Smartest Man in America says God exists

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by NewAgeMan

So you're aware that Christianity is a smorgasbord of ancient pagan beliefs. You're also aware that it's pivotal figure, Jesus Christ, is an amalgamation of pagan archetypes found throughout ancient West Asia, and Europe. So, why is Christianity right, but all other religions wrong?

There is no more "wisdom" in Christianity than in Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism has a much more thoroughly developed polarity between the feminine and masculine principles of existence - something which Christianity attempts to greatly suppresses.

Even in ancient Egyptian religion they understood the spiritual division of soul, spirit, ghost, astral body, and other elements of s spiritual-form much more thoroughly than the Christian idea of body and soul only. They had anywhere from 5 to 9 divisions: the khat, it's khaibit, your ren, the ka and its ba, your ab, etc.

If you studied Hinduism, Buddhism, historical and mythological paganism, Taoism/Confucianism, Wicca and Neo Paganism, Baha'i, and all of the other major world religions, thoroughly, I don't see how you could conclude that the one which steals from all of the others is the only right one. Is it not a collection of all the others? Doesn't that means all of them are right? If Jesus is right, so is Dumuzi, Osiris, Baal, Teshub, Attis, Adonis, and Baldr. If YHVH is right, then so are Enlil, Marduk, Set, Baal, Teshub, Zeus, and Odin.

Which is why I do not have a religion, or a faith. I am familiar enough with all of them to know that there's truly nothing new under the sun. Monotheism is a repackaging of paganism, with an attempt to remove the divine feminine, and limit naturalism. Monotheism is no more "right" then paganism is.

Again, I contend that it comes down to your own personal choice. You want to be a Christian, not because it's the only right choice, but because it's the one you're the most familiar with.

~ Wandering Scribe

I resisted the urge to respond to your post because of the obvious trolling and bias but what the hell , I'll bite.
You assume that Christianity is a new religion in comparison to the litany of others you posted. You claim plagiarism is how Christianity formed but have you ever considered what Christianity says about itself or do you only agree with the revisionist romanticized views espoused by so called mystics? Christianity says that it is the original religion. It was displaced by Worship of fallen angels, all of the beings you listed above, and was reinnstituted by the Jews.

If you study the history in post-Christ Christianity you will see that people were not initially forced to adopt Christianity by a government or religious body and did so at great risk to themselves as they were persecuted. The amalgamation with pagan beliefs stems from political influence as well as the fact that it is a universal religion and so people from diverse cultures brought their own spin on celebrations and such. These are foretold of in the bible as well as forbidden one example being decorating trees.

What is your basis for reasoning that Christianity is plagiarized? What is the reason that you take these other religions to be original based on their own testimony yet you disregard what Christianity says about itself? Have you considered that the bible mentions a world empire with a shared culture (you see pyramids all over the world for a reason) and that this could be the reason you see these similarities?

Just want to say before you counter that I am making assumptions here but your mentality and rhetoric are far to common amongst those who have not actually studied Christianity but instead have more of an assimilated hatred derived from postmodern cynicism and new age dribble. This might sound harsh but people come in with the same tired view points thinking if they keep banging the drum loud enough they will be heard.

*apologies to OP, not trying to derail the thread.
edit on 3-1-2013 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:53 AM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

I do not need to accept the historicity or age of pagan religions on any "testimony," because we have artifacts from all of the cultures. We have dolls, pottery, temples, ziggurats, and more all dating back to 5300 BCE. I've held a couple artifacts even. And, in my visits to the Oriental Museum in Chicago I have witnessed thousands more. (The Oriental Museum is an awesome place too, if you ever get the chance to visit it). So, there's no guessing game involved. We can adequately date the age of the statuary, cities, and artifacts recovered from the sites of ancient cultures.

For example, here's a small list of important written works, and their age. We have physical proof of cultures older than Christianity and Judaism. There's no historical revisionism, except on the part of Young Earth Creationists and Evangelicals who absolutely refuse to accept that Christianity is not the only religion, but one of many. The list:

The Tărtăria tablets of Romania, 5300 BCE
Sumerian economic documents, 3200 BCE
The Enuma Elish from Babylon: 1800 BCE
The Ludlul Bêl Nimeqi, Sumerian cuneiform found in Babylon: 1700 BCE
The myth of Ziusudra, Sumerian cuneiform found in Babylon: 1700 BCE
The Egyptiain Book of Coming Forth By Day, written 1100 BCE
The Tanakh, Judaism: 530 BCE
The Christian scriptures from the first council of Nicaea: 325 CE

If you want to believe that all of history is a grand conspiracy to cover up Christianity, you're more than welcome to. However, the iron fist with which Christianity ruled the world from 315 A.D. until the modern day speaks volumes as to the absurdity of that claim.

Concerning the original illegality of Christianity, I have no problem with that. It was illegal. And it's rise to power was certainly mixed with political ideologies. However, none of this detracts from my original statement that Christianity was a composite religion, composed of elements from a variety of older, native pagan faiths. The amalgamation of pagan and Christian ideas which you mention backs this up. Here's your quote:

The amalgamation with pagan beliefs stems from political influence as well as the fact that it is a universal religion and so people from diverse cultures brought their own spin on celebrations and such.

However, how Christianity handled authority says more about it as a religion. Everything from the thousands of Roman pagans killed after Christianity was made legal, including Christian mobs which tore apart philosophers to "Temple Destroyers;" the 10,000 Germanic pagans slaughtered for not paying Church taxes; the tens of thousands of Irish pagan men who were beheaded by Christian missionaries for being "uncivilized" when they wouldn't worship the Trinity; and the senseless mass-slaughter of innocents during the Crusades speaks to the idiocy of allowing Christianity to be the dominant universal faith.

If you're a good Christian, I commend you. It is very hard to be a good, moral, loving person if you follow the tenets of the Bible. It can be done though; and I greatly admire Christians who aren't bigoted, racist, or prejudiced toward their fellow human being. I am sure that I don't have to point out to you the discrimination Christianity indoctrinates into its followers though.

~ Wandering Scribe

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:00 AM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

Abraham was from Ur, He was before many of the written works you mention of which only a handful exist. There are several thousand copies of early christian writings however this isn't considered as historical as single clay tablets from a fallen culture mentioned in the Bible. The Bible being Jewish written and oral tradition that predates Judaism.

You are making a mistake by saying that "Christians" are to blame for mans political ills as well as going off on a tangent. I guess by that logic all Americans are responsible for the acts of the politicians who specifically go against the will of the people for their own benefit. Another example would be the 100 million or so individuals who died as a result of communism. I suppose all atheist are to blame for that?

How can Christianity be accused of amalgamating the beliefs of other cultures when at its core it is completely in opposition to these pagan beliefs? When we see historical instances of this nature there is usually a kind of cross assimilation or you may even have tribal gods intermingle as with the Norse Aesir and Vanir.

You mentioned the Baha'i faith earlier. This is a clear example of a religion amalgamating the ideas of other religions. I used to be a Baha'i in Atlanta. The contradictions in that religion are pretty glaring and anyone with half a brain will understand that these "manifestations" of God preach contradictory messages and even tell their followers pretty definitive statements along the lines of "dont believe others who come after me" or "there is only one truth".

There are perhaps 2 major similarities with Christianity and other religions. 1. Monotheism. This idea is not exclusive to Christianity. 2. Messiah/Savior.Both of which according to Jews/Muslims/Christians existed from the beginning. Monotheism is a matter of personal logic I suppose but the idea of a savior or messiah isnt all that strange and is seen in a host of other cultural forms. Do we debate whether Superman is plagiarizing Jesus because he has come to save the world? I don't understand how similarity equals plagiarism either especially when some of the pagan ideas you claim they ripped off are also in cultures with no apparent connections to the middle east except when looked at through the context of what the bible says about earth history . Perhaps if you clarified which cultures possess original thought(s) we could go from there.

Here is an example that will possibly illustrate what I mean. Lets say there are 2 men thousands of miles and years apart with no cultural ties or knowledge of each other whatsoever. They both ponder inequalities. They both come up with some form of basic rights their people possess. Their ideas end up being identical (for sake of illustration) not because one was influenced by the other but because perhaps that is the logical conclusion to arrive at?

It is a bold assertion to claim knowledge of originality in human thought. Some primitive savant chasing mammoths could have been quietly pondering calculus for all we know.

I chose to be a Christian. I was raised in a non-religious household and explored other religions before becoming an atheist and later developing my own worldview so this idea of being brainwashed from birth to accept these things doesn't apply to me.

I might have been somewhat snippy in the previous post and for that I apologize. My intent is not to come across as judgmental but to merely understand why you feel the way you do and to allow others to view me the same.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by AfterInfinity

I think that's a fair assessment.

Of course a code or algorithm implies that someone or something wrote it, and we should perhaps be careful of implying that. But it seems as if our brains compute reality as a computer would an algorithm. Man indeed designed computers to calculate data like our brains do.

To me it's difficult to fathom reality being an algorithm, but that's not to say reality isn't behaving like an algorithm would, or that we ourselves compute reality like computers compute algorithms. It seems the human brain functions as a computer would, but it would be better to say that computers function in a brain-like manner and not the other way around, as humans have designed them to store memory and to calculate data as if they were brains.

Nonetheless it appears that we read reality as a computer reads code.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

I apologize New Age Man. It's difficult to pick up humor through words sometimes. I was assuming that you were saying I considered myself superior because I was using a fairly obscure word. I don't. And I too was kidding.

I like what you said about Langam's theory.

As far as logic goes, I think the CTMU brings up some very good points, namely that 'science' has so far been unable to provide any solid answers, and that we must consider our perspective and human understanding rather than an entirely empirical solution. I'm not sure why he has a need to add further assumption by wanting to insert a theological perspective, but at least logically he seems to be on the right track. Natural selection on a cosmic scale could be a sign of an intelligence. I cannot deny that.

It's strange that we are all privy to the same phenomena, same experience and same stimulus but everyone nonetheless sees different things. God, no God, chaos, order, intelligence, no intelligence etc. I think it is fitting to say that desire has a bigger role to play in the creation any theory, and this is apparent in the CTMU.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:49 AM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

If I were you I would have asked wandering scribe what he/she thought of the historical person of Jesus, and the meaning and significance of the cross, and without throwing anyone under the bus (new age dribble?).

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

According to the Bible, Abraham didn't worship Yahweh, he worshiped the God of Melchizedek, El Elyon.

Genesis 14:18
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Yahweh isn't the same god as the "Most High." Yahweh was promised the inheritence of Jacob and his seed, Abraham's grandson.

Deuteronomy 32:8 (From the Dead Sea Scrolls)
"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance."

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

No problem. Glad you liked what I had to say.

From what I'd read of Langan's CTMU, what stuck out for me is the idea that meaning and context and therefore language is decisive.

Here's my little summation.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Life is made up of story, which is told through language or symbol (same diff) whereby meaning and context is decisive. However, story and language are things of the mind, ideas, thoughts. A mindless, thoughtless universe has nothing to say, and therefore no meaning can be assigned to it, if that were the case. In this regard, all human perception, and all science, would be absurd and utterly delusional in it's ability to describe reality, and yet by it's language (of math and physics) it has predictive capabilities, and therefore the universe is governed by language, tells a story, and may therefore trace it's origins and destiny to the thoughts of the mind of God.

The universe, including ourselves, is a story told by the mind of God where the language or syntax could be considered the laws of physics.

I've also previously mentioned Descarte's subjective/object duality which implies the same thing, namely that to percieve is to perceive the perceiver perceiving himself being perceived ie: that in spite of our inability to perceive the objective reality as it is, for it to exist in its own right it must be held in the mind of God as the ultimate objective reality. In other words that through philosophical logic, he arrived at the same conclusion that Langan did, namely that the source of reality is grounded in a mind which can be logically inferred, and which occurs in a closed loop with our own mind.

Modern science has coined a little axiom to the effect of "to be is to be perceived" which amounts to the same thing again.

In causality terms, this is called a downward causation, or what Bernard Haische has referred to as an "intelligent subtraction from, the absolute formless potential" relative to which everything that exists, exists (compliments of AfterInfinity's "flaw") in order to make our experience possible, making of us and this experience, the outward manifestation of the eternal Godhead, with intent ie: by superintelligent design.

What interests me is how this whole "story" of this entire cosmic evolutionary process has unfolded in a certain way, as if scripted right from the beginning and with such precision that what's written on this particular page never changed and was never rewritten at any time to factor in different outcomes as they unfolded, or what I call superdeterminism. That's the really freaky part, that all contingencies were anticipated, while slicing away all other possibilities, as if God knew precisely what he was doing from the moment of creation, to the degree that the creative process would culminate in the human form and being (experience) - something that a close examination of the earth-moon-sun relationship, also validates.

Best Regards,


Edit to add: I should also point out that the historical person of Jesus (in spite of not having access to modern scientific understanding) also clearly employed the same logic (logos=logic), while taking it one step further by inferring that the meaning and purpose of this existence is the love of God as the highest possible frame of reference, a contextual frame of reference which he then extended in regards to what might be thought of as "the relativity of human being" on the unconditioned ground of being and becoming (holy of holies). For more, see the whole context of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

"Go, and do likewise" he said, turning and walking away..! OMG that's just too awesome!

edit on 3-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

That wasn't directed at you newageman. I was talking about people like Gerald Gardner or others who claim to be authorities on pagan beliefs but are really just revisionist or someone like David Wilcock or a plethora of channelers etc.

I could have asked him the questions you mentioned but its pretty obvious what his stance is and even more obvious that little research has been done on the matter.

As to Windword I somehow doubt that what you are saying makes any sense. Yes he worshipped El Elyon and was blessed by Melchezidek. El Elyon is a title it means most high. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense in the context of the Bible and it is declared thousands of times just who God is and his many titles.

Exodus 3:15 - And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. 16 Go , and gather the elders of Israel together , and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying , I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:

Somehow I cant see how thousands of years of Jewish Philosophers and Rabbis (who study Hebrew btw) somehow missed what you are pointing out. Moreover The Jews accepted this because God freed them from Pharaoh(among other things) not just on some whim. This would indicate belief based on effect. How come Pharaoh's Gods could not contend with the Most High? I digress.

Bottom line Gods name(s) are titles. He said "I AM THAT I AM" or YHVH when asked by Moses and this derives from the Qal imperfect first person form of the verb hayah: "I will be," and therefore indicates a connection between the Name YHVH and being itself or the source of being.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:54 PM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

Yahweh is NOT El Elyon. They are 2 distinctly different deities. But going into that discussion would be off topic, more than we already are, for this thread.

edit on 3-1-2013 by windword because: LINKY

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by Runciter33

I am glad my view about things is confirmed by the smartest man in America. I think in the same lines. weird how logic works sometimes. S&F

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:39 PM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

It's vitally important to him to be able to demonize Yahweh, like a lot of others around here, without realizing that the civilization of man was messy business back in those days, and that man's view and understanding of God was in its infancy. But it was all part of The Great Work in progress, all the framing and foreshadowing, setting the stage, etc. etc.. Who knows, maybe even God (the most high) was learning as he went, but then again, I'm reminded of the interaction with Abraham where he was about to sacrifice his son, as instructed. Right after Abraham's hand was stayed (by the angel) - lo and behold there was a two horned ram caught up in a thicket nearby, already prepared as a sacrifice, so it's obvious that even back then God was always "ahead of the curve" so to speak. An intriguing related factoid - when the moon went into lunar eclipse (shadowed by the earth) on the day of the cross, from the POV of the moon to the earth, the earth-sun eclipse was right in the heart, of Aries.. while Jesus, although obedient unto the point of death, narrowly threaded the needle (as far as I can tell based on the post crucifixion and resurrection reports) Things that make ya go hmmmm...

Revealing the Ram

Part one of the Series (FYI)

And this isn't off topic imho, because there are different ways of approaching the same idea.

what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
~ Psalm 8:4

edit on 3-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:39 PM
A little comedic relief..?

Originally posted by Cinrad

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 10:31 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Dragged after "God" hit him with a curve ball so vicious that he couldn't see straight, let alone walk.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by windword

Yahweh or El Elyon I don't think is really going to make a difference to an omniscient being who knows both your heart and mind and every detail of your life that someone "possibly" changed a name. Your conception of who the creator is as a Christian is not predicated on a name. That name is written on your heart and is probably unutterable.

The link you gave was interesting and I have still been reading through it. The author goes into the divine council which I have been interested in since stumbling upon Michael Heiser. In the end though its kind of just semantics. The "names" are descriptions. They describe characteristics of a deity. Baal means master or lord for instance but is also associated with a specific deity ,Christ is a title. If a worshiper of Baal became a believer in Christ could they still use the word Baal to mean lord or master without meaning Baal the pagan deity/governing angel?

So your point is that Jews changed the name and association from the most high to I am that I am, or the source of all being? Is it possible that these Jews were converts that were previously under the rule of this fallen angel/false deity, would this not explain the adoption or re-purposing of the titles?? It doesn't make sense in the context of the bible that just names were changed but practice, prophecy, miracles, etc just all happen to align with the will of the most high. The author of the site you linked seems to be the type who is looking constantly for new ways to damn people, that's just my opinion based on his articles about eating meat and other things. BewareDeception is the name of the site and I feel that the deception is semantic reasoning over faith.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 01:29 PM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

Deception, in the religious context, is the idea that all empirical evidence is either false or true depending entirely upon what theory it supports, regardless of whether said evidence is actually legitimate.
edit on 4-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

Personally, I think that the "Divine Counsel" were a bunch of aliens, but this thread is about the existence of God. The problem is, when some people hear about someone, like Micheal Langan, proclaim proof of the existence of God, they immediately feel vindicated that the God of the Old Testament has been proven to be the true God. This is not the case.

My point, in bring up Yahweh vs El Elyon, is to point out that the ancient people did believe that there were many gods, and that Yahweh was appointed as their personal God. Abraham's supposed revelation of monotheism wasn't easily adopted by the Hebrews, as they held onto their "gods."

The attempt to meld the personality and fame of Yahweh into the image of the "Most High God," is evidence of a cover-up of the fact that monotheism wasn't really the religion of the people, as "one God and only one God "is a very intellectual and metaphysical concept that simple people of the day couldn't grasp.

I can accept Langan's logic of a universal intelligent mind, but not that that mind is depicted in the Bible by Yahweh, or any other single God or groups of God in ancient mythology.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by windword

I can accept Langan's logic of a universal intelligent mind

Consciousness leads to awareness. Awareness leads to thought. Thought leads to emotion, which leads to bias, which leads to judgment, which leads to intervention. Not to mention how omniscience plays into such a snowball effect. Imagine the insanity of knowing exactly what every player feels, knowing the cold steel of the pistol in your hand and the ruthless adrenaline tightening your finger even as you know the terror of the man laying on the ground in front of you, and the horror of his children watching, and the helplessness of his wife trying to protect them from the sight of your cruelty...How could anyone withstand such a hodgepodge of emotional turmoil?

Of course, one must have an understanding of what exactly omniscience entails. Does omniscience apply to the self? Can omniscience be controlled? Is omniscience capable of allowing room for independent cognitive functions? No one knows any of this. Therefore, all theories centered around such an idea must be speculative at best.
edit on 4-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by windword

I agree with you Windword on some points you make and I didn't intend for this to become a Christianity vs others conversation. It is all a matter of perspective I suppose because your view to me is not far off from the Biblical account only you have added your own perspective to it or at the very least illustrated someone else view.

I came into this conversation intending not to get into a which religion is right debate. The importance of Langan's CTMU to me was that it shows that even secular science can reveal to us that life has purpose and design from a creator.

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

Here's another link on the same topic.

I also saw that the other link, I provided, had a lot of bias from a Vegan perspective. I overlooked it favor of the information the site provided.

new topics
<< 22  23  24    26 >>

log in