8 of 9
8
Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Posted: 04 July 2013 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  570
Joined  2013-06-01

Dougsmith Post # 104

This material is largely false, Mike. Sanskrit is not the mother of western languages. Proto-Indo-European is. Neither was India the mother of western philosophy. That came from Greece, as did notions of self government and democracy. And the notion that Sanskrit is somehow particularly suited to computer programming is risible. (I studied Sanskrit, BTW, and appreciate it as a great language).

I understand what you are saying. And I think it would be great if we knew for sure that all the information we read was correct and 100% true. That no history or science books would ever have to be rewritten, just add to. Do you think we are there?

How in the world did you find time to study Sanskrit. I’m still working on English.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2013 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  570
Joined  2013-06-01

GdB Post #105

C’mon. No natural language is suitable as computer language at all.


I agree with you completely. But I think what they were referring to is some languages have male and female rules and some use vowels and double consonants and not base on pure phonics. I don’t know if Sanskrit is pure phonics, but Doougsmith would know.

But if i had to use a language that what i would look for. Programers make up their own language, like basic, colbot, C+ and so on.

[ Edited: 04 July 2013 07:34 AM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2013 07:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  570
Joined  2013-06-01

Capt’n Jack and Scott.

Let me put down ten of my top thoughts on the subject and see if you agree.

Thought One

The cradle of civilization is Israel and Jordan according to archaeologists of the 1950’s.

If you are not willing to accept that as fact today, then there is a flaw in archaeology or archaeology is a study that accepts new theories.

George Willcox, an archaeologist at the CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) in France, commenting on the Zagros Mountain 12,000 year old wheat find in this July’s science journals says there is the possibility that agriculture emerged from one region further back in time and that crop cultivation is even older than these ancient human settlements suggest. The thing that’s most astounding is that it extends the Fertile Crescent much farther east for the early agricultural sites, which are dated to 11,500 to 11,000 years ago.

Now let’s stop here. Mr. Willcox is a top person in this field. What he is saying is that they don’t yet have all the answers and they are still looking for pieces of the puzzle?

And it is a real possibility that domestication of agriculture emerged from one region. And that one region has not been found yet. And that region is much older than any of the sites they have today and the search is pointing east.

Thought Two

Today there are four areas, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and Yellow River. Note most thinking today is that India is much older than the Yellow River but a lot of science work needs be to done to confirm.

Our knowledge base stared with Egypt then moved to Israel and Jordan, then Mesopotamia and is just now scratching the surface in India and not really stared in the Yellow River area at this time.

Thought Three

What are the most important common factors to me about the cradle of civilization?

1.  A method to obtain protein.
2.  Methods to store protein.
3.  A method to track and distribute protein.

The teeth and bones will show us if the cradles had good protein intake. Egypt did not always have enough protein. Bones leading up to plagues show a lack in protein and afterwards the bones show an increased protein. This indicates a limit on the amount of protein the cradle is able to raise.

Thought Four

Now just about every garden and orchard food can be DNA traced back to India. Every specialty dogs along with cows and horses also can be traced back to India. Sugar cane and cotton, the list goes on and on. We could call it the cradle of domestication of animals and plants.

You could ask, why aren’t the scientists thinking this same way? The answer is a lot of them do. 

I just finished reading a white paper on the potato. The question was did the European potato come from India and not South America. That was because India also had potatoes. After the DNA testing, it surprised them to find the India potato was from South America.  But now it brings up the question of how the potato got to India. The chicken from India got as far as Easter Island.

I had read another white paper about the Yams from South America traveling to South Asian Islands. Once at the island for some time the Yams developed enough differences that they could be tested and identified to one island and then they could follow the migration of the Yams. 

Thought Five
Where’s the footprint?

Domestication should leave a foot print like the foot prints of the domestication of corn in Mexico or potatoes in South America.

Those foot prints are not in Egypt or Mesopotamia. This is no different than the evolution of man leaving a footprint of evolving.

Point being - in using the same concepts that has been used in the archaeology of Mesopotamia. I have grass in my lawn, science shows that grass is related to wild grass in the hills close to me. So that proves that I domesticated my lawn grass from the wild grasses growing close to me. Or there is another new theory out, that I may have imported the seeds from the supply store in town. So how would you go about proving which theory is true?

Thought Six
Domestication skills

Could India be the Cradle of Domestication?

For the theory to work would mean after the population bottleneck in 71K BC there was an island of people in India who over tens of thousands of years developed farming skills to a level that has not been reach until modern times. 

Is that possible?  Are there any other examples?

Now I would like to jump to Holland where they were very good at growing new varieties of tulips. At times one tulip bulb would sell for the price of a new house. More valuable by weight than gold. The tulip bulbs sold all over Europe and you could find tulips all over Europe but the skill for growing new varieties was only in Holland and not the rest of Europe. 

The best example in modern times would be the metal working skills of Germany. For many generations the metal working of Ruhr Valley was past down from father to son. At the turn of the twenty century Germany was the world leader in metal working. The industrial machines that were manufactured in Germany could not be matched anywhere else in the world. Anyone who knows anything about factories back then would have wanted to be connected to Germany just like Henry Ford. 

It was decided after WWII that the only way to stop Germany from being a power again was to strip the Ruhr Valley of all the machinery. The equipment was fought over by all the allies. German machinery is still prized in American factories today.

Germany’s lathes, mills and boring machines have been copied by all industrial countries. The only country that had any success at even coming close to German quality was Switzerland with the small Jig Bore machines. Not even Germany today can manufacture the quality of the Ruhr machinery. Today the factories are using a different type of equipment that is computer operated. The old German machinery if properly maintained is looking like having a life span of one to three hundred years. American copies are the next best in the world. They get thirty to fifty year’s tops. Factories figure after ten years they have limit their use do to tolerance errors.

The Metal Tradesmen of Germany developed a skill that is now considered lost to mankind for ever as a working trade skill. 

Thought Seven

The watermelons, melons and cumbers were out of Asia. But their wild plants were out of Africa.

Same with cotton, cotton came out of Central Africa as a wild plant to India and was domesticated into a useful plant and then travel back to Africa (Egypt) to be used in production.

So what plants did Egypt domesticate?

What plants did Mesopotamia domesticate?

I know Mesopotamia is credited with grains. But if they had the skills for grains they would have had the skills for many other plants, yet we do not see that.

What I think most likely happened is Mesopotamia bought seeds from India.

I think it is real possible that for thousands of years farmers in India did breeding of plants and animals. They search the world for plants to work with.

It is known that the house mouse developed in India, there was more than enough food for the people.

Thought Eight
Egypt

The recipe for domestication must require long periods of stable farming, like in Egypt and India.

Egypt had rebalancing of the land ownership every 25 to 30 years. And all animals and field crops were valued by the tax system. A good horse had the same value as a bad horse; all horse had the same value, government controlled and the same with crops. We do the same thing today with milk and eggs, government controlled and the price is always stable.

Thought Nine
Mesopotamia

I think Mesopotamia was to close to India and didn’t need to have domestication, just as farmers today do not develop their own seeds, they buy them. 

Thought Ten
Why then if India was that good didn’t they expand their empire?

We know they moved west and north out of India and their technology also move east.

Their religion was not one that endorsed conquering other lands.

If at one time they searched for plants and animals and did trade afar they may have had major set backs like in the Americas from diseases.

[ Edited: 05 July 2013 12:21 PM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2013 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15355
Joined  2006-02-14
MikeYohe - 04 July 2013 07:16 AM

I understand what you are saying. And I think it would be great if we knew for sure that all the information we read was correct and 100% true. That no history or science books would ever have to be rewritten, just add to. Do you think we are there?

How in the world did you find time to study Sanskrit. I’m still working on English.

Did it while working on my doctorate.

Our information will never be 100% true, but our knowledge of the history of Sanskrit, western languages and philosophy are pretty good. There are quite a few data points.

[ Edited: 04 July 2013 09:01 AM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2013 11:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 110 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
MikeYohe - 03 July 2013 02:28 PM

Albert Einstein said: We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.

(Reminder to self: Never use Einstein in a quote!!)
I think Einstein’s opinions are too inappropriately used for everything…especially when they are irrelevant to his profession.

MikeYohe - 03 July 2013 02:28 PM

Mark Twain said: ...

French scholar Romaine Rolland said: ...

I could go on for pages. All I am saying, where there is smoke there is fire. I just wanted to show you this is nothing new.
Mike

“Fiction writing is great. You can make up almost anything.”
- Ivana Trump, on finishing her first novel

“Smoking kills. If you’re killed, you’ve lost a very important part of your life.”
- Brooke Shields, during an interview to become spokesperson for a federal anti-smoking campaign. One of the worst celebrity quotes ever.
     
“If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.”
- Dan Quayle, former U.S. Vice President
     
“So, where’s the Cannes Film Festival being held this year?”
— Christina Aguilera

“I have opinions of my own—strong opinions—but I don’t always agree with them.”
- George Bush

“They misunderestimated me.”
- George W Bush, Bentonville, Ark., (Nov. 6, 2000)

“If it weren’t for electricity we’d all be watching television by candlelight.”
- George Gobel

“Traditionally, most of Australia’s imports come from overseas.”
- Keppel Enderbery, Former Australian cabinet minister

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2013 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 111 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  570
Joined  2013-06-01

Christina Aguilera wrote a book? Surprised. I thought Burlesque was a really good film.

Scott and Capt’n Jack, i was just now able to get back and I updated Post #108

As far and the Quotes, i was just showing that the thinking was not new, sort of the smoke and fire thinking. I never would put any weight behind the quotes.

[ Edited: 05 July 2013 11:44 AM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2013 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 112 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Jackson - 30 June 2013 04:39 PM
Greatest I am - 31 May 2013 09:01 AM

Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?


Regards
DL

I wouldn’t call it egotistical because they are thinking He dies for everyone’s sins for all time.
Bonkers—yeah.

The question of how do sacrifices work is never explained clearly and usually sidestepped with a “God is a mystery”  kind of answer….

Bonkers is a good word as well.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2013 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 113 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
PLaClair - 01 July 2013 01:24 PM

Replying to the opening post: Let’s not overlook the layers and layers of assumptions embedded in the narrative. Taken just in the element listed in our topic title, the narrative of Jesus’ willing sojourn to earth and his willing sacrifice of his own life is a beautiful story about how sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of one. Of course the story is egotistical, at many levels: in order to have any positive moral impact, Jesus has to be seen as an example, so the story invites us to project ourselves into the person and character of God. But on the other hand, the narrative invites us to do what is right no matter what the cost may be to ourselves. That’s not the problem with the narrative.

The problem is all the background - the other parts of the story - and the depth of its flaws depends on the particular way in which the story is told. For example, if the story begins with an omnipotent, omniscient and loving god creating the universe and having the power to do anything he decides to do, then of course the story makes no sense, and the “sacrifice” is completely gratuitous. If the purpose of God’s coming to die is to save us from eternal torment in a hell God supposedly created, that’s another crippling problem. If the idea is that we can only be saved if we accept God’s offer of salvation - else our debt of sin remains unpaid, and a “just” God could not have us in heaven under those circumstances - then there’s no accounting for why most of the world never heard the story for many centuries after these miraculous things supposedly happened.

Those are fatal problems with the narrative. But let’s not lose sight of the symbolic message that appeals so strongly to so many people. If you ignore the details, it’s a beautiful story. We need to stop reacting in knee-jerk fashion to this sort of thing, do a better job understanding why its appeal is so powerful, and see the dignity in that response to the story.

Dignity!?
More like insanity if the story is analysed as written.

It resonates with some,——- as preached,——because they only look at it from their self-centered position and not the position of all the players.

If you were to re-write the story from what scriptures say, that God chose to SEND Jesus,——no volunteering here,——- even before man and the ability to sin were created and that makes that God quite insane from the beginning.

So there are quite a few fatal problems for the prick of a God shown in the bible.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2013 01:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 114 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 06:25 AM

Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

The modern interpretation of Jesus’ Salvation is insincere to the original: the original idea is that Jesus’ Salvation represented the recreation of paradise that was lost to the sin of mankind to want to have the knowledge of the gods (curiosity and wisdom apparent to humanity and civilization over other animals.) In reference to this original meaning, Jesus was understood to be the literal messiah from the earlier Old Testament who was to come at the end of times and re-incarnate the dead. Obviously, the end of time did not occur and to make sense of it to their followers, they ad hocked the idea that really, the end was there but Jesus had to die so that he could create and manage heaven, with God. He ‘saved’ mankind from eternal death. He only ‘died’ as a man. His sacrifice was only understood with the assumption that if he was God’s messiah, how is it possible that he was capable of even being put to death by mere humans? Therefore, his death must have been destined by God the way it has for some uncertain reason. So it was presumed that he, Jesus, must have known of his impending death and the physical suffering and apparent misunderstanding of his dying to himself was symbolically meant to demonstrate the true nature of his sacrifice. He was, to them, absorbing the sin that man caused in the story of Adam and Eve….not ordinary everyday sins by individuals. He released the curse of death.

Sacrifice to many people today is just giving up something that you have of value to someone else. This is insincere as a marker for sacrifice even though it gets a lot of attention. “Donald Trump donates $10,000 to ...” some charity. A real sacrifice, by comparison would be a poor woman who gives her last $10 to a Donald Trump for a cause she finds more important than her own need to eat for the next day or so. Sacrifice is also the proof of one’s love for each other. It’s a warning sign in a relationship if one does not naturally demonstrate a means to sacrifice something so valuable of themselves that they themselves cannot go without suffering.

That was the point of Abraham and Isaac. The willingness to sacrifice one’s first son represented the highest possible risk one can imagine at the time. Obviously, Abraham’s God was only testing whether he had absolute loyalty, trust, and love for God. The story was a means to demonstrate to the Jews that he is not as vain to necessitate one to go through with an extreme sacrifice that may have been more common in those days. It could be symbolic. You can ‘sacrifice’ a cow, but there is no need to burn it to charcoal. You can just do an initial symbolic sacrifice, then cook it, and eat it too.

Yes. Many rewards are offered to believers who will line up to profit from God’s murder of his innocent son instead of the guilty.
Quite immoral that but that is ignored by those who have sold their souls to Satan.

And while believers are in their self-gratifying glee, they ignore the fact that sons should bury their fathers and not have fathers bury sons.

This is why Christians have developed a double standard of morals. One for God that exonerates that prick’s sins and one for man whom they condemn for the same sin.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2013 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 115 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 09:22 AM
MikeYohe - 02 July 2013 07:18 AM

Scott, you have said it the best I have ever heard. I like the part, “the sin of mankind to want to have the knowledge of the Gods”. Great! Knowledge is Power.

But I am not sure about the reason of Jesus’ work. I have read where the soil needed to be purified before the planting of a new seed. I think Jesus was sent to do that and get Israel ready for Gnostic teachings. He had to get rid of the inherited sin.

Missing from the bible is the main body of Jews in Egypt. And the fact during the destruction of the Temple after the death of Jesus, Jews from Egypt were part of the force against Israel.

The Gnostic concepts were already there in Egypt before Christianity. The Christians there adapted to the local standards by creating or recreating a version acceptable to the locals. Religious Gnosticism is just the fallout from the birth of writing that helped form Hinduism, for example. But it transitional areas where many people travel through to go somewhere else, as Egypt was, had a multicultural exposure in population. Because of this, I’d imagine the common denominator to businesses back then was to be accepting the differences of belief. So if you wanted to encourage interest and appeal, the best strategy would have been to create mystery to a secret truth that can only be revealed by yourself!! Some of these people may have been the source of the original Gypsies. And if you’ve been fooled by one, you’ve been “gypped”.

Anything written was held of significant meaning. The original transients would have collected them, have them parsed to be universal to any beliefs, and eventually used them as proof to the crowds of substantial truth. Some of these texts were Christian related and served to represent “a secret knowledge that requires your continued investment to discover.” Perhaps these stories (The New Testament) were developed for the original audiences of Egyptian tourists and tradesmen. And the Pauline versions were later adapted by a salesman who’d just come from their and wants to create business up north.? It seems reasonable. [Oh…I just left a second ago to take a trip in my time machine. Yeah…it’s true!]

Jesus wasn’t likely real. We know him as, “Jesus Christ.” But that was a title, not a name.  It was likely that the original Greek did have meaning contrary to what some say. The function of words was extremely important and a meaningless name would not sell. The fairest interpretation has to provide meaning. The closest one that seems relevant is that Jesus was adopted from Je Zeus literally, The Zeus meaning generally, “The God” or “I am God”. With “Christos” meaning one who is anointed or crowned, which implied that he was a Caesar or King of man. So Jesus Christ = “God’s King to mankind” which is the same as claiming that he is the savior or messiah. It fits with the meaning of the Hebrew, Joshua as well.

During these early days, the Jews were being dispersed by the Romans from Israel due to the upheaval and wars. The destruction of the Temple was the means to crush them for good. But it lived on in the diaspora. Locally, in hostile territories, some Jews found it tactical to survive by recreating their religion to be more adaptable to the locations they were in. It was likely a literal blow-back conspiracy by a group of real men and women who used their own fake testimonies to foster a favoritism for the Jewish beliefs and customs. The original conspirators would probably be surprised at its success. One interesting thing that I do find rather suspicious is the lack of criticism to Christianity by religious Jews even today. It makes me wonder if they have written acknowledgement of such a plan within Israel hidden somewhere safe? (I assure you, I’m not anti-Semitic! I do question the State of Israel, however.)

This I found interesting and compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE

Kudos on your good knowledge of the history of my religion.
I am a Gnostic Christian and esoteric ecumenist.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2013 05:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 116 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Greatest I am - 07 July 2013 12:50 PM
PLaClair - 01 July 2013 01:24 PM

Replying to the opening post: Let’s not overlook the layers and layers of assumptions embedded in the narrative. Taken just in the element listed in our topic title, the narrative of Jesus’ willing sojourn to earth and his willing sacrifice of his own life is a beautiful story about how sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of one. Of course the story is egotistical, at many levels: in order to have any positive moral impact, Jesus has to be seen as an example, so the story invites us to project ourselves into the person and character of God. But on the other hand, the narrative invites us to do what is right no matter what the cost may be to ourselves. That’s not the problem with the narrative.

The problem is all the background - the other parts of the story - and the depth of its flaws depends on the particular way in which the story is told. For example, if the story begins with an omnipotent, omniscient and loving god creating the universe and having the power to do anything he decides to do, then of course the story makes no sense, and the “sacrifice” is completely gratuitous. If the purpose of God’s coming to die is to save us from eternal torment in a hell God supposedly created, that’s another crippling problem. If the idea is that we can only be saved if we accept God’s offer of salvation - else our debt of sin remains unpaid, and a “just” God could not have us in heaven under those circumstances - then there’s no accounting for why most of the world never heard the story for many centuries after these miraculous things supposedly happened.

Those are fatal problems with the narrative. But let’s not lose sight of the symbolic message that appeals so strongly to so many people. If you ignore the details, it’s a beautiful story. We need to stop reacting in knee-jerk fashion to this sort of thing, do a better job understanding why its appeal is so powerful, and see the dignity in that response to the story.

Dignity!?
More like insanity if the story is analysed as written.

It resonates with some,——- as preached,——because they only look at it from their self-centered position and not the position of all the players.

If you were to re-write the story from what scriptures say, that God chose to SEND Jesus,——no volunteering here,——- even before man and the ability to sin were created and that makes that God quite insane from the beginning.

So there are quite a few fatal problems for the prick of a God shown in the bible.

Regards
DL

Stop insisting on seeing the whole picture at once, and not seeing it any other way. Many Christians aren’t any more self-centered about this than anyone else, in fact many of them use the story of Jesus’ resurrection to inspire them to altruism. We can point out that the story doesn’t fit together logically. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t any dignity in what many Christians draw from the story. We can critique them but let’s not insist on seeing it as we see it. They see it as they see it - which is not to say that the story, taken literally and as a whole makes sense, but that’s not necessarily how they look at it. And it’s clearly not insanity. It’s just the age-old phenomenon of people seeing what they want to see and ignoring the rest.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2013 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 117 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Greatest I am - 07 July 2013 01:08 PM
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 06:25 AM

Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

The modern interpretation of Jesus’ Salvation is insincere to the original: the original idea is that Jesus’ Salvation represented the recreation of paradise that was lost to the sin of mankind to want to have the knowledge of the gods (curiosity and wisdom apparent to humanity and civilization over other animals.) In reference to this original meaning, Jesus was understood to be the literal messiah from the earlier Old Testament who was to come at the end of times and re-incarnate the dead. Obviously, the end of time did not occur and to make sense of it to their followers, they ad hocked the idea that really, the end was there but Jesus had to die so that he could create and manage heaven, with God. He ‘saved’ mankind from eternal death. He only ‘died’ as a man. His sacrifice was only understood with the assumption that if he was God’s messiah, how is it possible that he was capable of even being put to death by mere humans? Therefore, his death must have been destined by God the way it has for some uncertain reason. So it was presumed that he, Jesus, must have known of his impending death and the physical suffering and apparent misunderstanding of his dying to himself was symbolically meant to demonstrate the true nature of his sacrifice. He was, to them, absorbing the sin that man caused in the story of Adam and Eve….not ordinary everyday sins by individuals. He released the curse of death.

Sacrifice to many people today is just giving up something that you have of value to someone else. This is insincere as a marker for sacrifice even though it gets a lot of attention. “Donald Trump donates $10,000 to ...” some charity. A real sacrifice, by comparison would be a poor woman who gives her last $10 to a Donald Trump for a cause she finds more important than her own need to eat for the next day or so. Sacrifice is also the proof of one’s love for each other. It’s a warning sign in a relationship if one does not naturally demonstrate a means to sacrifice something so valuable of themselves that they themselves cannot go without suffering.

That was the point of Abraham and Isaac. The willingness to sacrifice one’s first son represented the highest possible risk one can imagine at the time. Obviously, Abraham’s God was only testing whether he had absolute loyalty, trust, and love for God. The story was a means to demonstrate to the Jews that he is not as vain to necessitate one to go through with an extreme sacrifice that may have been more common in those days. It could be symbolic. You can ‘sacrifice’ a cow, but there is no need to burn it to charcoal. You can just do an initial symbolic sacrifice, then cook it, and eat it too.

Yes. Many rewards are offered to believers who will line up to profit from God’s murder of his innocent son instead of the guilty.
Quite immoral that but that is ignored by those who have sold their souls to Satan.

And while believers are in their self-gratifying glee, they ignore the fact that sons should bury their fathers and not have fathers bury sons.

This is why Christians have developed a double standard of morals. One for God that exonerates that prick’s sins and one for man whom they condemn for the same sin.

Regards
DL

You’re missing the point that Jesus didn’t actually “die”—an eternal concept of non-existence. His sacrifice was his human suffering and torture upon his human death, not the dying itself. He lives on in God’s domain, heaven. So, at least according to Christians, he didn’t commit suicide and nor did God kill him.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 July 2013 08:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 118 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Greatest I am - 07 July 2013 01:14 PM
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 09:22 AM

The Gnostic concepts were already there in Egypt before Christianity. The Christians there adapted to the local standards by creating or recreating a version acceptable to the locals. Religious Gnosticism is just the fallout from the birth of writing that helped form Hinduism, for example. But it transitional areas where many people travel through to go somewhere else, as Egypt was, had a multicultural exposure in population. Because of this, I’d imagine the common denominator to businesses back then was to be accepting the differences of belief. So if you wanted to encourage interest and appeal, the best strategy would have been to create mystery to a secret truth that can only be revealed by yourself!! Some of these people may have been the source of the original Gypsies. And if you’ve been fooled by one, you’ve been “gypped”.

Anything written was held of significant meaning. The original transients would have collected them, have them parsed to be universal to any beliefs, and eventually used them as proof to the crowds of substantial truth. Some of these texts were Christian related and served to represent “a secret knowledge that requires your continued investment to discover.” Perhaps these stories (The New Testament) were developed for the original audiences of Egyptian tourists and tradesmen. And the Pauline versions were later adapted by a salesman who’d just come from their and wants to create business up north.? It seems reasonable. [Oh…I just left a second ago to take a trip in my time machine. Yeah…it’s true!]

Jesus wasn’t likely real. We know him as, “Jesus Christ.” But that was a title, not a name.  It was likely that the original Greek did have meaning contrary to what some say. The function of words was extremely important and a meaningless name would not sell. The fairest interpretation has to provide meaning. The closest one that seems relevant is that Jesus was adopted from Je Zeus literally, The Zeus meaning generally, “The God” or “I am God”. With “Christos” meaning one who is anointed or crowned, which implied that he was a Caesar or King of man. So Jesus Christ = “God’s King to mankind” which is the same as claiming that he is the savior or messiah. It fits with the meaning of the Hebrew, Joshua as well.

During these early days, the Jews were being dispersed by the Romans from Israel due to the upheaval and wars. The destruction of the Temple was the means to crush them for good. But it lived on in the diaspora. Locally, in hostile territories, some Jews found it tactical to survive by recreating their religion to be more adaptable to the locations they were in. It was likely a literal blow-back conspiracy by a group of real men and women who used their own fake testimonies to foster a favoritism for the Jewish beliefs and customs. The original conspirators would probably be surprised at its success. One interesting thing that I do find rather suspicious is the lack of criticism to Christianity by religious Jews even today. It makes me wonder if they have written acknowledgement of such a plan within Israel hidden somewhere safe? (I assure you, I’m not anti-Semitic! I do question the State of Israel, however.)

This I found interesting and compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE

Kudos on your good knowledge of the history of my religion.
I am a Gnostic Christian and esoteric ecumenist.

Regards
DL

I’m not sure how Atwill’s theory fit. The only initial response from me without hearing his argument is that he proposes a conspiracy of the Roman’s, not the diaspora Jews trying to be accepted, as I was proposing. At first, I am a little confused by how the Roman’s Flavian family would choose to invest in creating a religion founded on the Jews rather than their own Roman gods.

Which did you find “interesting and compelling”...what I said or what Atwill says or both? I’m not sure if you were being facetious or sincere?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2013 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 119 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
PLaClair - 07 July 2013 05:27 PM
Greatest I am - 07 July 2013 12:50 PM
PLaClair - 01 July 2013 01:24 PM

Replying to the opening post: Let’s not overlook the layers and layers of assumptions embedded in the narrative. Taken just in the element listed in our topic title, the narrative of Jesus’ willing sojourn to earth and his willing sacrifice of his own life is a beautiful story about how sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of one. Of course the story is egotistical, at many levels: in order to have any positive moral impact, Jesus has to be seen as an example, so the story invites us to project ourselves into the person and character of God. But on the other hand, the narrative invites us to do what is right no matter what the cost may be to ourselves. That’s not the problem with the narrative.

The problem is all the background - the other parts of the story - and the depth of its flaws depends on the particular way in which the story is told. For example, if the story begins with an omnipotent, omniscient and loving god creating the universe and having the power to do anything he decides to do, then of course the story makes no sense, and the “sacrifice” is completely gratuitous. If the purpose of God’s coming to die is to save us from eternal torment in a hell God supposedly created, that’s another crippling problem. If the idea is that we can only be saved if we accept God’s offer of salvation - else our debt of sin remains unpaid, and a “just” God could not have us in heaven under those circumstances - then there’s no accounting for why most of the world never heard the story for many centuries after these miraculous things supposedly happened.

Those are fatal problems with the narrative. But let’s not lose sight of the symbolic message that appeals so strongly to so many people. If you ignore the details, it’s a beautiful story. We need to stop reacting in knee-jerk fashion to this sort of thing, do a better job understanding why its appeal is so powerful, and see the dignity in that response to the story.

Dignity!?
More like insanity if the story is analysed as written.

It resonates with some,——- as preached,——because they only look at it from their self-centered position and not the position of all the players.

If you were to re-write the story from what scriptures say, that God chose to SEND Jesus,——no volunteering here,——- even before man and the ability to sin were created and that makes that God quite insane from the beginning.

So there are quite a few fatal problems for the prick of a God shown in the bible.

Regards
DL

Stop insisting on seeing the whole picture at once, and not seeing it any other way. Many Christians aren’t any more self-centered about this than anyone else, in fact many of them use the story of Jesus’ resurrection to inspire them to altruism. We can point out that the story doesn’t fit together logically. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t any dignity in what many Christians draw from the story. We can critique them but let’s not insist on seeing it as we see it. They see it as they see it - which is not to say that the story, taken literally and as a whole makes sense, but that’s not necessarily how they look at it. And it’s clearly not insanity. It’s just the age-old phenomenon of people seeing what they want to see and ignoring the rest.

So to you, willful delusion is not a form of insanity, and we should not look at the big picture before trying to say that it is good to profit from the murder of an innocent man to see that that is immoral.

You sound like a pathetic Christian with a double set of standards.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 July 2013 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 120 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  604
Joined  2011-08-10
Scott Mayers - 07 July 2013 07:58 PM
Greatest I am - 07 July 2013 01:08 PM
Scott Mayers - 02 July 2013 06:25 AM

Re: Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?

The modern interpretation of Jesus’ Salvation is insincere to the original: the original idea is that Jesus’ Salvation represented the recreation of paradise that was lost to the sin of mankind to want to have the knowledge of the gods (curiosity and wisdom apparent to humanity and civilization over other animals.) In reference to this original meaning, Jesus was understood to be the literal messiah from the earlier Old Testament who was to come at the end of times and re-incarnate the dead. Obviously, the end of time did not occur and to make sense of it to their followers, they ad hocked the idea that really, the end was there but Jesus had to die so that he could create and manage heaven, with God. He ‘saved’ mankind from eternal death. He only ‘died’ as a man. His sacrifice was only understood with the assumption that if he was God’s messiah, how is it possible that he was capable of even being put to death by mere humans? Therefore, his death must have been destined by God the way it has for some uncertain reason. So it was presumed that he, Jesus, must have known of his impending death and the physical suffering and apparent misunderstanding of his dying to himself was symbolically meant to demonstrate the true nature of his sacrifice. He was, to them, absorbing the sin that man caused in the story of Adam and Eve….not ordinary everyday sins by individuals. He released the curse of death.

Sacrifice to many people today is just giving up something that you have of value to someone else. This is insincere as a marker for sacrifice even though it gets a lot of attention. “Donald Trump donates $10,000 to ...” some charity. A real sacrifice, by comparison would be a poor woman who gives her last $10 to a Donald Trump for a cause she finds more important than her own need to eat for the next day or so. Sacrifice is also the proof of one’s love for each other. It’s a warning sign in a relationship if one does not naturally demonstrate a means to sacrifice something so valuable of themselves that they themselves cannot go without suffering.

That was the point of Abraham and Isaac. The willingness to sacrifice one’s first son represented the highest possible risk one can imagine at the time. Obviously, Abraham’s God was only testing whether he had absolute loyalty, trust, and love for God. The story was a means to demonstrate to the Jews that he is not as vain to necessitate one to go through with an extreme sacrifice that may have been more common in those days. It could be symbolic. You can ‘sacrifice’ a cow, but there is no need to burn it to charcoal. You can just do an initial symbolic sacrifice, then cook it, and eat it too.

Yes. Many rewards are offered to believers who will line up to profit from God’s murder of his innocent son instead of the guilty.
Quite immoral that but that is ignored by those who have sold their souls to Satan.

And while believers are in their self-gratifying glee, they ignore the fact that sons should bury their fathers and not have fathers bury sons.

This is why Christians have developed a double standard of morals. One for God that exonerates that prick’s sins and one for man whom they condemn for the same sin.

Regards
DL

You’re missing the point that Jesus didn’t actually “die”—an eternal concept of non-existence. His sacrifice was his human suffering and torture upon his human death, not the dying itself. He lives on in God’s domain, heaven. So, at least according to Christians, he didn’t commit suicide and nor did God kill him.

Then there was no acceptance of a sacrifice and none are saved.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I have argued against what you see as the common Christian view. The quote above is where I start.

God, the fool, condemned his own son even before creating the conditions for sin.
He is insane.

Regards
DL

Profile
 
 
   
8 of 9
8