Religion

[Jenyar]

M*W: No, Jenyar, YOU are the one who twists the meanings of things! Even atheists have a philosophy about God, and it
doesn't include religion.

There are two options: philosophy about the God of a certain religion, or philosophy about a philosophical god-construct. The latter isn't a religion only because nobody thinks that god exists. They used to, though: it was Zeus and his daughter, the nine muses. Atheists either include religion implicitly, or they reject religion explicitly, in which case they're left without a god. They could adopt a personal god, like yours, but that requires a lot of "dancing" - as you call it - to stay outside the boundaries of religion while doing what religion does best.

You are truly blinded by the light of Christianity! Jesus was a Jew, therefore, Christianity is the Antichrist! Dance around that!

Flawless logic, indeed. Abraham was a Semite, does that make his children antisemitic? How does being for Christ make us anti-Christ?

Where does your definition of antichrist even come from?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: This is what YOU SAID, Jenyar:

"M*W, no matter how you try to twist it: philosophy about God = religion."

Then, you danced around your post until you came up with this explanation:

"There are two options: philosophy about the God of a certain religion, or philosophy about a philosophical god-construct. The latter isn't a religion only because nobody thinks that god exists."

So, what are you trying to say after all that dancing around your first statement? That you were in ERROR?

And what was your purpose to include a link about Zeus? More dancing around the subject?

"They used to, though: it was Zeus and his daughter, the nine muses."

Then you dance a little faster and include your definition of atheists:

"Atheists either include religion implicitly, or they reject religion explicitly, in which case they're left without a god. They could adopt a personal god, like yours, but that requires a lot of "dancing" - as you call it - to stay outside the boundaries of religion while doing what religion does best."

Then you dance around Abraham:

"Flawless logic, indeed. Abraham was a Semite, does that make his children antisemitic? How does being for Christ make us anti-Christ?"

Even though this has been addressed many times before on this forum, you still don't get it. When anyone replies to one of your posts, you put on your tap shoes and go to town!

And for an encore, you said:

"Where does your definition of antichrist even come from?"

My definition of antichrist is anyone or anything that is not of Christ, as was Jesus who was a Jewish Rabbi, Paul from Tarsus CREATED the myth of Jesus the Messiah, and I see that as antichrist, too. Jesus was NOT a christian and would NOT have wanted his people to be anything but Jews, therefore, christianity is the antichrist. The NT is also the book of the antichrist. And even I am an antichrist! Get it now??? I doubt it. Go ahead and believe the lies, who cares?

 

[Jenyar]

Unless you can prove that Paul from Tarsus wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I don't know how you can seriously hold that view.

Read my lips: "philosophy about God = religion". You know who my God is, and who I was talking about. I don't believe in a philosophical God, I believe in a historical God. You made exactly the mistake I was talking about: automatically associating "God" with a certain version of him - in this case, yours. Now I ask you, what is the difference between your philosophies about a "powerful force of pure positive energy", and religion?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar: Unless you can prove that Paul from Tarsus wrote the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I don't know how you can seriously hold that view.
*************
M*W: From The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby

"We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament."
*************
Jenyar: Read my lips: "philosophy about God = religion". You know who my God is, and who I was talking about.
*************
M*W: There's only one god, so who's YOUR god?
*************
Jenyar: I don't believe in a philosophical God, I believe in a historical God.
*************
M*W: LOL, now I've heard it all! An "historical" God! Prove that your God exists and is an historical God!
*************
Jenyar: You made exactly the mistake I was talking about: automatically associating "God" with a certain version of him - in this case, yours.
*************
M*W: Everyone has their own image of what God means to them -- or they don't have an image at all. Are you implying that anyone who doesn't understand YOUR concept of God is wrong? Then you're a hypocrite. (But we already knew that). The God YOU believe in is the the same God that Jesus believed in. Again, you're a hypocrite.
*************
Jenyar: Now I ask you, what is the difference between your philosophies about a "powerful force of pure positive energy", and religion?
*************
M*W: The difference is it's about science -- not religion. The God of science CAN be proven. The God of religion CANNOT.

 

[Jenyar]

M*W: From The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby

"We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul's letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus' activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament."

What he's talking about is the priority of extant manuscripts. I don't see where he proves Pauline influence in the gospels yet. Maybe you should quote some more.

M*W: There's only one god, so who's YOUR god?

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There are more gods, but none of them really exist. Yours only exists as a scientific force - in which case I still wonder why you're not content to call it a scientific force, but insist on spiritualising it. Has any science ever proved a spiritual realm?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar: What he's talking about is the priority of extant manuscripts. I don't see where he proves Pauline influence in the gospels yet. Maybe you should quote some more.
*************
M*W: Dancing again? You haven't read Maccoby's book, but you're surely quick to decry it.
*************
Jenyar: The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. There are more gods, but none of them really exist.
*************
M*W: How can you be so sure they don't exist? You can rightfully say that they don't exist in YOUR mind, but you cannot say they don't exist. That's ONLY your perception. Maybe other people in the world perceive different concepts of the one god. You said you belive in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Again, you are lying! You believe Jesus was god, and you believe in trinity -- three gods in one! So, you don't really believe in the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- that was the ancient pre-Hebrew god -- the Elohim (plural gods). The elohim probably included Lucifer as well or his dominions. Since Abraham was the first patriarch noted to conceive the one-god theory, this is actually a Muslim belief. Abraham, too, was the father of Islam. Therefore, you must be part-Muslim.
*************
M*W: From The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby:

"In Pauline Christianity, on the other hand, the gnosis which the saviour brings is nothing but the knowledge of the saving power of his own death. He functions as a sacrifice, but only if the initiate is aware of his sacrificial power and shares, by 'faith', in the saviour's sacrificial experience. This idea is derived wholly from the mystery cults, in which precisely the same mystery of sharing in the death and resurrection of the deity was central."

"This explains why the Gnostic Christians were condemned as heretics, for they could never accept this sacrificial aspect of Pauline salvation doctrine, the aspect derived from the mystery cults. For them, Christ was a bringer of secret knowledge, not a sacrificial figure. They therefore denied that he ever died on the cross, saying that this was mere appearance; consequently, their heresy was known as 'Docetism', from a Greek word meaning 'to appear' or 'to seem'. The Gnostics, with their radical opposition between spirit and matter, could not accept that Christ was material enough to undergo a sacrificial experience; that would argue that he had truly become flesh, for only the flesh could undergo such real suffering. But for Paul, it was essential that Christ should be a real sacrifice, not just a seeming one. Otherwise, the burden of sin, for which all mankind deserved death, could not be rolled away. Consequently, Christ had to be made sufficiently material to undergo such a death. The descent into matter of the divine saviour was part of both myths; but for the Gnostics, this descent was sacrifice enough and was undertaken only because the imparting of [/I]gnosis would be impossible without it. But for Paul, with his mind full of sacrificial imagery, with his conviction of the saving power of the shedding of blood and the undergoing of torture (derived from his youthful experience of the horrific Attis cult), such bloodless imparting of secrets was unsatisfying. There had to be a cosmic agony to answer to the agony of his own soul. He therefore turned from the sophistication and intellectuality of the Gnostics to the primitive imagery of the mystery cults, derived from prehistoric rites of human sacrifice."6 [6: Of course, there were other factors also leading to the condemnation of the Gnostics as heretics: their rejection of the Old Testament as the work of the Demiurge, their rejection of the divine origin of the world, and, generally, their extreme cosmid dualism. Their Christology, however, was the most obviously heretical consequence of this extreme dualism].
*************
Jenyar: Yours only exists as a scientific force - in which case I still wonder why you're not content to call it a scientific force, but insist on spiritualising it. *************
M*W: Up until recently, I saw god as a spiritual force, even though I have always had a perception of god as a powerful force of positive energy. I clung to the 'spiritual' explanation, because I "wanted to believe" in a spiritual explanation. However, I now understand the One Spirit of God that dwells in all creation is nothing more than your garden variety of atomic energy that is our life force. If looking at god in this concept seems 'spiritual', perhaps that's to be decided by individual perception. I have now fine-tuned my perception to realize that what I thought was 'spiritual' was nothing more than scientifically explained atomic energy. I still like to think of "god" as a pure force of positive energy. Physics, however, was not my stong suit, so the explanations I've derived at came somewhat late in life. Had I been a more proficient student in the physical sciences, I may have come to this conclusion much sooner.
*************
Jenyar: Has any science ever proved a spiritual realm?
*************
M*W: Yes, the recent discovery of the DMT "spiritual molecule" found in that part of the brain that is identified with hallucinogenic visions and revelations. This is also the part of the brain that is stimulated to "speak in tongues." These things aren't spiritual in the least! They are simple manifestations of the human brain. Perhaps in early humans this area was triggered by stimulation somehow perhaps by including animal protein in the diet. We know that when animal protein was included in the diets of early man, his brain grew in size, and I would suspect became more developed. Then, at that point in our evolution, the spiritual molecule developed as early man tried to explain the magnificance of the universe as they saw it (sun, moon and stars), the objects over which they had no control. That which was greater than them, they feared and awed. From early man to the man on the moon (last century), the desire to understand that which is beyond our immediate universe will continued to be pursued with fear and awe until we conquer it.

 

[§outh§tar]

MW:

Trinity is not three gods in one. That is such a silly, tired argument that critics make. I suggest reading the Bible, from whence is the doctrine of Trinity.

In any case, it certainly is more logical than a "powerful force of positive energy". Honestly speaking, most people think you are full of crap but they only tolerate you because you like to congratulate anyone who rejects God.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§our§tar: MW: Trinity is not three gods in one. That is such a silly, tired argument that critics make. I suggest reading the Bible, from whence is the doctrine of Trinity.
*************
M*W: I have read the bible, and at a more ignorant stage of my life, I was a good, bible believing christian. There is doubt that the trinity is discussed in the bible. At one time, I too, believed in the trinity, but now I know it's impossible to look at it through the eyes of a christian.
*************
SourStar: In any case, it certainly is more logical than a "powerful force of positive energy". Honestly speaking, most people think you are full of crap but they only tolerate you because you like to congratulate anyone who rejects God.
*************
M*W: Yeah, right! There is NOTHING more logical than science. You know, I don't care what "most people think." I am not here to win friends and live up to everyone else's expectations. Just like the message you christians bring, I have a message that I'm bringing to people, and I will continue to do so until the flames of christianity die out. I'm not asking for anyone's "toleration." I could care less. However, by the numbers of PMs I get daily by people asking me to explain more about my beliefs, I have no fear that they don't think what I say is "full or crap." The whole idea of a christian god needs to be rejected. It's so 2000 years ago. You people are the ones who don't know what god is, and now you're freaking out because I say science can prove the existence of an archaic god! Wazza matter, you afraid of science bursting your brainless bubble? If I rejected god, I would say I rejected god, but I've never said that. You read with blinded eyes. That's a serious affliction. So, you obviously don't know the truth. Stay in dreamland you sinner.

 

[§outh§tar]

§our§tar: MW: Trinity is not three gods in one. That is such a silly, tired argument that critics make. I suggest reading the Bible, from whence is the doctrine of Trinity.
*************
M*W: I have read the bible, and at a more ignorant stage of my life, I was a good, bible believing christian. There is doubt that the trinity is discussed in the bible.

If you have the tolerance and patience to inspect the Scriptures, you will see that each Person of the Trinity is referred to as God and yet there is a consistent belief by the same penmen that there is but ONE God.

Whether or not you believe in the Trinity is a different thing, but whether or not the Trinity is described in the NT is of course, left to the NT texts as I showed in the earlier paragraph.

*************
SourStar: In any case, it certainly is more logical than a "powerful force of positive energy". Honestly speaking, most people think you are full of crap but they only tolerate you because you like to congratulate anyone who rejects God.
*************
M*W: Yeah, right! There is NOTHING more logical than science. You know, I don't care what "most people think." I am not here to win friends and live up to everyone else's expectations. Just like the message you christians bring, I have a message that I'm bringing to people, and I will continue to do so until the flames of christianity die out. I'm not asking for anyone's "toleration." I could care less. However, by the numbers of PMs I get daily by people asking me to explain more about my beliefs, I have no fear that they don't think what I say is "full or crap." The whole idea of a christian god needs to be rejected. It's so 2000 years ago. You people are the ones who don't know what god is, and now you're freaking out because I say science can prove the existence of an archaic god! Wazza matter, you afraid of science bursting your brainless bubble? If I rejected god, I would say I rejected god, but I've never said that. You read with blinded eyes. That's a serious affliction. So, you obviously don't know the truth. Stay in dreamland you sinner.

Sorry to burst your bubble but science isn't what you believe it to be.

You can't use the scientific method to answer questions such as "Did George Washington live?" or "Was Bill Clinton president?". As such is the case, why don't you then logically deem the scientific method to be illogical because it is unable to answer such a question?

It simply makes no sense, therefore, to conclude that if science is unable to prove it, then it cannot be.

As for the Christian God being "so 2000 years ago", I can only shake my head sadly at you for believing that if an idea is from 2000 years ago, then it cannot be true. Such a statement makes no sense whatsoever, for in saying so then you deny all of science as well since science as we know it builds on theories more than 2000 years old.

As for not caring what most people think, you lie, for I have seen you many times saying "I agree" to anyone who denounces Christianity regardless of whether both critics contradict each other. This is another inconstistency.

And lastly, why should I "freak out" because you say science can prove God. As the truth is self attesting, this is no matter to fret over and why should I fear?

Moreover, the science that you so stubbornly tout cannot prove your so-called "pure postive energy" and yet you still believe in it. What inconsistency!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§our§tar: If you have the tolerance and patience to inspect the Scriptures, you will see that each Person of the Trinity is referred to as God and yet there is a consistent belief by the same penmen that there is but ONE God.

SourStar: Whether or not you believe in the Trinity is a different thing, but whether or not the Trinity is described in the NT is of course, left to the NT texts as I showed in the earlier paragraph.
*************
M*W: Please cite specific scriptures that mention the trinity.
*************
SourStar: Sorry to burst your bubble but science isn't what you believe it to be.

You can't use the scientific method to answer questions such as "Did George Washington live?" or "Was Bill Clinton president?". As such is the case, why don't you then logically deem the scientific method to be illogical because it is unable to answer such a question?
*************
M*W: It doesn't require scientific method to prove GW lived or BC was president. History does that for us. History cannot even prove Jesus lived nor can history prove that Jesus died or was resurrected. Science cannot prove that either. It simply cannot be proven. If you have proof, I urge to you publish it. You would become a very rich man!
*************
SourStar: It simply makes no sense, therefore, to conclude that if science is unable to prove it, then it cannot be.
*************
M*W: You are talking about a religious man who supposedly lived 2000 years ago. History, at least, should be able to prove Jesus lived, but history has been unable to do so. I doubt that science could prove anything either. However, I do believe science or quantum physics will be able to prove a "god" concept. But when this happens, and I feel it will be very soon, you xians won't believe it, and you'll go right on believing that God is an old man with a long white beard who sits on clouds and throws lightning bolts at us unworthy humans. This is the xian concept of God. I don't give a rat's ass what you all believe. I don't believe it anymore.
*************
SourStar: As for the Christian God being "so 2000 years ago", I can only shake my head sadly at you for believing that if an idea is from 2000 years ago, then it cannot be true. Such a statement makes no sense whatsoever, for in saying so then you deny all of science as well since science as we know it builds on theories more than 2000 years old.
*************
M*W: Human thought processes evolve over time -- they mature beyond the fear and awe of some ancient myth created by heretics.
*************
SourStar: As for not caring what most people think, you lie, for I have seen you many times saying "I agree" to anyone who denounces Christianity regardless of whether both critics contradict each other. This is another inconstistency.
*************
M*W: There is no inconsistency here. I am an antichristian, and I will always denounce christianity as long as I live! When I read that others denounce christianity, I commend them, because they have deconverted from christianity -- the first step necessary to find the one true God.
*************
SourStar: And lastly, why should I "freak out" because you say science can prove God. As the truth is self attesting, this is no matter to fret over and why should I fear?

Moreover, the science that you so stubbornly tout cannot prove your so-called "pure postive energy" and yet you still believe in it. What inconsistency!
*************
M*W: Science can and has proven the existence "pure positive energy." I believe this is what god is. There is no need to anthropmorphize this energy. Call it spirit if you want. That's what I called it for a long time, but I see it more clearly now, yet, I still don't see myself as an atheist. I believe in the power of the universe, and I am part of it. That makes humanity and all of creation (Nature) God. You don't have to believe what I believe, but what I believe is as real to me as your concept of God is real to you. My god can be explained by science, but your's cannot. That's the difference.