecharia Sitchin in an interesting discussion takes up a question that will have become unavoidable: “So, who was Yahweh? Was He one of them? Was He an extraterrestrial?” Well, in one sense he is, of course, an extraterrestrial, since he comes from beyond the Earth! But is – or was – he an Anunnaku? Or, more generally, an inhabitant of Nîbiru? Or really the prime creator?
Sitchin establishes a series of comparisons with gods named in the clay plates. Even though there are various similarities with each of these gods in the biblical descriptions of Yahweh, the comparison doesn’t work out with anyone of them, since there are also contradictions. Yahweh cannot be one of them. Sitchin then tries with Thoth, the Egyptian god, who in Sumer was called Ningishzidda. He also was a son of Enki. But the comparison doesn’t work out here, either.
Then, finally, he compares Yahweh with Marduk. He refers to Isaiah 46,1 and Jeremiah 50,2, since they predict that Marduk [3] with his son Nabu will on the Day of Judgment bow down before Yahweh and be broken in pieces. That could, however – in view of the not very friendly relations between the Hebrews and the Babylonians, where they had been in exile – be seen as a politically motivated portrayal. He then also finds an objection in a Babylonian text, according to which various functions of Marduk are transferred to other gods. This would, in his view, contradict monotheism and, therefore, Yahweh could not be Marduk. In my view one could also se that as a confirmation! If we regard this assignment of functions as Marduk delegating tasks to other gods, who thereby represent Marduk in their functions, things look a bit different. These gods, in a way, are then manifestations or forms of appearance of the one Marduk, as he works through them! The hypothesis that Yahweh would be Marduk is then no more so out of place. [4]
Delitzsch wrote in a much disputed work [5]: “Yes, the old testament poets and prophets even went so far that they transferred Marduk’s heroic deeds directly to Yahweh and then celebrated the latter as the one, who at the beginning of times crushed the heads of the sea monster (Ps 74:13ff, 89:10), as the one who smashed the accomplices of the dragon (Job 9:13).” With this, he meant the fight of Marduk against Ti’âmat, who is often described as a dragon of the primordial waters and sometimes also as a serpent with seven heads. “Passages like Isa 51:9: ‘Up, up! Equip yourself with power, arm of Yahweh! Up! Like in the primordial days, the generations of the beginning of times. Were you not the one who cut the dragon in pieces and pierced the monster?’ Or Job 26:12: ‘In his power he conquered the sea and in his cleverness he crushed the dragon’…” (his own translations from Hebrew).

The name Rahab occurs in two senses in the Bible. It is the name of a prostitute who was bribed to help the Hebrews to take the town of Jericho by means of a wicked trick. Thus she betrayed her own people. But this is not the one we are concerned with here.
Rahab is also the “dragon” in the “chaos” – i.e., the primordial energy – that was before the creation, and she is compared to Ti’âmat in Enûma Elish and even identified with her. Later she was regarded as a demon.
The name occurs in the latter meaning in the following essential passages (and a few others that are not essential to us here):
Job 9:13 “If God will not withdraw his anger, the proud helpers of Rahab do stoop under him.”
Job 26:12 “He [Yahweh] divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through Rahab. 13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.”
Ps 74:12 “For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth. 13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou breakest the heads of the dragons [Rahab and her company] in the waters. 14 Thou breakest the heads of the whales in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Ps 89:9 “Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. 10 Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.” (Ps 89:10-11 in another counting.)
Isa 51:9 “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?”
[Not all Bible translations mentioned Rahab by name here, but the Hebrew text does (רהב), except in Ps 74:12, where she is alluded to among the “dragons in the water”.]
If we here replace “Yahweh” with “Marduk”, these quotations could just as well refer to Enûma Elish with Rahab corresponding to Ti’âmat and the water to the primordial energy before creation, which actually is Apsû, from which creation then emerged. John Day has in a comprehensive academic work dealt extensively with “God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea” and sees these things in a similar manner, except that he doesn’t dare to compare Yahweh and Marduk. Instead, he wants to demonstrate an origin in the Cana‘anite mythology and not, as several other scientists do, in Enûma Elish. Since, however, the Cana‘anite texts (inscriptions) handed down to us begin at about 2350 BCE – and that fragmentary – and the Sumerian civilization is older than the oldest of these handed down texts, one cannot exclude that the Cana‘anites could have taken over mythological themes from the Sumerians. Even though the clay plates containing Enûma Elish date back to between 1800 and 1600 BCE, the mythology described therein could well be of much earlier origin and have belonged to the Sumerian culture long before they were recorded in the plates.
It is interesting that Day also takes up the plural in Gen 1, like “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26). He refers to other authors and himself explains it such that God would have consulted a “divine council” (composed of the “sons of God”). To that he quotes Ps 8:5: “For thou hast made him a little lower than the gods (‘elohim, here often translated as ‘angels’), and hast crowned him with glory and honor” (in another counting Ps 8:6) [6, p. 54]. Here we may again think of the Gnostic doctrine of Yaldabaoth and the Archons…

1. Zecharia Sitchin: Divine Encounters, Avon, New York, 1995: “Endpaper: God, the Extraterrestrial”, p 347-380
2. Singular: Anunnaku, plural: Anunnaki.
3. He is in the Bible called Merodach and is according to Sitchin also called Bel, even though both names are stated in Jer 50:2 as if they are two.
4. Jan Erik Sigdell: Es begann in Babylon, Holistika, Meckenheim, 2008, pp 109-110.
5. Friedrich Delitzsch: Babel und Bibel, J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, Leipzig, 1902, pp 33-34
6. John Day: God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea, Cambridge University Press, London, 1985.

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 05:44 AM
I often get convoluted, when I write, so I decided to answer in two posts; one from a perspective of the original abstract and academic topic here. And another one, less direct-topic on the 'means and ways' of mundane approach and application derived from the original topic.

As Memyself probable knows more about than me (praise, not scorn), the theological and/or folkloristic version of 'chaos theory', cosmogony, cosmology and ' war in heaven' (leading to war on eath) are in various incomplete models manifested all over the Eurasian area; from Ireland to East-asia. And it looks like one inclusive model once existed and subsequent cultures later have emphasized certain aspects of it.

Should anyone ever take it upon him/herself to make a comprehensive and comparative study of this on the assumption of basic similarities, the result would be interesting (to say the least). I think memyself's work is well on its way in this direction.

Switching from a purely 'theological' perspective by including science also (but not making it THE method) would be a further step, even making it possible to find relative 'truths' also for daily use.

Personally I find it easier to conceptualize in graphic patterns, when I search for such patterns of similarity, so I have a weakness for 'translating' theological, religious or folkloristic models into basic elements, which relate to each other in different constellations. Sometimes by using religios symbols (e.g. tri-gunas, wheel-of-life, star of David, yin/yang symbol, ice/fire)

Lawhdy, how did I end here. Pull yourself together Bogo.

I see a chain (I disregard, but not disprove, any ultimate specific individualised god, from lack of 'evidence'):

Chaos - intent - creation - cosmos.


Memyself has already pointed out certain similarities on the chaos aspect. I'll add the Chronos-Zeus context, Tao-yin/yang, germanic ice/fire (which is tao'ism without tao) and naturally the Jain, Vedic and buddhistic models. If science is included in this context, chaos is a very respectable option as a 'reality' at some level (this neither proves or disproves any theist theories).

Intent (of which creation is an intrinsic part):

Only direct transcendence, ON A COMPARATIVE BASIS, can give any answers. It's possible to use inductive reasoning, based on cosmological observations, as retro-causal indications. It can be useful for mundane considerations, but doesn't give conclusive theistic answers.


As I've said before, this cosmos mankind usually experiences simply can't exist without a dualistic principle. It would collapse without polarized dualities (this is one of my retro-causal arguments)..... and now I jump 'down' to manifested complexity...

....a whole complex of 'gods', semi-'gods', angels/demons, archons, watchers, nephilims, giants, shapeshifters and whatever has been the observed companions of mankind in all historical times and across cultural borders. Scientism or no scientism, the evidence is to big to be ignored on scientism doctrinal grounds. And these guys, whatever they are, are not only using mankind for their own purposes, they are also at odds with each other ('war in heaven' etc) as both earlier religion/myths say and which contemporary encounter experiences report.

I do not discard epinoia as a legitimate experience for chaos/theistic purposes, but for cosmological purposes (as to the guys mentioned above) good-oldfashioned psi-technology will suffice.

Memyself, hope you don't take this as twisting your purpose. I don't intend to bend your original direction, but to add a dimension to it, not contrary to the main topic.

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:45 AM
I do not consider 'sitting on the fence' as such a black/white option, as it is often presented as here, where 'christian'/non-christian perspectives are dominant.

You can work in a soup-kitchen or as an academic to further compassion, liberalism or whatever inclusive ideals you have.

The real problem is elitist exclusivity found everywhere. But as said above, the present ATS context is mostly around 'christianity', where the positions will be pauline/anti-pauline. There ARE completely decent christian alternatives, which (while doctrinal nonsense in my opinion) still can be said to manifest admirable compassion-elements, demonstrated by ACTION in the mundane world.

One of the most moving things I've ever heard about, was an orphanage run together by a buddhist monk and a catholic padre. This is 'religion' at its best.

edit on 21-9-2010 by bogomil because: Clarification

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by bogomil

I agree with all of what you say. Each religion says their book teaches love to each other and peace. I say then, show us by your actions you live by such faiths.

As long as there is no harm being done to another being, I am all for freedom of beliefs ect....its the fanatics that go over board and believe they are killing others for God. What can be done there..I wish I had a perfect solution to that.

Sorry for derailing the thread a bit memyself....

I take bits and pieces from the texts from all over the world...Im thinking 'God' is somewhat a very mechanical process, which is a far stance from what I grew up with, though what seems like chaos, will find order.

I really really like the word 'emanation' over the word of 'creation'.

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:08 AM
Re Leo

A divinity or intent in creation can be interpretated as anything from total mechanistic determinism to utter free will.

We can use a microscope, a telescope or a mirror to decide what's what, but to polish the glass-surfaces is a good idea to start from.

Getting excessively zen now, am I? Ahead of myself as usual.

posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:09 AM
I now (at least preliminarily) conclude this discussion from my side.
The intention has been to draw attention to how humanity is mislead and deceived by lesser gods and by religious institutions that are their tools and play their games, and to present factual evidence for it.
They use emotions like fear (and the reaction to fear in aggressiveness) to control, and they know how to do it.
They strive to maintain a predatory “food chain” that goes beyond the material-physical (corporeal) level, feeding from below, not wanting to realize that they can get all energy they need for free from above. But for that they have to change their own form of being, and that they don't want, because they then would have to give up power.
Power and love are like fire and water, you cannot have both, but have to choose the one or the other. No one loves the one who has power, but sticks to him out of fear. Fearing to loose what one has and sacrificing ones freedom for it.

Don't just like that believe the preachers, manipulated traditions and non-original texts.
Question what they say and what they write. Negative energies and entities run our world!
And they pose as positive, since people otherwise wouldn't listen to them …
The evil profits from not believing in it, since this gives it free hands to act.
Yet at the end there is only one solution: “Father, forgive them, because they don't know what they are doing”!
That means that we, too, must be able to forgive them even for all the sufferings they cause for their own purposes, like sucking life energies from us and even for their perverted joy.
They are also our brothers and sisters in creation, who only are still unable to see the light (or in their ignorance maybe even fear it).

Forgiveness is the only final solution. Hatred only makes it worse and ties us to those we regard as enemies.
But there are no real enemies, and if there were, we would have to love even them.
There are only those who are caught in darkness and actually are lost in it, until they, too, begin to see the light.
There is always a little light in the darkness and the eyes get used to it, so that many believe it to be the real thing and don't seek the true light.
We are not free before we have been able to forgive.
Then comes the time in which we can lift our eyes up to the light above them who deceive us.

The prayer to the Father, the true prime creator, that Jesus gave us, says:
"And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us."
That means something that apparently few want to understand:

edit on 22-9-2010 by memyself because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-9-2010 by memyself because: Clarification

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in