Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

reply to post by undo


I would consider the bible literally true. So if you's like to compare thoughts in PMs, I'd love to hear your ideas. Researchers always know what they're talking about unlike the other posters here.

I do think that people can sometimes confuse meanings of words because English itself is a very "filthy" language. I mean, who makes a system with an Indian number system, a Arabic math system, a Roman letter system, and a Germanic tradition with Greek-Roman roots. But I do believe that the original Greek Hebrew and modern English bibles together produce true truth when put together and one understands the words. For example, Genesis 1:1 directly put to English word for word is amazingly mysterious:

mb-soft.com...

One needs experts with cultural knowledge to be with them and explain some things.

reply to post by bogomil


are you by chance referrring to my post to you, above?

okay, when the epic of gilgamesh tablets were discovered, mainstream said "gilgamesh never existed. it's a myth."
now archaeologists think they found his city. so even if everything else he said was garbage, he was still a living person.

they also said, most of the places mentioned in the bible, such as the land of shinar (sumer) never existed, till archaeologists found it buried under 8ft of flood silt.

this does NOT mean every word of the ancient texts is precisely translated or even correctly expanded upon. it simply means that what we've been told was a crock o' crap, is in reality, not a crock o' crap (historically). unless we've decided to ignore archaeology now?

have you ever seen the four races of man painting from Seti I's tomb?

anyway, if we're going to pretend that even when the stuff is proven that it's still crap, i guess i have no recourse but to quit trying to offer any evidence.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

I would consider the bible literally true. So if you's like to compare thoughts in PMs, I'd love to hear your ideas. Researchers always know what they're talking about unlike the other posters here.

I do think that people can sometimes confuse meanings of words because English itself is a very "filthy" language. I mean, who makes a system with an Indian number system, a Arabic math system, a Roman letter system, and a Germanic tradition with Greek-Roman roots. But I do believe that the original Greek Hebrew and modern English bibles together produce true truth when put together and one understands the words. For example, Genesis 1:1 directly put to English word for word is amazingly mysterious:

mb-soft.com...

One needs experts with cultural knowledge to be with them and explain some things.

i did some research on that; for example, i read genesis 1 as saying:

first gods created heaven and earth.

it says in the next verse that the earth was without form (tohu) but later in the bible it says the earth was not created tohu. so i don't think that the second verse is talking about the creation of the earth but a terraforming event. notice the land is already there and the water just recedes to reveal it. i think this is referencing ancient egyptian history (pre-dynastic) about a cataclysm (an ice age comes to mind or a mammoth flood event, such as would be created by a meteor impact). geologists have found evidence for many massive floods,all over the planet, in the geological layers, so i'm going with the idea that this reference is just pickin up from where the last dispensation (dispensation of the angels?) left off. now we're in the dispensation of humans.

theoretically, of course.

Re Undo

Thanks for your post directed to me. This is the better part of you manifesting. And I can sympathize with and learn from what you write.

A few personal observations.

I believe, that a very great part of the problem in the scenario you describe, is the epistemology deeply rooted in doctrinal reasoning. The doctrine comes first, and must at all costs be defended, explained and 'proved'. Hence we have the very long christian tradition of cart-before-the-horse, a tradition which is so embedded in fundie mindsets, that it's next to impossible to have even slightly rational communication with them (these mindsets).

I see this christian 'reasoning' methodology as something basically different (mostly opposite to) scientific/logic reasoning, and I don't believe, that science grew from a basis of scholastic. But the reformation gave a poltical/social opportunity for breaking loose from the scholastic basis.

You are probably aware of it (I have respect for your historical research), but anyway. The southern european culture had a sparkling period, when 'heretics', intellectual judaism and muslims and the reminscences of some of Europe's former native religions/whatever met and lived peacefully together.

The violence and insistence of the heretic-crusades is probably as much an expression of exterminating competing epistemological competition as they were blind doctrinal hatred.

So my thesis is, that the development away from scholastic also has roots outside the christianities. And even disregarding the 'heretic' culture period, Europe wasn't after all the world. Excellent tao'ist, buddhist, Jain and Veda thinkers have on and off supplied alternatives to christian doctrine and methdology.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo

 

I would consider the bible literally true. So if you's like to compare thoughts in PMs, I'd love to hear your ideas. Researchers always know what they're talking about unlike the other posters here.

Do you know how many commandments there really are? If you proclaim to be a "true" believer in the book you believe to be "literally true" and you are a researcher and not just a religious person following a faith, you'll know that the answer is not the expected one.

Furthermore, do you hold to all those commandments too? Because in this day and age, it is not physically possible to do so.

Have you never "Vexed a stranger"?

reply to post by undo


God has always refereed to himself in a plural. Christians que this as the trinity. That it is God one but plural. It's not exactly English friendly. We say this is proved from later versus like when God creates mankind but again, he refers to a single man in a plural sense, and when they are together, the word changes to a single sense. Under your logic this seems to say that there were many men but only one when woman was created. Some Christians say it's easy to assume it means gods, but it is the trinity and that God created man in the same spiritual image, thus the use of plural terms for single things, and the transition to single words for plural things, such as a man and woman. I believe this is what it means to be created in God's image. God is a plural entity but one thing. The trinity. God wanted man with this same contradictory nature, thus he created us in his image as souls that are plural. Beings that need each other to live and cannot stand alone.

Other places in the bible reference such things as well, such as the phrase "I am". In that this contradictory nature is not comprehensible. I'll admit that this makes God sound like some sort of inter dimensional being that cannot exist in this universe, but there's not much proof to that.

As to terraforming and how the world was created, indeed it does imply that a post-cataclysmic earth was taken and changed to an ordered one. But to call it technology or something is I think not true. The best case for aliens in the Bible are the Nephilim. They left the Earth for the flood and returned afterwards. But they are not God, nor did they create the world. The point of Genesis is that God spoke it into existence. He had that much power. he could alter the very operating system code of the universe. Just speak it and it is. The nephilim, if they are physical and left the Earth during the flood, implies some form of technology. Implies some sort of caretaker role. But I don't think they are anything more than visitors that God used to make mankind more plentiful. In fact, we can even say that they were just passing by. The fact that they return after the flood means they are interested. And the fact that they are seen again could imply either mankind made statues of them or that they were physically there observing what was happening. This also makes the bible unique in that it's pretty much the only book to describe creatures that do not relate or look like things around us. We see plenty of fantasy creatures, but they are always based off something we can find alive today or some time ago.

Beyond that, To say God is something physical means he is not all powerful. The highest point of evolution for anything in this universe is that of a single consciousness inhibiting a nanobot entity. It can become what it wants, it can talk to itself from the past and to the future and is as close to a god that physically can exist. But this entity would not be God. Because I can fathom it. This is a God that is not understandable by man. And therefore cannot be something so easily understandable as aliens or terraformers, etc etc.

reply to post by detachedindividual


All the commandments for the Jews was part of the covenant with the Jews. This was to set the Jews apart as an example of a very responsible, very well behaved people. But humans failed the covenant. Thus Jesus made a new one with man. And that covenant has a very simple rule. Love your God and yourself and neighbor as highly as you can with all your strength and honor and ability to do so. In as much as the Magna Carter has no rule in america but is still a valid functioning piece of rule, the Old testament is not applicable to the New testament as a ruling body, but it is not invalid. We simply failed it.

and yes, being mean to a stranger is part of that. And I can say I do try to not vex anyone. I fail though. Because I am human.

Re Gorman91

About Jesus:

Quote: ["The most unbiased answer is that he was a man with power not seen by humans before. That is all one can draw from it."]

The most unbiased answer is, that he was a man trying to reform judaism. All the stuff about 'powers' and other NT fantasies are later embellishments, which simply can be regarded as any other myth or religious propaganda in the mainly fabricated NT.

Your reasoning is still dysfunctional. You should have seen this argument already the first time the subject was brought up, as it's so obvious, that anyone except a fanatic with the answer before the invented or twisted 'facts' can see it.

Sorry, no more answers from me until you start use functional reasoning. A little hint: Inductive reasoning alone, especially when it's completely out of control, is worthless. New-agers usually love excessive inductive reasoning, as does rhetoric christians.

reply to post by bogomil


Not true. Dozens upon dozens had tried the same as he. Indeed some are listed in the Bible. What made him so different? He wasn't the first to say things like what he did. The only logical conclusion is he was the first to bring proof with his claims.

That's ok. If you give up without supplying meat to your argument, it remains the bones they always were. Be my guest. it had potential, but now it's dead I guess. Oh well. toodles!

Re Undo

Our posts got unsynchronized somewhere. My most recent post was an answer to a former post of yours.

Probably this will be my last post on this thread, as I find the thread so much off-topic, that it has lost my interest. But maybe something relevant to OP turns up.

As an addition to my latest post to Gorman, I could really recommend you to consider the extension of validity of the methodology of 'comparative .........' (example: Comparative religion).

It's very useful when under strict control. On the loose it has destroyed several generations' abilty to think rationally. (E.g. von Däniken, Peter Moon etc)

I am British and my belief is believe in what ever you want as long as it makes you happy, and as long as you don't impose it on anyone else or harm anyone else with it. Problem is some people overstep beliefs and fall into the trap of becoming an extremist, that applies to Athiests too.

If you had to label me, I guess I would fall under the banner of an Athiest.

I have done a lot of reading in pyschology over the years and I would say religion like athiesm has positive aspects. Association is a simple way of changing your state of mind to a more positive one. People can achieve it by prayer/ aka meditation, which in a way is a form of hypnosis in itself. I mean that in a good way, as hypnosis is used to induce a better state of mind. A better state of mind leads to more resourcefulness with everyday problems, aswell as confidence etc..

reply to post by Gorman91


a few verses later, the text refers to the gods creating adam, male and female. the english translators chose to put man where it originally said adam. i don't think they should've done that, as it confuses the issue (as penn and teller reveal in their critique of it, not realizing themselves the original words are suffering translation bias) that adam was an entire race of women and men who were created in the images of the gods.

my current theory is, that since moses wrote it and had been raised as an egyptian that he had incorporated both the hebrew and egyptian version of creation into the text, and that atum was adam, meaning the race was named after the egyptian gods of creation (the "m" indicating it was a plural not a singular word). in other words, it would read like "the atum race of males and females, were cloned in the images of the atum gods).

yet another theory.

reply to post by undo


Again, it's physical. And it still doesn't make sense with the translation being that God was talking in a first person character. In addition, Adam is used as a name, as well as a a race in other places. IE, Adam isn't named in the first Genesis story. Plus I really have to beg to question gods seeing as directly after creating man in a name form, not a generic form, he talks to the man.

Adam meant a completed human, Some people even say that this first guy wasn't a male or a female. Or at least, not in the traditional sense. The point is, and it is reinforced repeatedly, that God is his own self-sufficient entity. God put this idea into the seal of marriage between a man and woman. Yours is an interesting look, but it is only valid for a few lines. For the whole story, it doesn't support its own weight. In addition, nothing much elsewhere supports it. Now from there you can go down two lines. Change everything until it fits your view, or don't change it in the first place, and rectify it as it is there. And Moses would not try to adopt to Egyptian culture. Egyptian culture represented the highest vices to Moses. Again, this is not the ancient modern good Egyptians who built the pyramids, traded with the Minoans, and were overall good people. These are Egyptians whom pirated and enslaved local people and whose gods had long now become alien to what the ancient ones worshiped. The pyramid building modern Egyptians of ancient times set up the polytheistic system out of necessity. Egypt was founded out of a variety of people who all believed in their own view of God. As a result, they decided to say that they were all gods. This same idea occurred in India and created Hinduism. Later Egyptians realized what it meant. They were trying to unite a bunch of ideas of what God was. Resulted in desire to unite all the gods into one god, or at least a very small family of gods.

The problem with gods is the same as its always been. They show signs of being created by man. Polytheistic gods fight each other, compete, and more or less are exactly the same as the humans who created them. This is ultimately a sign that they don't exist.

I will give you a contemporary example. Star Trek introduced the Q in TNG series. A race of gods whom were above humanity, with control of space in time. They never went deeper into it. because to do so would make them too human. They merely said that the Q were better than humans. That one aspect of jealousy being the limit to human emotional elements introduced into them. But as time went on, other writers added to it. Eventually, writer Brandon Bragga turned the Q into quarrellings sentients who were no different than man. They lost their right to god-hood. They weren't better at all. They were just humans with bigger guns.

That's what's wrong with polytheism. In all its forms, it always ends up being just humans with more power. Polytheistic gods loose their right to godhood all the time. And many ancient people noted this. This is why a very large majority of the educated Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians submitted that either the gods don't exist and men simply die, or that there is only one God that is above them that is not comprehensible. This motion from the many to the few occurs in every single culture with polytheistic gods. And its'a very good argument. Gods who act like men are neither gods nor deserve respect. For they are just our cruelty and vice in bodies with bigger guns.

reply to post by Gorman91


i don't want the op to get upset at us going so far off topic, so i'm only going to respond with a couple factoids: 1) there was a divine council. that the earlier text translations, like the septuagint, show that the council was composed of 70 members, and that they had been given dominion over the planet after nimrod (osiris) was deposed and his kingdom split between them. 2) later it describes the gods being made mortals. it says something to the effect of: since you have been cruel to the people entrusted in your care, you will now live and die like humans.
anyway, we might have to pick up this conversation privately or in a different thread. .

reply to post by Gorman91

I would consider the bible literally true.

Well then...you're clearly ignoring reality! There is no way you could take the bible literally and at the same time accept reality as there's so many things that prove it wrong...

reply to post by undo


PM me. The only "divine council" I can recall is the elders in revelations. God has a tendency to create things that are purely for worshiping him. I'm not God so I can't say why. Only other case I can think of would be fallen angels whom will one day die, but not at human age. And then I can go into the out field and tell you some idea I had for an animation some day when I'm bored: The nephilim cloned Cain for soldiers. The curse of Cain's murder was put upon them and they died.

In the end, there is one true God above anything else. And I'm not going to say I know what God made besides mankind and Earth because he's a creative fellow, but if anything, they were then just people with free will. Like Islam's Jinn. Some argue the Jinn and nephilim are the same. In any case, these creatures did not create the world. They either visited, observed, or came to die for personal reasons. You've got to realize that if aliens exist, they are not going to be grays. anything in man's image is created by man. Not even God has heavenly hosts in man's image.


Anyway, this is too far Off topic. PM me for more. We both seem to know a lot and could learn some stuff.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Only if you view it like you do.

reply to post by undo


If you don't like what Paul said then we have no choice but to follow the mosaic law. He's basically the one who said faith saves.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by undo

 

If you don't like what Paul said then we have no choice but to follow the mosaic law. He's basically the one who said faith saves.

i did a strong's concordance search on the word faith and found examples of faith and forgiveness in the gospels. like mark 2.5, luke 5:20, luke 7:50, etc (not to mention i didn't say i didn't like all his writing. i just think some of his writing is just normal chit chat of a man of his time, that included his opinions on normal subjects, that show him as struggling with the topic of women in the ministry. and we took it to be like divine commandments, that should we do differently in the same or similar situations, we'd be sinning. an example is his personal view on the subject of women, which was clearly HIS humanity shining thru (particularly since it was not in keeping with what he said elsewhere about women and men being equal. (just think how much confusion and suffering, could've been avoided had we just reasoned it out a little better or how many women were kept from the mission field to adhere to his traditional jewish viewpoint of women, over his christian teaching about women: like galatians 3:28 comes to mind)

reply to post by undo


What about him stating that the the Spirit explicitly says that in the latter days the church would depart from sound doctrine and forbid priests from marrying and eating meat?