The Origin of Christianity (I report, You decide) ? [Archive]

dollar

30th July 2007, 04:50 PM

First off I respect all your views on life please don't think i'm trying to hurt any feelings. I just wanted to bring this information and you decide wether you agree or not...

The following may not be fact but concider this:

Christianity (and other religions) may be based off of
pagan sun worshipping or shall I say Astrology.

First off... Fish symbolism in Christianity (much like the fish symbol at the top left of this web site page) = Jesus born at begining of age of Pisces (Pisces symbol is two fish together)

12 zodiac signs the sun travels with = the 12 apostles Jesus ( the son ) travels with

Ancients noticed the Sun moves south during winter, gets to a point where the sun stops moving south but also didn't move back north either for 3 days. They said the sun died for 3 days. When the Sun started moving north agian they said it ressurected from the dead. This "ressurection" of the sun after it "died" for 3 days happend on December 25th. They said the Sun was the salvation of the world because it was risen. The Sun is on the cross of the zodiac. = Hence Jesus died on the cross for 3 days then was ressurected.

Each zodiac constellation occupies 30 degrees of the zodiac circle = Thus Jesus was born "a little before the beginning" of the Age of Pisces then "begins his ministry" at age 30 (from the beginning of the Age ofAries to the beginning of the Age of Pisces 30 degrees)around when Jesus died.

The cross of the zodiac = The cross of Jesus

The SUN of God = The SON of God

Crown of Thorns = Sun rays

God is the light of the world = The Sun is the light of the world

The word AGE mentioned throughout the Bible = AGE is an astrological term which lasts on average about 2,100 yrs

The "End Times" the Bible speaks of = The end of the Age of pisces

( Revelation 1:7 ) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. = The Sun cometh with clouds everyday to bring life to the world.

(John 14:2)In my Father's house (heavens)are many (12)mansions (houses)= 12 houses of zodiac

(Luke 22:10) And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. = The Age after Pisces is Aquarius (who's house we enter after the piscin Age)who is symbolized holding a pitcher of water.

If you want to know more follow the links below, but please i'm not forcing you to look its your choice:

I recommend this video if you'd like a good video to show you how its possible Christianity may be Astrology
( The Naked Truth ) : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234

Another good video can be found at the following links which are broken into parts about 8 minits each:
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRZmzf7WiNg
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlGR8_Dmohk&mode=related&search=
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ASZbUEvqwI&mode=related&search=

Also here are some good informative web sites I recommend:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html#Sun (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html#Sun)
http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/friendletter.html
http://www.transactual.com/cac/symbolism.html

Well you decide but it looks to me like Christianity and many other religions are nothing more than Astrology personified...but its completely up to you if you want to think the same, its just my opinion...

Your thoughts :scratch: are welcome ;)

Sothron

30th July 2007, 04:54 PM

I am asking a mod to move this to the debate subforum.

Sacrum Silentium

30th July 2007, 04:54 PM

You completely wasted your time.

Sothron

30th July 2007, 05:06 PM

Now that it is in the proper forum let me say that I think this idea is just plain nutters. Christianity started as a direct offshoot of Judaism and does not have anything to do with astrology.

ClementofRome

30th July 2007, 05:16 PM

"12 zodiac signs the sun travels with = the 12 apostles Jesus ..."

Yea, and I guess that we can argue that this is also the case with the 12 Tribes of Israel.....oh, and the origins of a 12-pack of beer!! :)

dollar

30th July 2007, 05:20 PM

dollar

30th July 2007, 05:25 PM

Now that it is in the proper forum let me say that I think this idea is just plain nutters. Christianity started as a direct offshoot of Judaism and does not have anything to do with astrology.
Sorry I didn't know there was a debate spot here. I respect your opinon, I only ask you read through at least once with an open mind, then come to a conclusion... I see your conclusion is "this is nutters"...

nutroll

30th July 2007, 05:34 PM

I agree with Sothron, there are so many details in the NT that are fulfillments of the OT. If Christianity is made up, then the obvious source of the details would be the OT, not astrology. For instance, the number twelve was seen as a holy number throughout the OT. It is so much more likely that there are twelve disciples because there are twelve tribes of Israel than because there are twelve zodiac signs. There are much more rational explanations for everything you have suggested than that it was all borrowed from astrology. One would need to demonstrate that the OT was based on astrology before even trying to claim that the NT was. This would require being able to demonstrate that the writers of the OT had familiarity with astrology, but according to you, they must have had a familiarity with the modern 12 zodiac sign system. I don't think that there is any evidence of this, and even if there were, there is a nearly 2000 year history of Orthodox Christianity full of miraculous events which tells me that there is more to it than a made up religion based on astrology.

nestoj

30th July 2007, 05:36 PM

Sorry I didn't know there was a debate spot here. I respect your opinon, I only ask you read through at least once with an open mind, then come to a conclusion... I see your conclusion is "this is nutters"...
Yup, after reading it I also think this is waste of time. I've always thought that Astrology is anti - Christian, actualy it's of antichrist to be precise.

nestoj
God helps

Orthosdoxa

30th July 2007, 05:39 PM

God stamped His Love and Life on the hearts of all mankind, long before He revealed Himself in the Person of Christ Jesus. Those who lived before His time "knew" some things, only they had not been revealed properly.

Some of what you said IS nutters, but people like to point to some other ancient religions that bear some resemblance to Christianity, and it's for a good reason. God did not ignore mankind before His message was fully revealed. They did the best they could with what they had; therefore, there was some truth in their beliefs.

dollar

30th July 2007, 05:49 PM

dollar

30th July 2007, 05:50 PM

Yup, after reading it I also think this is waste of time. I've always thought that Astrology is anti - Christian, actualy it's of antichrist to be precise.

nestoj
God helps
Yes i suppose you could say Astrology is anti - christian. I also suppose you could say anything not "related" to christianity is anti - christian or of the antichrist...

dollar

30th July 2007, 06:03 PM

but according to you, they must have had a familiarity with the modern 12 zodiac sign system.
Modern 12 zodiac sign system? This system is actually older than you may think. Go here http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsgreekcross.htm

nutroll

30th July 2007, 06:15 PM

I'm not an idiot, I know it's old, but I also know that at certain times, in certain near eastern cultures, there have been 18 symbols in the zodiac, I know that there have been countless changes based on culture. Everything you have said relies on there being 12 zodiac signs (like there are today) at the time that the OT was written, and that they were familiar with them. I don't know that that is a tenable position.

SeraphimSarov

30th July 2007, 06:50 PM

First off... Fish symbolism in Christianity (much like the fish symbol at the top left of this web site page) = Jesus born at begining of age of Pisces (Pisces symbol is two fish together)

There's a rational explanation for the fish symbolism which does not relate at all to the zodiac.

12 zodiac signs the sun travels with = the 12 apostles Jesus ( the son ) travels with

As mentioned before, this likely has more to do with the twelve tribes of Israel, and again as mentioned before, the burden is on you to show that the writers of the OT were familiar with it. I doubt it, since any such systems were strictly condemned.

Ancients noticed the Sun moves south during winter, gets to a point where the sun stops moving south but also didn't move back north either for 3 days. They said the sun died for 3 days. When the Sun started moving north agian they said it ressurected from the dead. This "ressurection" of the sun after it "died" for 3 days happend on December 25th. They said the Sun was the salvation of the world because it was risen. The Sun is on the cross of the zodiac. = Hence Jesus died on the cross for 3 days then was ressurected.

December 25th is the date Jesus' birth is celebrated, not the day of His resurrection. Besides, was Christ actually born on the 25th? Probably not.

I would also add that the "risen sun" and the risen Son is a play on words that is very unlikely to work on other languages. Additionally, you have not even specified what "ancients" you are talking about. Finally, once again, you'd have to show that these ancients had contact with the writers of the OT.

Each zodiac constellation occupies 30 degrees of the zodiac circle = Thus Jesus was born "a little before the beginning" of the Age of Pisces then "begins his ministry" at age 30 (from the beginning of the Age ofAries to the beginning of the Age of Pisces 30 degrees)around when Jesus died.

This seems just a little irrelevant and just a bit of a stretch considering the above arguments.

The cross of the zodiac = The cross of Jesus

Ever seen a Russian cross? Besides, if I recall, the earliest Christian symbol was the chi-rho, not the Cross.

The SUN of God = The SON of God

Again, a play on words that is not going to work in other languages. For example, the Spanish word for son is "hijo," whereas sun is "sol." It is linguistically impossible to show that they have the same root.

Crown of Thorns = Sun rays

The crown of thorns was one of the ways the Roman soldiers humiliated Jesus. I am assuming that people who worship the sun would not consider the rays of the sun to be humiliating to it...

God is the light of the world = The Sun is the light of the world

Again, references to God as the Light appear in the OT. Prove that the OT writers had connections to sun worshipers.

The word AGE mentioned throughout the Bible = AGE is an astrological term which lasts on average about 2,100 yrs

Sorry, but I don't think that astrology can just claim that term for itself. Prove it's strictly astrological and I'll reconsider.

The "End Times" the Bible speaks of = The end of the Age of pisces

The two are not comparable. Christ's Kingdom will then have no end. Will the sun never set at the end of the age of pisces or something? You're going to have to develop your argument much more than that.

( Revelation 1:7 ) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. = The Sun cometh with clouds everyday to bring life to the world.

This is a prophetic writing. You're talking about it as if it's coming now. Very flawed exegesis that completely ignores context.

(John 14:2)In my Father's house (heavens)are many (12)mansions (houses)= 12 houses of zodiac

Again, more than likely referring to the twelve tribes of Israel. See above for what you must now show.

(Luke 22:12) And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. = The Age after Pisces is Aquarius (who's house we enter after the piscin Age)who is symbolized holding a pitcher of water.

Wow, once again, this passage is completely out of context... more faulty exegesis. Jesus was giving instructions to Sts. Peter and John, which were to be taken literally - NOT symbolic as you are talking about.

PS - it's verse 10, not 12.

Well you decide but it looks to me like Christianity and many other religions are nothing more than Astrology personified...but its completely up to you if you want to think the same, its just my opinion...

I'd say that you had better look twice at your opinion. Seems as though you have not an ounce of substance to your arguments.

dollar

30th July 2007, 06:56 PM

This is a quote from Tomas Paine:

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."
—Thomas Paine

Macarius

30th July 2007, 07:00 PM

I would actually argue the converse, but in a theological (rather than temporal) sense.

We know that the 12 point zodiac sign originated in Mesopotamian astrology sometime during the 2nd millenium BC (approximately the age of Abraham) - it thus predates, chronologically, Judaism and Christianity.

However, I do not think that Judaism and Christianity borrowed from it, but rather that God, acting as He does in all religions and at all times, placed in the astrologers signs or indications of the true Way - which is Christ.

If not for the locative difficulties, Toaism could be said to have directly informed Christian thought, with Christianity's preoccupation with water, asceticism, "The Way" (for its name, which is the very meaning of "Tao") and Christianity's theology of the Word. Christ is Tao made manifest, according to this "analogizing." Taoism certainly predated Christianity, however it would be difficult to contend that either informed the other in their early development.

To me, starting from a Christian world view, it makes more sense to say that because the world's great religions are all pursuing Truth, and because (in my world view) Truth = Christ, each world religion contains Christ in part and in signs that are elucidated by the fullness of the Truth - namely the direct revelation of Christ Himself in the God-Man Jesus of Nazareth, whose teachings the Church continues, being the pillar and ground of the Truth.

The best example of this is Judaism, which also recieved direct revelation from God through her prophets. All over their numerology, scriptures, and practices, the Christian finds signs and typologies indicating the Christ to come, His death on the cross and resurrection from the dead, His liberating humanity from death, His revelation of the Trinity, and the asceticism and sacramental life of the Church.

Hope that helps!
Macarius

SeraphimSarov

30th July 2007, 07:04 PM

To me, starting from a Christian world view, it makes more sense to say that because the world's great religions are all pursuing Truth, and because (in my world view) Truth = Christ, each world religion contains Christ in part and in signs that are elucidated by the fullness of the Truth - namely the direct revelation of Christ Himself in the God-Man Jesus of Nazareth, whose teachings the Church continues, being the pillar and ground of the Truth.

Good point as well. :)

SeraphimSarov

30th July 2007, 07:05 PM

dollar

30th July 2007, 08:45 PM

There's a rational explanation for the fish symbolism which does not relate at all to the zodiac.

Wow, once again, this passage is completely out of context... more faulty exegesis. Jesus was giving instructions to Sts. Peter and John, which were to be taken literally - NOT symbolic as you are talking about.

I'd say that you had better look twice at your opinion. Seems as though you have not an ounce of substance to your arguments.
How does the rational explanation of the fish symbolism not relate to the zodiac? Pisces is one of the 12 zodiac.

"And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in."
Literaly speaking then, why exactly would Jesus tell them to find a man bearing a pitcher of water and following him into the house he enters? Astrologically speaking we have found a man bearing a pitcher of water (Aquarius) who's house we have entered (They call each area of which one of the 12 zodiac figures reside in the sky, houses) and we have followed him into his house.

How could Astrology influenced the old testement you ask? Simply because people have been looking to the stars for far longer than before they had any religion to follow. In fact they worshipped the Sun in most cases.

let me show you this which outlines the history of astrological ages which we have already been through:
from the following web site http://www.transactual.com/cac/symbolism.html
Consider the following:

Age of Leo

Sun worship, Ra, Sphinx or Lion (Age of Adam in Hebrew symbology)

Age of Cancer

Beetle or Sacred Scarab of Egypt, later the Crab, Isis (Eve)

Age of Gemini

Early writing, hieroglyphics, Horus and Set (or Cain and Abel)

Age of Taurus

Agricultural Age, Fertility religions, Golden Calf, Hindu Cattle worship, (Spanish bullfighting is a ritual relating to the end of the Taurus Age) The Hindu religion still clings to its cattle worship from the age of Taurus.

Age of Aries

Power worship -- Power god Jehovah, sign ruled by Ram or Lamb, Lamb of David, slaying of the lamb as a ritual commemorating the end of the age. The Hebrew or Jewish religion still promotes the concept of a the power-hungry, threatening, egocentric god Jehovah.

Age of Pisces

God as a fisher of men, Lamb of God sacrificed at the end of Aries age, resurrected for the new Piscean Age. The Cross as a symbol for the re-birth of the new year (Aries and Pisces are the cross points, or transition signs between the end of one zodiac and the beginning of the new zodiacal year, Easter, when the Sun (Son) hangs suspended on the cross between winter and spring, as the death of the Old and resurrection of the New. The Christian religions keep promoting a sacrificial lamb and asking followers to sacrifice and martyr themselves for Christ, while never realizing that they are keeping Christ on the Cross and could take him down and put him in their hearts and consciousness; keeping people bowing to the cross and feeling guilty if they ever question why they should go like zombies to kneel before a shrine that keeps the Christ suspended thus bowing to the messenger, while ignoring the message.

No substance to my arguments huh? Keep an open mind. Think hard on it, don't just dismiss just because it goes agianst what you believe.
I can give you no more proof right now than showing you the link to this video (The Naked Truth) : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234 (It was produced in the 90s but is good nontheless, It is close to 2 hours long but its the best video in regards to what we are speaking of)

Orthosdoxa

31st July 2007, 12:10 AM

Read my post, on the previous page.

buzuxi02

31st July 2007, 03:49 AM

If astrology had something to do with christian symbolism, then you have to ask the jews. Christianity borrowed the symbolism of numbers from Judaism.

Jesus has 12 apostles because Isreal was composed of 12 tribes. Jesus lost one disciple (Judas Iscariot) just as one tribe of the israelites, the tribe of Dan chose the wrong path.

Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb to fulfil the OT propehcy of Jonah spending 3 days in the stomach of a whale. Only on the sabbath was it a complete 24 hour burial because on the sabbath God rested from his work likewise Jesus rested from his work.

The fish symbol for Christ derives from the greek word for fish which is IXTHYS. The acronym stands for:

I- Isous (Jesus)
X- Xristos (Christ)
TH- Theos (God)
Y-Yios (Son)
S- Soter (Savior)

As far as "many mansions" go, your simply guessing there are twelve. You want to believe it so badly in order to fit your hypothesis. The truth is that the best you can hope for is that there are Seven heavens. The phrase 'seventh heaven' comes to mind. This is pre-christian and post- judaic belief of mesopotamia. The number of heavens tended to number 7 but as many as eleven (and no more, look it up for yourself). In christianity though, there are only three (2 cor 12.2) and one which has yet to come (Heb 11.16). Not that it matters because the reference your using has nothing to do with any of this.

Now if you believe there is a judaic/ astrological correlation then i suggest you speak to a rabbi who is knowlesgeable in the Kabalah.

P.S. what about the "40 day period" which plays an even more significant role in christianity? I know the answer(s) do you?

Macarius

31st July 2007, 02:50 PM

dollar

31st July 2007, 03:18 PM

If astrology had something to do with christian symbolism, then you have to ask the jews. Christianity borrowed the symbolism of numbers from Judaism.

The Jewish religion started at the beginning of the age of Aries which is symbolized as the Ram or Lamb. The Jews still blow the Rams horn no? The slaying of the Lamb was a way of commemorating the end of the age of Aries. Much like they slayed The Lamb of God (Jesus) at the end of Aries age. Jesus was then resurrected for the new Piscean Age (The Fish). Lets talk about all this fish stuff below...

Jesus has 12 apostles because Isreal was composed of 12 tribes. Jesus lost one disciple (Judas Iscariot) just as one tribe of the israelites, the tribe of Dan chose the wrong path.

12 apostles / 12 tribes. Same thing as the other. There are 12 zodiac and they reside in their area's or (rule the area's) tribes in the sky.

Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb to fulfil the OT propehcy of Jonah spending 3 days in the stomach of a whale. Only on the sabbath was it a complete 24 hour burial because on the sabbath God rested from his work likewise Jesus rested from his work.

Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb / Jonah spent 3 days in the whale. Agian same thing. This is the borrowed story of the 3 days death and ressurection which has been repeted throught history. Much like how the Sun 'dies' for 3 days. The second day the sun was 'dead' would be one of rest because it is between the time being 'put into' the 'grave' and 'ressurecting.'

The fish symbol for Christ derives from the greek word for fish which is IXTHYS. The acronym stands for:

I- Isous (Jesus)
X- Xristos (Christ)
TH- Theos (God)
Y-Yios (Son)
S- Soter (Savior)

Where did the Greek's get this fish symbol from? It is an exact copy of the symbol for Pisces. What about all the text in the Bible which is fish related? Maybe its like this because Jesus was born or reborn at the beginning of the Age of Pisces...

As far as "many mansions" go, your simply guessing there are twelve. You want to believe it so badly in order to fit your hypothesis. The truth is that the best you can hope for is that there are Seven heavens. The phrase 'seventh heaven' comes to mind. This is pre-christian and post- judaic belief of mesopotamia. The number of heavens tended to number 7 but as many as eleven (and no more, look it up for yourself). In christianity though, there are only three (2 cor 12.2) and one which has yet to come (Heb 11.16). Not that it matters because the reference your using has nothing to do with any of this.

The real meaning of the verse has been lost through all the translations. The verse should read: "In my Fathers abide are many Houses." = Where the sun abide's are 12 houses (of the zodiac)
what of these other verses?
( Revelation 1:7 ) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. = The Sun cometh with clouds everyday to bring life to the world.

Especially this one:

(Luke 22:10) And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. = The Age after Pisces is Aquarius (who's house we enter after the piscin Age) who is symbolized holding a pitcher of water.

Now if you believe there is a judaic/ astrological correlation then i suggest you speak to a rabbi who is knowlesgeable in the Kabalah.

I dout a rabbi will tell you his belief is based off of astrology. Either he won't know, be in denial, or most often People in power don't want you to know the truth because the truth would give you power.

P.S. what about the "40 day period" which plays an even more significant role in christianity? I know the answer(s) do you?
The forty day period is symbolism for a cleansing period. Much like the the 40 day purificatory period called Lent which happens after Easter (or the spring equinox).

Agian i recommend this video to everyone:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234) This video was developed in the 90's but is good nontheless. It isn't offensive (or at least is one of the least offensive i'v seen) but it gives you something to think about. I only ask that you watch the whole thing through at least once.

dollar

31st July 2007, 04:17 PM

I would also very much appreciate a reply to the perspective I posted on the other page.

It is very easy to "invent" explanations for observable phenomena and then to use that "explanation" (which is speculative and made up) in order to discount someone else's world view. What I posted on the other page is a great example of that. So is what you posted at the start of the thread.

Freud did the same thing - asserting that religious belief was an "illusion," and inventing a nice little explanation for it.

The problem is that these are speculative. You don't know. I can come up with an equally reasonible and plausible counter explanation, and the only difference between which one you accept and which one I accept is our preconcieved world view - meaning that the argument has no point since our preformed opinion will determine our opinion on this issue. It's irrelevant, even a setback to discussion.

Your argument is theological, which is mans attempt to understand God. How can we understand God? The theologens tell us what Gods 'will' is and we blindly follow there orders. Did God tell thoes theologens that there conclusions about the Bible were correct? or are they just asumming they are correct?

I was raised Catholic don't think I have no clue about any of this. I'v been in your world view before. I'v seen the world though thoes lenses.
Why exactly is it so hard to find God? Why must we search for him? If he really does exist I would think it wouldn't be so hard to find him huh?

We are taught we need to go to church in order to be closer to God. It really does make us feel like we are closer doesn't it. With all that visual aid it gives us and the group feeling of purpose.

If you look around at the world, you'll see things aren't what they say they are. We are being lied to by thoes in power and its a lie most of us are believing. Thoes in power don't mind. It gives them power over us. It makes us weak and them strong.
Wake up to the world around you. People are manipulated daily by thoes in power. This just don't go for Religion but Governments and thoes who control the cash flow.

They don't want us to think too much because that is what they fear. They fear a society of critical thinkers.

They want you to bow down :bow: and do what they say :preach:

Although I know everything I just said won't make much of a difference. I'm probably wasting my time.
Many people love to bask in ignorant bliss :sleep:

Though I hope I have at least sparked some thought into the minds of the masses.

Agian I say I respect your opinions. I am sorry if i got a little carried away up there. Just trying to start a little critical thinking on the matter at hand.

buzuxi02

31st July 2007, 11:12 PM

The Jewish religion started at the beginning of the age of Aries which is symbolized as the Ram or Lamb. The Jews still blow the Rams horn no? The slaying of the Lamb was a way of commemorating the end of the age of Aries. Much like they slayed The Lamb of God (Jesus) at the end of Aries age. Jesus was then resurrected for the new Piscean Age (The Fish). Lets talk about all this fish stuff below...

12 apostles / 12 tribes. Same thing as the other. There are 12 zodiac and they reside in their area's or (rule the area's) tribes in the sky.

Jesus spent 3 days in the tomb / Jonah spent 3 days in the whale. Agian same thing. This is the borrowed story of the 3 days death and ressurection which has been repeted throught history. Much like how the Sun 'dies' for 3 days. The second day the sun was 'dead' would be one of rest because it is between the time being 'put into' the 'grave' and 'ressurecting.'

Where did the Greek's get this fish symbol from? It is an exact copy of the symbol for Pisces. What about all the text in the Bible which is fish related? Maybe its like this because Jesus was born or reborn at the beginning of the Age of Pisces...

The real meaning of the verse has been lost through all the translations. The verse should read: "In my Fathers abide are many Houses." = Where the sun abide's are 12 houses (of the zodiac)
what of these other verses?
( Revelation 1:7 ) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. = The Sun cometh with clouds everyday to bring life to the world.

Especially this one:

(Luke 22:10) And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. = The Age after Pisces is Aquarius (who's house we enter after the piscin Age) who is symbolized holding a pitcher of water.

I dout a rabbi will tell you his belief is based off of astrology. Either he won't know, be in denial, or most often People in power don't want you to know the truth because the truth would give you power.

The forty day period is symbolism for a cleansing period. Much like the the 40 day purificatory period called Lent which happens after Easter (or the spring equinox).

Agian i recommend this video to everyone:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234) This video was developed in the 90's but is good nontheless. It isn't offensive (or at least is one of the least offensive i'v seen) but it gives you something to think about. I only ask that you watch the whole thing through at least once.
I really cant fathom your interpretations.

Im not sure what you mean by the sun dies for three days. I simply dont know the story behind it.

What i do know is that there is a sun rise and a sunset.
I know in the northpole there is 6 months of day light and 6 months of night.

The "sun comes with clouds" again ive never heard this phrase before.

There are 12 stars on the flag of the european union , are they also borrowing from the zodiac? If so, who cares?

What about the one apostle that fell away?

How about the 24 elders constantly mentioned, which christianity says is symbolic for the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles? (rev 11.16)

How about the ancient spurious jewish and christian belief that there are 7 ages till the end of the world which usually last about a millenium or so, just like the 7 day creation?
Dispensationalism has always been rejected
.
The greek symbol for fish in use in christianity , i already explained. Greek for fish is ixthys and each letter stands for what i wrote above, its an acronym. In fact even in english, a marine scientist, (one who studies ocean wildlife) is called an icthyologist.

And forget about trying to persuade me that meanings have been lost thru translations or it means something else in greeks. Because i am an ethnic greek and have a few greek bibles that i use including the septuagint.

You seem to have rejected catholicism as untrustworthy yet assume that there is truth in the zodiac. Astrologist believe those born under the sign of virgo, tend to be virgins, or prudes or teases (every last one of them).

Those born under gemini have split personalities. They assume everyone born under that sign are bipolar.
Thus depending on what sign your born under you have certain related traits in your DNA. Talk about stereotyping!

I really dont know what posseses the "white man" to be infatuated with the zodiac animals of the sky and their horoscope, printed up randomly by a computer program for the local newspapers everyday. (oops, sorry for the stereotype.)

dollar

1st August 2007, 01:30 AM

I really cant fathom your interpretations.

Its not that hard to fathom them. Have you ever played a game called connect the dots? Give it some more thought?

Im not sure what you mean by the sun dies for three days. I simply dont know the story behind it.

You should of read my original post, the answer your looking for is right there.
But i'll post it here for you:
Ancients noticed the Sun moves south during winter, gets to a point where the sun stops moving south but also didn't move back north either for 3 days. They said the sun died for 3 days. When the Sun started moving north agian they said it ressurected from the dead. This "ressurection" of the sun after it "died" for 3 days happend on December 25th. They said the Sun was the salvation of the world because it was risen. The Sun is on the cross of the zodiac.
That help?

What i do know is that there is a sun rise and a sunset.
I know in the northpole there is 6 months of day light and 6 months of night.

This is true.

The "sun comes with clouds" again ive never heard this phrase before.

( Revelation 1:7 ) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Well like this bible verse doesn't the sun come up every morning and look like its with the clouds? And every eye see's the sun (Him)?

There are 12 stars on the flag of the european union , are they also borrowing from the zodiac? If so, who cares?

Don't know, but the 12 zodiac fit the description of the 12 apostles better. Because the 12 zodiac (apostles) signs travel around with the Sun (Son) spreading the light (word) to the world.

What about the one apostle that fell away?

Just because one fell away in the story nothing of this makes any sense? Possibly its a reference to the Age of Aries which fell away after we moved into the age of pisces?

How about the 24 elders constantly mentioned, which christianity says is symbolic for the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 apostles? (rev 11.16)

I just found this out. The 24 elders is reference to 24 hours in a day.

How about the ancient spurious jewish and christian belief that there are 7 ages till the end of the world which usually last about a millenium or so, just like the 7 day creation?
Dispensationalism has always been rejected

here are a list of the ages up to today which as far as we know have been put into stories:

1. Age of Leo

Sun worship, Ra, Sphinx or Lion (Age of Adam in Hebrew symbology)

2. Age of Cancer

Beetle or Sacred Scarab of Egypt, later the Crab, Isis (Eve)

3. Age of Gemini

Early writing, hieroglyphics, Horus and Set (or Cain and Abel)

4. Age of Taurus

Agricultural Age, Fertility religions, Golden Calf, Hindu Cattle worship, (Spanish bullfighting is a ritual relating to the end of the Taurus Age) The Hindu religion still clings to its cattle worship from the age of Taurus.

5. Age of Aries

Power worship -- Power god Jehovah, sign ruled by Ram or Lamb, Lamb of David, slaying of the lamb as a ritual commemorating the end of the age. The Hebrew or Jewish religion still promotes the concept of a the power-hungry, threatening, egocentric god Jehovah.

6. Age of Pisces

God as a fisher of men, Lamb of God sacrificed at the end of Aries age, resurrected for the new Piscean Age. The Cross as a symbol for the re-birth of the new year (Aries and Pisces are the cross points, or transition signs between the end of one zodiac and the beginning of the new zodiacal year, Easter, when the Sun (Son) hangs suspended on the cross between winter and spring, as the death of the Old and resurrection of the New. The Christian religions keep promoting a sacrificial lamb and asking followers to sacrifice and martyr themselves for Christ, while never realizing that they are keeping Christ on the Cross and could take him down and put him in their hearts and consciousness; keeping people bowing to the cross and feeling guilty if they ever question why they should go like zombies to kneel before a shrine that keeps the Christ suspended thus bowing to the messenger, while ignoring the message.

7. Age of Aquarius (The Age after Jesus) (we are currently in this Age I believe)

We are in the 7th age, end of the world didn't happen. This make sense?

.
The greek symbol for fish in use in christianity , i already explained. Greek for fish is ixthys and each letter stands for what i wrote above, its an acronym. In fact even in english, a marine scientist, (one who studies ocean wildlife) is called an icthyologist.

Yes? and where did the greeks get the symbol for the fish in christianity from?
The symbol is an exact copy of the symbol for the Age of pisces (the fish). What of all the Biblical text refering to fish? Nothing to do with the age of pisces?

And forget about trying to persuade me that meanings have been lost thru translations or it means something else in greeks. Because i am an ethnic greek and have a few greek bibles that i use including the septuagint.

Meaning lost in translations or not there is still somewhat of a connection that can be seen.
But this verse aside. What of this one:
(Luke 22:10) And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.
The Age after Pisces is Aquarius (who's house we enter after the piscin Age) who is symbolized holding a pitcher of water.
I really want to know what is ment by this verse and why it seems so similar to this astrology stuff.

You seem to have rejected catholicism as untrustworthy yet assume that there is truth in the zodiac. Astrologist believe those born under the sign of virgo, tend to be virgins, or prudes or teases (every last one of them).

Those born under gemini have split personalities. They assume everyone born under that sign are bipolar.
Thus depending on what sign your born under you have certain related traits in your DNA. Talk about stereotyping!

I really dont know what posseses the "white man" to be infatuated with the zodiac animals of the sky and their horoscope, printed up randomly by a computer program for the local newspapers everyday. (oops, sorry for the stereotype.)

I don't think the truth is in the zodiac but I do think that Astrology bears a strong resembelence to many religions out there. This gives me reason to believe religions such as christianity is a personified version of the ancient system of the Sun and the 12 Zodiac.

I personal believe Astrology if full of it. I can't stand horoscopes because they have no truth in them. Also like you said just because your born under a certain star doesn't mean your going turn out the way the say you will.
But just because astrology is full of it for the most part (it does have astronomy elements which are true) doesn't mean stories can't be born from the whole astrological system.
Also since you mentioned it, Virgo. Ever since this age has come and passed many religious beliefs have had god's which were born of virgins. Much like the birth of Jesus.

Please, your obviously interested or somewhat facinated in the information I have brought you. Watch this video if you have the time http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8251447278663885234 I think it will answer a lot of your questions. It was created in the 90s, It isn't offensive, it just gives facts.

nutroll

1st August 2007, 09:19 AM

Kristos

1st August 2007, 02:42 PM

Where's Libra? I always get left out of everything:)

dayhiker

1st August 2007, 04:02 PM

The SUN of God = The SON of God

Yup, everyone knows english was the language of Hellenized world.

dayhiker

dollar

1st August 2007, 04:19 PM

So when Jesus met the Samaritan Woman at the well, that was probably also about the Age of Aquarius as well. And for that matter, when Rebekah came bearing a pitcher and gave water to Abraham's servant and also to his camels all the way back in Genesis, that was probably about how someday in the far distant future. If you read this part of Genesis (chapter 24) it is remarkably similar to the story you keep citing as evidence. In it, the servant is to find a person, and the way that he will know he has found that person is that she will have a jug of water. But this is far before the age of aquarius. It seems to me, as Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. You say that there were 12 disciples because there are 12 zodiac symbols. What if, and I know this will sound absolutely crazy, there really were 12 disciples just because that's how many Jesus decided to call. What if there was a guy carrying a jug of water in real life?

It seems to me that you are making an a priori assumption that everything in the Bible is untrue. That it is all disguised astrology, and that none of it has a basis in history. I would contend that if you were willing to look at any book of sufficient length with the assumption that none of it is true, and then be willing to pick out little details here and there, and then match those details up with a system like astrology which is designed to be broad enough to get people to apply what it says to aspects of their life, then you will be able to say that that book is based in astrology. Astrology had to encompass every aspect of people's lives in order for it to be sold to the masses in any way. The stories in the Bible all deal with people's lives. Why would it be surprising that there are similarities? And why would you take those similarities to mean that they are there purposefully. Things like jugs of water and fish were to ancient near easterners like televisions and fast food restaurants for us. Reading so much into it is ludicrous.

I just had a look at Genesis (chapter 24) and yes there is a pitcher of water involved. Although this is still different from the verse I presented. Also, yes I am aware that pitchers of water were probably a common thing back then. Lets have another look at this verse:
(Luke 22:10) And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.
Now your obviously taking this in a literal sense. I want to know how it makes any sense to take this verse in a literal sense. Please let me know?
symbolically it makes perfect sense:
The Age after Pisces is Aquarius (who's house we enter after the piscin Age) who is symbolized holding a pitcher of water.

Here is a section of text from a web site:

"In Job, God asked his humble servant a series of questions involving the wondrous miracles performed. In Job 38:31-33, God asks, “Can you bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades or loose the bonds of Orion? Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their seasons? Or can you guide Arcturus with his sons? Do you know the principles of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?”

Thus, God is proclaiming that there are principles in the heavens and that they govern life on earth. Furthermore, God is responsible for bringing forth the Mazzaroth in their seasons. Most Bibles avoid translating this sacred word, ‘Mazzaroth’, because it literally means, ‘the twelve signs of the zodiac’, in Hebrew. So, God created the zodiac and brings them forth in their seasons. He explains that heavenly constellations like the Pleiades and Orion have ‘influences’ that can be unleashed."

If you want to read more, a very good read to show how Christianity is just another version of astrology:
http://www.divineinspirationastrology.com/html/subhtml/articles/astrology&bible.htm
please read it?

dollar

1st August 2007, 04:22 PM

The SUN of God = The SON of God

Yup, everyone knows english was the language of Hellenized world.

dayhiker
I am simply pointing out that instead of the Sun being on the cross they put Jesus on the cross.

seashale76

1st August 2007, 06:12 PM

nutroll

1st August 2007, 06:28 PM

Lets have another look at this verse:
(Luke 22:10) And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.
Now your obviously taking this in a literal sense. I want to know how it makes any sense to take this verse in a literal sense. Please let me know?

Wow.... hmmm.... That is a hard one to explain... The disciples asked Jesus how they would know where to eat the Passover, so Jesus told them that they would find a man carrying a pitcher of water, and that they should ask him to use a room in his house. I see, first of all, an obvious parallel with the story of Rebekah. I also see what could just be a real story where Jesus (who is God) knew what to tell the disciples to expect, and it involved a pitcher of water because maybe, just maybe that man had just gone and filled his pitcher at the well. Hey, maybe it was even because Jesus wanted water in the house for his meal, or, say, to wash his disciples' feet which he did during the Last Supper. As for entering the house, well Passover is eaten inside, what else would they do? This is so far beyond stretching it's not even funny.

"In Job, God asked his humble servant a series of questions involving the wondrous miracles performed. In Job 38:31-33, God asks, “Can you bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades or loose the bonds of Orion? Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their seasons? Or can you guide Arcturus with his sons? Do you know the principles of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?”

Thus, God is proclaiming that there are principles in the heavens and that they govern life on earth. Furthermore, God is responsible for bringing forth the Mazzaroth in their seasons. Most Bibles avoid translating this sacred word, ‘Mazzaroth’, because it literally means, ‘the twelve signs of the zodiac’, in Hebrew. So, God created the zodiac and brings them forth in their seasons. He explains that heavenly constellations like the Pleiades and Orion have ‘influences’ that can be unleashed."

This text is about God being the creator of everything, it is about how God is greater than all those things and that Job is not. Show me a source that says that Mazzaroth means "the twelve signs of the zodiac" the study bible I looked at says that it refers to an unknown constellation. To be fair, this is the first time that you have even mentioned anything that really refers to anything in astrology, but it is to point out that the heavens are created by and controlled by God and subject to him. I would first of all work on getting a reliable Bible rather than relying on the translations of websites with an agenda.

If you want to read more, a very good read to show how Christianity is just another version of astrology:
http://www.divineinspirationastrology.com/html/subhtml/articles/astrology&bible.htm
please read it?What would be gained by reading that? You haven't provided anything reliable or trustworthy so far. All I see are vague associations fueled by faulty assumptions. Why would that site be any different? Do you just want to free us from our delusions and subjugation to an evil religion that wants to control us? Because you've got the wrong forum. None of us is here out of guilt, but out of love. We are not living in fear, but in freedom. The closer I draw to God, the more my life has been blessed. I don't need anything any of your websites can provide.

buzuxi02

1st August 2007, 06:49 PM

If your whole point is to say that you see similarities between the zodiac and christianity and possibly other religions, then thats another thing entirely.

This is not limited to astrology and the zodiac. For instance there are two references in the Finnish epic, the Kalevela, which foreshadows so closely certain christian events that the greek Orthodox Church recognize them as prophecies. In Taoism, in their holy writings the Tao Te Ching there are some amazing references that are similar to the OT and even Taoists interpret them similarly as in christianity, which is quite amazing.

The greek myth of Prometheus and the ceremony of the Olympic flame all foreshadow closely to christian theology.
Then there similarities such as when the old greek religion had priestesses interpret the "language" of the oracle as the wind passed thru the leaves of the oak tree, the sounds the trees made as they rustled thru was considered ecstatic utterance. Thus the priestess would interpret the wind. (see the similarity Jn 3.8, 1Cor 14.27-34)

You have the Ankh cross of the ancient egyptians which can be interpreted in the same way, as you attempt to cross the dots as you say.

In Thailand buddhists write on the rocks of the shores the phrase "Come Maitreya come!" A common phrase among buddhists, the book of Revelations says Come! Lord Jesus! (see Rev22.17-20)

I can go on and on.

dollar

1st August 2007, 07:07 PM

Wow.... hmmm.... That is a hard one to explain... The disciples asked Jesus how they would know where to eat the Passover, so Jesus told them that they would find a man carrying a pitcher of water, and that they should ask him to use a room in his house. I see, first of all, an obvious parallel with the story of Rebekah. I also see what could just be a real story where Jesus (who is God) knew what to tell the disciples to expect, and it involved a pitcher of water because maybe, just maybe that man had just gone and filled his pitcher at the well. Hey, maybe it was even because Jesus wanted water in the house for his meal, or, say, to wash his disciples' feet which he did during the Last Supper. As for entering the house, well Passover is eaten inside, what else would they do? This is so far beyond stretching it's not even funny.

I'm not stretching anything, in my eyes you are the one doing the stretching. I see it is no use even mentioning that verse here so I won't any more. Happy? All I ask is that you give it some thought and ask why it parallels the idea of us entering into Aquarius's House so much.

This text is about God being the creator of everything, it is about how God is greater than all those things and that Job is not. Show me a source that says that Mazzaroth means "the twelve signs of the zodiac" the study bible I looked at says that it refers to an unknown constellation. To be fair, this is the first time that you have even mentioned anything that really refers to anything in astrology, but it is to point out that the heavens are created by and controlled by God and subject to him. I would first of all work on getting a reliable Bible rather than relying on the translations of websites with an agenda.

It says before translated from its original language of Hebrew, Mazzaroth literally means 'the twelve signs of the zodiac.'
If you want a link well i'll direct you to an online dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mazzaroth%20
Why do you suppose God was talking about the 12 signs of the zodiac?

What would be gained by reading that? You haven't provided anything reliable or trustworthy so far. All I see are vague associations fueled by faulty assumptions. Why would that site be any different? Do you just want to free us from our delusions and subjugation to an evil religion that wants to control us? Because you've got the wrong forum. None of us is here out of guilt, but out of love. We are not living in fear, but in freedom. The closer I draw to God, the more my life has been blessed. I don't need anything any of your websites can provide.
If you want to read more, a very good read to show how Christianity is just another version of astrology:
http://www.divineinspirationastrolog...logy&bible.htm (http://www.divineinspirationastrology.com/html/subhtml/articles/astrology&bible.htm)
please read it?

What have you to gain by reading this? Maybe some stuff you didn't know.
What harm can it do if your already so convinced its bogus. Maybe you'll even get a laugh out of it?

Oh and thank you for insulting me. Is that part of your duties to the Christian faith?

nutroll

1st August 2007, 08:16 PM

I'm not stretching anything, in my eyes you are the one doing the stretching. I see it is no use even mentioning that verse here so I won't any more. Happy? All I ask is that you give it some thought and ask why it parallels the idea of us entering into Aquarius's House so much.

How is it stretching for me to look at what the text says and take it at face value? The only thing that could even be seen as stretching is the parallel to Rebekah, but given that there are many times that OT events are foreshadows of NT events, that's really not stretching.

It says before translated from its original language of Hebrew, Mazzaroth literally means 'the twelve signs of the zodiac.'
If you want a link well i'll direct you to an online dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mazzaroth%20
Why do you suppose God was talking about the 12 signs of the zodiac?

Please notice that only the one definition says that it means the 12 signs of the zodiac while the other one says "probably." what it actually means is not clear. At best these are guesses. Why rely on a guess?

What have you to gain by reading this? Maybe some stuff you didn't know.
What harm can it do if your already so convinced its bogus. Maybe you'll even get a laugh out of it?

Oh and thank you for insulting me. Is that part of your duties to the Christian faith?

If nothing you have posted so far has rung at all true, why would I want to spend my time reading though more of the same? I could swim in a sewer because it's something I've never done before, but I'd rather not. There are countless things that I can think of that would be a better use of my time.

I don't believe I've said anything insulting. I spend a lot of time editing my posts before ever submitting them to make sure that I am being as charitable as possible. If there is something in particular that I have said that is untrue and which you find insulting, I apologize. I just don't really have much desire to be overly diplomatic when someone says that the faith that I practice, the faith that millions of people have died to defend is a sham. I personally find this thread offensive, but have strived to remain as civil as possible in my discourse.

nutroll

1st August 2007, 09:57 PM

rusmeister

1st August 2007, 10:12 PM

Dollar, I wonder if you yourself would try reading something?

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.pdf

(This incredible book, by G.K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and is probably available from a major bookstore or inter-library loan.)

At least the introduction and a couple of chapters, although for my complete respect you would have to read the entire book 'with an open mind', as you say.

The book does not immediately come to a point regarding astrology or paganism, but it does bear completely on your reasoning.

Any comments you have on it would be interesting for folks to hear!

Macarius

1st August 2007, 10:31 PM

Your argument is theological,

No, my argument is a theodicy - a speculative explanation meant to match observable phenomena in an attempt to show that they are consistent with religious belief. It's a subset of religious philosophy.

My second point (the one you quoted above) is epistomoloy - another subset of philosophy. Debate it point for point or I will have to assume you agree that, since we are both able to offer plausible explanations (theodicies) for the development of the Christian faith that we are at a wash and should seek other avenues for discussing our differences.

which is mans attempt to understand God. How can we understand God?

We understand God by the revelation of God through His own Word - this is one of the significant points of the Incarnation. Our Lord is no prophet nor theologian. He is God Himself telling us about Himself.

The theologens tell us what Gods 'will' is and we blindly follow there orders.

Not blindly. That's an ad-hoc attack. Stop. I have a brain and use it quite frequently. I don't believe any theologian to be infallible but weigh their opinions against what I have recieved and experienced within the Church and within my own spiritual life.

Did God tell thoes theologens that there conclusions about the Bible were correct? or are they just asumming they are correct?

Did God tell you that your history is correct? Or do you just assume it is because it "makes sense" to you? You accuse the theologians of being speculative, yet place a lot of stock in very very speculative interpretations of history. Were you THERE? Did you SEE IT? Then you fall to your own criteria. We're all just a bunch of people attempting to get this right, and accusing someone else of speculation in an attempt at a forming a defeater out of it puts you in danger of the same accusation.

Also, I understand that, in a general sense, God did guide the composition of His scriptures, and revealed in His Son Jesus Christ the key to interpreting them: interpret them through the lense of Christ's death and resurrection. The theologians, mystics, bishops, etc attempt to do this and succeed and fail in varying degrees. Ultimately, the core of the truth has been demonstratably preserved from the Apostolic age until this one, so I have no reason to doubt that it was the revelation of Christ Himself. So YES, God DID tell them how to interpret it.

I was raised Catholic don't think I have no clue
about any of this.

It is good that you have the integrity to own up to your own doubts and confusion.

I'v been in your world view before. I'v seen the world though thoes lenses.

Ummm... I'm not Catholic. So no, you haven't seen the world through my world view. Furthermore, what makes you think your experience with the general christian world view corresponds to mine? Wouldn't that be the fallacy of analogy? Or a false assumption?

Why exactly is it so hard to find God?

There are two responses to this, one is a theodicy, the other is a "short rejoinder." Why is it so difficult to find God? Because God has a good reason not to make Himself evident in a way satisfactory to the majority of contemporary agnostics and atheists. (That's the short rejoinder).

The theodicy is an attempt to explain what that reason might possibly be. The short answer is "because your sin prevents you from seeing Him." The longer answer is because God, if He were to make His presence evident, would be rewarding behavior that warrants no reward. God's presence is not merely a sensory thing - it is an experience. If God were present, we'd have no reason to change our behavior nor to seek Him, and if we are ever to truly repent we must have that sort of desperation displayed by the Publican beating His cheast before God. Easy answers do not create this sort desperation. His absence also preserves free will by granting just enough light for those who wish to see, and just enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.

Finally, God has made Himself manifest and evident to any number of people. Your real question is why He hasn't done so for you - and that isn't a philosophical inquiry - that's a personal call for pain and frustration that is better handled by a priest. I don't know your personal situation nor why you have been unable to find God. I can guarantee you, though, that ceasing to search is the one sure-fire way to make certain you never find.

We are taught we need to go to church in order to be closer to God. It really does make us feel like we are closer doesn't it. With all that visual aid it gives us and the group feeling of purpose.

Again, you are assuming your own experience applies, and are providing a (natural) explanation for something when a spiritual explanation could just as easily suffice. Is it not possible that those feelings have a spiritual dimmension to them? That you feel like you are closer because you ARE closer? How do you KNOW that isn't the correct explanation? Again - only our preconcieved notions about the nature of Church and God would determine which of these two explanations we accept and the issue is a wash.

For the record - I do encounter God in my worship. Perhaps the problem is that you went to a Catholic church and not an Orthodox one? :P

If you look around at the world, you'll see things aren't what they say they are. We are being lied to by thoes in power and its a lie most of us are believing. Thoes in power don't mind. It gives them power over us. It makes us weak and them strong.

That's called paranoia and is better handled by a professional psychiatrist than an interenet forum poster.

Wake up to the world around you.

Wake up to your own hypocrisy!

Agian I say I respect your opinions. I am sorry if i got a little carried away up there. Just trying to start a little critical thinking on the matter at hand.

I would appreciate a critical reply (not a rhetorical one like the small rant you posted) to my critical response. What makes your explanation, your "de jure" attack to borrow Dr. Plantinga's phrase, any more acceptable than my explanation? You haven't provided a single reason for accepting your view, merely asserted it and written some rhetoric explaining the emotional force with which you hold it.

I will offer you this: do not give up your search, even if it takes you far from Christianity. Pursue truth, pursue love, pursue God, and I have faith that He will find you.

Cheers,
Macarius

dollar

2nd August 2007, 01:18 AM

dollar

2nd August 2007, 01:46 AM

How is it stretching for me to look at what the text says and take it at face value? The only thing that could even be seen as stretching is the parallel to Rebekah, but given that there are many times that OT events are foreshadows of NT events, that's really not stretching.

Do you take the whole Bible at face value?

Please notice that only the one definition says that it means the 12 signs of the zodiac while the other one says "probably." what it actually means is not clear. At best these are guesses. Why rely on a guess?
I don't believe its a guess but your right. Why rely on guesses? Your guessing that the world mazzeroth doesn't mean the 12 zodiac signs.
Why do you suppose in many translations of the bible the world mazzeroth is nonexistent? I mean the word was in the original hebrew text.
By the way, who visited Jesus after he was born? The 3 Magi, or shall I say Astrologers!

If nothing you have posted so far has rung at all true, why would I want to spend my time reading though more of the same? I could swim in a sewer because it's something I've never done before, but I'd rather not. There are countless things that I can think of that would be a better use of my time.

Nothing rung true to you huh? Not one bit of the information rang true? Well i'm sorry to hear that.

dollar

2nd August 2007, 01:59 AM

Well despite my better judgment, I read the article you posted, and I have to say that I have never read anything more poorly researched. Just look up the Bible quotes that he mentions. They are so twisted and contorted, and outright changed to make them say what he needs them to say for the sake of his argument. It reminds me of every Watchtower magazine I have ever read.

It is obvious to anyone that reads the Bible, that God created the Heavens and the Earth and as such they are a testimony to Him. It is also obvious that God has given us the sun, and the moon to mark time. Beyond this, everything he said is a stretch at best.
I have not a problem with the God part. Its the Religion part that gets me.
It is quite interesting how the very thing which is supposed to unite all the humans on this earth with God actually seperates.

Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.

dollar

2nd August 2007, 02:12 AM

For the record - I do encounter God in my worship. Perhaps the problem is that you went to a Catholic church and not an Orthodox one? :P

I will offer you this: do not give up your search, even if it takes you far from Christianity. Pursue truth, pursue love, pursue God, and I have faith that He will find you.

Cheers,
Macarius
For the record - I'm a Ukrainian Catholic which is the closest damn thing to Orthodox there is.

Agian i'll leave you with the same thing to think about as I left for someone else:
Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.

rusmeister

2nd August 2007, 06:09 AM

Um This is a bit different than the stuff i'v been asking people to read. In that I haven't been telling people to read 189 page books... Forgive me if I have not the time to read this.
You are trying to solve serious theological questions. You can't hope to do it in soundbite form. (Or else you are not serious about seeing answers that contradict your current views)

I specifically said to read the intro and the first couple of chapters, at which point you will most likely find it interesting enough to continue voluntarily (again, if you are seriously interested).

Other people smarter than you and me have given serious thought to these questions. The answers cannot be arrived at or proved from a few posts. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously and not as nonsense, show that you know and understand the thinking underpinning Christian apologetics. GK Chesterton and CS Lewis are among its best defenders in the modern English-speaking world, thus, I recommend them. The book I pointed to offers excellent reasons to refute paganism (including astrology).

rusmeister

2nd August 2007, 10:19 PM

I have not a problem with the God part. Its the Religion part that gets me.
It is quite interesting how the very thing which is supposed to unite all the humans on this earth with God actually seperates.

Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.
One thing I'd add. You are right about children and Christianity agrees with you 100%.
Maybe there is one faith that really is not a humanized idea...? (That question is what the book addresses.)

dollar

2nd August 2007, 11:55 PM

One thing I'd add. You are right about children and Christianity agrees with you 100%.
Maybe there is one faith that really is not a humanized idea...? (That question is what the book addresses.)

A faith is humanized as long as the ones who wrote, organized, interpreted, and preach it to you are Human.

Children live perfectly close lives to God without any organized human group religion. The one faith which is not humanized is reality, which is something children see and adults dilute. Like I have said before, a child see's reality while an adult see's only what he wants to see.

A Christian child? No. A child is not christian (jewish, muslim, ect..) A child has not a clue what your talking about when you say we are Christian (jewish, ect..) Perhaps we can learn a lesson from them, for they truly are the closest thing to God as we both agree.

But we pound it into our childrens heads over and over: "your a christian, your a christian, your a christ..., your a..." and this plays over and over and over agian in the childs mind Untill it get to the point where finally the child believes he is a Christian and presto!!! We have created another product of human ingenuity of constantly telling them what they are untill they finally believe it themselves. This certainly is not how we become close to God!?!

When will humanity learn its closest to God by being Human. Not being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, ect... But HUMAN. When the day comes that humanity realizes they are all Human is the day peace on the world with God will rule.

Jesus tells us to come as a Child.
You should listen to him...

Sacrum Silentium

3rd August 2007, 01:35 AM

No, not presto. Plenty of people tell themselves repeatedly that they are Christians, but that doesn't mean they are in Christ. The KKK tells themselves they are Christian, that doesn't make them Christian at all.

God never called us to be religious. The Pharisees are a perfect example of religion, and they were known as a brood of vipers to Christ. It's beyond 'religion'.

We have to deny ourselves, pick up our own crosses, and follow Him.

As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Running the marathon ahead of us and imitating the Saints before us.

There is much more to being a Christian than what you're suggesting.

Children are indeed close to God, before theology, apologetics, dogmas, creeds, canons... but, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old (as he grows older), he will not depart from it." It's our own shortcoming when we idolize 'religion' and put it in front of God.

Come to God as a child in childlike faith, in great humility, in the love as a child has for his father, seeking Him as the lost son. God didn't tell us to come to Him ignorant of Who He Is. We are born with a measure of faith and we must seek it out.

Macarius

3rd August 2007, 01:52 AM

For the record - I'm a Ukrainian Catholic which is the closest damn thing to Orthodox there is.

Agian i'll leave you with the same thing to think about as I left for someone else:
Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.
You don't sound Ukranian Catholic to me. You sound like a neo-gnostic.

You refuse to respond to my essential argument that your explanation offers no advantage over mine, and that it is irrelevant to changing either of our a-priori assumptions because which explanation we accept depends entirely on these a-priori assumptions.

Until you respond to that, and either accept that your line of arugmentation is bunk or offer me some reason for why your explanation is inherently superior to mine or why yours doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions... until then, we have nothing more to say to one another.

May God have mercy on us both,
Macarius

dollar

3rd August 2007, 03:31 PM

No, not presto. Plenty of people tell themselves repeatedly that they are Christians, but that doesn't mean they are in Christ. The KKK tells themselves they are Christian, that doesn't make them Christian at all.

Then we sure are creating a lot of false christians by always telling and presuring our children what they should be huh? Although I won't deny, some truly do have the will to be Christians.

God never called us to be religious. The Pharisees are a perfect example of religion, and they were known as a brood of vipers to Christ. It's beyond 'religion'.

Religion is mans attempt to understand and be closer to God as a group. Unfortunantly groups bring along with it human ideas which interfere with actually bringing us closer to God.

We have to deny ourselves, pick up our own crosses, and follow Him.

We need to deny our God - given gift of being ourselves?
God tells us individuality is evil, what is ment by this is don't forget you are connected to this world and universe. Don't get too caught up in yourself, This doesn't mean form a religion and get as many members as possible.
Yes we need to struggle with our own burdens while we follow God, no group is required for this.
We follow God by being what God made us, Human.

As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

To bad most are baptized as a baby and have no idea whats going on. All the baby thinks is thats its getting a bath.

Running the marathon ahead of us and imitating the Saints before us.

Organized Religions of the earth create saints not God.

There is much more to being a Christian than what you're suggesting.

Not really.

Children are indeed close to God, before theology, apologetics, dogmas, creeds, canons... but, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old (as he grows older), he will not depart from it." It's our own shortcoming when we idolize 'religion' and put it in front of God.

If children are indeed close to God why do they need to be taught how to be close to God?

Come to God as a child in childlike faith, in great humility, in the love as a child has for his father, seeking Him as the lost son. God didn't tell us to come to Him ignorant of Who He Is. We are born with a measure of faith and we must seek it out.
Like I said before children see reality while adults see only what they want to see.

The child see's a cloud as part of God - The adult see's a man in the clouds who watches everything they do.

The child see's nature as part of God - The adult see's nature as something the man in the clouds created

The child see's humans as humans - The adult see's humans as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect...

The child see's life as a gift - The adult see's life as a privilege

Who is more correct here?

Children are here as a reminder of what we are and were we came from. When we see children it reminds us we were once like them. We see how a child is first created through physical sex and we remember we were also. Saying that a man molded you in his hands and placed you in your mothers stomach is completely agianst God and the natural cycle he has put in place. Get a hold of yourself and get a grip on reality. We are separating ourselves from God by taking up the beliefs of man made human religions. Looking at children helps us see who we are and where we came from. Then we all remember we are all just part of this cycle of life which God put into motion...

dollar

3rd August 2007, 04:24 PM

You don't sound Ukranian Catholic to me. You sound like a neo-gnostic.

You refuse to respond to my essential argument that your explanation offers no advantage over mine, and that it is irrelevant to changing either of our a-priori assumptions because which explanation we accept depends entirely on these a-priori assumptions.

Until you respond to that, and either accept that your line of arugmentation is bunk or offer me some reason for why your explanation is inherently superior to mine or why yours doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions... until then, we have nothing more to say to one another.

May God have mercy on us both,
Macarius
Why my explanation is superior to yours?
Let me tell you what you believe:
There's a invisible man in the clouds who watches everything you do. He has a list of 10 things you cannot do. If you do any of these 10 things he has a special place for you to spend eternity full of fire and buring and death. But he loves you...

My belief doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions. Its the belief that everyone comes into this world with as a child which is God and nature. We have all agreed here that a child is the closest thing to God. So my belief is that of a child which makes my belief closest to God and not diluted by human ideas.

Your belief depends on the word of other humans and wether you will take their word as true or not. Its not like if you were living in a remote place with no contact to society that you would have a Bible to read from. These things are all products of society. You are distancing yourself from God by believing in these products of society.
Think about it.

Macarius

3rd August 2007, 06:01 PM

Why my explanation is superior to yours?
Let me tell you what you believe:
There's a invisible man in the clouds who watches everything you do. He has a list of 10 things you cannot do. If you do any of these 10 things he has a special place for you to spend eternity full of fire and buring and death. But he loves you...

Keep burning those strawmen. You haven't a clue what I believe, and your charicature here is unappreciated. Do you think this will convince anyone?

My belief doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions.

That's quite the a-priori assumption. Do you know what an a-priori assumption is? For the record, everyone's opinion depends on a-priori assumptions. For example, you ASSUME your sensory perceptions are capable of conveying truth to your brain and that your brain is capable of interpreting them. We don't take the religious convictions of a dolphin very seriously, so you assume (as do I) that the human brain is somehow more capable of theological conviction than a dolphin, or that our brains have more theological capability, or that God has revealed something to humans which dolphins aren't aware of or aren't capable of being aware of (this is my view).

Its the belief that everyone comes into this world with as a child which is God and nature. We have all agreed here that a child is the closest thing to God. So my belief is that of a child which makes my belief closest to God and not diluted by human ideas.

Re-asserting your belief doesn't make it true nor does it make it any superior to mine. I'm not saying I've given you any reason to adopt my worldview, just that, so far, you've given me absolutely none to adopt yours, and since you started this thread, the onus of proof is on you.

Your belief depends on the word of other humans and wether you will take their word as true or not.

And yet you take as true all those speculative scholars. Last time I checked they were human.

Furthermore, it's not like this is blind faith. I have faith in God because of what I know of God, and there are many sources of knowing. Yes - testimony is part of it. Why shouldn't it be? We accept human testimony for any number of things which we hold with tremendous conviction - things we haven't personally seen. Further, there is my own experience of God in prayer and the sacraments. That's unassailable because while you may attempt to explain it away, we will once again only be offering alternative possibilities to one another, and I will accept mine because it fits better with my experience, and you yours because it fits better with yours. See? A wash.

Its not like if you were living in a remote place with no contact to society that you would have a Bible to read from.

Seriously. I'm freakin ORTHODOX. This is my line! :P

I'm aware that there is an element of tradition. Obviously that isn't a problem for my epistomology. In fact, I take it as a matter of faith that God has preserved, through His action by the Holy Spirit, the Truth revealed by His Son and Word, Jesus Christ, and that the Church is the repository of that faith once delivered to all the saints, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Is there something problematic about that to you? Isn't that at the least, logically possible for an all powerful God to do? In fact, if you were God, wouldn't it make sense to reveal the truth to humanity and then preserve it eternally in the successors to those to whom you revealed it? That in itself isn't an argument, but I'm asking you to grant that my explanation is internally consistent and plausible.

These things are all products of society. You are distancing yourself from God by believing in these products of society.
Think about it.

You are also a product of society. To think otherwise is silliness. Why should I accept your product of society over the venerable and ancient product of society which I happen to believe is inspired by God, something which is confirmed by my own experience?

I would say that you are distancing yourself from God by pridefully thinking yourself better than the Truth revealed in His Son and handed down from Apostle to successor.

In Christ,
Macarius

dollar

3rd August 2007, 08:23 PM

Keep burning those strawmen. You haven't a clue what I believe, and your charicature here is unappreciated. Do you think this will convince anyone?

This was not intended to cause any hurt, just thought.
Forgive me, but you are Christian and this is what most christians believe. Although indeed sometimes hurt is a necessary part of growing.

That's quite the a-priori assumption. Do you know what an a-priori assumption is? For the record, everyone's opinion depends on a-priori assumptions. For example, you ASSUME your sensory perceptions are capable of conveying truth to your brain and that your brain is capable of interpreting them. We don't take the religious convictions of a dolphin very seriously, so you assume (as do I) that the human brain is somehow more capable of theological conviction than a dolphin, or that our brains have more theological capability, or that God has revealed something to humans which dolphins aren't aware of or aren't capable of being aware of (this is my view).

Well my belief isn't an a-priori assumption, so whats all this talk. You assume by reading a book written by man that it convey's the truth to you.

Re-asserting your belief doesn't make it true nor does it make it any superior to mine. I'm not saying I've given you any reason to adopt my worldview, just that, so far, you've given me absolutely none to adopt yours, and since you started this thread, the onus of proof is on you.

It is superior just for that fact that it isn't just a produt of society or an ancient tradition passed on from years ago. The belief is that of one a child has when it first enters the world. This belief is based off of no prior knowledge, just closness to God.

And yet you take as true all those speculative scholars. Last time I checked they were human.

I didn't take as truth what the speculative scholars say. I take the truth as that which is free of human influence.

Furthermore, it's not like this is blind faith. I have faith in God because of what I know of God, and there are many sources of knowing. Yes - testimony is part of it. Why shouldn't it be? We accept human testimony for any number of things which we hold with tremendous conviction - things we haven't personally seen. Further, there is my own experience of God in prayer and the sacraments. That's unassailable because while you may attempt to explain it away, we will once again only be offering alternative possibilities to one another, and I will accept mine because it fits better with my experience, and you yours because it fits better with yours. See? A wash.

So you say you have experienced God. Very well but I just want you to be sure its really God and not your mind playing tricks on you. Sometimes if we believe something so much it can become reality for us. Give it thought.

Seriously. I'm freakin ORTHODOX. This is my line! :P

I'm aware that there is an element of tradition. Obviously that isn't a problem for my epistomology. In fact, I take it as a matter of faith that God has preserved, through His action by the Holy Spirit, the Truth revealed by His Son and Word, Jesus Christ, and that the Church is the repository of that faith once delivered to all the saints, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Very well

Is there something problematic about that to you? Isn't that at the least, logically possible for an all powerful God to do? In fact, if you were God, wouldn't it make sense to reveal the truth to humanity and then preserve it eternally in the successors to those to whom you revealed it? That in itself isn't an argument, but I'm asking you to grant that my explanation is internally consistent and plausible.
If I were God i'd make truth be what life is not a book be what truth is. Why? Just because not everyone can get a hold of the book, or have time to read it, or have interest in books, in fact some people hate to read. So why put it into a book? I don't know. Also its not like books were around forever...

You are also a product of society. To think otherwise is silliness. Why should I accept your product of society over the venerable and ancient product of society which I happen to believe is inspired by God, something which is confirmed by my own experience?

very well, but my belief still lies oustide of being a product of society because its the belief we first come into this world with.

I would say that you are distancing yourself from God by pridefully thinking yourself better than the Truth revealed in His Son and handed down from Apostle to successor.

In Christ,
Macarius
very well.

dollar

3rd August 2007, 08:34 PM

nutroll

3rd August 2007, 08:49 PM

This was not intended to cause any hurt, just thought.
Forgive me, but you are Christian and this is what most christians believe. Although indeed sometimes hurt is a necessary part of growing.

Then go talk to those Christians about this.

Well my belief isn't an a-priori assumption, so whats all this talk. You assume by reading a book written by man that it convey's the truth to you.

No we don't.

It is superior just for that fact that it isn't just a produt of society or an ancient tradition passed on from years ago. The belief is that of one a child has when it first enters the world. This belief is based off of no prior knowledge, just closness to God.
So you are close to God and we are not? And how have you managed to maintain the beliefs of a child if you were raised Ukrainian Catholic. Presumably you must have lost it during that time.

I didn't take as truth what the speculative scholars say. I take the truth as that which is free of human influence.

Are you not human?

So you say you have experienced God. Very well but I just want you to be sure its really God and not your mind playing tricks on you. Sometimes if we believe something so much it can become reality for us. Give it thought.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

If I were God i'd make truth be what life is not a book be what truth is. Why? Just because not everyone can get a hold of the book, or have time to read it, or have interest in books, in fact some people hate to read. So why put it into a book? I don't know. Also its not like books were around forever...

You're not God, and so what you think God could, should, or would do has no bearing. Our beliefs are not contained in a book. They are an experience of the living God. Many great things are written down for the edification of the faithful, both in the Bible, and in the writings of the Holy Fathers. One does not need to be able to read to be an Orthodox Christian.

very well, but my belief still lies oustide of being a product of society because its the belief we first come into this world with.

I hate to break it to you, but there is no belief that is not a product of society. Everything one believes is either an affirmation of or denial of something they have observed, heard, seen, or otherwise encountered. The question is whether one has belief in something that is true or false. That applies as much to you as to any of us.

Sacrum Silentium

4th August 2007, 01:07 AM

Then we sure are creating a lot of false christians by always telling and presuring our children what they should be huh? Although I won't deny, some truly do have the will to be Christians.

I was never pressured into being or believing anything. How I found God, or how He found me, was completely outside of anything someone 'programmed' into my mind.

Religion is mans attempt to understand and be closer to God as a group. Unfortunantly groups bring along with it human ideas which interfere with actually bringing us closer to God.
So tell me how to get close to God.

We need to deny our God - given gift of being ourselves?
We need to deny our base passions that are born from sinful carnality and self-exaltation and strive for theosis, the state of being before the fall of man.
God tells us individuality is evil, what is ment by this is don't forget you are connected to this world and universe. Don't get too caught up in yourself, This doesn't mean form a religion and get as many members as possible.
Yes we need to struggle with our own burdens while we follow God, no group is required for this.
We follow God by being what God made us, Human.
Tell me what you think being a human is, and how we follow God in doing so.

To bad most are baptized as a baby and have no idea whats going on. All the baby thinks is thats its getting a bath.
Grace is beyond intelligence. What we think is of no concern, grace imparts the death and resurrection in baptism, not what a child, or what anyone, thinks.

Organized Religions of the earth create saints not God.
My God established a Church which creates Saints.

If children are indeed close to God why do they need to be taught how to be close to God?

Acts 8:30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
8:31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

Like I said before children see reality while adults see only what they want to see.
Clearly you are an adult.

The child see's a cloud as part of God - The adult see's a man in the clouds who watches everything they do.

The child see's nature as part of God - The adult see's nature as something the man in the clouds created

The child see's humans as humans - The adult see's humans as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect...
God is Spirit, everywhere present and filling all things. It was actually when I was a child that I believed there was some man in the clouds.

Children are here as a reminder of what we are and were we came from. When we see children it reminds us we were once like them. We see how a child is first created through physical sex and we remember we were also. Saying that a man molded you in his hands and placed you in your mothers stomach is completely agianst God and the natural cycle he has put in place. Get a hold of yourself and get a grip on reality. We are separating ourselves from God by taking up the beliefs of man made human religions. Looking at children helps us see who we are and where we came from. Then we all remember we are all just part of this cycle of life which God put into motion...[/quote]

Psalms 139:13-16: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

So tell me, what God do you believe in? Tell us about the God you worship.

dollar

4th August 2007, 03:05 AM

My God established a Church which creates Saints.

So tell me, what God do you believe in? Tell us about the God you worship.

AH HA!!! There it is.!
My God, your God, his God, her God. This is what is causing all the chaos on this little planet of ours. God is just God there is no alternative. Its just God!!!

What God I worship? I worship the God of all religions for they are all pointing to the same supreme being. The difference being these religions take the shall we say 'spiritual' and make it into whatever they want it to be. I believe God is nature, he makes the whole system of the universe work, we are all products of what he set in motion. God's works are within the Natural realm.

Its a fact many humans tend to call anything they don't understand to be 'one their God's mysteries' because if they do not understand something they feel they need to fill a void so they can go on with life feeling they understand everything. Religion is the big void filler of our time. Notice as science advances less and less things religion has to jump on and say its God. Religions intentions are sometimes really truly noble attemps to reach God but they are barking up the wrong tree.
I argue that fact that science is understanding God because it studies nature and "reveals" God to us.

Although I have nothing agianst the Bible at all. There are valuable lessons to learn in it. Some take the Bible all symbolic. Some take it completely literal. Although some take part of the Bible literal and part of it symbolic. You can't do that, you either take it literal or symbolic. Its not like in the story they have sections where it says "ok this is symbolic section and this is a literal section of events which really took place." It doesn't work like that, it reads as all one continuous story.
I believe the whole Bible is symbolic.
There are great symbolic teachings in it if you only read it as symbolic.

Think about it you get more out of Eve had a conflict going on in her mind, she was talking to herself about what to do, but her lower self convinced her to make the wrong choice which had great consequences for her and the ones she loved later in life THAN the snake talked Eve into eating the fruit which got both her and Adam in trouble.

Thoes who take the Bible literally often miss valuable lessons and it ends up causing harm instead. Example: The Crusades

rusmeister

4th August 2007, 03:11 AM

Guys, this isn't a real debate. This is just a parody of a debate.

A real debate is reasoned answers to reasoned propositions. If neither side can agree on the most basic assumptions, the debate is over.

If only they would learn this in GT...

nutroll

4th August 2007, 10:22 AM

I'm curious as to why everyone has avoided telling me what they think of this little matter:

Ancients noticed the Sun moves south during winter, gets to a point where the sun stops moving south but also didn't move back north either for 3 days. They said the sun died for 3 days. When the Sun started moving north agian they said it ressurected from the dead. This "ressurection" of the sun after it "died" for 3 days happend on December 25th. They said the Sun was the salvation of the world because it was risen. The Sun is on the cross of the zodiac.

Please somebody tell me why this parallel's the Passion story so much.
First of all, do you have a source for this that isn't one of the ridiculously researched ones that you've been peddling here? Second, others have addressed whether it makes sense to equate sun with son. Third, others have addressed that Jesus was not crucified or resurrected on December 25. So I guess it has been responded to enough to match the level of evidence you have seen fit to supply us with.

nutroll

4th August 2007, 10:49 AM

AH HA!!! There it is.!
My God, your God, his God, her God. This is what is causing all the chaos on this little planet of ours. God is just God there is no alternative. Its just God!!!
We believe in one God. That was just a shorthand way of saying the actual God/ the thing you think is God but is a distortion of God. You know, the way you have been talking, but just flipped around. The thing that you point out in your very next sentence.

What God I worship? I worship the God of all religions for they are all pointing to the same supreme being. The difference being these religions take the shall we say 'spiritual' and make it into whatever they want it to be. I believe God is nature, he makes the whole system of the universe work, we are all products of what he set in motion. God's works are within the Natural realm.

By picking and choosing what you will believe from all the different religions, you are worshiping yourself. You are making a God in your own image, based on what you think God should be, and then worshiping that. Besides, I thought your God had nothing to do with society. But wait a minute. How many of the world religions believe that God is nature? Not a whole lot. So you don't really worship the God of all religions, you just think that all religions are faulty because they go beyond what you want to believe.

Its a fact many humans tend to call anything they don't understand to be 'one their God's mysteries' because if they do not understand something they feel they need to fill a void so they can go on with life feeling they understand everything. Religion is the big void filler of our time. Notice as science advances less and less things religion has to jump on and say its God. Religions intentions are sometimes really truly noble attemps to reach God but they are barking up the wrong tree.

We don't call anything we don't understand one of 'God's mysteries.' What God has not revealed to us, He has not revealed to us. We don't make up what we think God is or isn't, that would be another forum, not TAW. There might be other religions that "fill voids" but not Orthodoxy. I don't know what you are trying to say about science advancing less and less. Again, your a priori assumption is that all religions are equal and that if one religion is barking up the tree that all must be.

I argue that fact that science is understanding God because it studies nature and "reveals" God to us.

I think that science can help us understand the universe around us, and that insofar as this universe was created by God, it can tell us some things about the Creator of the World. I don't, however, agree with you that God is nature, so I think the knowledge of God that it brings is indirect rather than direct knowledge of God.

Although I have nothing agianst the Bible at all. There are valuable lessons to learn in it. Some take the Bible all symbolic. Some take it completely literal. Although some take part of the Bible literal and part of it symbolic. You can't do that, you either take it literal or symbolic. Its not like in the story they have sections where it says "ok this is symbolic section and this is a literal section of events which really took place." It doesn't work like that, it reads as all one continuous story.
I believe the whole Bible is symbolic.
There are great symbolic teachings in it if you only read it as symbolic.

Your contention that you can't take parts of the Bible literally and part of it symbolically is wrong. Though there are not passages that say that the following section is an allegory, there are sometimes indications within the text as to what was intended. As Orthodox, we also have the combined wisdom of the Church Fathers to help us understand what was intended in any given passage. The Bible is not a text book, nor is it a work of fiction. It was written by men who wrote in the style of their times. Sometimes this was heavily influenced by symbolism, other times not so much. The Bible also does not read as a continuous story. Your assertion that it does shows that you have not read it. There are many great teachings in the Bible if you take it literally as well.

Think about it you get more out of Eve had a conflict going on in her mind, she was talking to herself about what to do, but her lower self convinced her to make the wrong choice which had great consequences for her and the ones she loved later in life THAN the snake talked Eve into eating the fruit which got both her and Adam in trouble.

Do you really think that most Christians think the story of Adam and Eve is a story about some snake causing problems for people by way of an apple? We all understand what we can learn from that story. We don't need you to tell us what it means. Just because one believes that a story is literally true does not mean that it loses all of its symbolic meanings as well.

Thoes who take the Bible literally often miss valuable lessons and it ends up causing harm instead. Example: The Crusades

The Crusades has nothing to do with taking the Bible literally, but even if it does, that has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. The only way that we were involved in the Crusades was by having Constantinople sacked. Again, you are assuming that a literalistic reading of the Bible (which is not what our Church does) precludes any meaning beyond the surface level. This is a false assumption.

dollar

4th August 2007, 03:09 PM

First of all, do you have a source for this that isn't one of the ridiculously researched ones that you've been peddling here? Second, others have addressed whether it makes sense to equate sun with son. Third, others have addressed that Jesus was not crucified or resurrected on December 25. So I guess it has been responded to enough to match the level of evidence you have seen fit to supply us with.
Is wikipedia a credible source!?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice

Sun gets to its most southern point around winter solstice, stays at its most southern point for about 3 days, then starts to raise north.
vs
Ancients noticed the Sun moves south during winter, gets to a point where the sun stops moving south but also didn't move back north either for 3 days. They said the sun died for 3 days. When the Sun started moving north agian they said it ressurected from the dead. This "ressurection" of the sun after it "died" for 3 days happend on December 25th. They said the Sun was the salvation of the world because it was risen. The Sun is on the cross of the zodiac.
vs
Jesus died on the cross, was entombed for 3 days, then ressurected.

Now tell me, why does this parallel the story of the passion?

nutroll

4th August 2007, 03:41 PM

Wikipedia is not generally considered a credible source, but even still, only one group of "ancients" is said to have believed that the sun "died" and "resurrected" according to that article, and it was the Western Slavs who would have had no bearing on the formation of the Biblical texts. Where is your evidence that the people who wrote the NT thought the sun died and then resurrected?

And again, your line of reasoning assumes that the only possible reason that Jesus could have spent 3 days in the tomb is because it is parallel. Now first of all, Jesus died late in the day, spent one full day in the tomb, and then rose on the 3rd day, he didn't spend 3 full days in a tomb, so it isn't really even as parallel as you are claiming. What if Jesus was a real person who really died, and rose from the dead on the third day? What would it matter if it paralleled anything? It only matters if it is a made up story to begin with.

dollar

4th August 2007, 04:06 PM

We believe in one God. That was just a shorthand way of saying the actual God/ the thing you think is God but is a distortion of God. You know, the way you have been talking, but just flipped around. The thing that you point out in your very next sentence.
My God is still free of human influence which tends to always distort the true meaning of God.

By picking and choosing what you will believe from all the different religions, you are worshiping yourself. You are making a God in your own image, based on what you think God should be, and then worshiping that. Besides, I thought your God had nothing to do with society. But wait a minute. How many of the world religions believe that God is nature? Not a whole lot. So you don't really worship the God of all religions, you just think that all religions are faulty because they go beyond what you want to believe.

I do not worship myself. I don't know how you get this out of reading what I typed. Your religion makes God in your image, I don't believe the popular belief that God made us literally in his image. I believe he made us in his consciousness. Agian things written in the Bible are being taken way to literal. God is what God is, society has their own agenda which moves us away from God. I don't worship God, I honor him for being so great and giving me this gift of life. My God has nothing to do with society. No not a lot think that God is nature but it is what everyone in the end will return to after we die which makes my God the same God as all the religions of the world. You just think my belief is faulty because it goes beyond what you want to believe.

We don't call anything we don't understand one of 'God's mysteries.' What God has not revealed to us, He has not revealed to us. We don't make up what we think God is or isn't, that would be another forum, not TAW. There might be other religions that "fill voids" but not Orthodoxy. I don't know what you are trying to say about science advancing less and less. Again, your a priori assumption is that all religions are equal and that if one religion is barking up the tree that all must be.
You follow the Bible, its a void filler written by the hands of men. When did I say science advanced less and less? I said the more science advances the less things religion has to say is shall w