Posts by sabastious

97

Pat Condell on Aggressive Atheism

by cantleave in

this is pretty much how i feel.......who disagrees with this?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yjo4duhmrzk&noredirect=1.

sabastious

Outlaw evangelism.

Yeah, who needs free speech! Not like that ever did anything...

-Sab

97

Pat Condell on Aggressive Atheism

by cantleave in

this is pretty much how i feel.......who disagrees with this?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yjo4duhmrzk&noredirect=1.

He's right that religion has never actually been tolerant so why should the atheists be tolerant of religion? My problem with the secularists is their aggression is directed at ALL religionists, even the ones that don't group up and impose their beliefs on others. They don't identify the safe alternative, they just condemn. Not everyone is willing or even capable of giving up their beliefs. For the ones that choose to believe like me are labeled as collaborators. Why don't the atheists just start a military and take out the religious zealots? They seem to be all bark and no bite, I wish they would bite every now and then instead of growl and froth at the mouth. In the beginning Condell was revolutionary, but now he's just a cliche.

-Sab

27

Death of Jesus..the best answer?

by punkofnice in

ok. i'm not trying to take a stance here (well, i don't think i am.

), just pondering things.

thinking out loud if you will.. i can no longer see why the death of jesus could be evidence of god's love or a sensible answer to humankind's suffering.

sabastious

OK. I'm not trying to take a stance here (well, I don't think I am.) ... I am of the opinion that god (if he/she/it/they exist), is a megalomaniaic dunce.

It sounds like you have a stance.

-Sab

40

The Nature of God

by sabastious in

i know that judaism and christianity are strongly self professed monotheistic religions.

yet, i wonder how they can so definitively say this when the word they chose to use as the deity in the beginning of their holy scripture is a plural.

genesis 1:1, and all of genesis chapter 1, uses the word "elohim" which is the plural form of "eloah" which is the prolonged form of "el.

sabastious

O and my last post doesn't mean I agree with everything I read in your first post, but that you are on the right path to understand what the bible really teaches. Not many people seem willing and have enough faith to try that, and the more you learn without help the stronger your faith will become. So I am not saying anything, just giving you a thumbs up and also the more you learn, the more you reread what you have already studied, will get clarified even more.

EoM thanks for the posts. I understand that not everything I say will be agreed with, if it was then I would be God and I am not God. I seek God, however, and I don't see that ever changing. All I am interested in is knowledge and the ability to apply it in my life and others.

-Sab

40

The Nature of God

by sabastious in

i know that judaism and christianity are strongly self professed monotheistic religions.

yet, i wonder how they can so definitively say this when the word they chose to use as the deity in the beginning of their holy scripture is a plural.

genesis 1:1, and all of genesis chapter 1, uses the word "elohim" which is the plural form of "eloah" which is the prolonged form of "el.

sabastious

You of course are error free ;)

Well, no one on this forum has ever been able to point out any serious errors in my theology that I have not since corrected. They have to lean on arguments that attack the foundations which are solid. It's really unfortunate for opposing arguments. For example you nitpick about the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 when in fact they show a very elegant synergy between the writings. You are simply misinterpreting the texts. They were obviously written at the same time, or a better more accurate way of putting it would be that the original methodology used to create the text was to have the 1st set compliment the second set. Much like male and female compliment each other. I have discussed the law of opposites relating to Genesis 1:1 in a separate thread.

For example another text using the same methodology might start out, "In the beginning God created the Sun and the Moon and the Stars." The idea is to simply describe the whole of existence in poerty. So, in this case you would have the opposing forces of the Sun and the Moon and Stars which serves as the creating force of all life. All life is broken into mornings and evenings. Genesis 1 and 2 is a reflection of Genesis 1:1 and are mirrored by the first two Hexagrams of the I CHING: the Creative and the Receptive.

P.S. You're phrase about me studying religion and not living it is rather silly don't you think?

The particular religion you lived was a cult designed to suggest you into a subservient role (*one of these is not like the other* song comes to mind). The more I research about Mormonism the more I am disappointed, they had so much prospect when I opened up their chapter. Joseph Smith is a thrilling person to follow as a historian, but as a religious figure he was just a madman. Frankly I suspect he may have been severely mentally ill. It's so bizzare that your former religion would revise the story of Joseph Smith's death. On the tour through Carthage Jail for instance reports have been made about the tour guide not mentioning the fact that Smith had a smuggled gun and shot people dead with it before he was shot himself. Clearly this organization is about painting their own picture of Smith rather than the one history shows.

Not all religion is like that, Q, and I know you know that. However, just because you were entrenched within a cult doesn't mean you have some religious authority. It really just shows that you were duped and are connable if anything. Too many scientists go into a frenzy of secular study of religion when they darn well know that they could take a certain few key elements from any one religion and study them for a lifetime. The data is endless and that means that we NEED the people who are experienced in those fields (the religionists). No, I don't mean the books they have written I mean sitting down with them and worshipping with them, experiencing what they experience. Going through their structures and understainding the good that comes from them. You seem to just want to put them all in one pot and I call that confirmation bias. I think you set out on a self fulfilling prophecy.

-Sab

40

The Nature of God

by sabastious in

i know that judaism and christianity are strongly self professed monotheistic religions.

yet, i wonder how they can so definitively say this when the word they chose to use as the deity in the beginning of their holy scripture is a plural.

genesis 1:1, and all of genesis chapter 1, uses the word "elohim" which is the plural form of "eloah" which is the prolonged form of "el.

sabastious

Quite frankly I think it would be better for all humanity to put the god or gods of the bible to be put in closet and pad locked.
This god like so many other gods of that era were far too dangerously violent, too apathetic, too unloving and unconcerning
to be devotedly worshiped. That is the nature of the god of the bible/Israelites.
I think its about time we create a new god for are selfs, something that appeals more to the emotional sensitivities and needs
of humanity in are own era. The ancient Judeans had their god now its time for are own .
Sab how about it ?

If you are just making up a God there is no reason to follow it. The methods of which the One True God has been kept aware in humanity are not all accounted for. Faith does become a useful tool for people who don't want to follow rabbit holes their whole life. I am against the creation of a new God or set of gods because the Torah clearly states that there is one Creator and we are his children. There is no reason to deviate from this elegant explanation of humanity.

-Sab

40

The Nature of God

by sabastious in

i know that judaism and christianity are strongly self professed monotheistic religions.

yet, i wonder how they can so definitively say this when the word they chose to use as the deity in the beginning of their holy scripture is a plural.

genesis 1:1, and all of genesis chapter 1, uses the word "elohim" which is the plural form of "eloah" which is the prolonged form of "el.

sabastious

Sab - What do you mean it is fallacious? It is not a lie. Leapt not to your conclusion before your argument - 'tis bad form.

I use the same argument as you, but FOR the existence of my God as opposed to against. The words attributed to Christ in the Gospels are extremely similar to the words spoken by traditional figures from India and China. Does this make it all a fraud? No because I realize that the people who created all of this Scripture were working in accordance with the Will of God. That means they would have licence to use anything in the physical world they wanted in order to create the final product. You are basically saying that Buddhism and Confucianism were patented even though there is ONLY ONE GOD. That's impossible, it's all OWNED BY HIM. He doesn't care if you really think it's yours, it's simply not. You don't seem to understand that the King of Kings was with those people when they created the other structures (they were kings). It shows that the Word of God works in all cultures, not just one. It's an encouraging fact, not the confusing or faith shattering fact that you are making it out to be.

Remember, I believe in esoterism, but I also believe that all secrets were designed to be eventually exposed. Yet a lot of people, like Joseph Smith for example, felt that it was OK not only to keep the secrets, but to create whole structures of secret rituals. There are reasons to create secret combinations when the times are dire and information must be kept alive even though the flesh that secures it will not be saved. Yet, all encryptions are meant to be decrypted because they have use in all cultures from all times. Times of war come and go and the information has to travel through a complex and unique temporal path.

When two different ideas and gods got merged (Elohim - many gods and Yahweh single god) you get very obvious contradictions and purely mystical interpretations as the plain words simply contradict. We have two Genesis accounts, two Golden Calf stories with the ten commandments mixed in, two David and Goliaths, two flood stories, a global flood killing all but Noah then a few generations later Giants and so on. It, the books of the bible, are so inconsistent that trying to draw a straight line through teh narrative fails and clearly the poor attempts to mash multiple stories and multiple Gods into one god and then by the NT a further effort to cram Jehovah into Christ burst at the seams many times. Modern day westernised Christians then go back and add another God on top of all this and start to describe the Jesus they expect would walk these streets (the one who is against slavery, likes women's equality and thinks gays are OK).

Your misunderstanding of the synergies between Genesis 1 and 2 is why you have so much else wrong. First, you must understand how the document interacts with itself and I mean the whole Bible, not just Genesis 1 and 2. It was created in a very specific way and if you do not recognize this methodology you will lead yourself to a false conclusion. Without the Spirit of Truth you will be eternally lost within these documents as you seem to be. All I can recommend is that you close the book, seek God in your own way and then come back to it with a fresh perspective. You don't pass the Genesis 1:1 test because you don't think it feasible for a God to have created the heavens and the earth. You must first prove this to yourself, in our own time and in your own way, just the feasibility you don't need absolutes, before you can tackle any Scripture from any culture and time. You have made the mistake that most scientists do. You have studied religion, not lived it. You have lived one, maybe two, but the rest are just words and pictures on a paper. Then you put them all into a cardboard box and label it with a sharpy, "Religion."

-Sab

40

The Nature of God

by sabastious in

i know that judaism and christianity are strongly self professed monotheistic religions.

yet, i wonder how they can so definitively say this when the word they chose to use as the deity in the beginning of their holy scripture is a plural.

genesis 1:1, and all of genesis chapter 1, uses the word "elohim" which is the plural form of "eloah" which is the prolonged form of "el.

sabastious

Yes, well the Soviet Union was also a peacemaker. In fact, so was the Roman Empire. We can look at colonialism as a peacemaker---as other countries set up arbitrary hierarchies among groups that may have fought more (no sense using valuable resources and losing cheap labor through those silly conflicts).

It's in our nature to be peacemakers because Elohim Yahweh is a peacemaker. We are also compassionate and empathetic like Elohim the Spirt. When you put them together you get justice and compassion combined, but all on the foundation of Love. However, we have a flaw in how God manifests through Humanity and that is of the ego. We can chooser to cut God off because we, like Him, have free will. With the ability to lead, comes the ability to enslave. The sword can be used to protect against wild animals and also can be used to hold hostages for ransom. This is why the Leadership role, or the Son, requires a process of which that Kingship is earned. For something to be earned it has to be available to all, which is why failed kingships are allowed to exist (such as the ones you mentioned). They're ALL here to prove a point and a point they do all make. There is only ONE King and that is the Spirit of Truth which is the Son of God, the one who died on he cross in the 1st century. He was the favored to win the role since the Beginning and he accomplished his Father's will. It's truly a blessing that most seem to not grasp or warp for their own means.

Enforced peace, by sheer power of will. We see what happens when that power is removed. So, no, I don't agree this is peacemaking. A god of war does not make peace, unless it is in god of war style---total domination. I see a common tactic is to redefine words. A purpose to war--grouping for the cause---therefore peacemaker.

Traditionally to be a father is to have children who seek your approval. Ultimately the father decides which child should lead the family. In the modern world this tradition has been eroded, but still exists. In the ancient world it was almost always a family business that provided their survival. This pattern progressed into the distant future as we see surnames like Shoemaker and Smith. My father wanted me to take on the family business of general construction, but I went into IT which is a modern choice for a son. It shows that we are in a state of Change.

But, traditionally the sons are going to be in a sort of fued for their father's approval. This is at the heart of the sibling rivalry dynamic. I guess that's why they call it feudalism, because their will be feuds among the houses that spring forth from the good deeds of generations past. Proverbs speaks about this in chapter 17 where it says " Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of feasting, with strife." That strife he is talking about is the basic cause of the feuds that make up the "game of houses" dynamic. Many science fiction and fantasy universes use this as a story environment. The Shoguns of Japan are a good example of real life fueding houses all connected to a centralized figure. A socially ran governmental hierarchy.

A more modern example would be the American Presidential race. Even today the role of leader requires the rigors of warfare to determine the person in command. No, Romney and Obama didn't kill each other, but most would agree that it was a war. There is no difference in the Holy Family we are just acting in accordance with our design, but the TOP LEVEL Leader was already chosen and that is the Son of God who died on the cross. Even the current leader of America kneels before him in obeisance. The American public is appalled at his lack of church attendence while in office, however they are overeacting because he deals with a lot, but it shows how much we still care about that sort of thing.

Have fun!

I wouldn't have it any other way.

-Sab

40

The Nature of God

by sabastious in

i know that judaism and christianity are strongly self professed monotheistic religions.

yet, i wonder how they can so definitively say this when the word they chose to use as the deity in the beginning of their holy scripture is a plural.

genesis 1:1, and all of genesis chapter 1, uses the word "elohim" which is the plural form of "eloah" which is the prolonged form of "el.

sabastious

Q, you can't steal what is already yours. Your argument is fallacious.

-Sab

40

The Nature of God

by sabastious in

i know that judaism and christianity are strongly self professed monotheistic religions.

yet, i wonder how they can so definitively say this when the word they chose to use as the deity in the beginning of their holy scripture is a plural.

genesis 1:1, and all of genesis chapter 1, uses the word "elohim" which is the plural form of "eloah" which is the prolonged form of "el.

sabastious

..except that the Torah is derived from multiple human sources and is not divine in origin.

I just got done saying that the Word of God dwells within ALL people. Yes, you can push Him out which makes you evil, but the Body of Christ is taken from every tribe, nation, people and tongue. ALL Scripture comes from HUMAN sources and it's the HUMANS who are divine, not their books alone. We tend to get caught up in the BOOK and not the writers as children of God or Elohim the plural which means the God Family.

-Sab