Topic awaiting preservation: Jesus Requires Genesis (Page 2 of 4)

DB Your comments comparing Greeks and Jews is plain wrong.

Greeks are originally Aegean and they it is widely accepted that they had little to no religions in the Mediterranean islands, simply because there is very little evidence of any sort of worship involved in their cultures, one of the evidence is a miniature sculpture of snake goddess, pretty much a fertility deity, but that is in no similarity to Zeus of whatever. Greeks developed their beliefs purely as they developed their civilization as Greece. It all came together in their obsession with the mankind being center of everything, the birth of democracy the focus on architectural out-terior perfection, and expression through sculptures to mankind?s perfect bodily image.

Now Jews themselves were very much scattered on Canaanite beliefs which they barrowed from, there were wars between tribes and their deities which include Baal-zebub or just Baal, a bull like deity where there are still traces in Genesis as a biased point of views how the Yawish cult conquered and destroyed those beliefs (and who later is referred to devil, hence many xians use term beelzebub to name opponednt of Yaweh). The idea on Yawish cult developed from and among other competing cults all being related to the Higher God by the name of El who dwelt on Mount Saphon and it was under his aegis that Baal married Anat, defeated the sea god Yam and the death lord Mot, and was installed as the divine bestower of life-giving rain. Represented as an aged man, El wore bull's horns, the symbol of strength, and was usually depicted as seated. It is thought that he corresponded to the Hebrew god, Yahweh. He is also known as El 'Elyon, "God Most High."

reference www.pantheon.org


Beside DB, the reason why the idea of Christianity didn?t die out is simply because it attracted large amount of Pagans. If Christianity stayed within the Jewish circle it would have defiantly died out Long time ago.
There was a turmoil and big mess with religions in Greco-Roman world and their deities didn?t have the same values as Jewish deities had, allot of pagans tried to convert to Judaism but it was just hard, it needed allot of requirements, which includes circumcision kosher etc and Christianity was an easy way out, as Paul absolutely ignored most of the Jewish requirements and said they were unnecessary to be Christian this simple and radical message attracted allot of followers.



(Edited by Ruski on 08-13-2005 01:19)

My Dad's name was El, guess that makes me the son of El.

What I still have difficulty understanding is why anybody with functioning synapses needs a god of any description.

People of lesser intelligence I can understand being snowed by self-aggrandizing propagandists calling themselves prists.

But how anyone with an IQ greater than a walnut or Dumbya can fall for that hooey, then or now, just simply escapes me.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Belladonna: I'll try to address some of the points you made.

Firstly, it is no surprise that you haven't heard of Beomil, as he is virtually unknown outside of Korea. I just picked him as an example because I've been studying those myths recently.

quote:

---

But from what you said, I still see vast differences in his story and Jesus' story. For one, he was a born a Buddhist and died a Buddhist. And it doesn't seem from what you said that he really during his life had a radically different teaching from what Buddhism was in his day that founded a whole new belief system out of another, so radical that it caused a major split that still exists today between the groups.

---

All true. But that's not what you said at first, and that's not why I gave the example. You said:

quote:

---

But Jesus is the only one who emerged after written history began. He was not an oral "legend" that finally got written down.

---

That, of course, is patently false, and that was the point I was trying to make. By making obviously false statements like that, you undermine the rest of your argument.

Now for this:

quote:

---

And this applies to why things are the way they are now--because something in the past grew to it. So for all your (and any body else's) experties, I have to disagree with you. Man's prehistory is much longer than his written history. And I cannot look at the all the Gods and demi-gods of the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Akkadians, the Sumerians, and on down the line, without seeing very distinct, and at times uncanny, similarities to each other. Especially when laid side-by-side with the immigrations patterns believed to have happened in pre-history, and knowing that human nature causes those with different beliefs to be one of the main reasons people group together and move to a different territory. Not the only reason, but a large reason.

---

I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Are you still arguing for protomyths? Why is it so hard for you to accept the possibility that different cultures may have come up with the same idea independently? Isn't equally as possible that the common elements of humanity gave rise to these independent myths?

And as for "Man's prehistory is much longer than his written history"--when did I say it wasn't? All I said was that oral history did not end when written history began, as you seemed to ignore the fact that oral legends can still form in a society with a written history.

quote:

---

It is like dragons. Every culture in the world has dragons way back to their known beginnings. And they all have differences, but they all have very certain and distinct similarities too. I can understand two separate cultures coming up with the idea of printing near about the same time, totally independant of one another. It is an obvious "next step" to spoken language. To write them down. It is also another obvious "next step" to print them and speed up the writing process. But when it comes to a whole pantheon of Gods and demi-gods, or something as distinct as a dragon and all the trappings of a dragon--I find it hard to believe that these ideas came up independantly and totally separate from each other when there are so many similarities. And I'm not talking about "archtype" hero stories. I'm talking about personal attributes of each God or Godess, what aspect of human nature and physical nature they represented. How they behaved individually. That kind of thing. "Some" independantly, I could see. "one" independantly, I could see. And that is where the differences that do exist come in. But not as many similarities as there were. That would be like me and you sitting down independantly and writting the same novel about the same characters with the same outcome and story line and only minor differences in details. More than a novel--a whole soap opera.

---

I cannot fathom why this is so hard for you to accept. The ancient deities were given those attributes and characteristics because they expressed common human desires and hopes. Your example of two different people independantly writing the same soap opera is unreasonable. Let us say, instead, that you were to tell two people to write a story of love and betrayal. No doubt you would find many striking similarities in their stories, especially if the writers were of the same basic culture. Does this mean that they drew on a proto-soap opera? No, it means they drew on common human hopes and fears. But they were still developed independently.

The idea that similarity between two (or many) things necessarily means that they are drawn from a common source came about precisely because people could not see the whole picture. Humans have a tendency to see patterns and connections, and when so many similarities were discovered early anthropologists figured that there must be a connection. That idea is no longer tenable, as we realize that similarity does not necessarily point to a relationship with a single source. If you want, you could say that it points to the relationship that all human beings are involved in as members of the human race. In that way, the single source would be human nature. But this is different from the idea of a protomyth.

quote:

---

History and science (and even religion to a point) both agree that there is a certain area of the world where man as we know it first began and spread out from, overtaking any other being that may have looked like him (such as neanderthals) that stood in his path, or assimilated them in one way or another. Our patterns today are still the same in a lot of ways. If one is like me, and believes there is a God, and other heavenly beings, it is not impossible to believe that in the beginning this God and other heavenly beings may have had a direct connection and accessibilty to this world. And that the happenings of these interactions so affected that first group of man as we know it, that it left an impression that spread. Changing as it went because God had since removed his physical presence from the world and soon became only known by oral histories. Which much much later got written down. And even later still got chopped up and pieces that seem to not fit a certain mold removed. It makes logical since to me, because I believe in God. Any who doesn't believe in God will find that idea difficult to believe or just hogwash and backward reasoning, trying to make my beliefs fit into reality.

---

I've got a shocker for you, Belladonna: I do believe in God. Most of the veterans here already now this, but you are relatively new, and I'm guessing that you don't. I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that He died for the sins of the world. Does this surprise you?

I also believe that my religious beliefs do not necessarily have to conflict with my field of study, which involves the doctrines of other religions (such as Buddhism, Taoism, and shamanism). I may not believe these other doctrines, but I feel I can learn from the study of them. I also do not believe that logic differs depending on your belief (or lack of belief) in God. I believe that God gave us all the same ability to reason, but we draw different conclusions because we reason based on different premises. You and I are beginning from a common premise, yet we see things differently. I do not want to be haughty and imply that you are lesser than me for not having studied what I study--everyone has different areas of expertise. But when it comes to mythology and oral literature, it is difficult for me to have a discussion with someone who adheres to exploded ideas and relies on canny knacks rather than study. Perhaps this is my failing.

But to address the point you made above: is it not equally as possible that these similar myths sprung out of a basic human desire to make sense of the world, and that this usually involved the idea of a deity? Why do they have to be the remnants of chopped up oral histories of Jehovah?

I will try to address your argument that Jesus is nothing like the hero archetype.

quote:

---

Jesus is the exception in my eyes. He is nowhere in the tanakh, which record Jewish belief from the beginning of man as they know it. Promises of a Messiah are, but he is not there himself as a man. He popped up at a dated time in history, and died at a dated time in history.

---

I do not see how this makes Jesus an exception. There are countless heroes who were born and died at specific times in history and who were thought to fulfill a prophecy (or prophecies).

quote:

---

He is nothing like any of the "archtype" stories of heros. His views were radical for the time he lived in. He was nothing like what the Jews thought a Messiah should be by their own prophecy. He was rejected and crucified, thought to be crazy by a lot of people. Even his own apostles, his closest friends, did not understand him or agree with him.

---

And you believe that this means he was nothing like the hero archetype? Because he was not recognized as a hero, because people did not understand him or thought he was crazy? This perfectly describes most exceptional people--people who do not fit the mold.

quote:

---

By all accounts--he should have been forgotten after he died.

---

By all accounts? By what accounts? This makes no sense. First you say he was radical, then you say that this is the very reason he should have been forgotten. I can't accept this. We forget the normal people. We forget those who blend into the background. We do not forget those who stand out. History is rife with radical and misunderstood figures, because they are the most memorable.

quote:

---

It is totally ILLOGICAL to me that his memory should have lived on past his death. It defies everything I understand and know about human nature.

---

If this is the case, you have a warped understanding of human nature. I don't mean that as an insult, it is simply the only conclusion I can draw from your protests.

quote:

---

If I wanted to create a legend and hero to found a religion, Jesus as he was in the Gosples is NOT what I or anybody else would write him to portray. He would have been a lot more aggressive, a lot more in tune with the teachings of the day, a lot more loved by the people, and died a martyr by hate by a small group, rather than fear of a two distinct large groups, to portray triumph, not defeat. He would have had specific, outlined teachings and rules--not the seemingly backward, hard to live up to, ideals that are written in the Gosples. But that is if I were "making it up".

---

For some reason, you are convinced that the attributes and characteristics possessed by Jesus would make him completely forgettable, but the opposite is true. The two large groups (the Romans and the Jewish leadership) that feared and attempted to destroy Jesus turned him into precisely what they were trying to avoid: a hero of the common people. If he had only been hated by a small group, he would not have been a martyr, and it would have been more likely that he would have been forgotten.

Let me share something interesting with you. When Christianity first came to Korea, the shamans adopted Jesus as a very powerful spirit. Why? Because he was unjustly executed, he died young, and he died without being married or having children. Sounds odd? Well, Korean shamans believe that resentment ("han" in Korean) is a very powerful force, and people who die unjustly often live on to become powerful spirits. It may seem strange at first, but the same idea exists in the West, where ghost often come into existence when the person dies "before their time is up"--that is, when they still have something left to do on this earth. The shamans didn't understand that Jesus accomplished precisely what he was sent here to do--to teach us, to guide us, and then to die for our sins. But they still recognized that he was a wronged hero of the people.

My fundamental problem with your argument is that I don't see why it is necessary to claim that Jesus does not fit the hero archetype. Are you afraid that if he did fit the archetype then he would lose his uniqueness?

Add to that the fact that your argument has no internal consistency. Perhaps the most interesting thing you said above, at least in terms of mythology, is that all the myths of humanity came from a time when God walked among men, but as time went on humanity forgot about the original God and invented their own. Yet you then go on to say that Jesus does not fit the hero archetype. If the myths of humanity express a collective memory of God and a basic desire to return to that state, why would Jesus not fit into that framework? I imagine that your answer will be something along the lines of humanity's twisted perception of God, but if you truly believe that the myths of humanity all ultimately point back to God, you do your argument a disservice by trying to place Jesus outside of that framework. If the mythological framework was the ultimate result of man's initial relationship with God, it would not make sense for Jesus not to fit into that framework, no matter how warped humanity's perception of God may have become.

This post has gone on far longer than I intended, and it is a bit disjointed, but I hope I've addressed your points. I would encourage you to make a broader study of myth rather than relying on what you perceive to be the case. For starters, try giving Alan Dundes a read, specifically the book "In Quest of the Hero." Dundes has an interesting piece in there entitled "The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus," where he applies Raglan's work to show how Jesus does, in fact, fit the hero archetype.

Forgive me if I do not frequent this thread regularly. I tend to avoid these discussions for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the amount of time they require (admittedly partly my fault for being so verbose, but there you have it).

___________________________
Suho: www.liminality.org | Cell 270 | Sig Rotator | the Fellowship of Sup

BD, when I said that sex was a sin, it could have been substituted with anything that is considered a sin based on religion. The reason for my comment was to point out that saying the Bible says so works only for those that believe the Bible in the first place.

As far as the trinity, in order to make sense, I've heard it compared to an apple:
An apple has three parts, the core (God), The flesh (Holy Spirit), and the skin (Jesus). The core is where the seed and source of the fruit is, the flesh is where the flavor and nourishment come form, and the skin is is the outer shell that is first seen. Even though it is one apple, it is made up of three distinct parts.

I guess it's my turn to also thank Suho for his posts. I have found them very informative and unbiased, no matter how verbose.

___________________________________
Quidquid Latine Dictum Sit, Altum Viditur ~
Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound

First of all, BD this

quote:

---

It is like dragons. Every culture in the world has dragons way back to their known beginnings. And they all have differences, but they all have very certain and distinct similarities too.

---

Is just not Factual!

My People don't have legends or stories about Dragons. None. Zippo. Nada.

Chew on that for a bit.

Post-Written era Figures? I can with great awe and inspiration point to the Mahatma Ghandi, as one. His idea and message of non-violence was unheard of (especially in how he not only believed in it, but practiced it!). Unfortunately, the world rejected his teachings, although he is revered by billions of Indians, and deeply respected by others such as myself. I would also point to Ron L. Hubbard and Scientology (though I personally don't care much for it, I recognize the acomplishment here) and the Mormons and Joseph Smith. I'm sure there are others.

Now, are you done with shooting yourself in the foot?

Suho--I understand your point about what I said. And that's my fault. But I can only speak of widely known figures when it comes to mythology. And I know very little at all about far eastern myth.

quote:

---

I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

---

I am sorry that I cannot put it into words exactly why I think what I think. And I am not forgetting that an oral history still existed along with written. The best thing I can do is give you examples of what kind of similarities I am talking about. This is one of many:

quote:

---

One of the most striking Sumerian myths describes Inanna passing through seven gates of hell into the underworld. At each gate some of her clothing and her ornaments are removed until at the last gate she is entirely naked. Ereshkigal, the queen of the underworld kills her and hangs her corpse on a hook on the wall. When Inanna returns from the underworld by intercession of the clever god, her Uncle, Enki, according to the rules she must find someone to take her place. On her way home she encounters her friends prostrated with grief at her loss, but in Kulaba, her cult city, she finds her lover Dumuzi, a son of Enki, Tammuz seated in splendour on a throne, so she has him seized and dragged below. Later, missing him, she arranges for his sister to substitute for him during six months of the year. (compare Greek story of Persephone)

---

There's a long page about Persephone herself, and even she "evolved" within Greek culture from being the Queen of the underworld, to being taken down to the underworld by Hades. The article goes on to say:

quote:

---

Persephone Before the Greeks?
Many modern scholars have argued that Persephone's cult was a continuation of Neolithic or Minoan goddess-worship. Among classicists, this thesis has been argued by Gunther Zuntz (Zuntz 1973) and cautiously included by Walter Burkert in his definitive Greek Religion.

More daringly, the mythologist Karl Kerenyi has identified Persephone with the nameless "mistress of the labyrinth" at Knossos.

On the other hand, the hypothesis of a universal cult of the Earth Mother has come under increasing criticism in recent years. For more on both sides of the controversy, see Mother Goddess.

---

Which is all fine and dandy, but still just guesses and assumptions. And even though there are differences in the stories, the similarities of the two stories speak very loudly to me. I would expect differences. But that is not just a mere "idea from common elements" coming up independantly. They are entire stories. Does that make what I think about it all correct? No. But it's what makes the most sense to me. <shrug>

On a side note, Inanna is the same goddess as Akkadian Ishtar and Semetic Astarte. She can also be compared to the Greek Athena, since she was also considered the goddess of war. (I find it strange that war would be associated with a female diety at all--much less Inanna and Athena and completely independantly from one another.) And of course, Athena had an evolution of her own, before and during the Greek history as we know it, which anybody who cares to can look up. Inanna probably had an evolution too, but we don't know any writings that were before the Sumerian, so we cannot say. But I don't see a problem with seeing how different cultures influxing to areas over time contribute to these evolutions of the pantheons.

quote:

---

I cannot fathom why this is so hard for you to accept

---

Because of the immigrations of man. And because of the tendency to assimilate over time. To say, with any credence at all, that each pantheon came up completely independant of one another, would be to say that man stayed put. And we know that didn't happen. I am not saying that one whole pantheon developed into another whole pantheon, then developed into another whole pantheon. All neat like in a row of chronological order. That would be illogical. I am not even saying that each culture didn't put their own unique creations to the mix, because ideas are continually forming and evolving. But certain figures and stories can be "traced". Like the Inanna/Persephone stories. They are too similar for me to totally disregard the thought that possibly groups of people from Sumeria immigrated north and west, taking Inanna with them, and over time, ancesters reached the area of Greece and the story got changed a little here and there along the way and assimilated into greece, then became the greek persephone, and some of her attributes given to Athena. That makes much more sense to me than both stories evolving independant from one another. There is no real proof of that though. But I don't see any real proof that the ideas came up totally independant either. That just seems to be the accepted view now. But I am not sure why, and can't find a reason. Maybe you could shed some light on that for me. Where is the inbetween from the sumerian Inanna to Persephone of Greece? That would be Turkey, which in ancient times were inhabited by Hittites.

quote:

---

The Hittites adopted many of the gods of the Sumerians and Old Babylonians. The odd thing about the Hittites, though, is that they seemed to have recognized that all gods were legitimate gods. Whenever they conquered a people, they adopted that people's gods into their religious system.

---

also, here is a link with more about the hittites and how they assimilated and evolved their pantheon.
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/hitit.htm#din

Many of the gods listed as original Hittite or Hurrian gods have a lot of references to words known from Sumeria, and Akkadia. Such as Ea, Apsu and Abzu, Suggesting that an even earlier, prehistoric migration brought at least some of these gods and godesses to this area. In the Imported list, Ishtar is named specifically. She is also mentioned by name in some of the myths listed associated with other gods. The story of Inanna is not given, but is known from sumerian and akkadian records that Ishtar and Inanna were same deities. With some probable changes. So we cannot assume that the just because the persephone like story isn't listed on that site of Hittite gods, that it did not exist in the Hittite culture. Each god and goddess had a long list of entertwining stories, and some of the ancient records could very well be destroyed or haven't been found.

Anyway, that's my case for the mixing and migration of religious ideas. The implications are pretty clear to me, at least for the Ancient middle eastern and Greek and Roman gods. And there are similar connections that can be made involving the Indus valley too. As far as far eastern mythology, I've never really tried to make any connections. Or with scandinavian mythologies. Maybe I'll try later on. Just to see if I can.

It's nice to know you are a Christian. And I don't feel like you are looking down on me. If you study this stuff more formally than I, I would expect you to question my ideas. But even though I have a knack, doesn't mean I rely just on that for my info.

quote:

---

There are countless heroes who were born and died at specific times in history and who were thought to fulfill a prophecy (or prophecies).

---

None that I was aware of. And none that started a new religion.

quote:

---

By all accounts? By what accounts? This makes no sense. First you say he was radical, then you say that this is the very reason he should have been forgotten. I can't accept this. We forget the normal people. We forget those who blend into the background. We do not forget those who stand out. History is rife with radical and misunderstood figures, because they are the most memorable.

---

Radical for the Jews. Maybe "radical" is not the word I should use. His teachings did not add up in the end to what the Jews figured the Messiah to be. He was the opposite of what they wanted. They realized he was not going to overthrow the Romans. His teachings were backward sounding. Blessed is the meek? Blessed is the persecuted? When they were being oppressed from Rome, how was that being blessed? Everything about Jesus has to be taken in context of the Jews ideas of what a "hero" was. What the Jews thought were attributes of the Messiah. And how the Jews have treated all other Messiahs. They forgot about them. Maybe this is not important for your point, but it is important to my point. My point being, that his ideas and claim to be Messiah had to get passed some Jews first to get to the rest of the world.

quote:

---

Are you afraid that if he did fit the archetype then he would lose his uniqueness?

---

No. That's just what I think. And once again, you have to leave the context of the Jewish in there.

And I understand how other people besides the Jews could sympathize with Jesus after the fact. And be the underdog kind of hero. But Jews are the ones who got it started. Without that, it would have never made it to Korea in the first place.

quote:

---

Add to that the fact that your argument has no internal consistency. Perhaps the most interesting thing you said above, at least in terms of mythology, is that all the myths of humanity came from a time when God walked among men, but as time went on humanity forgot about the original God and invented their own. Yet you then go on to say that Jesus does not fit the hero archetype. If the myths of humanity express a collective memory of God and a basic desire to return to that state, why would Jesus not fit into that framework? I imagine that your answer will be something along the lines of humanity's twisted perception of God, but if you truly believe that the myths of humanity all ultimately point back to God, you do your argument a disservice by trying to place Jesus outside of that framework. If the mythological framework was the ultimate result of man's initial relationship with God, it would not make sense for Jesus not to fit into that framework, no matter how warped humanity's perception of God may have become.

---

Not quite. If you ask anybody what God or Jesus is all about, most people, not all though I guess, would say Love. There may be a few other adjectives like judge or absent, thrown in there by some, but most I think would say love. And that I guess is correct. I didn't say just a collective memory of God. I said a remnant of a memory of God and other heavenly beings. Such as Angels. And not of the good variety. I am not about to get into the history of all that right now--but it's interesting stuff about them meddling in human life, teaching us things. The memory of these beings could have gotten past on and later mistaken for gods and goddess. Not just the real God. So no, I don't think Jesus fit in with this group at all. This group, if it indeed happened this way, went on to become later and later gods. These gods had wars, slept around, tricked each other, killed each other. So yes, I can say that I believe all religions came down from a time when God walked with man, and that Jesus doesn't fit the pattern that emerged. Because the angels who fell from grace would have been involved in all that too. And among us longer than God, I might add. According to the bible, quite a few came down after God had already removed himself from our presence.

And let me suggest that you read "The Jesus I Never Knew" by phillip yancey. He does a great job of showing how Jesus does not fit the mold of a hero. (jewish context) And does a much better job of putting it into words than I ever could. I can only hope I cleared myself up on why I think religious ideas spread around.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

WS--Gandhi? I've read differing views of where he got his beliefs from. That they were just regular Hindu views is one. That he read Leo Tolstoy's "The Kingdom of God is Within You" is another, which was written by a man who was litterally trying to live up to the Sermon on the Mount given by Jesus. And I've read that Gandhi got his views from the New Testament itself. So which is it? Can you say for certain? I read a quote by him that said something of the effect of love and non violence were as old as time. That's close anyway.

Dragons--I should have said most. You must be from Austrailia I'm guessing?

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

Suho-10

BD-0.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bd, I am Native American Indian, Cherokee to be exact.

Mahatma Gandhi led his people to freedom, out from the Governship of British rule. And he did this with non-violence. I am not aware of a similar process ever succeeding in history.

As for what he believed in and stood for, I would suggest his extraordinary autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth.

This website is pretty good Mahatma Gandhi for the "short" version though.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-13-2005 17:13)

Cool Ruski, and thanks, i appreciate it.

and i will do some reading to catch up on all this tomorrow...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

if we don't believe we are sinners...we aren't.

---

I never, ever said that D-man. I said that without the Law, people don't know they need Jesus.
It is like speeding. If you were to do 55 in a 40, and not see the sign that says it is a 40, you are still breaking the law, and deserve punishment, regardless of what you knew. Knowing the law allows you to see your need for obeying it, and in the instance of God's Law, your inability to obey it, and your need for Jesus' perfect sacrifce to cover up your sins.

quote:

---

briggl said:

Because he fell off his a** and hit his head - that is when
he became a
believer.

---

No, he became a believer when Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus and struck him blind. I wonder what you would do if you believed that the very last image you would see is that of the man who's followers you have been persecuting. I guess we will find out sooner or later, won't we? I, personally, am with God on the fact that I would rather see it sooner and be able to invite you to the party at my mansion later, but it is all up to you.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

More telling than anything, is the total lack of information dealing
with
the childhood of Jesus

---

If you still want to believe with Dan Brown that the Bible is wrong about Jesus. It truly is up to you, but it would solve many of your problems if you would just read the Gospels. They tell of the tens of thousands of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, or at least a prophet who was totally different from other prophets. Your choice.

quote:

---

Raeubu said:

The reason that the idea of Jesus didn't fall away, is that he appealed to the
"sinner". If you were a Jewish prostitute and suddenly somebody told you they
had a way for you to not be constantly unclean, what would you do? Maybe if you
were a leper? a tax collector? The fact is, Jesus appealed to those that weren't
reaping the benefits of the current institution. Christianity feeds on the fact
that there are people that are ashamed of themselves and want an easy way to get
rid of the burden.

---

Okay, I have lots for this one.
Jesus' followers did not just include tax collectors or prostitutes. They included Centurions and great buisnessmen. Also there are a few acounts of Pharisees and Saducees (those "reaping the benefits of the current institution") who followed Him. Jesus' message is not a respector of persons. Everyone is a sinner, and those who knew this best were those who were constantly told so by their peers. Thus Jesus' crowd was mainly the prostitutes, tax collectors, and so on. But Jesus said that those who come to Him are called by concience to ask His forgiveness. And concience is a dangerous thing, that can strike anyone at any time...
And Jesus does not get rid of the burden of sin, BTW. He clears your slate with God, but you still have to have Him help you out with the consequences, like depression, teenage pregnancy, addiction, and many others. Jesus does not give you an easy way out. Instead He allows you to go through them so that you will develope perseverance, and that perserverence will develope character, and that character will deverlope hope.
[BTW, I like your sig.]

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

(and we don't see the idea of the trinity laid out unitl a couple centuries
later, either).

---

We have the idea of the Trinity about 500 years before Jesus came. In the Psalms of David, and possibly even in the writings of Ezekiel.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

And that a hell of a lot longer, and under more extreme circumstances, than the
xians can even begin to imagine.

---

The time period of Moses would put Judiasm as roughly twice the age of Christianity, right? Unfortunately, that is incorrect, because Jesus said that Christianity is not a new religion, but a continuation of the old one. Point? Christianity is just as old as Judiasm, just different.
It would be like my twin friends Curt and Craig Cazares. They do everything together, and are more or less the same. Right now they both have a job of cutting grass. Perhaps one decides that is a great career and continues cutting grass his entire life. Well, his brother disagrees and wants to go to school and become an enviromentalist or something else relating to agriculture. Whatever he becomes, he started as a grass cutter and a Cazares, and forever will have his roots there. They are the exact same age, one just incurred a transformation halfway through his life.
I know what you are thinking in the terms of persecution of the Jews. I will agree, that the Jews have had a rough history. But I want to ask you if the latest count of 69 million Christians martyred since Jesus (2000 years) comes close to the persecution of the Jews? How about the nearlry 60,000 killed in 2000? How about more than that whose lives have been crushed by Atheistic Communists? Or lives ruined by angry Muslim family members? Don't tell me that Christians don't suffer for their beliefs. If a normal person had to go through half of what the Christians in Nero's "party" had to go through, or what the Thundering Legion had to do, they would have peed their pants and broke down in tears.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

(Edited by Gideon on 08-14-2005 21:55)

quote:

---

We have the idea of the Trinity about 500 years before Jesus came. In the Psalms of David, and possibly even in the writings of Ezekiel.

---

You certainly need to qualify a statement like that with some specific quotes.

OF course, even if that *is* an accurate statement, it doesn't change the fact that we don't see it in christian writings until much later.

quote:

---

They tell of the tens of thousands of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, or at least a prophet who was totally different from other prophets.

---

What the hell are are you talking about, child? The LAWS given by God Himself to his Chosen People say whether or not one is a prophet or a Messiah - and Jesus wasn't, according to them. Just because some sect calls someone a "messiah" or "prophet" doesn't make it so.

Period.

You can try to twist it as you like, but that is the cold, hard fact of the matter.

quote:

---

Don't tell me that Christians don't suffer for their beliefs. If a normal person had to go through half of what the Christians in Nero's "party" had to go through, or what the Thundering Legion had to do, they would have peed their pants and broke down in tears.

---

quote:

---

Unfortunately, that is incorrect, because Jesus said that Christianity is not a new religion, but a continuation of the old one. Point? Christianity is just as old as Judiasm, just different.

---

This is so wrong, it is not funny. I'm going to officially warn you here, for this rubbish Gid. A continuation of the old one, just different? That is without a shadow of a doubt the stupidest thing you have posted on this board to date, IMO.

No-one has said that xians didn't and haven't suffered for their belief(s).

But that you are seriously attempting to say that the suffering of xians surpasses that of the Jews...I'm personally at a loss for words here.

Second, don't assume, in your young years, that you know what "normal" people are capable of.

"Normal" people are also xians, you nut.

With this post, you have totally tossed away any remaining shreds of tolerance, and any semblance of intelligence as far as I am concerned.

Reap what you sow.

Troll.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-14-2005 23:43)

Gid yer and Id...ee..ot!

Your analogy is mindless.

Speeding is a law...sinning is in the imagination of the indivdual.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

WS--I guess I feel a little closer to you now knowing we share some heritage. But I have to tell you, Native Americans did have dragons. Not quite like European or Chinese dragons, but dragons none the less. I just watched a show about the myths and histories of Dragons on the History channel the other night, and they went into a lot of detail about north american dragons. And you can find native american dragons all over the web.

As for Ghandi, yes he is the first to actually use the non-violent approach that I know of too. TO USE IT. That, by no means, says the idea hasn't been around a looooong time. And it doesn't change the fact that Jesus preached it 2000 years ago. Or that the idea doesn't go back even farther.

I'm going to say something here that even my husband had a hard time grasping. I asked him the other night, what one word can all of the Ten Commandments be summed up into. And he said "Obey". I said No, try again. And he said "Thou shalt not..." and I said no, try again. He gave up. I told him that all of the Ten Commandments could be narrowed down to the word Love. He laughed at me and said I was crazy. I said no, think about it and you'll see.

It's easier to tell people Thou shalt not commit adultery, than to tell them to love your spouse like you love yourself.

It's easier to tell people Thou shalt not kill, or covet, or bear false witness, or steal than to tell them to Love your neighbor like you do yourself.

It's easier to tell people to have no other gods, and keep the sabbath holy than to tell them to Love God like you love yourself.

It seems to me that people need to be told and have it outlined exactly for them what they can't do, rather than to try and tell them if you truly love, you'll treat all people right most of the time on your own anyway.

Anyway, my husband came back later and said yes, you are right. I just never looked at it like that before. All the commandments hinge on love of others above self. If you don't love, you can't and won't keep them. Not to the degree and larger scale that you should or could anyway.

So love and non violence are a very very old (and continually overlooked) ideas that cynics say is for the weak. And a very hard and suffering idea on top of it. But Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. , the Filipinos, and the Eastern European countries have proved that it works. Even native americans proved it--look at how many many different cultures and spiritual beliefs shared this land for so long side by side! They may have warred among each other occasionally, but out of respect usually settled it agreeably during the time Europe was steeped in war and slaughter! If you want to get philosophical about it, you could say that non violence worked for Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho too. <shrug>

So in a sense, Gideon is right. Jesus didn't preach anything new. He just turned it around to the real meanings of the ancient commandments. The God of the Old Testament was Father like love--do what I say and I will reward you, or punish you if you don't. Period. The Jesus of the New Testament is Mother like Love--I'll always love and forgive you your mistakes as long as you are really trying to do what your Father says. Both sides of the One God. That's how I see it anyway, and how I finally reconciled the OT and the NT for myself.

Look at it however you want. But I like my idea, it feels good and right in my heart, and am sticking to it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-15-2005 11:14)

Bd - my People do NOT have Dragon legends. We have legends of the Little People, and Snake does play a role in some stories, but Snake is not a dragon.

There are Native American cultures that do, but mine do not. Those that do, that I am aware of, come mostly from Central/South America.

The Aborigines of Australia definitely have dragon legends, because they lived with true dragons - the giant Megalania, giant ripper lizard of Australia (now extinct), which is estimated to have grown to 5.5 Meters in length.

quote:

---

As for Ghandi, yes he is the first to actually use the non-violent approach that I know of too. TO USE IT. That, by no means, says the idea hasn't been around a looooong time. And it doesn't change the fact that Jesus preached it 2000 years ago. Or that the idea doesn't go back even farther.

---

If you are going to talk the talk, then walk the walk. The Mahatma Gandhi was the first to do this (that I am aware of) and succeed. Not Jesus, not anyone else. Therin lies the massive difference - Mahatma Gandhi didn't just preach it.

quote:

---

So in a sense

---

Oh, that is a great way of determining things! If we go by this remark, then yes, everything is, in a sense, like everything else.

You need to be very careful, if you are going to try to lend support to Gid's position. Very careful.

And the God of the Old Testament was CERTAINLY not a loving God. Far from it. The God of the Old Testament was a vengeful, jealous god that you really didn't want to piss off.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-15-2005 12:08)

I'm not aware of any Cherokee dragons either. But, one old native american they interviewed on the show....I can't remember the name of the tribe, just that it was in the central part of north america,.....said he remembers stories told that in the old days, the tribes would have to hide from the giant (he gave a name I can't spell or pronounce). He said the stories told that the ground would shake with their passing.

Could be earthquakes. Could be dinosaurs. I thought it was interesting anyway.

And listen, I'm not arguing with you on the Gandhi point. I think we can agree that he was an extraordinary man and leader. I believe he was anyway. And he most certainly is the first one I've ever heard of to use the methods he used. But, I have my own theories as to why Jesus didn't use it himself to try and overturn Rome, instead of just preaching it, that I'm not even going to bother going into.

The God of the old testament, You see him your way, I'll see him mine--which does include a lot of fear as well as love. It's no big deal to me.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

He said the stories told that the ground would shake with their passing.

---

Ah! The stories of the Thunderbeast - not from my tribe, but yes, there are Native American tribes that do have legends about the Thunderbeast (and the Thunderbird, as well).

Hard to say from where they originated. I tend towards thunder and earthquakes, myself.

quote:

---

The God of the old testament, You see him your way, I'll see him mine--which does include a lot of fear as well as love. It's no big deal to me.

---

I'm curious how you can equate mass-murder with a loving image. After reading the Old Testament, I never came away from it with the feeling that the god portrayed in it was a loving god.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-15-2005 23:23)

quote:

---

The God of the old testament

---

I am sure I have already pointed out that God of Old Testament was developed through competing polytheistics Canaanite beliefs...

I know, but when it comes to eternal Disney Land, who cares... right?

-----
anyone interested enough to read on development of Yahweh, look here http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html



(Edited by Ruski on 08-15-2005 19:52)

I guess it depends on which story of mass murder one looks at. That sounds bad already, there was more than one mass murder by God LOL. I'll try to explain my thinking....but it's all just my beliefs and/or theories-for-fun, so, don't ask me to prove them. And it was hard, and took a long time for me to come to terms with the old testament God being a God of love.

I guess first you have to know that I think that God, if he created us in his image, has all the evil attributes in Him that man does.....he just uses them more prudently and his nature is the God side, where humans live more on the human side of the spectrum. Man has the capacity for great love toward one another....we just tend to hate and fight. It's much easier to do.

First, the flood. Chapter six of Genesis tells about, some people believe, where the angels came down and breeded with humans. This was an abomination. But Noah was "perfect in his generations". In other words, his line had resisted mixing with the fallen angels. In short, it was to wipe the earth of the hybrids, who were evil to the core. The book of Enoch tells this story in great detail. But, chapter six states that the giants were still in the earth after those days, so some eveidently escaped--which becomes pertinent with the order from God to completely massacre the Cannanites. It is my opinion that this flood was only local. The "known" world of the line of humans passing this story down. How the story of Gilgamesh fits in with this theory, I don't know. Gilgamesh was supposed to be part-god, part-human himself. Other than to say both the stories of Noah, and the stories of Gilgamesh had been passed down for a long time of prehistory and emerged as differing stories of the same story. I don't know.

Anyway, I can justify within myself God wiping out this kind of hybrid society. If God created humans, and then they mixed with angels knowingly, calling THEM god instead of God himself. Well, it's a justice of sorts. Depending on how much one believes in God. He has a right to be "jealous", if he created everything.

The firstborn of the passover in Egypt--God tried many other ways of convincing the Egyptians to release the Hebrews. Killing first borns was the last resort. He loved his people who had held on to Him and wanted to set them free. But even some of the Hebrews themselves had adopted Egyptian beliefs and gods, after living among them for so long. If any of the Hebrews didn't do what was commanded about a sacrifice and smearing the blood on the doorway, it showed his disbelief and lack of respect of God. So I think that any Hebrews who didn't follow it lost their firstborn son along with the Egyptians. This whole thing goes back to God the creator who demands respect that he deserves, and will not forever tolerate any who don't. It also forshadows the killing and sacrifice of HIS firstborn son....if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God that is.

The command to completely destroy the Cannanites--This goes back to the hybrids. The spies sent out to scope the land of Cannan came back with reports of the Giants. God ordered them to completely destroy these people, for the same reasons He caused the flood. But they didn't do that, according to the bible. Why didn't God just make sure He wiped them all out the first time with the flood? Complicated answer to that one. It has to do with God knowing the entire "play" before hand, but cannot force anyone to love and obey and accept him, and it have any real meaning to it. They have to do that on their own or it's pointless. Anyway, he did not wipe out Isreal because they disobeyed, but they were severly punished. Not obeying equals lack of respect, love, fear etc. But still, he gives them more time in the world to come back to Him the way he desires.

I tend to look at the world and it's entire history and population as a single "child of God". Starting off innocent like a baby. Then taking the beatings and strict discipline and rules of childhood as a whole, and getting the reasoning as a teenager through Jesus Christ. I guess I look at is as the world as a whole passed into young adulthood at the destruction of the Native American societies. People as a whole have not learned the lessons very well, but there are some who try a little, and some who try a lot. In the end, I guess we will all be judged independantly from one another. Because God would rather save those who give it their best rather than wipe everybody out completely. Out of love. At the end of Revelations, it reads to me as if all the "wicked" are still not all destroyed. That on the outside of the New Jerusalem, there is still "wickedness" going on. And they still have the chance to change their minds possibly, or never enter the Kingdom itself. The ones that are destroyed are the ones who entirely and completely reject God. And the Angels who started the whole mess are thrown into torment forever.

Like I said, this is all just theories for fun. There is no way of really knowing until the time comes I guess. And I would be lying if I said there aren't times when I think maybe we just die and that's it. But I have always believed deep down in a Supreme Being for as far back as I can remember, even though I did not grow up with religion of any sort. And searched in many places as I got older for one that felt right to me. and have come to believe in Jesus Christ. So I have to believe that God is Just, even if it hurts sometimes. A lot of the time. I can honestly say that my life has not been easy, and there have been many points when I was as low as you can get, money wise, spiritually wise, and morally wise. But I can also say that I always got what I needed somehow and someway--sometimes on faith alone, out of the blue and in totally unexpected ways after I had exhausted every other way I knew to get by. So I equate God with hard and tough, yet forgiving and empathetic, love. Some call it "will to survive". But I have seen and felt the marks of God on my life. My daughter, my only child, being one of them, in that she came in a time that looked like a child could be the worst possible thing to happen in my life. And I had been told that I could not have children because of an accident that I had and a certain infection I got from promiscuity that screwed up my works. But she was a gift that started opening my eyes and turning me around. And she was perfectly healthy, despite the fact that I did not know until I was five months pregnant, (Of course, I suspected at three months, but denied it as being impossible, so didn't go to the doctor) and so had indulged in very destructive behavior for a developing fetus. That changed once I found out for sure. Call it luck, or coincidence, one can reason it all away anyway they choose to. But I call it a miricle in my life. I had no clue what real love was until she came.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

The sound and quaking earth also describes the sounds the passing of the mighty buffalo herds made.

As for your loving god; http://www.evilbible.com/.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Like I said, this is all just theories for fun.

---

Ok then.

enjoy them =)

Yup. I'm not touching that post with a ten-foot pole.

quote:

---

The sound and quaking earth also describes the sounds the passing of the mighty buffalo herds made.

---

Good point.

How about a 6 foot Czech?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

6 figure check?

Ok, I'm in!

I was asked, so I told. <shrug>

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

So....

How does it feel, to be in the same "family" as Gid and Jade?

I am thinking the word 'dysfunctional' might be one descriptive word.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Please. This IS a philosophy thread. And if you all haven't figured out that I LIKE to romantisize (for lack of a better word) and be creative with the distant past, then you are all less intelligent than I gave you credit for. And boring on top of that. Playing "what if" is really fun for me, yet you act like I think the things I say are written in stone. That is far from the truth, and I don't believe I've ever given that impression. I believe in God, I believe in Christ and his teachings, and the rest is just....a big question mark that I am free to ponder and romantisize however I see fit but has no effect on my life at all. That by ne means means that I don't keep up with what's going on in the scientific world, or phooey it all away. I find all that just as facinating as the mythologies.

And to group me with gideon--a child who is just beginning to learn what the world is all about, and Jade, well I won't even get into her..... is very unfair. I'm really surprised at you WS.

Diogenes--I am unsure if you are calling *me* dysfunctional, or *us* as a group that webshaman grouped *us* in. Nothing you say really makes any difference to me though. I find that people who label other people usually have the same lable pasted all over them.

EDIT: I should also say on a side note, that as far as the God of the old testament, when it comes to the histories of judges and kings, I also theorize that human influence plays a big role in what God may have said or not even said at all to the prophets. People have always justified things through God, or blamed God. I have said this before, but you all seem to forgot that I have said it.


*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

(Edited by Belladonna on 08-17-2005 12:38)

quote:

---

And to group me with gideon--a child who is just beginning to learn what the world is all about, and Jade, well I won't even get into her..... is very unfair. I'm really surprised at you WS.

---

Really?

It surprises you to realize that you are in one, big xian family, that includes (among others) Gid and Jade?

I find that very interesting!

As for

quote:

---

Playing "what if" is really fun for me, yet you act like I think the things I say are written in stone. That is far from the truth, and I don't believe I've ever given that impression.

---

Well, yes, you have given that impression a few times...

quote:

---

then you are all less intelligent than I gave you credit for. And boring on top of that.

---

What, exactly, are you trying to communicate with this?

quote:

---

I believe in God, I believe in Christ and his teachings, and the rest is just....a big question mark that I am free to ponder and romantisize however I see fit but has no effect on my life at all.

---

Blocks are mine.

If so, first of all WHY then indulge in such activity, when it serves no purpose?

Second, in essence, you have just said that you have stopped learning. Why are you then here?

This place has brought me leaps and bounds forwards, in many areas. I have been exposed to ideas and ways of thinking (and beliefs) that I most likely would never have come up with, thought, or considered.

I am still learning.

If there ever comes a day when that is not true, then one can burn my dead remains.

quote:

---

It surprises you to realize that you are in one, big xian family, that includes (among others) Gid and Jade?

---

That is not the innocent statement I heard from your original post WS.

quote:

---

What, exactly, are you trying to communicate with this?

---

That I stated plainly that it was theory. Maybe I should have stated more plainly that it is was attempt to complete a "mythology" by using the book of Enoch that is not included in the bible. And that the beliefs I give clout to come from the events of my life.

quote:

---

If so, first of all WHY then indulge in such activity, when it serves no purpose?

---

In what activity? Romantisizing the past? If that is what you mean, then because I enjoy it. I enjoy learning about different cultures and wondering what may or may not have happened in prehistory. The "beginning" has always interested me deeply, but it does not affect my life in any way--no matter if we evolved, or God created us in one fell swoop. I have stated that before, and I still hold to it. And I look at it from and entertain all angles, not just one. It is just my nature. And the past is full of interesting things.

quote:

---

Second, in essence, you have just said that you have stopped learning. Why are you then here?

---

Uh, no. I don't think that's what I said. I'm always, always learning new things. Just because I don't apply some of those things in the same way some of you do, does not mean I have stopped learning. You and I have disagreed on many points, webshaman, but I have never flat out called you "wrong" in your beliefs (or lack thereof) about God or Jesus. Where you have called me wrong and belittled me concerning mine. You are entitled to take what you learn and interpret it how you see fit. I only ask the same respect, without being claimed to be losing touch with reality. That is stupid. I work in an environment filled with senseless and innocent death, and also recovery. It is foolish for one to think I could lose sight of reality when I am steeped in some of the worst (and best) aspects of it.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

How does it feel, to be in the same "family" as Gid and Jade?

---

quote:

---

That is not the innocent statement I heard from your original post WS.

---

I see no reference to anything un-innocent (whatever that means) here. Maybe you could expand on that?

quote:

---

Uh, no. I don't think that's what I said. I'm always, always learning new things. Just because I don't apply some of those things in the same way some of you do, does not mean I have stopped learning.

---

If the things you say you are "learning", have no impact on your life at all, then you are not truly learning - you are instead accumulating information. This is totally different than learning.

Learning means assimulating information, and then applying it!, among other things.

And you say you don't apply any of it, not "some" of it.

So, which is it?

quote:

---

Where you have called me wrong and belittled me concerning mine.

---

Blatant untruth, and I find this really insulting. I have pointed out errors in your reasoning. I have not "belittled" you in your belief. Please show me where I did this.

When you speak in absolutes, you are going to get called on your reasoning process, and if there are errors in it, expect that to be torn apart.

Your post shows again that you tend to speak in absolutes -

quote:

---

I am free to ponder and romantisize however I see fit but has no effect on my life at all.

---

But later, you say

quote:

---

I enjoy learning about different cultures and wondering what may or may not have happened in prehistory. The "beginning" has always interested me deeply, but it does not affect my life in any way

---

And you are still speaking in absolutes.

Maybe you mean to say something different here? The information that you are accumulating is obviously not being applied to your life, indeed, it is not being applied at all, outside of feeding your "fantasy".

Therefore, if that is what you truly mean, then you are not learning, you are not growing, you are stagnant - and you block any change to the contrary.

"This is my life, this is what I believe, and any evidence to the contrary, irregardless of what it is, will not change that".

That is very closed and narrow-minded.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-17-2005 14:25)

I haven't yet read past this, but wanted to get this in before I became distracted with other issues -

quote:

---

And to group me with gideon--a child who is just beginning to learn what the world is all about, and Jade, well I won't even get into her..... is very unfair. I'm really surprised at you WS.

---

This I agree with.

While I am somewhat baffled by the apparant flip-flopping and the like, Belladonna here is far from being in the jade or gideon category...

They are all xian.

I asked her how that feels.

*shrug*

It's not my fault that they all belong to the same large group.

For example, I am Cherokee, but my people belong to the group Native American Indian.

Does that mean that my Tribe is the same as that of the Apache? Or the Sioux? Or the Navaho?

Nope.

However, moving on - BD, you have to keep in mind that while you have been 'romanticizing', you have also been putting these purely creative ideas out there in the midst of a conversation about the reality of the situation.

If you are comfortable with basing your views on life on romaticized creations about the past, and putting faith in a divine being who's existence you seem to justify with those same romantic creations, then that's obviously your choice.

But when you try using those type of thoughts to justify it or explain to others....it's just not gonna float. Especially when you're having this conversation with a group of people who are, for the most part, well educated in the areas involved.

quote:

---

They are all xian.

I asked her how that feels.

*shrug*

---

Oh, c'mon WS...there was a very obvious implication in that statement.

Had you simply meant being a christian, there are plenty of other examples you might have chosen.

No DL, I am being serious here.

If I had wanted to compare her to the likes of Gid and Jade, then I would have done so in a direct manner.

I don't hold Bd to be the same as Gid and Jade.

However, Bd has stated that she is now a firm beliver - and thus, I wanted to know how she feels about such extremists that also hold the same firm belief in the same Faith.

I really do wonder how those like Bugs, Master Suho, Fig, and Bd feel about such.

I posted that remark, after Jade went and melted down over Homosexuality in the other thread, and Gid...well, did what he always does - trolling.

As I was a xian, I never once thought about all the extremists that are also xians. It was only later, much later, that I started realizing just how extreme some of them are.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-17-2005 16:45)

quote:

---

I see no reference to anything un-innocent (whatever that means) here. Maybe you could expand on that?

---

I sincerely apologize if I misread your statement. But you know damn well I didn't.

quote:

---

When you speak in absolutes, you are going to get called on your reasoning process, and if there are errors in it, expect that to be torn apart.

---

quote:

---

Blatant untruth, and I find this really insulting. I have pointed out errors in your reasoning.

---

And just who the hell are you to judge my reasoning and if there are errors in it?? That is my whole point. You can't get the entire picture of how, what, and who I believe, or how I live my life, or who I am and how I reason out everyday things by the posts I make in these threads.

As for the other things about my "learning"--How does what may or may not have happened in prehistory affect my life or my beliefs? If we evolved, or if we were created? I still feel, and have always felt, a belief in my heart of a supreme being.

If all my learning of past cultures is applied in any way, it affects how I treat OTHER people, and learn to understand and respect THEIR own beliefs or how they live THEIR life. Something it seems like you know NOTHING about. Not by the way you have attacked on these threads because of someones beliefs.

quote:

---

"This is my life, this is what I believe, and any evidence to the contrary, irregardless of what it is, will not change that".

That is very closed and narrow-minded.

---

This shows me the total and complete misunderstanding of me by you. I am one of the MOST open minded people I know. And people who know me personally know that to be FACT.

You know what? That really pisses me off for you to say that *I* am narrowminded, as if you have a clue about me. Take a good long look at yourself, why don't you.

quote:

---

And you say you don't apply any of it, not "some" of it.

---

You need to go back and read my post. And take which things I am talking about in context WebShaman. You are totally twisting what I said, I made myself pretty clear and you are reading way too much into it.

I think I'm done here. Not that any of you could care less. The feeling is mutual. I'll just PRAY FOR YOU.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

I'll tell you what I think of the extremeists. I think the same thing I've always thought. That they need to quit being sheep and pick up the bible and read for themselves and open their eyes to their own hypocracy.

But I try to be very tolerant of people like Gideon and Jade. They truly believe what they are saying because this is what they have learned. And this is what they have learned to READ in the bible. And they are entitled to that if that is what they want to do. Period.

I see the same thing in my work. People just believe whatever a doctor tells them without getting a second or third opinion. Most people are the same way about religion and preachers.

*****
In the web that is my own, I begin again...

quote:

---

But you know damn well I didn't.

---

Once again, I caution you to calm down. Read what I post, not what you think I post.

quote:

---

And just who the hell are you to judge my reasoning and if there are errors in it??

---

I don't know if you are aware of this, but you are posting on a public forum. Where others are reading and evaluating what you post. I am, first of all, just one of them. I examine what you post, evaluate it, and think about it.

I post my conclusions accordingly.

Second, I am a Mad Scientist. (*points to title*) Although I don't particularly think that makes me anything special, it does bring with it certain duties and responsibilities.

quote:

---

you can't get the entire picture of how, what, and who I believe, or how I live my life, or who I am and how I reason out everyday things by the posts I make in these threads.

---

Now that I also hold to be true, and I don't think I have any type of picture of such about you. I can only go from what you post. I think I mentioned that once to you before, and I find myself repeating myself here.

quote:

---

If all my learning of past cultures is applied in any way, it affects how I treat OTHER people, and learn to understand and respect THEIR own beliefs or how they live THEIR life. Something it seems like you know NOTHING about. Not by the way you have attacked on these threads because of someones beliefs.

---

*sigh*

If you are treating others differently, according to information that you have accumulated, than that is affecting your life (contrary to you saying "but it does not affect my life in any way")

Also, you accuse me of not being able to get the entire picture of you (as if I somehow suggested that I have), and then you turn around and do just that to me.

I haven't "attacked" someone because of their beliefs - that is an untruth. I have pointed out flaws in their reasoning. You may think or consider that to be an attack on belief, but it is not. I have posted many times, that I have no problem with what someone else believes, provided that they do not attempt to force it on others, or attempt to present it as fact when it is not so.

For example, I could really care less if Jade is a Catholic. She can believe whatever she wants. But when that belief starts affecting others (All Homosexuals are suffereing from "unpure" spirts, etc) that is where I draw the line.

Where do you draw the line?

quote:

---

You know what? That really pisses me off for you to say that *I* am narrowminded, as if you have a clue about me. Take a good long look at yourself, why don't you.

---

I can't recall calling you narrow-minded. I called such a statement as "This is my life, this is what I believe, and any evidence to the contrary, irregardless of what it is, will not change that".
" both closed and narrow-minded.

This is what I mean by POSTING ABSOLUTES!

if you are pissed off about that, that is your problem.

I personally don't know you, and I wouldn't know if you are or are not closed and narrow-minded. Again, I can only go from what you post. If you post such statements in absolutes, well, don't be surprised when you get called out on them.

quote:

---

You are totally twisting what I said, I made myself pretty clear and you are reading way too much into it.

---

On the contrary, I am only posting replies to what is posted. I haven't twisted anything, or taken you out of context (at least, not where I can see - please feel free to point out where I have). If you think you have made yourself pretty clear by using absolutes, then I can only go by that. I am in no way, form or manner reading too much into your post - on the contrary, I am readiny only what you actually post, and refraining from reading more into it.

I would suggest examining how you choose to communicate a bit closer. I am not the only one pointing such out to you.

(Edited by WebShaman on 08-17-2005 17:50)