Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

[Tyger]

For my part I just wonder how we got from a God that was all too happy to get medieval on mankind's ass for various transgressions in the old testament to giving up his only son (because he so loved the world you know) in the New Testament. Perhaps God found religion? If he was was of us mortals he would probably be diagnosed as being bi-polar.

It's not the same God. The entire 'story' can make no sense to a materialist because the materialist does not recognize physical realms/worlds beyond the physical.

The terms 'only son' and 'so loved the word' are exact statements describing in ways the general populace could understand some very difficult concepts.

BTW - a curiosity - in esoteric lore Judas was indeed a favored disciple of Jesus. It was to Judas (and others) - but to Judas particularly that Jesus relayed the deeper meanings of his exoteric teachings. The idea that Judas performed the deed that would allow Jesus to die by instruction from Jesus, thus enabling the Christ to descend into the world of the dead, has been the story in esoteric circles for two millennia. That the recently translated and disclosed Judas Gospel corroborates this version has been fascinating.

 

[Randall]

No, the bible is not mythology. Myths are markers - they are a precise language albeit using human language to translate the meaning of that other language - that describes an experience. An ancient myth is not a fantasy. We currently use the terms myth and fantasy interchangeably. In fact we use myth, fantasy and imagination as though they are all synonymous with tall tales. They are not. Myth and the imagination are distinct from fantasy in this context.

Sorry but you can't just make up your own definition of "mythology". Unlike the bible, dictionaries are made for everyone to use:

my·thol·o·gy [mi thóll?jee] (plural my·thol·o·gies) noun

1. MYTHOLOGY body of myths: a group of myths that belong to a particular people or culture and tell about their ancestors, heroes, gods and other supernatural beings, and history.
2. body of stories: a body of stories, ideas, or beliefs that are not necessarily true about a particular place or individual
3. MYTHOLOGY myths collectively: myths considered as a group
4. MYTHOLOGY study of myths: the study of myths, or the branch of knowledge that deals with myths

Given the above definition, the Bible fits right in with the word "mythology".

People have begun interpreting the bible literally and incorrectly - with resulting problematic results. However, for those with the a certain capacity awakened, the language of the bible can be penetrated.

"A certain capacity awakened"? Sure, like the capacity to use ones intellect to do historical research, critical thinking, to set blind faith aside and consider the evidence, to understand the value of allegory and metaphor, shall I go on?

The old testament bible is not the 'indisputable word of God' but of Initiates of considerable standing and hence to an ancient man may as well have been 'God'. One must also keep in mind that no one was literate in ancient times except the priestly caste. These documents were read under only very specific conditions by particular people. This gets complicated because the spiritual world is not all 'sweetness and light' - though we need to step gingerly here. Without adequate context, much can be misunderstood.

Hey, who knows? Personally I think the Garden of Eden myth could have been more true than we know. Even today we are creating genetically engineering foods that provide antiaging benefits and are good for maintaining brain health. Just the other day some Gorilla managed to escape from it's enclosure area into the kitchen area at the local zoo. What if it had been some high tech genetics research facility instead? Maybe there's more to biblical myth than fables and fiction. I find it all quite fascinating, but I don't for one second believe any of it is sufficient for one to pledge allegiance to its Gods, or use as a template for social order, or as a moral compass, or for swearing the truth on, or for basing history on, or for declaring one's love for their chose mate on, or using as an excuse to commit any number of otherwise irrational and unjust acts. It's just a book of interesting myths and legends and it belongs in the library along with the rest, not in our government, not in our courtrooms, and not in our schools.

 

[Tyger]

Sorry but you can't just make up your own definition of "mythology". Unlike the bible, dictionaries are made for everyone to use:

I didn't. First definition fits. Following definitions are less common (than the first) uses of the word. I spoke about how we use the term now as in distinction.

Given the above definition, the Bible fits right in with the word "mythology".

I think you invariably use 'myth' in one way and are either incapable or are refusing to see that the term has many gradations of meaning - not just one.

"A certain capacity awakened"? Sure, like the capacity to use ones intellect to do historical research, critical thinking, to set blind faith aside and consider the evidence, to understand the value of allegory and metaphor, shall I go on?

As long as you remain so sure and certain that you have the tiger-by-the-tail and have it all worked out intellectually, a lot is going to escape your attention and understanding. It's a form of ethnocentricism imo. You have a powerful filter - no different in kind than the filter of anyone's religious filter that you so dislike.

 

[Randall]

I didn't. First definition fits. Following definitions are less common (than the first) uses of the word. I spoke about how we use the term now as in distinction.

More than just the first part of the definition I provided fits, unless of course you also think biblical myths are all true, the bible isn't a "collection of myths", and nobody studies the bible in the context of mythology.

I think you invariably use 'myth' in one way and are either incapable or are refusing to see that the term has many gradations of meaning - not just one.

I think you tend to assume too much and ignore evidence contrary to your viewpoint. It is in fact you who demonstrated a "refusal to see that the term ( mythology ) has many gradations of meaning", choosing only the first part of a more complete definition I provided because it suit your preferred viewpoint. In contrast, not only did I provide evidence that fits, I even went on to describe how fascinating I find biblical mythology. Do you really believe that someone as interested in UFOs as I am would not have checked out the bible to see what kind of myths and legends were applicable? Do you really think I don't own a copy?

Some of my biblical reference material. Note that the Bible Study CD has several more searchable versions.​

​

​

As long as you remain so sure and certain that you have the tiger-by-the-tail and have it all worked out intellectually, a lot is going to escape your attention and understanding. It's a form of ethnocentricism imo. You have a powerful filter - no different in kind than the filter of anyone's religious filter that you so dislike.

Again, you presume too much, and you use the word "understanding" in a rather cavalier manner. Blindly believing in something isn't "understanding". Having an emotional faith in something isn't "understanding". Being part of a group that blindly believes in something they have an emotional based faith in doesn't make it any more true. Suddenly acquiring the same unfounded beliefs as they do doesn't impart some sudden "understanding", it just means one has become as delusional as the rest. So sure, I may not "understand" it like they do, and that's a good thing. I prefer not be a deluded blind follower who thinks they "understand" when in fact I've just been indoctrinated. I would hope you would also feel the same way, but there are times when you worry me.

Lastly, as I've mentioned before, I also once believed in God because I had an experience I call an archetypal religious experience. So chances are that even on an emotional and experiential level, I "understand' a lot more than you assume. But it's been my experience that such assumptions are commonplace among religious people. They claim to be all open minded believers in supernatural beings, but you better not say you actually met one or they'll think you're the one who's nuts. Ironic isn't it?

 

[Michael Allen]

I think its safe to say that the stories associated with the Bible and other religious texts cited today are no less mythology than those associated with the homeric gods Zeus, Apollo, Aries, etc., or of those found in the ancient Egyptian pantheon.

 

[Tyger]

More than just the first part of the definition I provided fits, unless of course you also think biblical myths are all true, the bible isn't a "collection of myths", and nobody studies the bible in the context of mythology.

Not the way I was using it. The definitions in a dictionary are not to be taken as a whole describing facets of one thing but as #1 and then #2, etc. They usually rank them in order of most common.

I think you tend to assume too much and ignore evidence contrary to your viewpoint. It is in fact you who demonstrated a "refusal to see that the term ( mythology ) has many gradations of meaning",

No, I am simply using it in one particular way - that is the most common. I sense you use it as a crafted fiction - so I needed to make the distinction.

choosing only the first part of a more complete definition I provided because it suit your preferred viewpoint.

As stated the #1 and #2 and #3 are not a 'more complete definition'. Just variations and we use the term in different contexts. Nature of language.

Are you a Scientologist, ufology? Your approach to word use is very reminiscent of what they do in their 'Clearing' process, and just in general. Or maybe you're a refugee from Scientology?

Again, you presume too much, and you use the word "understanding" in a rather cavalier manner. Blindly believing in something isn't "understanding".

(Sigh') What is the bone you are gnawing, ufology? I can't quite figure out what it is exactly that you are always so up-in-arms about.

Having an emotional faith in something isn't "understanding". Being part of a group that blindly believes in something they have an emotional based faith in doesn't make it any more true. Suddenly acquiring the same unfounded beliefs as they do doesn't impart some sudden "understanding", it just means one has become as delusional as the rest. So sure, I may not "understand" it like they do, and that's a good thing. I prefer not be a deluded blind follower who thinks they "understand" when in fact they've just been indoctrinated. I would hope you would also feel the same way, but there are times when you worry me.

All this comes from where? To what is this all due? I'm not connecting the dots. You're getting all passionate about the word 'understanding' - I suggested you might be missing out on understanding some stuff - and this is what you say? Hey, bro, I miss out on a lot of stuff because I don't understand - most people do - it's a given - not an attack. Most people acknowledge their limitations. You seem to take offense at the merest suggestion that you might not have it all 'understood'. What's that about? More, you are even proud you don't understand - very similar to some religious folk. I just have to say Occultist to some religious types and they stick their fingers in their ears and go nah'nah'nah'nah. They 'avert their gaze'. The oddity of it is you profess to being scientific and all that.

If I 'worry' you I will take that as a back-handed compliment because I definitely don't want to 'fit in' to your view of how a person should think or conduct their intellectual life. I think I'm doing just fine.

 

[Tyger]

I think its safe to say that the stories associated with the Bible and other religious texts cited today are no less mythology than those associated with the homeric gods Zeus, Apollo, Aries, etc., or of those found in the ancient Egyptian pantheon.

I would agree - they are a mythos of a people. That said, it does not mean that Jehovah did not exist - might still be hanging around (unlikely) - or Osiris, or Zeus. The point of this exercise is - you have to understand what the ancients were referencing when they said 'Zeus', or 'Osiris'. Stating out-of-hand that myth=fiction and they were all concocting massive stories around the campfire is very simplistic in my book. They were doing something far more complex - they were describing reality as they saw it - and as such - were as smart and savvy as any scientist today. Perhaps more so because they 'saw' more than the physical.

 

[Randall]

I think its safe to say that the stories associated with the Bible and other religious texts cited today are no less mythology than those associated with the homeric gods Zeus, Apollo, Aries, etc., or of those found in the ancient Egyptian pantheon.

The difference I've noticed between biblical mythology and Greek mythology is that some of the descriptions of strange phenomena in the bible are written more as reports than fables, and the phenomena described is vague, as though the writer was actually trying to convey something witnessed beyond his understanding e.g. pillars of fire, pillars of cloud, wheels within wheels, rather than a well thought out character. Similarly there are some Egyptian accounts that are disputed as being mere storytelling.

Does this mean that the Greeks were just better storytellers? For the most part I'd say yes. But at the same time, those who study myths from an academic perspective don't dispute that there tend to be some elements of fact within most mythology. The trick is separating it all out. Of course our friends who are into the Ancient Aliens Hypothesis ( AAH ) spin it one way, the religious people spin it another, the atheists spin it their way, and so on. IMO science and archaeology tend to be more accurate than the rest, but even they have boundaries that can leave them vulnerable. For example the America Unearthed guy seems to have come across some rather interesting and controversial evidence. Though surprise surprise ... now his credentials have been called into question as well: Scott Wolter's Apparently Non-Existent Degree - JasonColavito.com

 

[Randall]

Are you a Scientologist, ufology? Your approach to word use is very reminiscent of what they do in their 'Clearing' process, and just in general. Or maybe you're a refugee from Scientology?

I've never belonged to any particular religion, though I did attend Sunday school for a few weekends one summer when I was a child. I remember enjoying it a lot. Biblical characters were my first super heroes. I thought Jesus was cool, but Moses was awesome. I've done a lot of growing up since then. But occasionally I still wish nonexistent God would grant me superpowers too, but for whatever reason I guess I'm just not worthy.

 

[Tyger]

You're justifying behaving exactly the way you were accusing me of behaving ( refusing to see that the term has many gradations of meaning - not just one ) when it was I who actually was demonstrating your accusation not to be true by using an independent reference with multiple meanings for different contexts. Worse yet. You don't even see it, preferring to put words in my mouth such as assuming I meant mythology was "crafted fiction" rather than accepting that I use a standard academic interpretation.

There was no accusation - you make a simple conversation into something dramatic. What's that about? I had simply been pointing out that the term myth is not necessarily a term synonymous with a fiction or 'good story' and you then provided dictionary meanings and I said, yes, I was using the first meaning not the one that has myth as a fiction - crafted fiction as in a good story, which is one of the meanings of myth that it appeared you were using for the term myth. Jeez louise, man, chill. No 'accusation'.

Anyway, check out the Scientologists - you might groove on how they use language. Just sayin'. It's also next to near impossible to get them to be accountable as they are so adept at questioning one's language, the words, the meanings, etc. - so conversations are endlessly deflected from content. You're cruising in their neighborhood the way you parse-and-dice words - reminds me a lot of them.

Fianlly -

Lastly, as I've mentioned before, I also once believed in God because I had an experience I call an archetypal religious experience. So chances are that even on an emotional and experiential level, I "understand' a lot more than you assume. But it's been my experience that such assumptions are commonplace among religious people. They claim to be all open minded believers in supernatural beings, but you better not say you actually met one or they'll think you're the one who's nuts. Ironic isn't it?

You've mentioned this "archetypal religious experience" before. Besides my being clueless as to what exactly an 'archetypal religious experience' consists of - I don't know why one experience would suddenly make you understand 'more than I assume'. How do you know I assume anything? It seems we are in murky waters here.

My comment about 'understanding' was specifically in relation to your comment that you did not want to understand what all the ritual was about in the mass you attended. My response to that was that having such an attitude of willfully avoiding understanding would mean a lot would pass you by. How you are then making this about me assuming less understanding than you have - well, I leave you to what is really a very convoluted path to an excuse for being uppity about wanting the level of your understanding to be understood as either vast or comprehensive.

 

[Randall]

There was no accusation - you make a simple conversation into something dramatic.

I retracted that part before you posted and after reading it again. It seems I was in too much of a hurry and responded out of proper context. Sorry I didn't do it quicker to avoid you having to address it.

Anyway, check out the Scientologists - you might groove on how they use language. Just sayin'. It's also next to near impossible to get them to be accountable as they are so adept at questioning one's language, the words, the meanings, etc. - so conversations are endlessly deflected from content. You're cruising in their neighborhood the way you parse-and-dice words - reminds me a lot of them.

There's one huge difference. I'm not pushing religion. They are.

You've mentioned this "archetypal religious experience" before. Besides my being clueless as to what exactly an 'archetypal religious experience' consists of - I don't know why one experience would suddenly make you understand 'more than I assume'. How do you know I assume anything? It seems we are in murky waters here.

I've already explained my position on your use of the word "understanding". Specifically you suggested that an intellectual approach would result in a lack of understanding. To quote: "As long as you remain so sure and certain that you have the tiger-by-the-tail and have it all worked out intellectually, a lot is going to escape your attention and understanding." I explained why that is faulty reasoning. I also indicated that I had also been a believer in the past and had an archetypal religious experience, the point being that my "understanding" isn't based solely on an intellectual approach.

To clarify for you what I mean by an "archetypal religious experience", I mean one that is of a type that one would expect from biblical lore about the presence of the divine, not merely faith based, but observed, heard, and felt.

My comment about 'understanding' was specifically in relation to your comment that you did not want to understand what all the ritual was about in the mass you attended.

You've lost me. I was caught off guard. It's not like I was sitting there wondering if I should or shouldn't try to understand it and then made some conscious decision not to on the spot.

My response to that was that having such an attitude of willfully avoiding understanding would mean a lot would pass you by. How you are then making this about me assuming less understanding than you have - well, I leave you to what is really a very convoluted path to an excuse for being uppity about wanting the level of your understanding to be understood as either vast or comprehensive.

We seem to have gone off track because of some mutual misinterpretations. So allow me to clarify. I agree with your basic premise as it applies to people in general. However because you used the word "you", I took it personally and felt obligated to explain that I have no aversion to learning about religion. As evidence I posted a photo of some of the religious texts and resource material I own and have read through. That doesn't include my resource material on eastern religions, African or native American religions, or my texts on classical mythology.

I also don't have a lack of "understanding" as to what it's like to believe, because I was once a believer myself. I also don't deny that supernatural phenomena associated with religious belief happen because I've experienced it myself. The point of all this being, that my comments aren't made on shallow grounds either intellectually or experientially. That doesn't mean I'm all knowing. Obviously I don't have experience as a participant in religious rituals, but neither to I have to be to know that it represents behavior that is delusional, and as an example I pointed out the belief in transubstantiation.

 

[stonehart]

I think its safe to say that the stories associated with the Bible and other religious texts cited today are no less mythology than those associated with the homeric gods Zeus, Apollo, Aries, etc., or of those found in the ancient Egyptian pantheon.

Very much the conclusion I came to during my degree, the fact is there is little or no difference between any of them when it is all said and done. Hey you can not all be right but hell you can all be wrong
But then again Religion = faith and that there is the rub is it not? So believe in what you like for if it is a matter of faith then reason, logic, and testability are not needed for faith requires none of these.
Personally I have a far to inquiring mind to follow any faith, and if there is one saying that really pisses me of it is when I am told to "take it on faith".... ah no thanks show me the goods first.

 

[starise]

Tyger, I hope you have a lot of time on your hands because the debate here simply will never end on this subject.

On the one hand I respect the homework seemingly done by those who are polar opposites on belief to myself. I like to see the intense analytical discourse as it shows at least some bent toward knowing "a" truth maybe not "the" truth or it could be the other way around and a person could be doing their dead level best to disprove something to themselves. In doing so they tend to bend in the direction of their own pre conceptions. Right away statements such as, " I won't let anyone tell me what to do or believe" send a strong message that even if that someone happens to be God Almighty they won't bend.How dare you tell me there is a standard and that I might be asked to follow it. It shows a slant toward independence from a deity instead of following one. Accomodation is the word of the day in many circles. My belief must acomidate my lifestyle or my world view. They in essence make their own gods or pretend there are none. God must fit in my box or he isn't God. This is all a vain attempt if, in fact, there is a God and He does hold us responsible.

It is sad really that a person will take what one person has said and form a permenant view from it. Once again I say look into the rebuttal of these views and then if you still feel the same way so be it .At least you have exposed yourself to all sides of the issues being discussed.

The concept of sacrifice goes back into many religions. When it was the ancient Mayans we hardly hear a peep about the rampant child sacrifice that went on for a very long time and on a regular basis. In fact it seems to be covered up. I recently read a book on Mayan history and it looked like they were attempting to sweep it under the carpet. The idea of the willing sacrifice of our hard working military troops is looked at with high honour in many circles. These men have helped to assure our freedoms in America to this day.Many of them died for the cause of freedom. But just mention the name Jesus and people like Mike are quick to point out what they see as a great injustice, that part of the Godhead would dare come to earth for the sole purpose of saving men. No matter what you think of sacrifice it is difficult to question the motive.

I would disagree with you Tyger that there really isn't an enemy. The enemy isn't us. The true enemy is a liar and he has already lost the war. In thinking he successfully killed Jesus he unknowingly helped to save all men who wanted to be saved.Who could make such a plan to throw the enemy off but God Himself? All the enemy can do now is hope for the most collateral damage possible.He will wreak havoc until his time is up.

One well known tactic that atheists like to pull is the " been there done that" trick. I tried that it didn't work for me therefore it's bogus. I would counter that if you had really tried it in earnest you wouldn't any longer be an atheist.

 

[mike]

Yet another example of why the cognitive dissonace you need to emply to reconcile a clearly barbaric and bloodthirsty god as "good" is dangerous

Woman, 19, 'crucified to expel demons'

These people acting on the fallacy that the biblical example is "good" truly thought they were doing good.

The four, including the victim's former boyfriend, were charged with kidnapping, acts of torture and barbarism.

Examples of which we see time and time again in the "good" book.

If you look at whats written in the bible without the brain washing, you can clearly see god is a vengeful violent bloodthirsty character.
They dont read these passages in church, you get it drummed into over and over and over again god is love, god is love, god loves us.........

And thats the programming that sticks, despite the proof to the contrary being right there in black and white in His word the holy bible.

Sadly the brainwashed, such is the nature of such programming, have great difficulty breaking this programming and thus cling to the delusional fallacy even when presented with irrefutable evidence

 

[trainedobserver]

People who claim to know, have a personal relationship with, speak for and represent invisible, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal supernatural beings who demand obedience, worship, and tribute of the rest of us according to the proclamations of their mouthpieces have plagued mankind from the beginnings of recorded history and undoubtedly will always be with us. These people, organizations, and criminal gangs are well deserving of any ridicule that gets heaped on them.

The belief that human beings can influence unseen forces that govern the universe through ideas they hold in their minds (beliefs), symbolic actions (rituals), or affiliations with some unseen supernatural benefactor (gods) is the most primitive form of thinking (superstition) and the basis of all religion. The names are changed and noble and high sounding ideals are injected into the mix, but the core is still the same for all of these belief systems. Appease the all-powerful one (god, nature, your meal-ticket or whatever) and get what you want. Love, life, happiness, significance, peace, sex, money, property and release are all just one proper application of the right spiritual protocol away.

To paraphrase U.G., "Go with your gods, you are welcome to them. Live in hope and die in hope."

 

[mike]

Its really funny to watch people accuse Ufology of being a $cientologist.
The irony being they can clearly recognise a harmful brainwashing cult ($cientology)
But at the same time are unable to break free of their own brainwashing. The bible is a collection of horror stories, the central character a homicidal maniac, "Drunk with blood" to quote him.
Murder, rape, slavery, genocide, animal cruelty, the list of attrocitys is as irrefutable as it is long.

Yet they still cling, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary that god is "good"

I find the idea that a man had to die for my sins revolting. If God was truly omnipotent he could have simply forgiven us. What kind of deity, would execute one child in order to forgive it’s others? Modern society would call an individual like this sadistic, insane and cruel. Surely, you would not worship a child killer, why do you expect me to? Would you find a judge worthy of the title who would allow my child to be executed in lieu of my sins?

Is the Bible Fit for Worship

God's Not Pro-Life

 

[Randall]

People who claim to know, have a personal relationship with, speak for and represent invisible, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal supernatural beings who demand obedience, worship, and tribute of the rest of us according to the proclamations of their mouthpieces have plagued mankind from the beginnings of recorded history and undoubtedly will always be with us. These people, organizations, and criminal gangs are well deserving of any ridicule that gets heaped on them..

I tagged your post with a like, but I'd also like to post a word of caution. There are certain times when ridicule can work in positive ways, like well balanced humor, but there are also times when it can work in destructive ways that are no less than bullying that hurts and entrenches people further into their mindset. I've said many times that I do believe unexplained things happen to perfectly innocent people who simply don't know how to interpret them, and I don't think they deserve to be ridiculed. I think they should be allowed to relay their experiences without prejudice, and that everyone ( including the experiencer ) should be open to discussing it with a view to figuring out the truth about it. Unfortunately the exploitation of these experiences by the corrupt factions you mention has wreaked so much havoc that sometimes it's too easy to rationalize the collateral damage in the struggle against it.

 

[mike]

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.--Dt.22:23-24

Whenever we read ... the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind. And, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. -- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

Cruelty and Violence

The rape victim gets stoned to death (really bad way to die btw) for not protesting enough

But then Tim 2:12 (new testament at that) says

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet


The whole "god is love" lie is just a marketing pitch, god is angry, jealous,vengeful and a killer of everyone from old people through to suckling babies.

If religion were a product you could sue it in relation to the truth in adverstising laws.

 

[Tyger]

Tyger, I hope you have a lot of time on your hands because the debate here simply will never end on this subject.

I agree. But sometimes I detect sincerity, or I have time on my hands and am not averse to 'talking to myself' for a wee bit.

I am also intrigued that I am finding certain modes of thinking (not content but modes) on a paranormal and ufo site, no less. Posit aliens getting up to all manner of mischief - pure speculation - yet millennia of first person experience of the 'mystical' and 'spiritual' gets dismissed as 'non-scientific'. I am honestly intrigued.

On the one hand I respect the homework seemingly done by those who are polar opposites on belief to myself. I like to see the intense analytical discourse as it shows at least some bent toward knowing "a" truth maybe not "the" truth or it could be the other way around and a person could be doing their dead level best to disprove something to themselves. In doing so they tend to bend in the direction of their own pre conceptions. Right away statements such as, " I won't let anyone tell me what to do or believe" send a strong message that even if that someone happens to be God Almighty they won't bend. How dare you tell me there is a standard and that I might be asked to follow it. It shows a slant toward independence from a deity instead of following one. Accomodation is the word of the day in many circles. My belief must accommodate my lifestyle or my world view. They in essence make their own gods or pretend there are none. God must fit in my box or he isn't God. This is all a vain attempt if, in fact, there is a God and He does hold us responsible.

Agree.

It is sad really that a person will take what one person has said and form a permenant view from it.

That is the curious part of it all, isn't it. Plus the way anyone who says the 'tell-tale words and phrases' (like 'believe' or 'love' or 'God') becomes the 'stand-in' for that unknown someone - be it someone from their biography, or a YouTube video, or what-have-you - and the hectoring begins - all pretense of scientific dispassion goes up in smoke. They're off! [Everyone has beliefs - we require them to successfully negotiate the world; we all know some reflection of the ideal called Love; and one-way-or-another, we all have our God - no matter how much we doth protest too much.]

Once again I say look into the rebuttal of these views and then if you still feel the same way so be it. At least you have exposed yourself to all sides of the issues being discussed.

Yep, but it's often very difficult to do a rebuttal because so much is marbled through statements. In the end, it's mainly passion - and who knows why such exists.

The concept of sacrifice goes back into many religions.

For sure. Being chosen to be the sacrifice - to plunge into the volcano to silence Pele [in Hawaii] - was an honor. There is reasonable and rational reasons for this having been so - both according to those who engaged in such actions and as observers of the culture. As always, 'reason and rational thought' get people many places, not always the best places, either. Generally, in Anthropology we agree that ancient man perceived the world differently, and thought differently. What we abhor now - in our advanced state of enlightenment - was perfectly acceptable and 'reasonable' back then. It's always a mistake to judge the past by our sensibilities - lose a lot of understanding regarding the human condition that way.

When it was the ancient Mayans we hardly hear a peep about the rampant child sacrifice that went on for a very long time and on a regular basis. In fact it seems to be covered up. I recently read a book on Mayan history and it looked like they were attempting to sweep it under the carpet.

As a student of Anthropology and Archaeology my response is that I never came across the blood rites of the South American cultures to have ever been covered up. It is the cutting out of beating hearts [from adults and children] on altars drenched in blood that makes for grissly reading, but it's always been there for anyone to read about. It's pretty horrific stuff. The major questions center around how could have a society become so depraved? Yet we have the Romans and the insanity of the Coliseum 'rites' of mass murder and debauchery. It was a time. That's what ancient man was - and into that came a new dispensation - Who we call the Christ. Everything changed. It's there for anyone to see. Certain dispassionate scholars with no ax to grind recognize the change.

The idea of the willing sacrifice of our hard working military troops is looked at with high honour in many circles. These men have helped to assure our freedoms in America to this day. Many of them died for the cause of freedom.

Good illustration.

But just mention the name Jesus and people like Mike are quick to point out what they see as a great injustice, that part of the Godhead would dare come to earth for the sole purpose of saving men. No matter what you think of sacrifice it is difficult to question the motive.

What is also interesting is that in every ancient religion this Individuality - this Approaching God - was foretold. The Hebrews named The One Coming the Messiah. Other religions spoke in other terms. Once the Being came - and specifically died within the Creation - all mention of a Coming One ceased - because it was done. There has been the belief that The One is to return - and this is rooted in the Apocalypse of St John [an extremely esoteric cosmological document that is the source of several 'unfortunate' interpretations.]

As a point of interest, upon this point of a 'return' even esoteric societies have broke and splintered. [Notably the Theosophical Society regarding Krishnamurti - who refused the 'honor' when he was finally old enough to make his own decisions.] Several esoteric streams indicate that the Christ never left once he died but has stayed with the earthly creation 'in the clouds' - an esoteric phrase referencing the ethereal realms. According to esotericists, the Christ is now the Great Initiator - and it is the Christ that one meets in the etheric realms - and who people are 'seeing' when they cross the boundaries between the worlds, physical/etheric/astral. It is also why most streams recognize the Christ - why the Dalai Lama would mention the Christ, and why an Islamic Sufi teacher would indicate that the Christ Consciousness is a realm entered in states of contemplation.

All the above is a compendium of personal experience among countless 'witnesses' across generations - yet it means as nothing for some because we have to use the concept of spiritual worlds. Yet people can report ufo encounters and alien abductions across a handful of decades - and there is ready and willing belief. There is a disjunct here.

I would disagree with you Tyger that there really isn't an enemy. The enemy isn't us. The true enemy is a liar and he has already lost the war. In thinking he successfully killed Jesus he unknowingly helped to save all men who wanted to be saved. Who could make such a plan to throw the enemy off but God Himself? All the enemy can do now is hope for the most collateral damage possible. He will wreak havoc until his time is up.

I actually understand what you are saying - I understand the phrases you are using - and I agree - though I am well aware that there is unlikely anyone here who understands what the agreement is about.

In esoteric lore [an area of lifelong study for me - both professionally and personally - I love history in all it's guises, and how the 'story' we tell ourselves is actually part of a 'received' story no matter how independent we view ourselves] there is the story of a profound disagreement that occurred in the early 1800's amongst certain esoteric societies - or the Initiates of such, or beyond such - regarding the release of esoteric material into the general stream. By the late 1800's and early 1900's the information began to stream into the general consciousness via various conduits - and a lot of confusion has resulted.

One well known tactic that atheists like to pull is the " been there done that" trick. I tried that it didn't work for me therefore it's bogus. I would counter that if you had really tried it in earnest you wouldn't any longer be an atheist.

Yes. Experiences of the spiritual worlds are life-altering. Unless one is messing with low-grade forces - and even then they are life-altering - but so saying I am bound to end more for my own sake, and will end with one of my favorite quotes, from the great scientist and mystic - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "Someday, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for a second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire."

 

[Randall]

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband ...

I don't mean to sidetrack you here, but while we're looking at biblical lore, do you think perhaps we can post a few examples of stuff that seems more like some sort of technology beyond the that of the day and for which they had no way to describe it other than by making comparisons to things they understood? It's not that I don't agree that the bible has a lot of ethically questionable material in it, but I think you've made your point, and for the most part, you're preaching to the choir here. On the other hand, here's the kind of thing I like to look for:

Job Chapter 41 describes Leviathan, a creation of God's called that is usually interpreted to be a sea monster or crocodile, but note some curiosities:

Who can open the doors of his face?

Doors on the font?

His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

Skin made of airtight plates ( scales ) so hard that they cannot be separated. Swords of metal, darts, spears and arrows cannot penetrate it. Stones break when they hit the side of it.

By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

A light on the nose, and more bright lights likened to eyes on either side.

Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

More lights, sparks of fire shooting out, and sharp pointed things spread around the shore. I ask you, what kind of thing shoots sparks of fire while spreading pointed things?

Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

More smoke, but like steam, coming out of some holes.

His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

More flames, like some kind exhaust are seen.

He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

White churning water like when the powerful engines on a ship kick in.

Sounds more like this:

Than one of these:

Perhaps any one of the descriptions of Leviathan might not deserve much attention, but together they add up to the point where it's no longer reasonable to conclude that Leviathan was simply some sort of animal. I don't know when these descriptions were actually written. The Bible version is King James ( 1611 ). Steam engines weren't patented until the 1800s. Same for iron clad warships and the first U-Boats. Now I'm not saying that I believe this to be an actual eyewitness account from biblical times, but let's face it, even if it was added as pure fiction in during the 1600s, it seems somebody was ahead of Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, by at least a couple of centuries.

The Bible has more than one of these strange myths. We all know about Ezekiel's wheel. Fewer people are aware of Leviathan, and there's still more, and they're all connected to this God entity in the Bible. So let's set aside the morality and the superstition for a moment and let's ask instead: What if some of these these myths actually do represent ancient accounts of real events? They seem to be telling of encounters with technology that was well beyond the means of the day. Interestingly, religious people don't like to have these things pointed out, and they've been slowly sifting them out of the bible in newer versions by removing the contentious wording. To find them you need to refer to the original King James version or other older versions. I find it quite fascinating.