Fear

July 4, 2007

It would take a massive conspiracy to cover up the fact that George Washington isn't real... and a conspiracy that old wouldn't even have had the technology starting out to obfuscate the reality from modern day researchers. All independent studies so far support the idea that he really lived, he was named George Washington, and he was the United States' first president.

And finding Jesus' DNA wouldn't be impossible if we had remains of him and perhaps his mother. Hell, then we could do a paternity test and close the book on this BS once and for all...

Actually, it would be much easier than that. Compare David to Joseph. I have no doubt that both tombs could be found fairly easily if they were looking for them. Mary would be impossible though because she ascended into heaven as well.

As far as conspiracy theories go, the main point is that there is nothing on this planet that a man can be absolutely certain of without knowing. Certainty from acquired knowledge rather than physical and existential experience is very very dumb. This is why I "believe" that George Washington existed. Belief and knowing are two different things though.

July 5, 2007

I have no one but myself to blame for my lack of spirituality lately. Bad habits, bad company at times....or at least questionable......

Not meditating as I should and slacking on yoga.

I wonder if Jeses did yoga and/or meditated or even needed to.....I heard something about him traveling to the orient and other places to study but don't know if there is proof.

July 5, 2007

Actually, it would be much easier than that. Compare David to Joseph. I have no doubt that both tombs could be found fairly easily if they were looking for them. Mary would be impossible though because she ascended into heaven as well.

As far as conspiracy theories go, the main point is that there is nothing on this planet that a man can be absolutely certain of without knowing. Certainty from acquired knowledge rather than physical and existential experience is very very dumb. This is why I "believe" that George Washington existed. Belief and knowing are two different things though.

interesting.

what part of the cannon are you referring to on Mary's alleged ascension? (Im not big a fan of Mary being worshipped or lauded as extraordinary)

David is pretty pivitol in jewish history, even aside form his ties to YHWH and any messianic prophesies.....Id be suprised if nobody hadent allready tried to locate his tomb, or solomon's...... Joseph however, was a regular blue collar guy with a common name and tribe. I think that would be much harder to determine.

July 6, 2007

good lord masey, nice post...

July 6, 2007

interesting.

what part of the cannon are you referring to on Mary's alleged ascension? (Im not big a fan of Mary being worshipped or lauded as extraordinary)

David is pretty pivitol in jewish history, even aside form his ties to YHWH and any messianic prophesies.....Id be suprised if nobody hadent allready tried to locate his tomb, or solomon's...... Joseph however, was a regular blue collar guy with a common name and tribe. I think that would be much harder to determine.

Mary - The Transitus Mariæ would probably be the best example. You have to remember though that Mary is neither to be worshiped or considered extraordinary. An ascension says nothing of that. Both Elijah and Enoch ascended long before Jesus, and even Jesus is not to be worshiped on that note. There is only one Father. Though you may find him through Jesus, this does not imply they are the same. Jesus was just as human as you or I, and by his example we learned to be as he is. If you were a grandfather, and you promised your inheritance to your grandchildren for following the example of their father, this would not make your son you, but rather a reflection of you. Jesus had no miraculous power that was his own, but that which was given by God. It is no different for us, if we have faith. There have been many men who have healed the blind and the sick in Jesus's name, but all glory and honor go to the Father, and the Father glorifies the son, just as we are the glory of God.

David's and Solomon's tombs are believed to be found already from what I know. I also, believe that Joseph may be found through Gnostic literature, but unfortunately not all Gnostic literature has been translated. The Jews did keep track of the bloodline however from David to Joseph if I remember correctly, and it is not unlikely that something could be uncovered to find the truth. While Jesus was of no "blood" relation to Joseph, and could only be tied to Mary's family through DNA testing, those are impossibilities no matter which way you slice them. This does not mean, that we wouldn't be close enough to the truth scientifically though. I, for one would find it rather ridiculous to even care to try to prove that Christ existed when there is more than enough documentation in different languages throughout the region at the time to support his existence. Even his apostles made sure of that....

I agree with some of what you are saying and I do not mean to draw this quote out of its proper conext, but it struck me as a monumental load of pigshit and ruins the half-way decent point that you are trying to make. Religion should be seen as child abuse on the same level as sitting them in front of a televison for hours each day, or giving them only junk food to eat. Perhaps it is just shy of physical abuse because the narrowing a child's view to the world around them by imposing the religious beliefs of the parents onto them is abuse precisely because it stymies or warps their future development just as beating might.
And as for "there is only so much children can learn from men"? I think you are just trying to make a backdoor to weasel out of in case anyone wants to accuse you of making a concrete, worthwhile, point of discussion.

I think you missed the entire point of everything I've posted here. It is one thing to spiritually nourish a child, set an example for them, and encourage their growth, and quite another to brainwash them with Christianity. It is one thing to teach them to love, and quite another to teach them to hate, teach them to observe religious law, or teach them that their feelings are wrong. This is why I despise Christianity. I also was not talking of adolescents. I was speaking more in terms of children much younger from 2-7, but starting around 2. From what I gather, you're thinking within the scope of this religious box of order and principles. I am speaking of love, and teaching children the source of this love and why it's important to love and respect others despite how they feel about you or each other.

Where adolescents are concerned, you're already too late if you're starting then. Children start working towards becoming more independent every single day after they learn how to walk. A parent's love and trust is no different from that of God's and if you're going to teach a child some textbook God that only exists in the imagination of men, or that people "believe" in, you have no right being a teacher in the first place. If you don't know of God's existence, and you only believe, you are not worthy to even speak his name, much less contaminate his children. Our children, like our parents and siblings do not belong to us. They are on loan. You can't take a man with no enlightenment or existential experience and expect him to instruct what he only knows from books. That is not his place in this world. He can only teach according to the physical properties of this world if he is in fact meant to teach.

Take a human being for example. You know physically how it functions. You know it has a respiratory system that delivers oxygen to the brain, a digestive system that brings nutrients to the body, and a circulatory system that works with both of the other systems for these purposes. Do you know what makes it an individual life? Do you know where his soul is? Do you know what makes him say "I am", and what defines I? If you do not know these things, then you only understand the biological functions of a human being, which can be learned from any text book on human anatomy or biology. Knowing how a thing works does not make you an expert on all of the complexities of humanity however or the human heart. Even grasping a spiritual concept to the point that you understand and believe does not make you an expert.

You either know, or you don't know. It's that simple. The first step to knowing is knowing that you know nothing and discarding beliefs that would otherwise become barriers to the truth. If you cannot shed the skin of this world and what binds you to it, then you cannot understand anything beyond this world. Young children however, are closer to God the closer they are to the womb. They already have an understanding, and the more they learn of this world, the more attached to it they become. It is this attachment and want of acceptance from other humans, that destroys their relationship with God. Without spiritual guidance, their parents will only circumvent the divine plan for them, and make life much more difficult and painful for them. You can take them to church all you want, but this will not teach them anything. This is why religion is useless. For adults, we have to find God. Regarding children, God has already found them. If you take them away from him, He will not be happy, and both you and your children will suffer. Such is life in this day and age.

July 6, 2007

Well, hey, I'm not here to put any words in your mouth. You said 'religion' explicitly in the prior statement, so I went with that. If what you really meant was unconditional love from outer space, that is another thing. This vaporous notion of cosmic love that you are talking about is only the residue remaining from the corpse of the interventionist God who did not survive the deicide committed in the age of enlightenment. Respect is meaningless if it is not a standard that needs to be reached. Love is meaningless if it is unconditional. Even if the anxiety of loss and frustration in the pursuit of repsect and love leads to its inverses of jealousy and hate it is still a better alternative to the nihilism of removing the value of love completely. If only to fuel the drama of life and history.

No, I understand what you meant, but I still think you're losing the point here. My aim was not to teach children of religion, but any religion can be used to nurture a child's spiritual growth if that is all you have. The fact that only so much can be learned from men, only means that beyond the scope of a parent's knowledge they have to trust in God for the rest. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by cosmic outer space love, however I think you're wrong in stating that unconditional love is meaningless. What greater or meaningful love is there than love without condition? Are you supposed to go through life changing for people so that you can be loved in the way that they would have you rather than as you are? Pursuing love and respect probably would lead to jealousy and hate. This is why pursuing things from men rather than from God is foolish. If you put your trust in the world, the world will betray you. If you put your trust and hope somewhere else, the foolishness of men becomes at most a bit depressing and bewildering, but not a cause for hate by any means.

Also, your assumption that an adolescents study of religion has anything to do with their attachment to God is just ridiculous. They are finding themselves and finding God their own way, and what difference does it make which way they find him? I study Buddhism, but does this make me a Buddhist? If, I even dared call myself a Buddhist or a Christian for that matter, would that really make it so? We are not a thing, because we call ourselves by that name. I can attach a Pepsi label to a bottle of Coke, but that doesn't make it Pepsi.

I do, however agree that religion is a form of abuse when used in the way that you've described, but that has nothing to do with spiritual nurturing. Stunting a child's growth and nourishing them are obviously two very separate things, and while I would agree that most Christians are idiots and have no clue how to raise children, you can't judge all religions by it's standards or members for that matter.

I have no one but myself to blame for my lack of spirituality lately. Bad habits, bad company at times....or at least questionable......
Not meditating as I should and slacking on yoga.

I wonder if Jeses did yoga and/or meditated or even needed to.....I heard something about him traveling to the orient and other places to study but don't know if there is proof.

I would find it hard to believe that Jesus did not meditate. To have the superior consciousness that's required in order to transcend the worldly viewpoint, I would think of it as a necessity personally. If he did not meditate, my only guess would be that he was born with a chemical balance far superior to our own. There is no way he could've known the things he knew without one or the other. It is a rare thing to know anything outside of this world anyways, and most people are simply incapable of grasping very basic spiritual concepts, much less being aware of their surroundings. The more evolved we become, the more defected our intelligence is by our own devices. Even most survivalists are only aware of the natural world. So, I would have to say yes to this one even if he did not travel to the orient.

July 6, 2007

The fear that love may be lost, that respect may be insulted is just as much a treasure as the joy that they can instill. Unconditional love is much like Art. If you say that everything is art, art ceases to have meaning. Rembrandt is then relegated to the same realm as a pile of vomit. A sonnet or a fart joke are on the same level. A real love requires struggle, willpower and the possibility of failure- just as a genuine heartfelt work of art. One can be loved for whom they are and have that be conditional as well. I would rather have my confession of love for another feel as a great victory over adversity rather than a Kindergarten class celebrating "Everyone Wins a Trophy Day".
Yes, the world will betray you, but it will betray you no matter what you believe. Whether it is the Christian conception of god, the atheist notion that there is none, or you own vapid brand of universal love. And you know what? I want the world to try its damndest to betray me, I want the risk of failure, of depression, falling into hate and spite. A world otherwise would be mundane, unsatisfying and meaningless.

Well, I can respect your opinion, but I have a different viewpoint on what I value and what holds meaning for me. I don't pretend that my viewpoint is "right" or "better", but it certainly differs. I don't need to struggle to be happy, or to risk failure. To me failure does not exist. It is only the point where you decide you don't want to do anything more to accomplish your goal. Maybe you've had a realization that your goal no longer has the same meaning for you, or is not worth the effort to accomplish, but whatever the case may be, you don't want it. There is no failure, just a lack of want. What is mundane about working hard for something and reaping your reward? I paint and write music too.

While, I haven't painted in quite some time now, I know that the effort was worthwhile for me and the result was a reflection of my thoughts and emotions at the time. Do I place any great value on this object? Not really. I mean sure it's satisfying to have an outlet and see your finished creation, but like my music, it's for me. If I decide to share my music with people, that is my choice. If they like it, that's cool and all, but it's for me. Yes, they might appreciate it, as I appreciate other works of art, but is appreciation for your work enough in a relationship? I can't even relate with you here. People are either meant to be together or they aren't. If you have to work towards being something better or different than you are to satisfy someone else, then does your satisfaction depend on the viewpoints of others?

Maybe I should rephrase that. Do you require love in order to love yourself? Does your esteem depend on the level at which you're respect by others? You can see yourself one way, and another person can see you another way. Who is deceived? Or are your efforts aimed at deceiving, because you are not happy with yourself? Take a lesson from Star Wars man. Learn to let go of everything you fear to lose. Be yourself, and don't lie to anyone. In my experience the most unhappy people are the one's that lie to others about themselves, and spend their lives trying to live up to their lies. This is ridiculous. If you are honest with yourself, and have the capacity to be honest with others, then what resentments can develop from love lost?

Love is a mutual feeling and has many different levels. You shouldn't have to work for it. My girlfriend and I do things for each other, because we want to, not because we feel obligated to, or feel it is necessary to continue in our love. She knows everything about me, and I know everything about her, and despite our flaws, we love each other, and make no efforts to change each other. She can trust me out by myself hanging out with girls, and I can trust her out with other guys. Neither of us has every cheated, and we don't get jealous when one or the other of us gets hit on or is flirty. If a guy hits on my girlfriend I take it as a compliment. If I am flirty with a girl, it is in my nature and I am doing so either to be nice, to pay her a compliment, or perhaps even to make her feel better about whatever is troubling her at that moment. My girlfriend understands this and has no problem with me being myself as long as I respect our relationship.

We don't work hard on our relationship, because I intentionally stayed out of relationships that forced me to work hard, or be something I'm not for a selfish, demanding woman. I am self employed and I work hard for whatever money I earn. I probably put in a lot more hours than most people for a lot less money sometimes, whereas most of the time, I'm pretty happy with the amount of income we receive. Either way, I know that working hard, and working smart so that some of the more difficult more menial tasks can be handled by others or handled in a way that is not as time consuming for myself, pays off and rewards me with both time and money. I then invest my time either in making more time or in leisure, but I don't stress about tomorrow or worry about the future, I live for today. Tomorrow may not even get here.

If you are saying, I should throw some monkeywrenches into my relationship and work, so that I will have enough chaos to make life interesting, I will tell you that life is already interesting enough for me. I don't waste much time worrying about what other people have or what I don't have. I don't waste time trying to please other people either. What concern is it of mine whether other people like me or not? That is not really any of my business. My business is treating those that I do associate with, the way I would like to be treated, and doing what I can to be happy. I don't strive for satisfaction or to get what I want, because desire only leads to more desire once you get what you want. Where is the point in always wanting or seeking satisfaction? I could be as happy in a studio apartment with no furniture as I could be in a palace. I only work so that my children and future generations will have a legacy of their own, and to try to set a good example so that they will know that work brings necessities and comforts (food, shelter, clothing, furniture). Sure, I would like to make more money so that I could give more to people less fortunate than myself, and to have a few more comforts, but what do these rewards mean by comparison to the rewards you invest for in the afterlife?

This life is way too short to worry about what we'll have here. I am grateful for the conveniences that I have, but if I emphasize my love and respect for things, then how could I go through life without envy or jealousy? Competition does not result from envy, but from self discipline and caring less for the result as you do that you put your best effort into everything you do. I competed in sports, in academics, and in music for most of my life. Now I compete in the business world with many other people like myself. One is simply out of necessity and brings no sense of satisfaction, whereas the former was for myself to be the best that I could be at whatever I did. I don't have to measure myself by the accomplishments of others, but when comparing results I've never had a moment of embarrassment. Am I just that fortunate, that I've always been perfect at everything? Of course not. I've always been exceptional at things I put my mind to, but I've made my mistakes. The point is, I know I did my best, and have nothing to fret or worry over. Therefore, I happiness does not depend on others or satisfaction, but rather a genuine appreciation for life and what I have.

I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not saying you are right. I'm just saying that happiness is relative, and in this case I cannot relate.

As far as things losing meaning goes, to me there is no such thing. There is meaning in everything if you look carefully enough. It may not always scratch the surface, but it's there. If you find that many things are meaningless, maybe you have yet to learn from them. Otherwise, I would just say that you feel there is nothing to learn. Whatever the case, this is another point I cannot relate with you on. I have not been there. Sure I get depressed and I despair at times, but I find that most of these times is because of some selfishness that has risen up in me, and I throw it away.

July 7, 2007

Mary - The Transitus Mariæ would probably be the best example. You have to remember though that Mary is neither to be worshiped or considered extraordinary. An ascension says nothing of that. Both Elijah and Enoch ascended long before Jesus, and even Jesus is not to be worshiped on that note. There is only one Father. Though you may find him through Jesus, this does not imply they are the same. Jesus was just as human as you or I, and by his example we learned to be as he is. If you were a grandfather, and you promised your inheritance to your grandchildren for following the example of their father, this would not make your son you, but rather a reflection of you. Jesus had no miraculous power that was his own, but that which was given by God. It is no different for us, if we have faith. There have been many men who have healed the blind and the sick in Jesus's name, but all glory and honor go to the Father, and the Father glorifies the son, just as we are the glory of God.

David's and Solomon's tombs are believed to be found already from what I know. I also, believe that Joseph may be found through Gnostic literature, but unfortunately not all Gnostic literature has been translated. The Jews did keep track of the bloodline however from David to Joseph if I remember correctly, and it is not unlikely that something could be uncovered to find the truth. While Jesus was of no "blood" relation to Joseph, and could only be tied to Mary's family through DNA testing, those are impossibilities no matter which way you slice them. This does not mean, that we wouldn't be close enough to the truth scientifically though. I, for one would find it rather ridiculous to even care to try to prove that Christ existed when there is more than enough documentation in different languages throughout the region at the time to support his existence. Even his apostles made sure of that....

I think you missed the entire point of everything I've posted here. It is one thing to spiritually nourish a child, set an example for them, and encourage their growth, and quite another to brainwash them with Christianity. It is one thing to teach them to love, and quite another to teach them to hate, teach them to observe religious law, or teach them that their feelings are wrong. This is why I despise Christianity. I also was not talking of adolescents. I was speaking more in terms of children much younger from 2-7, but starting around 2. From what I gather, you're thinking within the scope of this religious box of order and principles. I am speaking of love, and teaching children the source of this love and why it's important to love and respect others despite how they feel about you or each other.

Where adolescents are concerned, you're already too late if you're starting then. Children start working towards becoming more independent every single day after they learn how to walk. A parent's love and trust is no different from that of God's and if you're going to teach a child some textbook God that only exists in the imagination of men, or that people "believe" in, you have no right being a teacher in the first place. If you don't know of God's existence, and you only believe, you are not worthy to even speak his name, much less contaminate his children. Our children, like our parents and siblings do not belong to us. They are on loan. You can't take a man with no enlightenment or existential experience and expect him to instruct what he only knows from books. That is not his place in this world. He can only teach according to the physical properties of this world if he is in fact meant to teach.

Take a human being for example. You know physically how it functions. You know it has a respiratory system that delivers oxygen to the brain, a digestive system that brings nutrients to the body, and a circulatory system that works with both of the other systems for these purposes. Do you know what makes it an individual life? Do you know where his soul is? Do you know what makes him say "I am", and what defines I? If you do not know these things, then you only understand the biological functions of a human being, which can be learned from any text book on human anatomy or biology. Knowing how a thing works does not make you an expert on all of the complexities of humanity however or the human heart. Even grasping a spiritual concept to the point that you understand and believe does not make you an expert.

You either know, or you don't know. It's that simple. The first step to knowing is knowing that you know nothing and discarding beliefs that would otherwise become barriers to the truth. If you cannot shed the skin of this world and what binds you to it, then you cannot understand anything beyond this world. Young children however, are closer to God the closer they are to the womb. They already have an understanding, and the more they learn of this world, the more attached to it they become. It is this attachment and want of acceptance from other humans, that destroys their relationship with God. Without spiritual guidance, their parents will only circumvent the divine plan for them, and make life much more difficult and painful for them. You can take them to church all you want, but this will not teach them anything. This is why religion is useless. For adults, we have to find God. Regarding children, God has already found them. If you take them away from him, He will not be happy, and both you and your children will suffer. Such is life in this day and age.

let me begin by stating for the record that I fear a 72 and a half paragraph response and I respectfully request that you don't drag me thru that.

Here's some of my problem with your statments..... the Gnostic approach in and of itself. If your going to be of a more "traditional" (God I HATE that word when applied to me) christ following camp such as myself - there will ultimately be a dividing line between what we feel are "appropriate" (another hated word) foundational points of reference, because if I understand correctly much of the Gnostic writings veer away from typical Judeo Christian God to Man mediation as being neccessary. The Gnostics were of a different sort of beleif system, with completely different ideals and approaches and takes on God and Godhood and limitations or lack thereof of mankind as he approached deity. So - I'm not sure really how to compare apples to oranges with you here. I respect what your doing, but I feel as if your setting up your points regarding the Gospel from a completely different screenplay with a completely different set of charactors. Im going to have to give some thought on how to connect with you on this.

Your suggestion of Elijah and Enoch (chariots of Fire and simply being "taken" away by The Lord) also presents a strange point of view (to me). Simply because I do not equate these prophets with the messianic Christ, of whom by many of his prophesied titles in Hebrew points not only to Royalty Supreme but also to Diety. Enoch and Elijah were called in a sense, taken for future use. but traditional biblical cannon (and I use this as a point of referecne because you use it to set up your declarations) points to the messianic figure of having emptied himself - himself_ of his former glory and then returning to its fullness upon the completion fo the task at hand. It very clearly describes a temporary and willfull reduction of being. Elijah and enoch, althoug very dynamic men, do not really fulfill that sort of role, nor do they make any sort of similar decalrations about themselves. Christ - as Yeshuah the table maker - made some pretty incredibel statements abotu himself whcih eventually got him killed. So I'm trying to recognize this parrales but at this point dont I see it.

I'm with you on the Mary thing. Primarily due to gabriels address fo her in describing her future, and more so by way of Yeshuah's future public address of her and her role within his earth bound ministry. Remember Christ as Yeshuah accepted people falling before him to worship him in public, another killing offense. Mary never is described as having any sort of similar impact in any way, nor did anyone automatically step forward to defend and protect her as Christ was arrested. In fact he himself had to make that assignment while hanging on the cross.

What else were we talking about? oh yeah, the tracing of lineage. yes the jews did an outstanding job in this regard, with the written record of Christ's lineage dating back to Abraham and even I beleive back further.

I also agree in sorts that Jesus was just as human as you or I. However I dont box it in quite so neatly. I see him as deliberately (pre conceived) limited in power and authority by his taking human form, and therefore dependent on that portion of the Godhead described as "The Father" while here on earth. And again I disagree that he was merely human and therefore on a level authortiy playign field with you and I, as evidenced by those who openly worshipped him not only as a child but as a vagabond man. One needs to consider the times as well when you read thru those sorts of accounts - that kind fo shit would get you dead or imprisoned by the Mega Religeous Sanhedrin real quick like.

Who was making the argumetn about religion and children and poisening their psyche? St, Masy?

cool. only here's the thing - Ive yet to see a child, any child, in any household, who has not been molded and taught basic principles and standards as viewed as acceptable and worthwhile by the parental figure. You make your choices adude and you do what you do. If your goign to use that logic then go all the way with it, make sure you never use the words right or Wrong, dont ever point out newsworthy subjects over dinner and impress your own points of view upon said child, dont ever question their free willed behaviour within the walls of your home, dont expose them to art or literature, dont let them state their point of view on any war history taught in school, dont ever ever ever allow them to offend any social subset, etc etc etc.

You think its bullshit. I think its just as bullshitty - to not equip a child by way of pre-exposure - to be able to grasp certain crossroads decisions in due time by providing a foundation from which to choose. There are methods of balance. Free will in light of personal spiritual choices is not a prehistoric concept, it just takes a little decency and respect. In so doing, you'll show that kid how to govern his or her own life in light of supposed absolutes from any school of thought.

July 7, 2007

There is a difference between exposure and indoctrination. It would be hipocritical to say that children should be rasied even as atheists for that matter since it is only another way of indoctrination. (Redundant too, because we are all born atheists). You can expose your child to religion just as you would any other facet of the world. But if you tell your child "you are a Christian" that does not leave a whole lot of room for the child to question. (The child will naturally question eventually, but it will be stymied and guilt-ridden by that point). Furthermore, it will only create imaginary divisions between other children whose own parents may label them by other names of other fictious deities.

Im in agreement with this. i can only add that to model your own beleif system (granted - with the option of choice) there has to be some depth to the process - its not a textbook journey, and inevitably some of that alleged religiosity will enter in. But I think this is true of any lifestyle or concept that is modeled. For example, I've seen fathers who staunchly declare that "this family is a Democrat Family" or - I've seen fathers openly call non union people scabs infront of their children. The point I'm making is that we love to take shots at religion as being the dirty process, but I see it every day all around me in other situations. I would gather that if you had/have kids, at some point you might be tempted to share your rancor - I beleive you said that Christianity was immaturity or something to that effect?

This too is why I do not agree with Bapbtising children. Although I have seen very young people (early teens) make that choice on their own, which I respect and accept. I've also seen those same children have faith crisis later on as they developed, which I also accept and respect. Some of them stayed the course, some of them moved onward, and again I accept and respect both outcomes.

The truth is Masey that in the end - you really dont "know" if your position is technically correct. Neither do I. neither does Pickle. What you've got - are individuals who feel strongly about certain aspects of life and development, and who cleave to what works best for them. The choice needs to be left there for all of us to make.

July 7, 2007

It would be hipocritical to say that children should be rasied even as atheists for that matter since it is only another way of indoctrination. (Redundant too, because we are all born atheists).

We are born atheists? I'm sorry, you must reside on some other planet than earth, because myself included, I have seen and met a great many people who have had relationships with God from the womb to the grave. While, I would agree that they may not have a set "religion", this still does not imply atheism. Would you classify me as an atheist? See, this is a matter of perspective too. You know, I went to Sunday school every week (Catholic catechism) from the age of 5 and onward. If it wasn't for that experience, I would not have been able to say, "this is not my God. This is some vengeful character that they made up to scare children with bedtime stories..." While, I don't feel exactly the same way now, I was 7 or 8 years old then, and I made a "choice" to not believe everything I was being taught, and later on at 16 to leave the church all together. So do you believe also that a child needs to be taught "right" from "wrong", or would you say it's in our DNA?

Personally, I remember the first time I was told that stealing was wrong, and I couldn't help even then but feel like it was an unnecessary statement. Who doesn't know stealing is wrong? If you raised a child isolated from society without morals or moral concepts, do you think that they'd naturally think harming other people in any way is ok or acceptable? I remember having to switch Kindgergarten teachers, because my teacher at the time yelled at students who were misbehaving. I "felt" that it wasn't right to yell at them, and even though she never yelled at me, I cried for them. In my eyes, what they were doing was not all that bad, and I felt the teacher was a mean spirited woman, and mean to children. You say we're born atheists, and we have to be taught right from wrong, and here is where I am the one calling bullshit.

July 7, 2007

What I think St. Masey means here--and what I would agree with, incidentally, IF that is his meaning--is that a newborn doesn't know God from a paperclip. From the womb to the grave? I mean, c'mon. You're telling me, seriously, that a baby, who hasn't developed motor control yet, has any conception (pardon the term) of the idea of a supreme being (unless you're interpreting that to mean Mother/Father). Whatever your faith regarding God (or any other deity), it's something you learn about. One doesn't expect an infant to perform calculus, and I think expecting or thinking that they know about God is equally improbable.

July 7, 2007

What I think St. Masey means here--and what I would agree with, incidentally, IF that is his meaning--is that a newborn doesn't know God from a paperclip. From the womb to the grave? I mean, c'mon. You're telling me, seriously, that a baby, who hasn't developed motor control yet, has any conception (pardon the term) of the idea of a supreme being (unless you're interpreting that to mean Mother/Father). Whatever your faith regarding God (or any other deity), it's something you learn about. One doesn't expect an infant to perform calculus, and I think expecting or thinking that they know about God is equally improbable.

No. What I"m saying is that God is with an infant, and reveals himself to that individual throughout life. He does not need help from humans to do so. Interacting with other people can either severe, distort, or nurture this attachment. I'm not saying that an infant knows doctrine, and everything else, but I am saying they are aware of his presence. This is what I mean when I say that children are often times more intelligent than adults. Many adults have already had this bond severed and have a hard time reestablishing it. They believe, but they do not know. They put a higher value on knowledge obtained from the world, than spiritual knowledge. What an infant knows about God is still a lot more than most adults know about God, even though it is very little. The awareness alone is beyond the understanding of many adults.

On another note, you don't learn about faith period. You learn about the faith of others. This is independent of your faith, no matter what you believe. You cannot even put faith into words, so how can you know what another person felt and knew at the time of writing about it? While your own faith, might develop from the knowledge of others, it is not their faith that you share, but rather your own that is either strengthened or weakened. In most cases, it's not even there by the time you study so it is only belief.

July 9, 2007

No. What I"m saying is that God is with an infant, and reveals himself to that individual throughout life. He does not need help from humans to do so. Interacting with other people can either severe, distort, or nurture this attachment. I'm not saying that an infant knows doctrine, and everything else, but I am saying they are aware of his presence. This is what I mean when I say that children are often times more intelligent than adults. Many adults have already had this bond severed and have a hard time reestablishing it. They believe, but they do not know. They put a higher value on knowledge obtained from the world, than spiritual knowledge. What an infant knows about God is still a lot more than most adults know about God, even though it is very little. The awareness alone is beyond the understanding of many adults.

On another note, you don't learn about faith period. You learn about the faith of others. This is independent of your faith, no matter what you believe. You cannot even put faith into words, so how can you know what another person felt and knew at the time of writing about it? While your own faith, might develop from the knowledge of others, it is not their faith that you share, but rather your own that is either strengthened or weakened. In most cases, it's not even there by the time you study so it is only belief.

How many Americans identify as Christians? And how many Iranians identify as Muslims?

Until there's a more even distribution of religion based on self-identification... I'm willing to say that god most certainly does NOT "reveal himself" to anyone over the course of a lifetime.

July 10, 2007

How many Americans identify as Christians? And how many Iranians identify as Muslims?

Until there's a more even distribution of religion based on self-identification... I'm willing to say that god most certainly does NOT "reveal himself" to anyone over the course of a lifetime.

Sure he does, Love.

you just havent experienced it. (thats not a slap).

I do think however, that as long as we demand God to show up in the manner in which we feel is appropriate we get put on ignore.

howz your guitar playin?

July 10, 2007

Sure he does, Love.
you just havent experienced it. (thats not a slap).

I do think however, that as long as we demand God to show up in the manner in which we feel is appropriate we get put on ignore.

howz your guitar playin?

Guitar's going great, Steven. Let me rephrase:

Statistics show that people learn spirituality, or lack thereof, from their upbringing more often than they diverge from what they're taught. If we could do a grand scale experiment on human subjects in a sequestered but comfortable and otherwise stimulating environment, I virtually assure you that over the course of a lifetime or even several generations they would NOT just come up with the christian myths on their own. Other creation myths for sure, because that's how the curious human brain works. We'd probably see some parallels, like a david and goliath story.

sadly, such an experiment would be unethical. the only usable examples we have are the cultures and myths produced by "heathens" like the native americans, remaining african tribes and some of the ones in south america. Oh, and all those records of other pagan cultures that were around before the hand of god bitchslapped them out of existence.

July 10, 2007

And how funny it is that this god happens to coincide with the interpratation of the child's parents. It's not as if they are taken from the womb of a white American woman and the doctor remarks, "we have a Hindu!"

And before you embark again with another of your "I don't believe in organized ideas of religion" dodges, bear in mind that idea can be just as forced onto another just as even the most strict, orthodox theology. In fact, for every person inclined to find their way of life in the more bizzare evangelical offshoots of Christianity in this country, there are just as many that seem to go your route with: "I'm spiritual just so long as it doesn't involve me doing anything." You claim to be a theist, or spiritualist or whatever, but you might as well be an atheist for all the difference it makes. If you want to go ahead and kid yourself into thinking that you are deeper then you really are, go ahead and delude yourself. I'm just saying that this idea of yours is neither inherent in people, nor should it be deliberately and intentionally passed onto others (especially in tender youth.)

Yeah, I think you're missing the point entirely. This has nothing to do with religion or being deeper than anybody. I don't consider myself, better or worse off than anyone. If I have existential experience, that is a personal thing. I decide to share my thoughts regarding this once in a while, whereas most people (or at least I would guess most people) find it embarrassing to talk about their experience or share them for fear of shame or something. I would guess that many people would be unwilling to even share what I have, but it is for the benefit of those who find anything useful in words. Words often times are misunderstood anyways, and rarely can even come close to the experiences themselves.

This is why I try to stay away from the right versus wrong arguments. They're a waste of time. I can share my experience and you can share yours, and we still have only accomplished sharing a fraction of the experience, and whether or not someone can relate really doesn't matter because the complexity of existential experiences can never be fully satisfied with words. as far as religion goes, there's not point to doing anything with it once you have this experience except to learn what others have gone through that were also in our shoes at one time.

July 10, 2007

Guitar's going great, Steven. Let me rephrase:

Statistics show that people learn spirituality, or lack thereof, from their upbringing more often than they diverge from what they're taught. If we could do a grand scale experiment on human subjects in a sequestered but comfortable and otherwise stimulating environment, I virtually assure you that over the course of a lifetime or even several generations they would NOT just come up with the christian myths on their own. Other creation myths for sure, because that's how the curious human brain works. We'd probably see some parallels, like a david and goliath story.

sadly, such an experiment would be unethical. the only usable examples we have are the cultures and myths produced by "heathens" like the native americans, remaining african tribes and some of the ones in south america. Oh, and all those records of other pagan cultures that were around before the hand of god bitchslapped them out of existence.

But I hate statistics when it comes to this sort of thing Erin. They agenda sensitive and easily slanted (even for my side) and they disregard the personal pursuit and recognition of the divine experience.

plain english: you cant put "GOD" in a "facts" box. Thats sort of like me putting air in my back pocket for later use.

interesting David and Goliath thingy you threw in there.

I know there are psuedo similarities in this "myth"....with other cultures..... out of curiosity have you ever done any research on the subject beyond the surface? For example there are several referances to Goliath and his lineage in future clashes with the nation of Israel, giants with six toes and six fingers, there are also similar referances to both pre and post flood Nephilim, specifically the sons of Anak in the time of Moses, a pagan king who's been depicted in archeological ruins (seen the photos) as being physically at least three times the size of a normal man. The account cleary shows that when the band of Israelite spies saw them they shit their pants and wanted to bail out on the whole "land of milk and honey" thingy.....

I know researchers like to argue that those sorts of things (a giant king on a giant throne surrounded by normal sized minions) merely point to the weight of authority in the figure being illustrated, but that doesent always mesh well with the legends surrounding them. Personally I think the entire David and Goliath account is true. I buy into the whole cha cha. I also think that Native American legends like that of the Sioux nation having to band togethor to route out red haired cannibalistic giants is also true and poses a striking similarity to the Goliath account.

OK I wandered.....

more wandering: the David and Goliath account, in my perspective, is really a lesson about the power of the spoken word, specifically in regards to generational family disfunction, as opposed to a fable of a big ugly giant with bad breath who got beaned in the head with a rock thrown by a shepard boy.

July 10, 2007

*sigh* Steven, that's my point. Even if it were "true," it would still show up in various forms across myths in EVERY human culture because of its moral lesson. I'm certain it has.

And maybe you can't put "god" in a facts box, but that's because "god" isn't tangible (or probably even real). I can put his followers in fact boxes according to how they identify themselves, be they christian or jewish or muslim or hindu or etc. And parents and children tend to occupy the same boxes.

July 10, 2007

*sigh* Steven, that's my point. Even if it were "true," it would still show up in various forms across myths in EVERY human culture because of its moral lesson. I'm certain it has.

And maybe you can't put "god" in a facts box, but that's because "god" isn't tangible (or probably even real). I can put his followers in fact boxes according to how they identify themselves, be they christian or jewish or muslim or hindu or etc. And parents and children tend to occupy the same boxes.

.... she *sigh'd* me....

I think its the draw for purpose as opposed to a vehicle for morality in various cultures but if I say that then we'll all just go round and round again......

oh, and I dont occupy the same box as anybody. 'cept maybe Lola - and even then, not really.

July 10, 2007

.... she *sigh'd* me....

I think its the draw for purpose as opposed to a vehicle for morality in various cultures but if I say that then we'll all just go round and round again......

oh, and I dont occupy the same box as anybody. 'cept maybe Lola - and even then, not really.

you DO call yourself a christian, though. that makes you part of the american majority. i'm not saying that "all american christians are stupid or ignorant or sheep," because that's not true. most of them do have logical reasoning skills and independence enough to reject the parts of the christian faith that they think are antiquated and to create new personal moral codes and integrate them into their daily life. i can respect that. but they STILL learned the whole john 3:16 and etc. thing from their parents and their churches, and that dogma too often colors their opinion of things it shouldn't apply to at all (abortion, gay rights, et al.).

people raised in a primitive environment beyond the taint of missionaries wouldn't write the same bible. you'd see a lot of the same things, like rules against eating shellfish and sodomy, because in a primitive society there aren't reliable ways to protect against harmful diseases that can be spread through such things... people raised in a modern environment beyond the taint of missionaries might not have a bible at all. society would be a lot more hedonistic if there was little fear of premature death and disease and war and famine, but is that a bad thing? i think in another thousand years we might be ready for a godless society.

July 11, 2007

you DO call yourself a christian, though. that makes you part of the american majority. i'm not saying that "all american christians are stupid or ignorant or sheep," because that's not true. most of them do have logical reasoning skills and independence enough to reject the parts of the christian faith that they think are antiquated and to create new personal moral codes and integrate them into their daily life. i can respect that. but they STILL learned the whole john 3:16 and etc. thing from their parents and their churches, and that dogma too often colors their opinion of things it shouldn't apply to at all (abortion, gay rights, et al.).

people raised in a primitive environment beyond the taint of missionaries wouldn't write the same bible. you'd see a lot of the same things, like rules against eating shellfish and sodomy, because in a primitive society there aren't reliable ways to protect against harmful diseases that can be spread through such things... people raised in a modern environment beyond the taint of missionaries might not have a bible at all. society would be a lot more hedonistic if there was little fear of premature death and disease and war and famine, but is that a bad thing? i think in another thousand years we might be ready for a godless society.

Holy Moly.

we allready live in a Godless society, I dont care what the polls say about the majority's religeous social affiliation....

um.... a primitive environement was the beginning of what we have cannonized. People like Abram and Lot lived very primitive lifestyles full of what we now cite as sinful.....yet those same people had some sort of YHWH connection and interaction and did their animal sacrifices and such.....I think that yearning to connect with the

I AM has was is always there. those missionaries didint exist in creating the written text. They simply carried it forward.

no argument against the shellfish and sodomy thing....that had an awful lot to do with them good old 10 commandments that people so love to attack - it had its time and purposes surrounding a specific people and goal. But its just a slice of the whole pie.

I know I call myself a Christian.

but in general I am outside of the majority of that which you speak. There is the data cumulative process of placing me, and then there is the hard reality which does and always has placed me outside of the norm. So I suppose Im saying that I dont care. I do what I do as I feel led by the muse, not the rigidity of doctrine and certainly not for the approval of men, who in general never do (approve of my methods and mindset). I also think that was the intention of Jesus as he did his thing: liberation. Not liberation form God, liberation from man and religion. Yet there was a conflict (or was there???) to his methods. he openly opposed the religeous order of the day, broke some of those Mosaic rules (such as working on the sabbath, supping with the dregs of society and offering forgiveness of sins) yet allowed people to address him as Rabbi and often went to the temple to teach publically, or read from the scrolls of Isiah or other ancient writings and illuminated from that point by saying he was the fulfillment of such writings. He also had that famous mini meltdown when he exploded on the commercialism of the Temple and the money tables and prostitutes found inside and drove them all out with a whip because he felt it was a desecration of God's Holy place. Yet he publically adored a prostitute named Mary Magdellen and stopped a crowd from killing a woman caught boofing in an adualterous situation. So which was it? Was he old school or new school? Did he reject the old ways? Which camp did he belong to in terms of the majority???

John 3:16?

Well yes, i learned it.

From my parents, no. They preached it (tried to) but exemplified nothing but disfunction. So I rejected it. A man who cannot live up to his own standard is an example of impotence in my book. And the church taught it too, yes. But I also rejected the church.

ah but those missionairies you speak of....yes they got to me. They showed up in the strangest of places and made contact with me in the most bizzaro ways over and over again when I was a kid in the street and later on just your run of the mill angry young man. I put them through alot of shit. Glad they had the stuff to stick it out. missionairies come in many flavors and forms Erin, you'd be suprized to know who's really out there doing God's ditch digging, they dont all come from a squeaky shiny mold. I have always wondered when it came to missionaries and theyre public persona.....why none of them were never modelled on John The Babtist? He was a well known hard edged freak who ate bugs.

I too am not a fan of dogma.

But I do repsect basic stripped down truth, as I am able to recognize it and digest it. those are the things that color my attitdues on what you see as irrelevant, such as abortion, gay rights, etc. To me those sorts of thigns are indeed very important, only you and I see thigns differently and thats ok with me, I still dig you, respect you, beleive you are a person of considerable value. Dogma doesent really allow for that ability to see you that way. Dogam does not provide you the open door to reach into somebody's life. Dogma does not sustain the beleiver, if anything it cripples. but there is much secular dogma surrouding us all too Brass. its everywhere.

July 11, 2007

I find it interesting that the David and Goliath story is so easily discarded as myth. If memory serves me correctly, the Philistines, though not "giants" by any means, could've been seen as such because they were basically Greek warriors that had left Greece after Persian invasions. I could be completely wrong in this, and anyone with more or better information, feel free to reply, but if this is the case then couldn't the "giant" aspect just be a reference to David slaying a much larger man than himself? I'm not saying this in support of Christianity or Judaism, however I do feel that a lot of the histories that are disregarded as myth are not all that far fetched. Heck, even recently they've finally confirmed what they believe to be Sodom and Gomorrah, which were also proven to be destroyed by fire, in the same time period proven by carbon 10 dating, which included a lot of unburied corpses covered by a fallen tower.

Even if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, you can't just dismiss the entire bible as a work of fiction when there are plenty of non-believing scientists and archaeologists proving biblical histories on a daily basis.....

On another note, there is also a reference to giants both in Genesis and in Enoch, related to fallen angels having intercourse with human females. Do we know for sure that the word "giant" is an accurate reflection of what they were trying to express in languages long dead? There are plenty of words that are cause for further study, such as companion. Mary Magdalen is referenced as Christ's companion in many texts and the word companion meant wife at the time. The only two conclusions we can draw from this is that she either was his wife, or language should be looked at more cautiously. Something compelled these authors to contribute quite a bit of history and perhaps folklore as well in writing these books. Whether or not this was diving influence may be a matter of debate, but I don't see very many "modern" examples of people believing whole heartedly in fairy tales. Otherwise, we'd have millions of people trying to build a church dedicated to the study of Hogwart's Witchcraft and Wizardry....

Were people just this dull prior to the age of enlightenment that they'd just believe in any fantastical tale? Has scientific enlightenment brought us closer or further from the truth? Is our ability to perceive and define things restricted? Where imagination is concerned, how do you define reality when reality itself could be a figment of your imagination? What's real enough to one person may not be real at all to another, and what's real enough to a million may not be real at all. There was a time when we thought the earth was flat. Do we really know that much more now? I guess if we're the result of some cosmic accident, then perhaps worldly knowledge is the most beneficial. I myself don't believe that, because that to me is a belief whereas to others, what I know to be true, could be seen as "beliefs" as well. What defines a belief then? Does popular opinion determine it? Everything I've seen and heard could likewise be a figment of my imagination. Does this make me wrong for trying to put some of these things into words, or am I just another scientist trying to prove in the existence of entities that are invisible to most people. It's not as if I'm the first to make this discovery, and I can't help but wonder how the discoverer of the atom felt at first, or how Columbus must have felt at one time.

I guess my point really is what is tangible for some is not tangible for all. Does this prove madness in the minority or a handicap in the majority? That itself is still a point of view, but just because something is not tangible for you does not make it untrue. Also, you have to consider the possibility that just because it's not a tangible thing for you that you can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste, does not mean that this is likewise true for everybody. The difference is again between belief and knowing. Perhaps the author of life, whatever name you may give him, decided that some people like myself, questioned things too often and required tangible proof throughout our lifetimes. I was never a great follower or an automaton for that matter, so who knows. Do I think it's foolish to believe in God, if you don't know? You better believe I do. If you have not seen tangible proof of his existence and you believe, then you're an idiot. Find him. Otherwise, if you don't care to waste your time doing so, don't waste your time following something you don't know. Books, can only give you past experiences. You need present ones.

July 12, 2007

I find it interesting that the David and Goliath story is so easily discarded as myth. If memory serves me correctly, the Philistines, though not "giants" by any means, could've been seen as such because they were basically Greek warriors that had left Greece after Persian invasions. I could be completely wrong in this, and anyone with more or better information, feel free to reply, but if this is the case then couldn't the "giant" aspect just be a reference to David slaying a much larger man than himself? I'm not saying this in support of Christianity or Judaism, however I do feel that a lot of the histories that are disregarded as myth are not all that far fetched. Heck, even recently they've finally confirmed what they believe to be Sodom and Gomorrah, which were also proven to be destroyed by fire, in the same time period proven by carbon 10 dating, which included a lot of unburied corpses covered by a fallen tower.

Even if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, you can't just dismiss the entire bible as a work of fiction when there are plenty of non-believing scientists and archaeologists proving biblical histories on a daily basis.....

On another note, there is also a reference to giants both in Genesis and in Enoch, related to fallen angels having intercourse with human females. Do we know for sure that the word "giant" is an accurate reflection of what they were trying to express in languages long dead? There are plenty of words that are cause for further study, such as companion. Mary Magdalen is referenced as Christ's companion in many texts and the word companion meant wife at the time. The only two conclusions we can draw from this is that she either was his wife, or language should be looked at more cautiously. Something compelled these authors to contribute quite a bit of history and perhaps folklore as well in writing these books. Whether or not this was diving influence may be a matter of debate, but I don't see very many "modern" examples of people believing whole heartedly in fairy tales. Otherwise, we'd have millions of people trying to build a church dedicated to the study of Hogwart's Witchcraft and Wizardry....

Were people just this dull prior to the age of enlightenment that they'd just believe in any fantastical tale? Has scientific enlightenment brought us closer or further from the truth? Is our ability to perceive and define things restricted? Where imagination is concerned, how do you define reality when reality itself could be a figment of your imagination? What's real enough to one person may not be real at all to another, and what's real enough to a million may not be real at all. There was a time when we thought the earth was flat. Do we really know that much more now? I guess if we're the result of some cosmic accident, then perhaps worldly knowledge is the most beneficial. I myself don't believe that, because that to me is a belief whereas to others, what I know to be true, could be seen as "beliefs" as well. What defines a belief then? Does popular opinion determine it? Everything I've seen and heard could likewise be a figment of my imagination. Does this make me wrong for trying to put some of these things into words, or am I just another scientist trying to prove in the existence of entities that are invisible to most people. It's not as if I'm the first to make this discovery, and I can't help but wonder how the discoverer of the atom felt at first, or how Columbus must have felt at one time.

I guess my point really is what is tangible for some is not tangible for all. Does this prove madness in the minority or a handicap in the majority? That itself is still a point of view, but just because something is not tangible for you does not make it untrue. Also, you have to consider the possibility that just because it's not a tangible thing for you that you can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste, does not mean that this is likewise true for everybody. The difference is again between belief and knowing. Perhaps the author of life, whatever name you may give him, decided that some people like myself, questioned things too often and required tangible proof throughout our lifetimes. I was never a great follower or an automaton for that matter, so who knows. Do I think it's foolish to believe in God, if you don't know? You better believe I do. If you have not seen tangible proof of his existence and you believe, then you're an idiot. Find him. Otherwise, if you don't care to waste your time doing so, don't waste your time following something you don't know. Books, can only give you past experiences. You need present ones.

a couple of things to look at for possibilities:

The Philistines were never referred to as Giants, and archeological relics such as swords and sheilds (their swords had a pretty hardcore hook to them) show them in scale to normal sized men. The biblical account describes Goliath as unique among his fellow philistines, and that he had a man who went with him to simply carry his sheild due to its huge size. Later on you will ind future biblical accounts of Israelites fighting with Goliath's (not Philistines - but Goliath's) bloodline, also giants, with 6 fingers and 6 toes - genetic mutations?

In the Genesis and Book of Enoch accounts, specifically Genesis - teh Nephelim of which you speek (supposed angelic/human progeny) are described as an intermixing between the "Sons of God" and the "Daughters of Men". Many theologians are uncomfrotable with teh possible description of a genetic mutation betweenangeleic and mortal beings - so they have taught that the "Sons of God" referr to tribes that worshipped YHWH "appropriately" and the "Daughters of Men" referring to Pagan women, and that the Nephilim were simply mighty men of renown. I think thats a cleanup. If you research teh hebrew and or Aramaic use of the title "Sons of God" (and this deals specifically in how and what specific words were used to create this sentence) you only find it used in a handful of specific situations: each of which described a supernatural event of some sort. Thehologians have also argued that Angels cannot reproduce - but we have no actual evidence of that specific idea. You will also find similar Nephilim/Zamzumin accounts in other writings from other parts of the globe from other non christian or Judeo cultures. To me there is a link, and I personally beleive the Nephilim existed, that they were mutants, that they were cannabalistic, and that they were starting to overrun the original old testament creation package.

Another thing I find interestign is the account of Noah and the arc. Theologians teach that noah found favor in Gd's eyes due to righteousness among his peers and was thus chosen to carry forward with the human genepool. I disagree. I beleive the account (and language) shows that Noah's bloodline was pure, in that there were no Nephilim DNA intermingling, and that is why he was chosen to carry forward.

I also think that Angels - at least specific types - were abel to procreate with humans, and that that trend continued, which leads me to beleive that the angelic rebellion contonued or even continues to this day - literal war in heaven. Lucifer is credited with masterminding the original rebeliion but Azazel (I htink - I get my names mixed up) is credited with starting the human / angelic offspring and forbidden teaching to mankind, and Aplloyon is credited for wiping out vast numbers of mankind so who knows? What I think is that like many rebellions, there is infighting for power and leadership. The Nephilim show up in future post flood accounts as well (Joshua and Caleb clashed with them) which leads me to beleive that this angelic rebellion continued in an effort to pervert and corrupt God's plan to bring the messiah thru the line of David - corrupt the bloodline - corrupt the messianic provision. I also beleive it was the nephilim that built teh pyramids and many of our wonders of the world that are hypothosized to be Alien evidences of superior beings being present on this planet. yes I think there indeed were superior beings on this planet - but they originated here. I also think we'll see them in the future.

On the Mary Magdellen account - I (personally) have to take into account her purpsoe, and the purpose of christ as well. For example prior to Yeshuah the nation of Israel (like many pagan nations - read the Iliad) used animal sacrifices to appease God - the blood - the lifeforce - was the key and this was why it was forbidden to be eaten when sacrificial meat could be eaten.

If Christ did indeed come to earth as a final sacrificial lamb without blemish, I fail to recognize any purpose (and plenty of distraction) in having a marital partner. You have other Xtian accounts of men of God who lived without marrying, such as Saul of Tarsus (Paul) or perhaps even John the Babtist. But they lived full lives (well, not The Babtist - he lost his head) . The life of the Messiah while on earth was intentionally short lived and had a distinct direction that led to the cross.

The purpose of Mary Magdellan however - is very easy for me to see. Not only did she care for christ as part of his inner circle (and I can easily see that she may have loved him as a woman would with a man) but she was also representative of the fallen and stained among society - a walking testament to how Christ chose to interact with mankind in seeking the broken for restoration and rebirth. When you look at teh biblical account of Christs arrest and death - his 12 apostles shit their pants and split the scene - it was a dangerous time to be known as a follower of this man. But it was Mary his Mother and Mary magdellan who stayed throughout the entire time, and it was teh two Mary's who returned to his burial place - they were actually the ones who showed honor and charactor in strength from start to finish, not his apostles. Again I think this is symbolic of the restorative power of forgiveness and peace. Mary knew who she had been and what she was now - nothign else mattered to her, including her own life. I beleive Christ knew this about her, and that was one fo the reasons he took to her. Her example is for you and I and future generations to ponder.

there - now that was a whole bunch of wacky shit for y'all to roll your eyes at.....

July 12, 2007

Well, I find most of what you typed certainly interesting. I do believe there is a link between the Philistines and the Greeks though. I'll have to find a good reference for that. As far as the marriage thing goes, even Paul goes on quite a bit about how he would have every right to take a wife, but seems to feel if he can get by without one, then why bother? I kind of got the impression that he was stating that if you can't control your lusts, it's better to be married, but if you're in control of your body, then what's the point? I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but that seemed to be his opinion.

------------

I did a little bit of quick research and found that while most scientists definitely agree that the Philistines were an uncircumcised non-Semitic people, recent archaeological discoveries are believed to have connected them with the Mycenaean Greeks. I'm not sure if 1100 BC is close enough to David's time, but I know the Mycenaean tribe fell apart after the Dorian invasion in 1100 BC.

---------- Another edit =/

David (c.1005–970 BCE)

------------

Found this on wikipedia: (this seems to support my claim because even at 9 feet though tall still not a giant)

There are significant differences between the Masoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (Greek), and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of 1 Samuel 17.[3] One of the most interesting of these relates to Goliath's height: "4QSam(a)[the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel] gives the height of Goliath as "four cubits" (equaling about six feet), and this is what the original Septuagint, followed by the [1st century CE] historian Josephus, also records. Later Septuagint manuscripts reads "six cubits" (equaling about nine feet)."[4]

------------

Also of note, is most of the inhabitants of this area were monotheistic. They either believed in the Judeo-Christian God, Baal, etc. Goliath cursed David by his "gods", prior to the fight with David which seems to also support a Greek heritage.

July 12, 2007

Well, I find most of what you typed certainly interesting. I do believe there is a link between the Philistines and the Greeks though. I'll have to find a good reference for that. As far as the marriage thing goes, even Paul goes on quite a bit about how he would have every right to take a wife, but seems to feel if he can get by without one, then why bother? I kind of got the impression that he was stating that if you can't control your lusts, it's better to be married, but if you're in control of your body, then what's the point? I don't necessarily agree with this logic, but that seemed to be his opinion.

------------

I did a little bit of quick research and found that while most scientists definitely agree that the Philistines were an uncircumcised non-Semitic people, recent archaeological discoveries are believed to have connected them with the Mycenaean Greeks. I'm not sure if 1100 BC is close enough to David's time, but I know the Mycenaean tribe fell apart after the Dorian invasion in 1100 BC.

---------- Another edit =/

David (c.1005–970 BCE)

------------

Found this on wikipedia: (this seems to support my claim because even at 9 feet though tall still not a giant)

There are significant differences between the Masoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (Greek), and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of 1 Samuel 17.[3] One of the most interesting of these relates to Goliath's height: "4QSam(a)[the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel] gives the height of Goliath as "four cubits" (equaling about six feet), and this is what the original Septuagint, followed by the [1st century CE] historian Josephus, also records. Later Septuagint manuscripts reads "six cubits" (equaling about nine feet)."[4]

------------

Also of note, is most of the inhabitants of this area were monotheistic. They either believed in the Judeo-Christian God, Baal, etc. Goliath cursed David by his "gods", prior to the fight with David which seems to also support a Greek heritage.

good stuff, good homework you did.

Im aware of the "cubits" conflict, prettymuch the same argument used in the actual size fo the ark amongst other things, since translations seem to vary in terms of what an accurate measurement of a "cubit" was depending on the region and measuring system used.

But - (aint there always a but?) again I cite the surrounding text, pre and post Goliath account.

You've got the entire Israelite army in dread fear of Goliath. Israel's army was very powerful at the time and had established their territory by force. Abner the cheif (under King Saul) was no piker and a war studied man. King Saul himself was present at this clash between shepard boy and Philistine and King Saul was known for his hot temper and his impressive size - in fact the prophet chose him from among his peers for his physical attributes to be the king - and Saul wasent touching Goliath - nobody wanted any.

You've also got an armor bearer who's sole purpose was to carry just one sheild - one big ass sheild. You've got other accounts that describe the decendents of Goliath in battle with Israel and these decendents were likewise described as being giants and freaks by way of them extra foot digits. You've got giants in the sons of Anak - described as Nephilim by Joshua Caleb's party in the land of Cannan. Obviously, something was going on there. And - you have countless Israelite / Philistine wars over time, none of which describe the Philistine nation as a nation of God Like or impressive men in terms of physical stature. Golaith was what he was: freaky deaky. I got no problem with that.

I disagree with your assessment of most people being monotheistic in the surrounding areas. there were in fact many different BAAL'S - which is simply a a term for "a" God. For example Molech (of which pagan human babies were burned in the fire basin of a Brass Molech statue) was one type of a "BAAL". One of the main reasons YHWH (a personal name - not a title) forbade intermingling between Israel and the surroundign nations was due to the abundance of other Gods used in worship. And your first commandment between God and Israel via the 10 commandments? "thou shalt have no other Gods than me...."

I dont neccesarily beleive this ties into any particular heritage, such as the Greeks that you mentioned. In fact I beleive that until YHWH presented himself to Abram and so on and demanded sole worship - most spirituality in the land of Cannan was varied and divided among many sprits, gods, ancestors, etc.

I liked your insertion of Paul's (Saul of Tarsus) example on marriage and abstinance from it. And granted, Paul was not only a deep thinker but a trippy dude in general with some strong points of view. I know the account your speaking of, but I think that Paul is in actuality talking about the freedom from distraction that his choosing to be single allowed him in light of his calling. You've got to remember that Paul was a hunted man, a vagabond tentmaker, shipwrecked many times, stoned and left for dead, beaten and whipped and run out of town, often imprisoned, singled out by the Roman authority, etc, etyc, for the sake of his enlightening the Gentile nations to the pathway of Christ.

Now take all that fun crap and add a WIFE (gulp). Paul wouldent have been nearly as effective and far reaching if he had to take on that responsibility to everything else he was doing. I dont remember who Paul was addressing in that particular letter he wrote but that might shed some light on it as well. My point is/was that Christ - like Paul - had a very specific, intense, and time restrictive purpose to his calling. A wife added to that mix would have made it infinitley more difficult and would have divided his energy and efforts. Likewise, a wife for Christ would have made Gethsemane way more challenging, not to mention that it would have provided a specific target for the Sanhedrin to take advantage of. She was (Mary Magdellan) supposedly a wanton woman, they would have had a (legal mind you) feild day with her and tortured her or imprisoned her just to get to him, but that never happened. In fact the only person who ever opposed Christ on her account was Judas Iscariot - because her reputation made them look bad as Jewish men.

Sign In

Fear

Recommended Posts

crunchy_pickle (5)

Homicidalheathen

Steven

BrassFusion

crunchy_pickle (5)

crunchy_pickle (5)

crunchy_pickle (5)

Steven

Steven

crunchy_pickle (5)

Shade Everdark

crunchy_pickle (5)

BrassFusion

Steven

BrassFusion

crunchy_pickle (5)

Steven

BrassFusion

Steven

BrassFusion

Steven

crunchy_pickle (5)

Steven

crunchy_pickle (5)

Steven

Archived

Forum Statistics

Who's Online 0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 78 Guests (See full list)

Topics

Posts

Browse

Activity

Important Information