- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > Jesus vs God
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:Ok, one for the Christians.
Perhaps they shouldnt have all those TV evangelists littering early morning television when I get home form clubbing. But, it never ceases to amaze me how these guys can go on about how they follow the teaching of Jesus, and how great Jesus is and all we need to do to find salvation is follow the word and works of Jesus. Which is fair enough, Jesus was/is a great inspiration.
But hey, then these evangelist types start quoting all this Old Testament stuff about God. Which they manipulating to suit their tainted views of how the world should be, and how people should behave. And they go on about all this creationist rubbish and how homosexuals are and abomination and all the usual narrow minded stuff.
I mean, Jesus was the son of God made man, and his teachings were spot on. Like his lessons about The Good Samaritan, The Prodigal Son, The Wedding Feast etc. etc. Jesus cared for the people. He helped the lepers, the prostitutes, the blind, and he inspired us all to be better people. But this is NOT what evangelists and fundamentalists inspire. They are self-serving and only inspire guilt, hate and prejudice.
I find this very confusing because a Christian is person who follows the teachings of Christ, not some Old Testament rubbish about a fire and brimstone God.
For example, definitions of a Christian from dictionary dot com:
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane
So, I suppose the question is how can these evangelists types justify themselves as Christians, because the dont follow Jesus' teachings in any way, shape of form?
My personal opinion is that if Jesus walked the earth today he would strike down these philistines, and kick them out of the temple.
What do you think?
Perhaps they shouldnt have all those TV evangelists littering early morning television when I get home form clubbing. But, it never ceases to amaze me how these guys can go on about how they follow the teaching of Jesus, and how great Jesus is and all we need to do to find salvation is follow the word and works of Jesus. Which is fair enough, Jesus was/is a great inspiration.
But hey, then these evangelist types start quoting all this Old Testament stuff about God. Which they manipulating to suit their tainted views of how the world should be, and how people should behave. And they go on about all this creationist rubbish and how homosexuals are and abomination and all the usual narrow minded stuff.
I mean, Jesus was the son of God made man, and his teachings were spot on. Like his lessons about The Good Samaritan, The Prodigal Son, The Wedding Feast etc. etc. Jesus cared for the people. He helped the lepers, the prostitutes, the blind, and he inspired us all to be better people. But this is NOT what evangelists and fundamentalists inspire. They are self-serving and only inspire guilt, hate and prejudice.
I find this very confusing because a Christian is person who follows the teachings of Christ, not some Old Testament rubbish about a fire and brimstone God.
For example, definitions of a Christian from dictionary dot com:
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane
So, I suppose the question is how can these evangelists types justify themselves as Christians, because the dont follow Jesus' teachings in any way, shape of form?
My personal opinion is that if Jesus walked the earth today he would strike down these philistines, and kick them out of the temple.
What do you think?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Delete Topic
Posted:
Poor Stone Evanglists or shopping channels sounds like a no win situation. Thank God for my SciFi channel. 
Poor Stone Evanglists or shopping channels sounds like a no win situation. Thank God for my SciFi channel. Growing old is mandatory; growing up is NOT.
Proud member of the HoP DPS.
Sanity is a highly overrated state of mind.
I'm normal ... it's everyone else that's crazy.
Gidg
Posted:Pele, were all 
's here
I believe Jesus was a man and I believe the stories. Given the time frame, I think that there was much room for error in the conversion oral accounts into the old testament, but even if the oral stories of Jesus werent written for a number of years following his death, I dont think they were that much out of proportion. Though there was certainly room for embellishment. I never think much about Jesus returning to passively save the world. In my mind, it would be more like some armegeddom and the final judgment.
vanize, thanks for the history lesson, and the information on the Muslim separation.
God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator Sounds like the Old Testament creaking in the grave
Fair enough, nearly_all_gone, and I hope this helps Burning Brain, because now Im out of my depth. From a philosophical perspective, "God" is the infinite Creator and Ruler of the universe. Perhaps, as you pointed out, I was referring to personal subjective interpretation, in that I was having a cheap shot at the fire and brimstone, God of vengeance, that I was threatened with as a kid.
Now, even if Im rejecting the foundations of my religion , I feel Christ did more than elucidate; I think he opened a new door, to a world free from many previous prejudices.
lol Gidg, thank for the sympathy
Wonders if Blakes 7 is still watch watching.
's hereI believe Jesus was a man and I believe the stories. Given the time frame, I think that there was much room for error in the conversion oral accounts into the old testament, but even if the oral stories of Jesus werent written for a number of years following his death, I dont think they were that much out of proportion. Though there was certainly room for embellishment. I never think much about Jesus returning to passively save the world. In my mind, it would be more like some armegeddom and the final judgment.
vanize, thanks for the history lesson, and the information on the Muslim separation.
God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator Sounds like the Old Testament creaking in the grave
Fair enough, nearly_all_gone, and I hope this helps Burning Brain, because now Im out of my depth. From a philosophical perspective, "God" is the infinite Creator and Ruler of the universe. Perhaps, as you pointed out, I was referring to personal subjective interpretation, in that I was having a cheap shot at the fire and brimstone, God of vengeance, that I was threatened with as a kid.
Now, even if Im rejecting the foundations of my religion , I feel Christ did more than elucidate; I think he opened a new door, to a world free from many previous prejudices.
lol Gidg, thank for the sympathy
Wonders if Blakes 7 is still watch watching.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Delete
Posted:as long as you say "from a philisophical perspective."
i didnt mean to sound like a douchebag. it just upsets me sometimes when people say that one thing IS.
i didnt mean to sound like a douchebag. it just upsets me sometimes when people say that one thing IS.
If I could be granted one wish I would ask for all the questions of the universe.
Delete
Posted:Written by: nearly_all_gone
...upon which Christ was elucidating (amongst other things)
He did a lot more, you're right. And I agree.
I personally feel that subjective interpretations of spirituality (and its elements ie God) are far more helpful that dogmatic representation. However, I feel that the major religions invariably fail to allow this when they present induvidual figures for mass adulation, with the exception of Buddhism.
"Religions just split people up.. I thought it was meant to be about bringing people together", a wise man once said.
The whole point of me bringing the philosophical "meaning" of God into this is that I don't believe in God personally, I just know that from a dogmatic Christian perspective that's what God's supposedly meant to be. The fact this thread started with "One for the Christians" lead me to think that was relevant. Fire and Brimstone seem to be part and parcel of Christianity, or at least the Old Testament, which is part of the religion. It seems to me like Christianity (with a capital C) has less to do with this thread than was initially presented.. that the religion which that term describes isn't really what people are talking about here, but their own selective and subjective interpretations of that. To me that's not Christianity, which involves total faith and is a cohesive and singular entity based around the bible (the Catholic church isn't part of this either - it certainly isn't based firmly on the principles Jesus taught), it's something more valuable and personal which encourages people to think for themselves.
OK, there's my personal perspective on it. I'm not asking anyone else to agree with it so don't feel like I've stepped on your toes!
...upon which Christ was elucidating (amongst other things)
He did a lot more, you're right. And I agree.
I personally feel that subjective interpretations of spirituality (and its elements ie God) are far more helpful that dogmatic representation. However, I feel that the major religions invariably fail to allow this when they present induvidual figures for mass adulation, with the exception of Buddhism.
"Religions just split people up.. I thought it was meant to be about bringing people together", a wise man once said.
The whole point of me bringing the philosophical "meaning" of God into this is that I don't believe in God personally, I just know that from a dogmatic Christian perspective that's what God's supposedly meant to be. The fact this thread started with "One for the Christians" lead me to think that was relevant. Fire and Brimstone seem to be part and parcel of Christianity, or at least the Old Testament, which is part of the religion. It seems to me like Christianity (with a capital C) has less to do with this thread than was initially presented.. that the religion which that term describes isn't really what people are talking about here, but their own selective and subjective interpretations of that. To me that's not Christianity, which involves total faith and is a cohesive and singular entity based around the bible (the Catholic church isn't part of this either - it certainly isn't based firmly on the principles Jesus taught), it's something more valuable and personal which encourages people to think for themselves.
OK, there's my personal perspective on it. I'm not asking anyone else to agree with it so don't feel like I've stepped on your toes!
What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau
Posted:nearly_all_gone, for sure your personal perspectives have been constructive, and thought provoking. Though, Im not sure how to respond to your query It seems to me like Christianity (with a capital C) has less to do with this thread than was initially presented..
So, Ill just say that a range of definitions of a Christian were presented from dictionary dot com. The first defines a Christian as professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
I would expect that many Christian believers would be a little subjective in their interpretation of Christianity. Like, they have their own personal belief, in addition to the dogma. This got me wondering if the Old Testament was a part of all Christian religions. How do Celtic Christians, for example, view the Old Testament?
So, Ill just say that a range of definitions of a Christian were presented from dictionary dot com. The first defines a Christian as professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
I would expect that many Christian believers would be a little subjective in their interpretation of Christianity. Like, they have their own personal belief, in addition to the dogma. This got me wondering if the Old Testament was a part of all Christian religions. How do Celtic Christians, for example, view the Old Testament?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
DeletePosted:I think the idea of Celtic Christianity is a black hole in which one can find anything one wants. Certainly the plethora of recent books on Celtic spirituality, which make no mention of Jesus, seems to confirm this. Some have joked that the amazing thing about Celtic Christianity is that it always somehow manages to perfectly match the expectations of anyone who investigates it.
The phrase Celtic Christianity has come into current use to describe a modern revival of what is believed to be a more spiritually free form of Christianity. Celtic Christianity has become increasingly popular in the USA, and I believe a huge annual conference on the subject is held every there year.
It wasn't until the 1970's, when there was a realization that the native languages were dying, that there was a popular resurgence of Celtic pride. Historians and linguists took a renewed interest in the heritage of the Celts, translating long-ignored literature and making it available to the general public. What has emerged from these studies is not only a culture of amazing achievement and sophistication, but a faith of tremendous depth and beauty, genuinely Christian but distinct from its Roman Catholic and Protestant cousins.
Ancient Celtic Christianity was certainly a fusion of contemplative theology from the ancient Coptic (Egyptian) Church with indigenous Celtic religious philosophy.
The early Christian church and Celtic philosophy had much in common. It was therefore not so much a case of converting to Christianity, as strengthening and consolidating their existing belief system.
The Celts believed that the spiritual realm exists all around us here on earth and in the cosmos. Christianity teaches that Heaven is here on earth
Both laid emphasis on the arts, education, the application of law, ministry to the poor and oppressed
Other common features are their love of, and respect for nature, lack of dogmatism, religious tolerance, and the Holy Trinity.
Christ's death and resurrection was also reminiscent of the legendary Celtic hero C Chulainn, who was the son of the sun god Lugh and a mortal woman.
Druids freely became monks with no apparent threat to their core belief system.
Somewhere around the 400AD's, the doctrines of Original Sin and Eternal Damnation were composed. From a practical point of view, eternal damnation was absolutely necessary for the church to maintain control over the laity. I believe that this is when things started to go seriously wrong.....
The phrase Celtic Christianity has come into current use to describe a modern revival of what is believed to be a more spiritually free form of Christianity. Celtic Christianity has become increasingly popular in the USA, and I believe a huge annual conference on the subject is held every there year.
It wasn't until the 1970's, when there was a realization that the native languages were dying, that there was a popular resurgence of Celtic pride. Historians and linguists took a renewed interest in the heritage of the Celts, translating long-ignored literature and making it available to the general public. What has emerged from these studies is not only a culture of amazing achievement and sophistication, but a faith of tremendous depth and beauty, genuinely Christian but distinct from its Roman Catholic and Protestant cousins.
Ancient Celtic Christianity was certainly a fusion of contemplative theology from the ancient Coptic (Egyptian) Church with indigenous Celtic religious philosophy.
The early Christian church and Celtic philosophy had much in common. It was therefore not so much a case of converting to Christianity, as strengthening and consolidating their existing belief system.
The Celts believed that the spiritual realm exists all around us here on earth and in the cosmos. Christianity teaches that Heaven is here on earth
Both laid emphasis on the arts, education, the application of law, ministry to the poor and oppressed
Other common features are their love of, and respect for nature, lack of dogmatism, religious tolerance, and the Holy Trinity.
Christ's death and resurrection was also reminiscent of the legendary Celtic hero C Chulainn, who was the son of the sun god Lugh and a mortal woman.
Druids freely became monks with no apparent threat to their core belief system.
Somewhere around the 400AD's, the doctrines of Original Sin and Eternal Damnation were composed. From a practical point of view, eternal damnation was absolutely necessary for the church to maintain control over the laity. I believe that this is when things started to go seriously wrong.....
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
Posted:I agree with everything Lisa just said... but I think Irish was reintroduced a bit earlier than the 70s - probably around 1898/1904 (at least, that's what my Anglo-Irish teacher said )
It's all down to Yeats
"Irish re-entered the lives of the privileged classes with the advent of the Gaelic Revival. In 1893, Douglas Hyde (ire's first President) founded the Gaelic League to inspire enthusiasm for Irish among those who didn't speak it. The League aimed to spread the everyday use of Irish as part of a larger project of de-Anglicization. W.B. Yeats and Lady Gregory (also JM Synge) count among Hyde's admirers; to help the cause, they founded the Abbey Theatre in Dublin for the promotion of Irish playwrights."
)It's all down to Yeats
"Irish re-entered the lives of the privileged classes with the advent of the Gaelic Revival. In 1893, Douglas Hyde (ire's first President) founded the Gaelic League to inspire enthusiasm for Irish among those who didn't speak it. The League aimed to spread the everyday use of Irish as part of a larger project of de-Anglicization. W.B. Yeats and Lady Gregory (also JM Synge) count among Hyde's admirers; to help the cause, they founded the Abbey Theatre in Dublin for the promotion of Irish playwrights."
Getting to the other side 
Posted:Thanks Faberg, I wasnt expecting such a detailed or enjoyable explanation of Celtic Christianity. I came across Celtic Christianity in a search for knots some time back. So in some respects its full circle for me.
Certainly, the appeal of Celtic Christianity is in the purity that has been lost by the main stream religions. As you suggested, it is a faith of tremendous depth and beauty, genuinely Christian, but distinct from its Roman Catholic and Protestant cousins. A panacea perhaps, not a black hole.
I have always had the belief that God and the world are one, and God works through nature, but when you say Christianity teaches that Heaven is here on earth. Do you mean early Christianity? Ive always been taught that Heaven was up there (points finger to the sky).
I wasnt aware the doctrines of Original Sin and Eternal Damnation were composed around the 400AD's. But on reflection, they had to come from some where. And, its easy to see that from a practical point of view, eternal damnation was necessary for the church to maintain control. I think another blunder the RC church made was to stop priests marrying. Im told, from practical point of view, it had something to do with inheritance and protection the churches wealth.
Im not sure where things started to go wrong, but go wrong they did. Its a fair point when you say that things started to go seriously wrong ~ 400AD's.
Like vanize said earlier for 300 years and all is fine and good, then they get a little power (well, a lot actually) and suddenly everything starts sliding downhill almost immediately.
nearly_all_gone, for someone who professes not to be a Christian, it makes me wonder if they have an affinity with Gnosticism?
Firepoise, I like Yeats, have I missed something? Again
Certainly, the appeal of Celtic Christianity is in the purity that has been lost by the main stream religions. As you suggested, it is a faith of tremendous depth and beauty, genuinely Christian, but distinct from its Roman Catholic and Protestant cousins. A panacea perhaps, not a black hole.
I have always had the belief that God and the world are one, and God works through nature, but when you say Christianity teaches that Heaven is here on earth. Do you mean early Christianity? Ive always been taught that Heaven was up there (points finger to the sky).
I wasnt aware the doctrines of Original Sin and Eternal Damnation were composed around the 400AD's. But on reflection, they had to come from some where. And, its easy to see that from a practical point of view, eternal damnation was necessary for the church to maintain control. I think another blunder the RC church made was to stop priests marrying. Im told, from practical point of view, it had something to do with inheritance and protection the churches wealth.
Im not sure where things started to go wrong, but go wrong they did. Its a fair point when you say that things started to go seriously wrong ~ 400AD's.
Like vanize said earlier for 300 years and all is fine and good, then they get a little power (well, a lot actually) and suddenly everything starts sliding downhill almost immediately.
nearly_all_gone, for someone who professes not to be a Christian, it makes me wonder if they have an affinity with Gnosticism?
Firepoise, I like Yeats, have I missed something? Again
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
DeletePosted:No, no not at all.
But Irish as a language (and the culture itself) started to be revived at the turn of the last century, primarily through the work of Yeats, Lady Gregory and other poets and playwrights of that particularly creative time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/prelude/pr02.shtml
br>
http://www.gael-image.com/doras/irishgaelic.html
But Irish as a language (and the culture itself) started to be revived at the turn of the last century, primarily through the work of Yeats, Lady Gregory and other poets and playwrights of that particularly creative time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/prelude/pr02.shtml
br>
http://www.gael-image.com/doras/irishgaelic.html
Getting to the other side
Posted:Thanks Stone
Glad you enjoyed it, I'm quite enjoying this whole thread too
Just a couple of quick facts on the doctrines of Original Sin, if you're interested.....
At the turn of the 4th century AD, a British theologian named Pelagius held ideas about free will, grace, and original sin that provoked strong opposition from a monk called (modern day Saint) Augustine.
Pelagius believed humans were born with the freedom to choose their actions and could therefore choose not to sin. Children were born free of sin. They were not bound by the sin of Adam, which affected only Adam, not all humanity. Adam was created mortal, and whether or not he sinned, he would have died. Humanity did not die together with Adam, or rise together with Christ. The law as well as the Gospel offered a way to God. The main point was that humans could achieve salvation on their own, without the grace of God or the redemption of Christ.
In response, Augustine argued that while Adam was created with the power not to sin, he lost it by sinning. Adam left bondage to sin as a heritage to his descendants - all humankind. Because humans are born with free will but not with the power not to sin, they need the grace of God and the redemption of Christ to be saved. Salvation comes entirely by the grace of God. God gives that grace to those God elects, not necessarily according to merit.
Augustine believed that all sexual relations, including sexual relations between a husband and wife, was sinful, and that only perpetual virginity was the way to remain sinless. He believed that Original Sin was transmitted to babies via parental sexual activity, thus necessitating baptism and lifelong faithfulness to the church.
Like Vanize said, it was all about power. If the goodness of God's grace is restored to all, then what is the point in adhering to the teachings of the church in the first place? What of a pagan who does good and a Christian who fails to do good? Surely in order for the church to maintain it's power and control, paganism must be obliterated as evil itself.
Claims of heresy were laid against both men. At the Council of Ephesus in 431AD Augustine was vindicated and Pelagius condemned, ex-communicated and decreed a heretic. The Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace was thus approved by the Roman church and even until this day, babies who die before baptism are not permitted to be buried on consecrated ground
Humanity seems to have a terrible habit of siding with the wrong guy......
Written by: Stone
I have always had the belief that God and the world are one, and God works through nature, but when you say Christianity teaches that Heaven is here on earth. Do you mean early Christianity? I've always been taught that Heaven was up there (points finger to the sky).
I'm RC by default, but I'm not religious at all, so maybe I'm wrong there. I'll also admit to never having read the bible. I had thought that "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" meant that Heaven is here on earth. Other the other hand though, I could be just mixed up with that Belinda Carlisle song
Glad you enjoyed it, I'm quite enjoying this whole thread too
Just a couple of quick facts on the doctrines of Original Sin, if you're interested.....
At the turn of the 4th century AD, a British theologian named Pelagius held ideas about free will, grace, and original sin that provoked strong opposition from a monk called (modern day Saint) Augustine.
Pelagius believed humans were born with the freedom to choose their actions and could therefore choose not to sin. Children were born free of sin. They were not bound by the sin of Adam, which affected only Adam, not all humanity. Adam was created mortal, and whether or not he sinned, he would have died. Humanity did not die together with Adam, or rise together with Christ. The law as well as the Gospel offered a way to God. The main point was that humans could achieve salvation on their own, without the grace of God or the redemption of Christ.
In response, Augustine argued that while Adam was created with the power not to sin, he lost it by sinning. Adam left bondage to sin as a heritage to his descendants - all humankind. Because humans are born with free will but not with the power not to sin, they need the grace of God and the redemption of Christ to be saved. Salvation comes entirely by the grace of God. God gives that grace to those God elects, not necessarily according to merit.
Augustine believed that all sexual relations, including sexual relations between a husband and wife, was sinful, and that only perpetual virginity was the way to remain sinless. He believed that Original Sin was transmitted to babies via parental sexual activity, thus necessitating baptism and lifelong faithfulness to the church.
Like Vanize said, it was all about power. If the goodness of God's grace is restored to all, then what is the point in adhering to the teachings of the church in the first place? What of a pagan who does good and a Christian who fails to do good? Surely in order for the church to maintain it's power and control, paganism must be obliterated as evil itself.
Claims of heresy were laid against both men. At the Council of Ephesus in 431AD Augustine was vindicated and Pelagius condemned, ex-communicated and decreed a heretic. The Augustinian doctrine of sin and grace was thus approved by the Roman church and even until this day, babies who die before baptism are not permitted to be buried on consecrated ground
Humanity seems to have a terrible habit of siding with the wrong guy......
Written by: Stone
I have always had the belief that God and the world are one, and God works through nature, but when you say Christianity teaches that Heaven is here on earth. Do you mean early Christianity? I've always been taught that Heaven was up there (points finger to the sky).
I'm RC by default, but I'm not religious at all, so maybe I'm wrong there. I'll also admit to never having read the bible. I had thought that "the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" meant that Heaven is here on earth. Other the other hand though, I could be just mixed up with that Belinda Carlisle song
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
Posted:Written by: Firepoise
No, no not at all.
But Irish as a language (and the culture itself) started to be revived at the turn of the last century, primarily through the work of Yeats, Lady Gregory and other poets and playwrights of that particularly creative time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/prelude/pr02.shtml
br>
http://www.gael-image.com/doras/irishgaelic.html
Hi Clare
I totally agree, but that's not what I was talking about. I mentioned the "popular resurgence of Celtic pride" which started in the 70's.
The Gaelic League had been set up to protect the language, however it took decades before the population as a whole, and particularly the working classes, developed an interest and pride in their ancient heritage.
Your quote speaks for itself "Irish re-entered the lives of the priviliged classes with the advent of the Gaelic Revival"
Much of what we now know of the Celtic era has only been discovered in the last couple of decades.
But that's
I know, so I'll shut up now....
No, no not at all.
But Irish as a language (and the culture itself) started to be revived at the turn of the last century, primarily through the work of Yeats, Lady Gregory and other poets and playwrights of that particularly creative time.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/easterrising/prelude/pr02.shtml
br>
http://www.gael-image.com/doras/irishgaelic.html
Hi Clare
I totally agree, but that's not what I was talking about. I mentioned the "popular resurgence of Celtic pride" which started in the 70's.
The Gaelic League had been set up to protect the language, however it took decades before the population as a whole, and particularly the working classes, developed an interest and pride in their ancient heritage.
Your quote speaks for itself "Irish re-entered the lives of the priviliged classes with the advent of the Gaelic Revival"
Much of what we now know of the Celtic era has only been discovered in the last couple of decades.
But that's
I know, so I'll shut up now....My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
Posted:Oh ok then, I had always imagined it had been growing steadily since it's base with Yeats, Gregory and the rest.
I stand corrected
And back away from the thread
I stand corrected
And back away from the thread
Getting to the other side
Posted:beleive in God, Christ... not the church...
when it gets colder that -25, you don't really care
DeletePosted:Thanks Faberg, its been a long time since Ive thought about original sin. I hadnt heard of Pelagius, and Im a bit blown away by the whole thing. The premise, that sex is sinful, seems to have caused much harm in the church. It just goes against the whole natural process, and I would suggest especially in Ireland where Im told they have all those interesting shapes monoliths and mounds. I suppose one question that springs to mind is, if humans could achieve salvation on their own, why did God send Jesus?
I was always told that un-baptised babies went to limbo, but I wasnt aware until now, that they were not permitted to be buried in consecrated ground. Suicide being the one sin, I remember that barred buried on consecrated ground
The edict that God gives that grace to those God elects, not necessarily according to merit has always been a contentious issue; well with me anyhow. It reminds me of a Dave Allen joke, which goes along the lines of someone asking St Peter at the pearly gates, whats that place over there? St Peter replies that place is for the Catholics; they think theyre the only ones up here (heaven).
I hadnt connected the above edict with maintain power and control over pagans either. I just thought the church grew stronger by absorbed pagan churches and rituals, as part of their quest to convert the world (perhaps its the same thing). I used to connect pagans with witches and satanic rituals, but really pagan just means country-dweller. One has to wonder what the world would be like now if God had sent his only begotten daughter, instead of a son. .
Hi Dostoevskiy, thanks for your good advice from vodka-country
I was always told that un-baptised babies went to limbo, but I wasnt aware until now, that they were not permitted to be buried in consecrated ground. Suicide being the one sin, I remember that barred buried on consecrated ground
The edict that God gives that grace to those God elects, not necessarily according to merit has always been a contentious issue; well with me anyhow. It reminds me of a Dave Allen joke, which goes along the lines of someone asking St Peter at the pearly gates, whats that place over there? St Peter replies that place is for the Catholics; they think theyre the only ones up here (heaven).
I hadnt connected the above edict with maintain power and control over pagans either. I just thought the church grew stronger by absorbed pagan churches and rituals, as part of their quest to convert the world (perhaps its the same thing). I used to connect pagans with witches and satanic rituals, but really pagan just means country-dweller. One has to wonder what the world would be like now if God had sent his only begotten daughter, instead of a son. .
Hi Dostoevskiy, thanks for your good advice from vodka-country
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
DeletePosted:Ok, I suppose one question that keep reoccurring is all this, is what happened to the Goddess? I
It comes up early in the Da Vinci Code by Dan Browne that Christians tried to eliminate the Goddess. British journalist and former Beirut hostage John McGrath also suggests that the Bible was edited to remove reference to worship of the Goddess.
Johns controversial series It Ain't Necessarily So examines the early history of Israel and Judah . The following is a bit of the transcript from the series.
From It Ain't Necessarily So, Part 2. The programme begins at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, where a near-riot is taking place as male Orthodox Jews try to prevent a group of women from holding a service. One of the women observes that if they had tried to dance and sing like Miriam, they would be in prison. John points out that it seems the Bible has been edited to change our understanding of what women were doing: although Miriam is called a Prophet, none of her prophetic statements are included.
Oddly, it seems that the commonest objects found in Israelite archaeological sites are female figurines - evidently idols. Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Magonet explains that a number of Hebrew words are translated as "God". One such term, the word used in the first sentence of the Book of Genesis, is a plural. Professor William Dever says it is now known that the Israelites worshipped several gods including a goddess, Ashera, and Diana Edelman says that she was a widely worshipped fertility goddess. Dever tells John that when he first discovered an Israelite inscription proving that Ashera was being worshipped he was afraid to publish it, and kept it secret until others found more evidence that the God of the Israelites did have a Goddess as a consort. Visiting the excavation at Tel Rehov, John is shown an Israelite shrine which seems to be a place for worshipping three or four gods and the goddess.
On the track of more evidence of Israelite religion, John is taken by Zvi Lederman to the fortress of Arad, where a full-size Temple has been discovered - the only one ever found from the Kingdom of Judah. Although strikingly devoid of images, it appears to contain evidence of the worship of more than one deity. At the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem he is told that the Bible's description of Solomon's Temple also indicates the presence of idols and "graven images", as used by other religions in the area.
While the Bible does not conceal the idolatrous aspects of Solomon's Temple, it does seem to conceal the worship of the Goddess. Diana Edelmen argues that this has been done by inserting small grammatical changes - which so mystified the translators of the Authorised Version that the Goddess Ashera became a grove of trees when she was put into English.
The programme then picks up John again at Arad, where he hears how the Temple there was deliberately closed down and put out of use by King Hezekiah at the end of the 8th century BC, as part of a process of centralising all worship in Jerusalem. This policy was a response to the destruction of the northern kingdom, Israel, by the Assyrians and the total political isolation of Judah. It was accompanied by a major assault on the worship of Ashera, an assault later resumed with more vigour by King Josiah. The Bible itself documents the resistance of women to what was being done.
It comes up early in the Da Vinci Code by Dan Browne that Christians tried to eliminate the Goddess. British journalist and former Beirut hostage John McGrath also suggests that the Bible was edited to remove reference to worship of the Goddess.
Johns controversial series It Ain't Necessarily So examines the early history of Israel and Judah . The following is a bit of the transcript from the series.
From It Ain't Necessarily So, Part 2. The programme begins at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, where a near-riot is taking place as male Orthodox Jews try to prevent a group of women from holding a service. One of the women observes that if they had tried to dance and sing like Miriam, they would be in prison. John points out that it seems the Bible has been edited to change our understanding of what women were doing: although Miriam is called a Prophet, none of her prophetic statements are included.
Oddly, it seems that the commonest objects found in Israelite archaeological sites are female figurines - evidently idols. Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Magonet explains that a number of Hebrew words are translated as "God". One such term, the word used in the first sentence of the Book of Genesis, is a plural. Professor William Dever says it is now known that the Israelites worshipped several gods including a goddess, Ashera, and Diana Edelman says that she was a widely worshipped fertility goddess. Dever tells John that when he first discovered an Israelite inscription proving that Ashera was being worshipped he was afraid to publish it, and kept it secret until others found more evidence that the God of the Israelites did have a Goddess as a consort. Visiting the excavation at Tel Rehov, John is shown an Israelite shrine which seems to be a place for worshipping three or four gods and the goddess.
On the track of more evidence of Israelite religion, John is taken by Zvi Lederman to the fortress of Arad, where a full-size Temple has been discovered - the only one ever found from the Kingdom of Judah. Although strikingly devoid of images, it appears to contain evidence of the worship of more than one deity. At the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem he is told that the Bible's description of Solomon's Temple also indicates the presence of idols and "graven images", as used by other religions in the area.
While the Bible does not conceal the idolatrous aspects of Solomon's Temple, it does seem to conceal the worship of the Goddess. Diana Edelmen argues that this has been done by inserting small grammatical changes - which so mystified the translators of the Authorised Version that the Goddess Ashera became a grove of trees when she was put into English.
The programme then picks up John again at Arad, where he hears how the Temple there was deliberately closed down and put out of use by King Hezekiah at the end of the 8th century BC, as part of a process of centralising all worship in Jerusalem. This policy was a response to the destruction of the northern kingdom, Israel, by the Assyrians and the total political isolation of Judah. It was accompanied by a major assault on the worship of Ashera, an assault later resumed with more vigour by King Josiah. The Bible itself documents the resistance of women to what was being done.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
DeletePosted:What happened to the Goddess? Very good point Stone
(be forewarned, this is rather long)
"In the beginning there was Isis, Oldest of the Old, the Goddess from whom all becoming arose." -- Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs
Asherah, believed to be the consort & beloved of Yaweh, was worshipped for centuries throughout the ancient Middle East. She was known as the Goddess of Healing, God-the-Mother, and her staff encoiled by 2 snakes is still used as the modern universal symbol for doctors, pharmacists & healers.
She was removed (for reasons of which I'm not sure) from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures somewhere around 400 or 500 B.C. Daughter of Zion, a term found numerous times in the Old Testament, is widely accepted to be a term for a priestess of Asherah. Those that thereafter clung to her worship paid the price with their lives at the hands of King Josiah.
Archaeological findings have also shown that for about 3000 years the ancient Hebrews worshipped female deities which were later eradicated only by extreme pressure of the male-dominated priesthood. Perhaps it began with the Rabbinic hierarchy, which included a complex hierarchy of laws that only allowed men to be priests.
The Vatican also has a long-standing tradition of fabricating its own history as it went along.
(Emperor Constantine, responsible for the founding of the Catholic Church, burned the records of 300 years of Greek philosophy, along with Christian writings that did not fit his ideas for the new religion)
I practise tai-chi, and am a firm believer in Yin & Yang. I believe a masculine force must have a balancing force to exist -- a female counterpart. If we are to believe that God is whole, and the creator of male and female, then it is reasonable to assume that God possesses traits of both masculine & feminine.
I find the mainstream Christian Church's definition of Mary as a virgin, the Blessed Virgin Mother somewhat insulting. In relegating her role to the "immaculate" and sexless, we find an account of her life that denies that she gave birth to other children, had more than one lover, and that she even had sex. In stripping her of this humanity, she is lowered to the role of a frigid mother, rather than the Goddess of all creation. If we are to accept a God of balance and completeness, there must be a partnership of divine male and female energies.
But, if Mary, who was said to be "low" in the social hierarchy of her time as a woman, also Jew, and one born into poverty, was chosen by the divine partnership to give birth to divinity, wouldn't such a role reversal topple the norms of the time, and introduces an opportunity for power arising from "below"? This is dangerous scenario for many, including the church. It could perhaps also threaten the divine right of Kings, and introduce the idea of partnership into worship. In such fashion, we would be defined in equal relationship to one another, rather than by adhering to arbitrary standards from one with higher status. Those at ground level are empowered, and those at the top of the hill are asked to make room. Power would no longer be consolidated. The church would be redefined from that which codifies law, to a community in equal and loving relationship.
And what a preposterous concept that would be...
[/rant]
Perhaps I'm wrong, but in my opinion the Christian church portrays God as a male chauvinist...
p.s. These are my personal opinions & beliefs. By no means do I intend to insult or offend anyone who's beliefs differ from my own
(be forewarned, this is rather long
)"In the beginning there was Isis, Oldest of the Old, the Goddess from whom all becoming arose." -- Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs
Asherah, believed to be the consort & beloved of Yaweh, was worshipped for centuries throughout the ancient Middle East. She was known as the Goddess of Healing, God-the-Mother, and her staff encoiled by 2 snakes is still used as the modern universal symbol for doctors, pharmacists & healers.
She was removed (for reasons of which I'm not sure) from the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures somewhere around 400 or 500 B.C. Daughter of Zion, a term found numerous times in the Old Testament, is widely accepted to be a term for a priestess of Asherah. Those that thereafter clung to her worship paid the price with their lives at the hands of King Josiah.
Archaeological findings have also shown that for about 3000 years the ancient Hebrews worshipped female deities which were later eradicated only by extreme pressure of the male-dominated priesthood. Perhaps it began with the Rabbinic hierarchy, which included a complex hierarchy of laws that only allowed men to be priests.
The Vatican also has a long-standing tradition of fabricating its own history as it went along.
(Emperor Constantine, responsible for the founding of the Catholic Church, burned the records of 300 years of Greek philosophy, along with Christian writings that did not fit his ideas for the new religion)
I practise tai-chi, and am a firm believer in Yin & Yang. I believe a masculine force must have a balancing force to exist -- a female counterpart. If we are to believe that God is whole, and the creator of male and female, then it is reasonable to assume that God possesses traits of both masculine & feminine.
I find the mainstream Christian Church's definition of Mary as a virgin, the Blessed Virgin Mother somewhat insulting. In relegating her role to the "immaculate" and sexless, we find an account of her life that denies that she gave birth to other children, had more than one lover, and that she even had sex. In stripping her of this humanity, she is lowered to the role of a frigid mother, rather than the Goddess of all creation. If we are to accept a God of balance and completeness, there must be a partnership of divine male and female energies.
But, if Mary, who was said to be "low" in the social hierarchy of her time as a woman, also Jew, and one born into poverty, was chosen by the divine partnership to give birth to divinity, wouldn't such a role reversal topple the norms of the time, and introduces an opportunity for power arising from "below"? This is dangerous scenario for many, including the church. It could perhaps also threaten the divine right of Kings, and introduce the idea of partnership into worship. In such fashion, we would be defined in equal relationship to one another, rather than by adhering to arbitrary standards from one with higher status. Those at ground level are empowered, and those at the top of the hill are asked to make room. Power would no longer be consolidated. The church would be redefined from that which codifies law, to a community in equal and loving relationship.
And what a preposterous concept that would be...
[/rant]
Perhaps I'm wrong, but in my opinion the Christian church portrays God as a male chauvinist...
p.s. These are my personal opinions & beliefs. By no means do I intend to insult or offend anyone who's beliefs differ from my own
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
Posted:Once again, thanks for sharing you thoughts Faberg 
Im interested because it seems obvious that something is out of balance within the church, and has been for a long time. I often speculate about this misogynous attitude by the church, and wonder if the result has been the many cases of abuse that have surfaced in recent years. soapbox:
I have felt the Mary was undervalued by the church, and I see your point on the virgin birth. I had just accepted that it would be difficult to suggest that Jesus was God, without delineating him from Buddha any of the other great prophets, without a virgin birth. Though, surprisingly enough, I believe that a virgin birth is possible (well a virgin conception anyhow).
Now I suppose Im getting lost again, because this leads to questions about St Brigid (Saint or Goddess) being worshiped as the Virgin Mary. Anyhow, I have learnt much from your explanations. Here are some of Marion Zimmer Bradleys Thoughts on Avalon. I hadnt made the connection with Malory, but many consider Le Morte to be an important reference.
Im interested because it seems obvious that something is out of balance within the church, and has been for a long time. I often speculate about this misogynous attitude by the church, and wonder if the result has been the many cases of abuse that have surfaced in recent years. soapbox:
I have felt the Mary was undervalued by the church, and I see your point on the virgin birth. I had just accepted that it would be difficult to suggest that Jesus was God, without delineating him from Buddha any of the other great prophets, without a virgin birth. Though, surprisingly enough, I believe that a virgin birth is possible (well a virgin conception anyhow).
Now I suppose Im getting lost again, because this leads to questions about St Brigid (Saint or Goddess) being worshiped as the Virgin Mary. Anyhow, I have learnt much from your explanations. Here are some of Marion Zimmer Bradleys Thoughts on Avalon. I hadnt made the connection with Malory, but many consider Le Morte to be an important reference.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Delete
Posted:the bible is a non-fiction story for adults
Never hold your farts in! They travel up your spine, go into your brain and that's where shitty idea's come from.
DeleteMr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:maybe(not mebbe) thats true. in the sense that it was written by real people for other people to believe in order to improve their lives, like a perfect design for a self help book. (this isnt my idea, just and interesting concept i've heard)
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:(crickey this thread suddnely died, did i miss judgement day? is there anyone alive out there?)
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:I think I scared everyone away! 
Nah, I had another quite lengthly reply half ready and then lost it. Don't you just hate when that happens
At work now, so I'm a busy little bee..... be back soon though....
Nah, I had another quite lengthly reply half ready and then lost it. Don't you just hate when that happens
At work now, so I'm a busy little bee..... be back soon though....
My mind not only wanders, it sometimes leaves completely
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:oh i hate it when that happens, a couple of nights ago i would write half a reply and then the page would just close for no reason, frustration!
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:Hi all,
I sympathise with your lost reply Faberg. Grrr, Im one of those people who will spend at least hundred times longer trying to rescue a lost document, rather than having to type it out again.
Anyhow, I was reading up on "Snake Dancing", when I found it crossed this thread in a small way. In that, I dont understand why people started to live in segregated households following the rise of Islam. As all this segregation, seem unnatural to me.
Oriental Dance: A Dance For The Whole Family by Shira Following the rise of Islam, people lived in segregated households. The men lived on one side of the house, and the women lived with the children on the other side.
The word "harem" does not refer to some exotic seduction chamber filled with naked women lolling on pillows awaiting their turn to seduce the Sultan. Instead, it simply refers to the section of the home where women carried about their everyday business of cooking, sewing, gossiping with friends, and minding the children. The word "harem" comes from the word "haram", which means "forbidden": men who were not part of the immediate family were forbidden to enter the women's quarters when they visited their friends. The intent was to protect the women of the household from strangers.
When festive occasions would arise, the women would celebrate with other women, and the men would have a separate party with other men. Historically, the two genders did not mix. In some Muslim countries, that is still true today.
I sympathise with your lost reply Faberg. Grrr, Im one of those people who will spend at least hundred times longer trying to rescue a lost document, rather than having to type it out again.
Anyhow, I was reading up on "Snake Dancing", when I found it crossed this thread in a small way. In that, I dont understand why people started to live in segregated households following the rise of Islam. As all this segregation, seem unnatural to me.
Oriental Dance: A Dance For The Whole Family by Shira Following the rise of Islam, people lived in segregated households. The men lived on one side of the house, and the women lived with the children on the other side.
The word "harem" does not refer to some exotic seduction chamber filled with naked women lolling on pillows awaiting their turn to seduce the Sultan. Instead, it simply refers to the section of the home where women carried about their everyday business of cooking, sewing, gossiping with friends, and minding the children. The word "harem" comes from the word "haram", which means "forbidden": men who were not part of the immediate family were forbidden to enter the women's quarters when they visited their friends. The intent was to protect the women of the household from strangers.
When festive occasions would arise, the women would celebrate with other women, and the men would have a separate party with other men. Historically, the two genders did not mix. In some Muslim countries, that is still true today.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Delete
Posted:this thread sort of inspired me to read the "Da Vinci Code", which in turn inspired me to read one of the many books that try to sort out the truths behind the stuff presented in that book, and that in turn... you get the idea.
Point is, I have gone from beleiving Christ really was a man who lived 2000 years ago and did a few things to now having serious doubts as to whether or not he even existed.
Did you know that well over 4000 years ago there was a story which has been repeated in different versions till someone wrote the new testament?
Here are all the points common to all the stories (insert the name Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Bacchus, Mithras, Attis, or Jesus as you see fit):
1. he is a godman, made of flesh and is a saviour
2. his father is a god and his mother a mortal virgin
3. he is born in a cave or humble surroundings on December 25th
4. he turns water to wine at a marrage cerimony
5. he dies at eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world
6. he rises to heaven 3 days after he dies
7. his followers await his return as the judge of men during the final days
So basically the story of Jesus is a blatant plagerism from various pagan traditions. Of course now anyone trying to sell that story with a new name would be accused of some horrible crime or herasy or at least plagerism.
Naturally the ancient Catholic church said that these preseeding similarities are a result of "diabolical pre-mimcry" and "plagerism by anticipation" by the devil himself.
Apparently jews initially rejected christian teachings largely because "they offered nothing new over other pagan religons".
Also interesting to note is that the current version of christianity was more or less invented by Paul, who was originally a greek jew named Saul. Paul never actually met Jesus, or any of his apostles for that matter (save maybe one - but that may well have been a falsehood told so he had the proper credentials as an apostle), and based his teachings solely off of a "vision" he had of Jesus one day about a decade or so after Jesus died. He did supposely meet up with the apostle Peter for a couple weeks once, but pretty much nothing is know about this except the claim. And point in fact, Peter seems to be by far the most selfish and mysoginistic of Christs followers anyway (personally I think this peter guy was a complete ass). It is also fairly evident that the teachings of Paul probably were significantly different than those of the "12" original apostles of christ (I put 12 in quotes, since there is also good evidence that several important female aspostles were effectly erased from history). The reason why Paul was so fabulously more effective in spreading the word of christ is because he is really the only one who tried to convert non-jews to christianity - pagans who were much more receptive to the godman myth since they had heard it all before. the Jews certainly got very pissed off at Paul, essentially for sullying their religion with paganistic themes and selling their religion to outsiders with this false wrapping.
anyway, I have to say that I've learned a lot in the past couple of weeks from the writings of modern historians and theologans - like how much mythology we mistake for history - even those of us like myself who are not christian.
(the prime reference here is "the jesus mystery" by Freke and Gandy - except for some of the stuff about Paul and the thing about the mssing female apostles)
Point is, I have gone from beleiving Christ really was a man who lived 2000 years ago and did a few things to now having serious doubts as to whether or not he even existed.
Did you know that well over 4000 years ago there was a story which has been repeated in different versions till someone wrote the new testament?
Here are all the points common to all the stories (insert the name Osiris, Dionysus, Adonis, Bacchus, Mithras, Attis, or Jesus as you see fit):
1. he is a godman, made of flesh and is a saviour
2. his father is a god and his mother a mortal virgin
3. he is born in a cave or humble surroundings on December 25th
4. he turns water to wine at a marrage cerimony
5. he dies at eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world
6. he rises to heaven 3 days after he dies
7. his followers await his return as the judge of men during the final days
So basically the story of Jesus is a blatant plagerism from various pagan traditions. Of course now anyone trying to sell that story with a new name would be accused of some horrible crime or herasy or at least plagerism.
Naturally the ancient Catholic church said that these preseeding similarities are a result of "diabolical pre-mimcry" and "plagerism by anticipation" by the devil himself.
Apparently jews initially rejected christian teachings largely because "they offered nothing new over other pagan religons".
Also interesting to note is that the current version of christianity was more or less invented by Paul, who was originally a greek jew named Saul. Paul never actually met Jesus, or any of his apostles for that matter (save maybe one - but that may well have been a falsehood told so he had the proper credentials as an apostle), and based his teachings solely off of a "vision" he had of Jesus one day about a decade or so after Jesus died. He did supposely meet up with the apostle Peter for a couple weeks once, but pretty much nothing is know about this except the claim. And point in fact, Peter seems to be by far the most selfish and mysoginistic of Christs followers anyway (personally I think this peter guy was a complete ass). It is also fairly evident that the teachings of Paul probably were significantly different than those of the "12" original apostles of christ (I put 12 in quotes, since there is also good evidence that several important female aspostles were effectly erased from history). The reason why Paul was so fabulously more effective in spreading the word of christ is because he is really the only one who tried to convert non-jews to christianity - pagans who were much more receptive to the godman myth since they had heard it all before. the Jews certainly got very pissed off at Paul, essentially for sullying their religion with paganistic themes and selling their religion to outsiders with this false wrapping.
anyway, I have to say that I've learned a lot in the past couple of weeks from the writings of modern historians and theologans - like how much mythology we mistake for history - even those of us like myself who are not christian.
(the prime reference here is "the jesus mystery" by Freke and Gandy - except for some of the stuff about Paul and the thing about the mssing female apostles)
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
Posted:Written by:
like how much mythology we mistake for history
never forget that history is written by the victors
they are hardly going to be unbiased in their presentation of what happened
look at the old english stories where the christian monks writing down the pagan stories chose to turn great gods into mere warriors
like how much mythology we mistake for history
never forget that history is written by the victors
they are hardly going to be unbiased in their presentation of what happened
look at the old english stories where the christian monks writing down the pagan stories chose to turn great gods into mere warriors
Delete
Mr Majestik
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
![Mr Majestik]()
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
SILVER Member since Mar 2004
coming to a country near you
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear
Total posts: 4693
Posted:
you mean the monks, who were the victors, portrayed the pagan gods as simple worriors?
i wish i had a soap box. D:
you mean the monks, who were the victors, portrayed the pagan gods as simple worriors?
i wish i had a soap box. D:
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Posted:Thanks vanize, that makes sense. I think Ive heard bits that story before, but I didnt really think much about it, because Ive never questioned the existence of Jesus. Sometimes, its the simple truths that can change our lives, and as you say, there really is not that much evidence that Jesus did walk on water.
Following on from the Jesus story, then I suppose that could lead one to question the existence of God. And where does that leave all the dispossessed Christians like me? Stranded on the path to one of the many neo-pagan religions? Though, perhaps its due to conditioning, but I have a lot of trouble relating to terms like gnostic, pagan or wicca, for example.
So, was there a schism or something that separated belief in the old ways from Christianity or did it just happen gradually? Like I remember reading somewhere that the gnostics were eradicated by the Roman Church in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Hi Ade, good points. I hadnt realized the full significance of distorted historic writings, until recently, when I read Marion Zimmer Bradleys Thoughts on Avalon (link above).
Following on from the Jesus story, then I suppose that could lead one to question the existence of God. And where does that leave all the dispossessed Christians like me? Stranded on the path to one of the many neo-pagan religions? Though, perhaps its due to conditioning, but I have a lot of trouble relating to terms like gnostic, pagan or wicca, for example.
So, was there a schism or something that separated belief in the old ways from Christianity or did it just happen gradually? Like I remember reading somewhere that the gnostics were eradicated by the Roman Church in the 4th and 5th centuries.
Hi Ade, good points. I hadnt realized the full significance of distorted historic writings, until recently, when I read Marion Zimmer Bradleys Thoughts on Avalon (link above).
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Delete
Posted:i mean, this is an important thread, right?
and we're here to talk about important things, right?
so...
if he existed, i bet he DID do poi.
maybe sandle-poi or something..
they liked stones back then, after all...
(if thats too obscure, i relate poi to stones on string..)
<dashes down to the grassy knoll to do poi while jfk drives by>
and we're here to talk about important things, right?
so...
if he existed, i bet he DID do poi.
maybe sandle-poi or something..
they liked stones back then, after all...
(if thats too obscure, i relate poi to stones on string..)
<dashes down to the grassy knoll to do poi while jfk drives by>
those that know, dont say. those that say, dont know.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [jesu* v* god] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > Staff > Contact > Jesus *help/resource
2. Forums > Talking with God [80 replies]
3. Forums > Jesus vs God [137 replies]
4. Forums > Happy Birthday Jesus [39 replies]
5. Forums > God, what's the nature of... ? [132 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.