Name:vvk •
Title: 2000 YEARS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS THE BEST TO ANSWER ALL.? •
Date posted: 04/25/07 6:22
Q: Don't You think so?
Whatever You say, whatever You think , base on Your belive or Bible is still could not prove it. It's not easy bring physical evidence to public. It's the best answer to all . Is that right?
Whatever You belive in is alway right for You. But do not apply those theories to the others. Every single one of us will has a chance to know the truth , very very truth when we die. do not misunderstand about Jesus and his lovely family. after 2000 long years. now the light show that to all.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/26/07 2:24
A: I believe the evidence has shed light on this matter and the truth will set us free.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/26/07 17:57
A: "It's not easy bring physical evidence to public. It's the best answer to all . Is that right?"
Actually no, if we all had physical proof God existed, then everybody would believe for the wrong reason. The idea why God doesn't show himself is kind of tied into why God created Satan knowing he'd turn on him. We all have freewill, we have the choice to love God or not. If he showed himself, then it wouldn't be true love. There has to be temptation to show love. Temptation with the apple in the beginning, we failed and have to live with the consequences. Temptation now with Satan, if you pass then you truly love God, if you fail then you love Satan so you can live with him. But don't forget why we have a second chance at this. Thanks to Jesus, the only way to heaven.
I have no idea what your saying in the rest of your post.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/27/07 4:40
A: Is satan, lucifer, a descriptive word or a name? In what context are these words or names used? Are they literal beings or descriptive metaphors of leaders or nations? Or are they a level of force for balance?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/27/07 13:32
A: Shlomo,
References to Lucifer can be found in a website about Angelolgy.Satan can be used descriptively or as evil personafied.I don't believe in Satan but I do believe that Lucifer plays his hand in human affairs.Somewhere the two names became interchangable.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/27/07 13:54
A: There is a website called Beliefnet that has alot of good stuff on it.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/27/07 14:14
A: Steliart.com is a really good website for Angelology if you want to do more research.I believe physical and spiritual proof is all around us every day.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/27/07 18:07
A: Panluna,
Thanks for responding on this topic, you can check in your new bible,
this will help give you a stronger basis for your conviction.
Believe it or not there is no devil or satan or lucifer, nor an embodiment of evil that tempts us. It is part of a later creation [ Christianity ]. There are many examples of the word being used as adversaries [satans]. I Sam. 29:4 [princes], II Sam.19:23 [Zeruiah] Zechariah 3:1-2 [Samaritans], In Job satan [ prosecuting attorney ] is a literary or teaching tool for the moral of the story, in other words the moral of the story is about negative impulses and positive impulses [ evil & good ]. There is no power to rival G_D. All of his creation are obedient servants. In Yeshayahu 14:12 it refers to the King of Babylon [ the prophet avoided using the main deity name of Ishtar ] instead used the Latin term Lucifer [ shining one, son of dawn, the morning star ]. You will find there is no devil or lucifer beings in the Torah/Tanach.
Name:Elizabeth •
Date: 04/27/07 18:36
A: Hi Shlomo,
Are we not part of His creation?
"All of his creation are obedient servants."
Is this not a bit of a stretch?
Except for Jesus, it's hard to find another period were greater miracles from God were performed than in the days of Moses- in which the people witnessed. Yet, didn't Moses have to make several trips up the mountain for the commandments? Not to mention the prophets like- Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc.
Shlomo- I tell you the truth, we're just not that good. (Lucky He loves us.)
Blessings, ED
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/27/07 20:08
A: Elizabeth,
It is not a streach. You took that sentence out of context, when it is said that "all of His creation are obedient servants" means there is no other rival to G_D, no other person, god, entity, force etc. is equal to or rival to His power, nothing can stand up to Him. In a manner of speaking, from the time a child is born without sin, that child is obedient up till the time the child gets older, not talking about the normal discipline phases, then the yetzer hara [ evil inclination ] starts to influence the child to commit sin or any type of criminal act. The young person needs to learn how to control or balance between the yetzer hara and the yetzer hatov [ good inclination ].
My opinion is that the reason crime is high is due in part to the person allowing his/her yetzer hara to take full and absolute control over their thinking processes to the point that the yetzer hatov is so minute, it becomes negligible [ i.e. serial killers etc. ]. But this does not mean that the soul given to that person is any less knowledgable about right or wrong. The person has only depleted the effectiveness of his neshamah [ spiritual soul ], but maintains the ruach [ thinking soul ] and the nefesh
[ the basic bodily function or animal instinct ] souls. This is why people can be severally brutal in their actions.
Name:Elizabeth •
Date: 04/27/07 23:28
A: Hi Shlomo,
I agree entirely that there is no being greater than God- which is the main point in which we needed Christ.
He brought the gift of redemption (remission of sins) through His sacrifice.
Because again- we just are not that good. What is a paradise with no one in it- but perhaps the prophets. In Heaven, God
is the absolute power. If He has to "force" us into submission- how is that paradise? That is why we remained "in sleep"
(physically dead) until Christ came and died- most were not worthy enough to ascend.
He brought that gift- and made it possible for us to also be in paradise.
God invites us- and we choose to come. And through forgiveness, it is made possible. Although there is no argument that He could, God does
not force us.
We all have a comfort zone- and I understand that. But in the end, it doesn't make it so- nor is it up for debate.
The history of the Bible, itself, shows us how often we failed- when we tried to customize God.
Blessings, ED
Name:Elizabeth •
Date: 04/27/07 23:57
A: Dear Shlomo,
Forgive me if I took it out of context. But even within your beliefs- there
is individual responsibility.
It is my belief that the Soul is responsible for the actions of the flesh.
No matter how we phrase it.
It is part of how paradise- is paradise. And we can't somehow make it not so. You are right- no one is on God's level. He makes the rules.
Blessings, ED
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 0:00
A: Hi Elizabeth,
Can you explain to me the "Jesus died for my sins?claim.
I understand the Holy Trinity as the Father and Son is a continuation of generations and The Holy spirit lives in all things created.Do you have different explanation?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 0:15
A: Shlomo,
I guess there was no entity to blame for bad behaviour.I always said we were responsible and the Devil never made anyone do anything until the Christians came along and invented a scapegoat then took it out on innocent people for political and material gains.The worse kind of people are the ones who commit evil deeds then hide behind a mask of self-rightesness(sp?) or use shame into submission as a tactic for gain.I believe G-D is neutral and it's our intentions that bring good or bad results.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/28/07 2:43
A: Panluna
"Can you explain to me the "Jesus died for my sins?claim."
God created earth and man perfect. But when Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s commands, He had to punish them. A judge who pardons law-breakers isn’t a righteous judge. Likewise, overlooking sin would
make the holy God unjust. Death is God’s just consequence for sin.
“For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
Even good works cannot make up for wrongs against the holy God. Compared to His goodness.
“All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6b).
Ever since Adam’s sin, every human has been guilty of disobeying God’s righteous laws.
“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Sin is not just big things like murder or blasphemy, but also includes love of money, hatred of enemies, and deceit of tongue and pride. Because of sin, everyone has deserved death – eternal separation from God in hell.
Although God banished Adam and Eve from the garden, He didn’t leave them without hope of heaven. He promised He would send a sinless Sacrifice to take the punishment they deserved (Genesis 3:15). Until then, men would sacrifice innocent lambs, showing their repentance from sin and faith in the future Sacrifice from God who would bear their penalty. God reaffirmed His promise of the Sacrifice with men such as Abraham and Moses. Herein lies the beauty of God’s perfect plan, God Himself provided the only sacrifice (Jesus) who could atone for the sins of His people. God the father taking human form (Jesus), fulfilled God the fathers perfect requirement of God the fathers perfect law. It is perfectly brilliant in its simplicity.
Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost
Jesus is referred to as the second Adam. Restoring our place with God.
Supplied by carm.org
If you have any more questions ask.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/28/07 3:46
A: Elizabeth,
You keep saying, "we are not just that good." I beg to differ, we are still created in his image with specific attributes. Without them we would simply be animals of no value. G_d does not look upon his creation as we do.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/28/07 3:56
A: Shlomo,
"I beg to differ, we are still created in his image with specific attributes."
That is why he loves us. That is why he didn't give up on us. He could have easily given up on us, but he didn't. He wanted to give us another chance to redeem ourselves so we can live with him in heaven. All we have to do is believe in the ultimate sacrifice and were saved from death. Elizabeths post about us not being good is true, were not good. We sin constantly, and just think, it only took one sin to distance ourselves from God and bring death upon ourselves. So basically we are not that good as she stated. But Jesus gives us the opportunity to be forgiven for our sins.
"Without them we would simply be animals of no value."
We as humans have souls, which differentiates us from animals.
"G_d does not look upon his creation as we do."
Your right
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/28/07 4:34
A: jsm,
What is the Adam and Eve incident of sin?
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/28/07 4:54
A: Shlomo,
Genesis chapter 3 explains the fall of man, if you have any questions ask, I'll answer them for you
Genesis 3
The Temptation and Fall of Man
1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;
3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.
5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.
9 Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”
12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
13 And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“ Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”
20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
21 Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/28/07 5:08
A: jsm,
Disobedience merits death? Since there were no laws, how do you classify this a sin of death? Adam and Eve were not put to death. Cain was not put to death, there were no laws to tell him it was a sin to murder.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/28/07 5:23
A: Shlomo,
"Disobedience merits death?"
Sin merits death, that is why Jesus had to die for our sins. The ultimate sacrifice to cover our sins with his blood.
"Since there were no laws, how do you classify this a sin of death?"
Sure there were laws.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
It was Gods test to humanity. He gave us freewill. For without temptation there is no true love, thats why we have freewill. If there wasn't temptation then were made to love God, if Adam and Eve would have never eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil we would have truly loved him. But since they did, sin entered the world. It comes back to the question of why did God create Satan knowing he'd turn on him. It comes down to our choice, we can either choose God or we can choose Satan, thats our freewill choose. If we choose God, then we truly love him.
"Adam and Eve were not put to death. Cain was not put to death, there were no laws to tell him it was a sin to murder."
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.
4 After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.
5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
If Adam would not have sinned, he would have lived forever, but since he sinned, he had to die.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”
God cannot leave sin unpunished, for then he would not be just.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/28/07 7:48
A: jsm,
If Adam and Eve would have repented they would still be in the garden. If Cain would have repented he would not have been punished either. The key is "repentence" in the story of Eden. You will notice they were made to leave the garden only, not Eden itself. The event in the gan Eden was about the yetzer hara taking control of ones thinking. For Chava thought to herself, I have been made in the image of G_d, why can I not eat of all the trees, including the tree of good and evil? Chava allowed her left side [ nachash-serpent- judgement ] to convince her she is worthy to eat of the tree of good and evil. After eating from the tree of good and evil, she convinced Adam's yetzer hara that it was permitted to do so. So both their yetzer hara's were amplified to the point of eating from the tree. They were removed from the garden because they would not repent of their sin. They stayed in Eden by virture of G_d's mercy, even though the end result was dust to dust, they were still blessed to have children. Repentence directly to G_d, not through a mediator, is the most important element to G_d. The balance between good and evil was a neccessary component in the plan of creation. If a person repents as required by G_d, there is no purpose or need of redemption. Temptation is nothing more than your yetzer hara [ evil inclination ] trying to take control of your basic instincts [nefesh] to commit sin, not a satan or lucifer or devil, that is later creation by Christian writers.
Most people misunderstand the gan eden story by the dogma of "original sin" set forth by the church which convinces the believer that redemption is the only course of action. As I have said before, no child is born in sin. If a child is born in sin, he is an imperfect being and this is saying that G_d is imperfect himself. Adam and Chava are not responsible for anyone elses sins but their own. Sin is not handed down generation after generation, that is pure myth.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 12:35
A: Could you give me a definition for SIN?
Name:CanuckChick •
Date: 04/28/07 15:45
A: Sin = lawlessness
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 15:57
A: Good one!!Who has the right to set the rules and determine punishment or rewards?
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/28/07 17:03
A: Sin: It is the violation of the moral and ethical laws written and set forth in the Torah by G_d.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/28/07 17:44
A: Panluna,
G_d sets the rules [Deut.7:9-10]: Reward and Punishment is a difficult and complex subject, the whole book of Iyov [ Job ] is devoted to this subject.
Name:JMD •
Date: 04/28/07 20:32
A: Some quotes taken from books I have - not from websites:
Patricia Monahgan, "Goddesses & Heroines":
"Familiar to us from Hebrew mythology, Eve is called in the Book of Genesis the first man's ezer, usually translated 'helper' or 'helpmeet'. But the masculine word is read, in other biblical contexts, as 'instructor.' "
"Slavic folklore offers some interesting variants on the conventional tale. In Bulgaria, it was said that Adam and Eve were created, naked and blind, at the same instant; a billy goat told Eve to climb an apple tree and take a bite of the fruit, whereupon her blindness disappeared."
---
Elaine Pagels, "Adam, Eve & The Serpent":
"According to the gnostic text called 'Reality of the Rulers,' when Adam first recognized Eve, he saw in her not a mere spiritual partner but a spiritual power:
'And when he saw her, he said, 'It is you who have given me life: you shall be called Mother of the Living [Eve]; for it is she who is my Mother. It is she who is the Physician, and the Woman, and She Who Has Given Birth.' "
"The Secret Book of John suggests that Adam's experience as he awakened to Eve's presence prefigures that of the gnostic who, sunk into a state of oblivion, suddenly awakes to the presence of the spirit hidden deep within. The Secret Book concludes as Eve, the 'perfect primal intelligence,' calls out to Adam - to the psyche (and so, in effect, to you and me, the readers) - to wake up, recognize her, and so receive spiritual illumination..."
"And whereas the orthodox often blamed Eve for the fall and pointed to women's submission as appropriate punishment, gnostics often depicted Eve - or the feminine spiritual power she represented - as the source of spiritual awakening."
---
From "On the Origen of the World", Nag Hammadi Library:
"An androgynous human being was produced, whom the Greeks call Hermaphrodites; and whose mother the Hebrews call Eve of Life (Eve of Zoe), namely, the female instructor of life. Her offspring is the creature that is lord. Afterwards, the authorities called it 'Beast,' so that it might lead astray their modelled creatures. The interpretation of 'the beast' is 'the instructor.' For it was found to be the wisest of all beings. Now, Eve is the first virgin, the one who without a husband bore her first offspring. It is she who served as her own midwife..."
"After the day of rest Sophia sent her daughter Zoe, being called Eve, as an instructor in order that she might make Adam, who had no soul, arise so that those whom he should engender might become containers of light..."
---
Tim Callahan, “Secret Origins of the Bible”:
"In Gen 1:1 it says ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Eve proclaims upon giving birth to Cain (Gen 4:16 ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.’) The Hebrew verb in both verses is ‘qanah’ which means ‘to create’ and ‘to acquire.’ As it turns out, Eve might actually be saying ‘I have created a man with Yahweh’s help’ or even ‘I as well as Yahweh have created a man.’ Thus, a whole mythic focus quite different from the prevalent interpretation of the Bible can be unintentionally buried by the bias of translators."
"By the time human beings are created in Genesis 1, all the plants and animals have already been created. Yet, according to Gen 2, there are no plants on earth when Adam is created. (In Gen 1, woman and man are created together, as equals, and in Gen 2, Adam is created, then Eve is created from his rib.)"
[and it's the 'rib' myth the male supremacists cling to, as it supports their agenda. So they ignore the first creation story, man and woman together, as they don't believe in equality. -jmd]
"In the Gen 2 creation myth, Adam was created from the soil. This is similar to the creation in both ‘Attahasis’ and ‘Enuma elish.’ There is also an Egyptian creation myth in which Ptah creates humans on a potter’s wheel. In the mesopotamian creation myths the blood of a divine being is mixed with clay to animate it. In Gen 2 God breathes into the man’s nostrils; this is similar to Hesiod’s ‘Theogony.’ (ca. 800 BCE)."
"Making humans out of clay is logical for a primitive society that would view the creator as a ‘maker.’ Earlier, the creation was not so much made as ‘begotten’ by a ‘creatrix.’" [Goddess was here before God -oldest creation myths tell of a creatrix, not a creator.-jmd]
"Gen 3:20 says ‘the man called his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all living.’ Considering that in the biblical account Adam and Eve do not procreate until after the expulsion from Eden, it’s a bit hard to see why Adam would have chosen this moment to come up with such a name for his wife."
"The relationship of Eve’s name to that of ‘Harvvah’ (Hebrew) might have been accomplished through the agency of an important Hurrian goddess variously named Hiba, Hebat, Hebatu, Hepatu and Khepat."
"Hebat was a sun goddess and the wife and consort of the Hurrian (later Hittite) storm god Teshub. This is significant since, like both Yahweh and Zeus, Teshub was a storm or sky god also associated with bulls. In the Sumerian and Babylonian pantheons Anu was the original ancient patriarch of the gods, and his wife was Ashratum, a variant of Asherah, consort of the god El."
"When Yahweh succeeded El (and even became identified with him) as chief deity he also seems to have appropriated his consort, Asherah, the goddess whose image the Deuteronomist reformers tried so unsuccessfully to remove from the pre-exile Jerusalem temple. He also rivaled Baal and, once Baal worship was expunged from Israel, Yahweh seems to have also acquired Ashtart-Anath, the ‘queen of heaven’ who eventually seems to have been merged with Asherah. Harvah (Eve), the mother of all living, was originally a title of the mother goddess."
"Athena (like Yahweh) breathed life into the beings molded of clay by Prometheus under Athena’s direction. This somewhat echoes the creation stories in both Atrahasis and Enuma elish. That Eve says she has created Cain with Yahweh’s help harkens back to the Mesopotamian stories where the mother goddess makes a human with the help of a god. Eve may be claiming Yahweh as Cain’s father and that she is the wife of Yahweh, rather than of ha-adam. Having Adam name Eve is a demotion for one who was once a goddess."
"Just as woman is the agent of man’s ‘fall’ in Eden, so also do the Greek gods use a woman to ensnare humans. Her name is Pandora, and it is she who lets out all the ills that plague humanity. Pandora could have been an aspect of a fertility goddess before being demeaned (just as Eve is demeaned) in this misogynistic myth."
"Eve’s association with the serpent is yet another indication of her originally divine status. Throughout the ancient world serpents were associated with immortality, death, healing and wisdom."
"Another indication of Eve’s association with the serpent lies in a possible alternate meaning of her name. Hawwah might well be related to ‘hewya’, an Aramaic word meaning serpent. This fits the fact that the Phoenicians worshiped a serpent goddess written as HWT or HVT, a name that would be cognate with that of the Hurrian goddess Hebat (HBT). Considering that the serpent is associated with a goddess who is the creatrix of the world and that it is often a symbol of life, healing and immortality, it is quite possible that Hawwah might at one and the same time be related to HWH, “life giving” and a word for serpent."
"In Gilgamesh the hero’s last chance at eternal youth is a sacred herb and is stolen from him by a serpent, who, having eaten it, immediately sheds his skin, i.e. rejuvenates itself. This motif, that the serpent stole immortality from humans, is widespread in myth from many parts of the world. Perhaps as an immortal, the srpent was also seen as wise. When Jesus sends out his disciples he tells them to ‘be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.’ (Matt.10:16) The Serpent’s wisdom is of the ancient secret, oracular variety. Despite the fact that the Delphic oracle was [later] dedicated to Apollo, the oracles were given by a priestess called the Pythia or Pythoness after the Python, the serpent Apollo killed in a version of the combat myth. [represents patriarchal take over-jmd]. The god seems to have appropriated by his victory the oracular wisdom of the serpent. . . . . Serpents were also considered representatives of the original primeval goddess, the wellspring of spontaneous but chaotic creation as in the seaserpent Ti’amat. The iconography of goddesses often shows them in association with serpents. Ashtart and Asherah are frequently shown holding serpents, and there are numerous statuettes from Minoan Crete of women, presumably goddesses, holding serpents."
[thus, the male supremacists had to slay the serpent, to slay the Goddess - turn a postive, strong feminine symbol into a demonic one, and then use women as scapegoats, and blame them for all the evil in the world. Yet who does the most murdering, torture, rape, stalking, molesting, watching porno, paying for sex? -men, not women. So much for women being the 'evil' ones.-jmd]
"It is interesting to note in that the Bible does not say that Adam and Eve were driven out of the garden, only that the ‘man’ or rather ‘ha-adam’ (humanity) was driven out, a possible indication that Eve, as Yahweh’s consort, remained behind. Regardless of whether any of these myths ever existed it is plain from the fact that before the Exile the Yahwist reformers were not able to rid the temple of the images of Asherah on a permanent basis, that Yahweh originally had a consort. Eve has far too many divine antecedents, such as Hebat and Ninti, to have originally been anything other than a goddess."
"The creation myths of Genesis were derived from many sources and different versions of the creation come from stories altered by succeeding people for political reasons. In his book ‘Slaying the Dragon’, Bernard Batto refers to this process as ‘mythopoeic speculation.’ We also see that we must often look beneath the surface of a biblical tale to see material that has been buried for religious and political reasons. The combat myth that was an integral part of ‘Enuma elish, though edited out of Genesis 1, survived in fragments scattered among the Psalms and in Isaiah, as well as other books of the Bible."
"Some believers have used myths in place of reason as a solution to modern problems. Here in America they would replace biology with creationism, base sexual morals on Levitical law, have us believe we are all inherently evil and guilty of a sin we did not commit, and tie us in pyschological knots with doctrines such as the supposed compatibility of free will and predestination. In the face of potential environmental catastrophe and the imminent extinction of vast numbers of plant and animal species, they claim God told them to subdue the earth and have dominion over every living thing. Forced to confront brutal dictatorships, the exploitation of immigrant laborers, and the inequality of the sexes, they quote Paul and Peter saying that all governments are instituted by God, telling slaves to obey their masters and women to submit to their husbands. Everywhere, myth is used as a prop to maintain injustice in the name of God."
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 21:11
A: Thank you for the answers and the information.I didn't realize there were so many different interpretations.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/28/07 21:17
A: Shlomo,
"If Adam and Eve would have repented they would still be in the garden. If Cain would have repented he would not have been punished either."
Repentance doesn't cover sin, only blood can cover sin. Have you read the bible? That is the reason sacrifices had to be done after sin. That is why we had to have a perfect sacrifice to be saved. Jesus's blood is what saves us all.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 21:20
A: There is a book titled IN THE BEGINNINGS byH.R.Hays which tells the origin legends of every known culture.My favorite one is the Greek myth of Phanes being born from the Cosmic egg.He represents immortality and his wife Psyche represents the Soul.The original legend from the Greek varies from the Roman version found in The Golden Ass by Aupelius.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/28/07 21:21
A: Shlomo,
"Adam and Chava are not responsible for anyone elses sins but their own. Sin is not handed down generation after generation, that is pure myth."
Then why would Jesus have to die for our sins?
You talk a lot, but don't supply any evidence to back it up.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/28/07 21:47
A: JMD,
I asked the same question "Why would Jesus have to die for our sins".Doesn't that make him a scapegoat for every one.I iwas taught that I am responsible for my behaviour and this was taught to my kids.If Jesus's life was payment for my sins then he's already ransomed me and I can now defy the law and be bad without punishment---NOT that I would follow the bad-deed path.I have a sense of conscience and I know the moral difference.Is life punishment for Eve and Adam defying G-D and Death the reward ?Is Eden the original name for the afterlife?And I don't believe that the sins of the parents are revisited on the children unless someone constantly judges and won't let bygones be bygones.Forgive then move on that's the modern view point and practise.G-d doesn't expect us to be perfect just present.Got that from my An Angel A Day book by Margaret Neylon.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/28/07 22:38
A: JMD,
Under Batto, are you referring to "emunah elish" [ belief in woman g_d ] and not Enuma elish? Both Adam and Chava were sent from the garden, the word is in the third person plural, " y'shalchehu " [ sent them ].
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/29/07 1:24
A: Panluna,
"I asked the same question "Why would Jesus have to die for our sins". Doesn't that make him a scapegoat for every one."
He lets us escape from death
"I iwas taught that I am responsible for my behaviour and this was taught to my kids.If Jesus's life was payment for my sins then he's already ransomed me and I can now defy the law and be bad without punishment---NOT that I would follow the bad-deed path."
Your kinda right, once you've accepted Christ into your heart, you cannot loose your salvation and your eternal gift. Since you accepted Christ you should not want to commit "bad" acts since you want to Glorify God. In my opinion people that say their saved and continue to live their life the same way as they previously were, committing sin since they think their saved and it doesn't matter, I question if their truly saved. Once you accept Christ you are born again, and should not want to keep doing what your doing. You should want to work as hard as possible to change the sins in your life to Glorify God.
"Is life punishment for Eve and Adam defying G-D and Death the reward?"
Life was the reward, Adam and Eve were originally perfect. Death was the punishment for sin.
"Is Eden the original name for the afterlife?"
Eden was technically Heaven on earth, it was perfect, and we were in perfect sync with God. Being able to walk and talk with him. After we sinned we lost that connection with him.
"And I don't believe that the sins of the parents are revisited on the children unless someone constantly judges and won't let bygones be bygones."
Your responsible for your own sins, but we are born into sin.
"Forgive then move on that's the modern view point and practise."
God is willing to forgive us of our sins through Jesus. Believe he died for your sins and ask him to forgive you of your sins because you are a sinner and he will forgive you.
"G-d doesn't expect us to be perfect just present."
Your right, he knows were not perfect. Thats why we can never make it to heaven without help. That is why god sent us Jesus, so that we may make it to heaven.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/29/07 15:00
A: JSM,
How did Jesus become the saviour of humankind?And how were we "saved" before he was born?
Thank you for your answer.I knew most of it any way.I just have several view points that differ from other people.We can be law abiding no matter what religion or phIlosophy we follow.It's easier to stay out of trouble than it is to get out of trouble.
Name:OneGod •
Date: 04/29/07 17:48
A: jsm said, "Then why would Jesus have to die for our sins?"
He didn't.
Name:Elizabeth •
Date: 04/29/07 18:28
A: Dear JSM,
"Sin merits death, that is why Jesus had to die for our sins. The ultimate sacrifice to cover our sins with his blood."
Well said. Thank you.
Blessings to you and yours, ED
Name:JMD •
Date: 04/29/07 20:25
A: Panluna, you asked "Why would Jesus have to die for our sins".
As OneGod wisely noted: "He didn't."
But let's get some expert opinion here, as things do get complicated with all these dogmas of Jesus as sacrifice, original sin, etc. I can't type up the whole chapter, but let me just say beforehand, that I highly recommend any book by the brilliant John Shelby Spong.
"Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile"
From the chapter: "Jesus as Rescuer: An Image That Has to Go"
"..This image [divine rescuer] comes in two forms. First, it appears in the rhetoric of the traditional evangelical preacher for whom, given the time limit of a sermon, certain cliches have become all but essential. In the verbal cadences that fall so easily from the preacher's lips, one hears these familiar words: 'Jesus died for my sins. He shed his precious blood on the cross of Calvary for my salvation. I have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. Through the sacrifice of Jesus, I have been saved. The stain of sin on my soul has been cleansed.' "
"Second, there is the far more sophisticated rhetoric of Christian academic theology through the ages. Thoughtful Christian leaders, working inside the worldview they understand, have spent centuries developing what they call 'the theology of the cross' as the essential ingredient in the Jesus story. The process has resulted in many variations on the theme that is regarded as the central tenet of Christianity: the doctrine of the atonement. This doctrine assumes such things as a particular view of the meaning of creation, the fall of human life into something called original sin, and the saving work of Jesus, which resulted in restoration.."
"The language of original sin and atonement has emanated from Christian circles for so long that it has achieved the status of a sacred mantra. This means that it cannot be questioned, nor does its basic structure stand in need of any further explanation. In the light of new circumstances, it is merely adjusted, never reconsidered. Yet, upon closer inspection, these sacred concepts involve us in a view of human life that is no longer operative, a theistic understanding of God articulated in a form that is all but repulsive, a magical view of Jesus that violates our minds, and the practical necessity for the Church to elicit guilt as a prerequisite to conversion. It does not require a genius to disern that this view of both God and Jesus, as well as this understanding of the Church, will never survive the exile."
"So pervasive has the Jesus-as-rescuer mentality become in Christianity's self-understanding that one can hardly view Christianity apart from it. Perhaps that is why the near collapse of this religious system now seems so obvious. Most of the content of this faith tradition has been organized in such a way as to serve this rescuer mentality. The service of baptism presupposed the rescue operation. The primary eucharistic worship of the Church, frequently referred to as 'the sacrifice of the mass,' reenacts liturgically this rescuing view of Jesus. The entire corpus of the Bible traditionally has been read and interpreted in such a way as to undergird this particular understanding of Jesus as the rescuer. The presence of a cross or a crucifix as the central symbol of Christianity proclaims it. It is a circular argument that is difficult to enter, and yet its very circularity has provided the primary cohesiveness for the entire Christian drama as we have known it..."
"...It was the conviction that humans were sinful and in need of redemption that enabled guilt and religion to be so closely tied together in the history of the Western world... The religious leaders of the ages learned that controlling people's behavior rested upon exacerbating these human feelings of guilt.."
"The stroke of genius that allowed this ecclesiastical power to succeed was achieved when the pervasive human guilt over inadequacy and failure was connected to the universal human reality of desire, especially sexual desire. That connection was largely a Christian achievement. Now whenever sexual desire emerged, guilt became overwhelming.. The desire that compelled people in love toward fulfillment in one another was condemned... The system was universal. Sex was evil...It was said to be the heritage of Adam. We were fallen creatures in need of rescue. This was the common understanding of life that shaped the message of Western religion in general and Christianity in particular. How could guilt be overcome?.."
"The experience of Jesus was captured by this mind-set. The linkage between our sense of inadequacy and the role of Jesus happened very quickly and was apparent before the first generation of Christians had died. The initial step in this process was to see the death of Jesus in terms of sin and salvation. By the time Paul wrote to the Corinthians in the mid-fifties, that step had been achieved. Christ died, said Paul, 'for our sins.' (1 Cor. 15:3)
[Augustine] "..solidified the relationship between Jesus and the fallen world by making concrete the theory of the atonement accomplished in Jesus. For Augustine, Adam and Eve were quite literally the first human beings. Their banishment from the garden resulted in death being the price that all human beings had to pay for their sin. Death was not natural, Augustine agrued, it was punitive. The sin of Adam had been passed on through the sex act to every other human being. The connection between sin and sex was clearly established.."
"..The virgin birth accounts were literally true for Augustine, and they were absolutely necessary to salvation itself. Indeed, salvation could not have been achieved, for Augustine, apart from the literal virgin birth."
"The reasoning behind this was clear. The sin of adam was passed on sexually from father to son. Human life was born in the sin of Adam, from which no one could escape. A savior required to do the redemptive task could not himself be the victim of Adam's sin. That separating of Jesus from the human sin of the fall was accomplished for Augustine by the virgin birth... At that time it was believed that the woman did not contribute genetically or materially to the birth of the child but merely nurtured the male's 'seed' to maturity. So the fallenness of the woman's humanity was not an issue."
"In time, however, when the woman's role as genetic cocreator was understood, this issue had to be revisited, lest the savior himself be corrupted with the sin of Adam via his mother, who also was a daughter of Adam. That was handled by the Catholic tradition in the nineteenth century with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. She, too, was miraculously delivered from the corruption of Adam's sin. Her conception was unstained by human sin... Salvation was thus assured. Jesus, the sinless one, was qualified by his origins to make the perfect offering. In doing so he had taken away the sin of the world. His blood had washed us human beings clean.."
"Religious minds next developed these themes to new levels of understanding.. In this developing point of view in the early church, barbaric though it now sounds, the image of God began to include a sense of righteousness that was thought to require a blood sacrifice. A text from the Epistle to the Hebrews (9:22) which stated, 'that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins,' was employed to justify this point of view. It was then said that God demanded this offering of Jesus.."
"Seldom did Christians pause to recognize the ogre into which they had turned God. A human father who would nail his son to a cross for any purpose would be arrested for child abuse. Yet that continued to be said of God as if it made God more holy and more worthy of worship."
"Behind all these images, we need to recognize, was that pervasive sense of human life fallen from its purpose in creation... Jesus, as the God/man, was cast in the role of rescuer...Yet innocent though he was, he suffered the consequences of Adam's fall, for it was his role to die... The resurrection was, of course, the symbol of the acceptability to God of the sacrifice made on the cross of Calvary. In accepting the offering of this death on the cross, God prepared to overcome that death, via the resurrection. Altogether, it was a neat and clever theological system."
"This view of Christianity is increasingly difficult for many of us to accept or believe. I would choose to loathe rather than to worship a deity who required the sacrifice of his son. But on many other levels as well, this entire theological system, with these strange presuppositions, has completely unraveled in our postmodern world. It now needs to be removed quite consciously from Christianity."
"The unraveling began with the realization that Adam and Eve were not the primeval human parents and that all life did not stem from these two. The theory of evolution made Adam and Eve legendary at best. Evolution was not easy for the religious establishment to accept, and still voices are raised today to resist it. Those voices will never succeed....There were no first parents, and so the primeval act of disobedience on the part of the first parents could not possibly have affected the whole human race. The myth was thus dealt a death blow, and the monlithic story of salvation built by Christian apologists over the ages began to totter."
"..Darwin made us aware that the creation is even now not finished. Galaxies are still being formed. Human life is also still evolving. Suddenly the whole mythological framework in which the Christ figure had been captured came tumbling down. What is sin? it is not and never can be alienation from the perfection for which God in the act of creation had intended us, for there is no such thing as a perfect creation. Thus, there was no fall into sin. Yet there is a sense in which all human beings are still caught in the struggle to become our deepest and truest selves.. We were not created in God's image in any literal way. We simply evolved out of lower forms of life and ultimately developed a higher consciousness.."
"We human beings do not live in sin. We are not born in sin. We do not need to have the stain of our original sin washed away in baptism. We are not fallen creatures who will lose salvation if we are not baptized."
"We have rather emerged out of our evolutionary past, and we are still being formed. Our lack of wholeness is a sign of the baggage we carry as survivors of that long, difficult past.."
"A savior who restores us to our prefallen status is therefore pre-Darwinian superstition and post-Darwinian nonsense. A supernatural redeemer who enters our fallen world to restore creation is a theistic myth. So we must free Jesus from the rescuer role. Yet so totally has he been captured by this understanding that most of us know no other way to speak of him except to reduce him to a good teacher or a good example. Had the Christ experience been no more than that, I doubt seriously if it would have survived. Yet the Jesus portrayed in the creedal statement 'as one who, for us and for our salvation, came down from heaven' simply no longer communicates to our world... If the Christ experience is real, then we must find a new way to talk about it."
And from this same book, from the chapter 'On Saying the Christian Creed with Honesty', I just have to include this!:
"The word 'Father' is such a human word - so male, so dated. It elicits the traditional God images of the old man who lives just beyond the sky. It shouts of the masculinity of the deity, a concept that has been used for thousands of years to justify the oppression of women by religious institutions. That history and that practice repel me today. The Christian Church at times has gone so far as to debate whether women actually had souls and whether girl babies ought to be baptized... The church dedicated to the worship of a God who was called 'Father' has consistently justified its rampant discrimination against women as the will of this patriarchal deity or, at the very least, as something idolatrously called the 'unchanging sacred tradition of the Church.' I do not care to worship a God defined by masculinity. I am no longer tolerant of gatherings where all the participants are men, sitting in a solemn assembly, clothed in their ecclesiastical dress, and acting as if they can determine what a woman may do morally with her own body. I have no interest in being part of an institution that is so deeply biased against women and intends to stay that way."
*applauds*
Name:JMD •
Date: 04/29/07 20:44
A: John Shelby Spong, "Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of Women by a Male-Dominated Church"
"For most of the two thousand years of history since the birth of our Lord, the Christian church has participated in and supported the oppression of women.."
"Patriarchy and God have been so deeply and uncritically linked to gender by the all-male church hierarchy that men have little understood how this alliance has been used to the detriment of all women..."
"..I do not believe that Mary was in any biological sense literally a virgin.. I do not believe that the story of Mary's virginity enhanced the portrait of the mother of Jesus. To the contrary, I believe that story has detracted from Mary's humanity and become a weapon in the hands of those whose patriarchal prejudices distort everyone's humanity in general but women's humanity in particular.."
"It is almost amusing to examine 'biblical morality' as it is called by the literalists. They do not seem to understand how immoral, by our standards, many biblical attitudes are. For example, according to the older of the Hebrew creation myths, the woman was not created in the image of God but rather came into being as an afterthought... The woman was the property of the man." [not even considered a person, just property, to be used and abused.] "Lot, called righteous by the Bible, offered his virgin daughters to the angry mob in the city of Sodom. Who will step forward to support that part of 'biblical morality'?
In the Ten Commandments.. the wife was listed after a man's house and before a man's ox, as a possession not to be coveted by another man. Moralists who quote the seventh-commandment prohibiting adultery fail to realize that polygamy was the style of marriage abroad when that commandment was given. Indeed, three hundred years after the giving of the law at Mount Sinai, Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, says the Bible. What does adultery mean when one man possesses one thousand women? In its literal context the seventh commandment really enjoined one man from violating the woman who was the property of another man. That does not seem to be nearly so moral as the moralists would have us believe."
"..Every movement to end oppression in any form in Western history has had to overcome the authority of a literal Bible. Christianity, with its Scriptures intact, persecuted pagans and spawned a vicious anti-Semitism that fueled everything from the Crusades to the Holocaust to the defacement of synagogues. That demonic gift from biblical literalism plagues us even today. A literal Bible still sees the Jews as those evil people who killed Jesus. 'His blood be on us and on our children' (Matt 27:25) is a text frequently used to justify our prejudice. The Jews are called in the Bible 'children of the devil' (John 8:44), and they are defined as possessing a God-given stupor: 'eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear' (Rom. 11:8). There are times that I literally shudder when I hear the Good Friday story read and realize once again that the biblical use of words 'the Jews' in that narrative will once more feed that dark stain on the historic soul of Christianity."
"Literalism masquerades under many forms.. and in every instance it is finally destructive to truth. Because the power of institutional Christianity has been assumed to rest upon the literal assertions of a fourth-century creed, it is easy to understand why biblical literalism continues to possess its tenacious hold upon ecclesiastical leadership.."
"A literalized myth is a doomed myth. Its truth cannot be rescued. Literalism is not even a benign alternative for contemporary Christians. It is, in the modern world, nothing less than an enemy to faith in Jesus Christ. It is a belief system built on ignorance, which acts as if God, the infinite mystery, can be defined in the words of any human being or in the thought forms of a particular era. Literalism is a claim that God's eternal truth has been, or can be, captured in the time-limited concepts of human history. It is to pretend that knowledge is finite and that knowledge does not therefore explode in infinite new directions daily. Biblical fundamentalism reduces the religious options for people to the shallow levels of propositional truth and then fills them with a religious certainty that can be maintained only by a defensive, aggressive hysteria... The day has passed for me when, in the name of tolerance to the religious insecurities of others, I will allow my Christ to be defined inside a killing literalism."
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/30/07 1:21
A: Panluna,
"How did Jesus become the saviour of humankind? And how were we "saved" before he was born?"
Thats actually a good question, before Jesus died we used to sacrifice lambs to cover our sins. It takes blood to cover sin. Since Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice since he was perfect without sin, we no longer have to sacrifice lambs to cover our sins, we just have to believe Jesus died for our sins and his blood covers our sins. That is why he is called the Lamb of God.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 3:10
A: Jesus was crucified as was the Roman custom because he commited a crime of vandalism in the market place when he saw the vendors were not keeping the Sabbath Holy.The Romans gave the crowd a choice as to who should be freed and who should be crucified and they chose to free Barabas a common criminal who later led a revolt against Rome.I believe that we alone can atone for our sins and we are born innocent and remain so until we are taught the difference between right from wrong.And if Original Sin marks us at birth then we are stained until death,even though it was Adam's and Eve's fault.Free Will is a form of defiance that allows us to make choices otherwise we would be nothing but mindless puppets and who has the right to pull those strings?When God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden it was because the Diety recognised they were intelligent enough to survive on their own.God sent the serpent to tempt them as a ruse.I just don't believe that Jesus died for my sins when I'm capable of taking the blame for my own actions and atoning for it.When was the idea of Jesus dying for anyone's sins introduced as a doctrine?Was it to pass off guilt to someone long gone?Or to ease guilty consciences?
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/30/07 3:22
A: Panluna,
"When God expelled Adam and Eve from Eden it was because the Diety recognised they were intelligent enough to survive on their own."
Where does this come from?
"I just don't believe that Jesus died for my sins when I'm capable of taking the blame for my own actions and atoning for it."
Your a sinner, how are your decisions just. Its like a murderer forgiving a murderer. It takes somebody 100% just, and sinless, to forgive sin.
"When was the idea of Jesus dying for anyone's sins introduced as a doctrine?"
The whole New Testament
"Was it to pass off guilt to someone long gone?Or to ease guilty consciences?"
No, the bible states what it is for.
Name:CanuckChick •
Date: 04/30/07 14:33
A: I don't give much credence to Bishop Spong's ramblings. Wonder whether he's ever come across this scripture?....
"If we make the statement: ""We have no sin"", we are misleading ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous so as to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we make the statement: ""We have not sinned"", we are making him a liar, and his word is not in us"". (1 John 1:8-10)
Human beings were created perfect. Their original sin was to flaunt God's right to rule over them. They wanted to decide for themselves what is right and wrong.
God told them very clearly that the result of such a transgression would be death. They used their free will to defy God. They were no longer perfect.
The result of their fall from grace was not a punishment from God, but rather a natural consequence of the laws that God had put into place when he created the universe. Since they were no longer perfect, it was impossible for them to pass on perfection to their offspring.
Isn't this rebellious attitude prevalent to this day? We would all like to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, without regard for God's laws.
God loved mankind, but would not flaunt the very laws he had put into place. His interest was in seeing the fulfillment of his original purpose - an earth filled with humans who loved him and acknowledged his right to rule over them.
This required another perfect human to prove he could live an earthly life, amidst all the temptations, and still remain faithful to God.
Enter Jesus. He accepted, of his own free will, the mission to redeem mankind from death. He was successful. If we acknowledge Jesus' sacrifice, we are saved from death, and may become sharers in God's promise of eternal life.
This is the understanding I have gleaned from the bible.
CC
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 14:47
A: JSM,
I do my own interpretations.
CanuckChick,
Thank you for your answer.It was very insightful.Just to let know I don't believe in it.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 15:24
A: As far as Sin is concerned everyone does bad things.If you are lucky enough to get caught and punished as a child then you can go on in life in a more morally righteous way.The bad things happen all the time sometimes caused by us or events we can't control but the lesson to be learned is to appreciate the good things life brings.Religion is a personal choice and offers guidelines from birth to death.We should respect that choice.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/30/07 17:00
A: Panluna,
"I do my own interpretations."
Then why do you ask me questions if you don't care to hear the answers?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 17:15
A: jsm,
I read the answers to get other peoples' points of view.Since I'm only human I don't know everything so I try to learn.I'm a student of the University of Life.and I can share my ideas as well as information.Just because I don't agree completely on an opinion doesn't mean I can't express mine.And I don't get angry at anyone who disagrees with me.To each their own!!!!
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 18:15
A: And JSM,
I took several Psychology courses when I attended college and I know that people will grasp for any answer fact or fiction that will explain the unknowable just to gain peace of mind.What ever religion a person wants to believe in they have the right to do so.I just can't accept a human sacrifice as redemption for my sins.I'm a resposible person and I'm sure we will end up in the same realm of the afterlife.And the debate goes on..and on..and on.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/30/07 19:00
A: Panluna,
"I took several Psychology courses when I attended college and I know that people will grasp for any answer fact or fiction that will explain the unknowable just to gain peace of mind."
This is why I don't like Psychology, they try to give answers just to give answers. Any Joe Shmo can be a dreamer or a psychologist. We were either created or not, theres no other choice. And not being created doesn't give us peace of mind. So whoever told you that were completely wrong.
"What ever religion a person wants to believe in they have the right to do so."
Thats true, thats freewill, but that doesn't mean their right.
"I just can't accept a human sacrifice as redemption for my sins.I'm a responsible person and I'm sure we will end up in the same realm of the afterlife.And the debate goes on..and on..and on."
Like I said before, its your freewill choice to believe what you want to believe, but that doesn't mean your right. The idea that everyone ends up in the same "realm" is unsupported historically and limited to something like... mortal kombat.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/30/07 19:01
A: Boy am I glad I was born after the 60's... psychological babble that can be reduced to biology and chemistry and the interaction of the two.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 19:18
A: JSM,
Psychology is the scientific study of HOW the MIND works,namely what makes you tick!!!Don't confuse it with Philosophy which is the study of what you percieve and analyze.How a person thinks influences their actions.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/30/07 19:30
A: Panluna,
Its the study of behavior and mental interactions. Their the reason half the worlds population has "bipolar" disorder. Psychology just gives excuses to people for their actions. Just really think about that
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 19:32
A: and JSM,
We can't prove what is on the Otherside because no one has come back from there to tell the world.I had an NDE in 1980 and what I saw was beautiful.The images of the golden field ,blue sky and ancesters going way back in time has stayed with me to this day.If I hadn't been revived I might have taken that last step to where ever Eternity is.And I believe it's the same for all.I believe in the Truth...and the soul knows the way as my angel guides me.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/30/07 19:40
A: JSM,
Bipolar is mood swings caused by a hormonal imbalance.We can't be happy or depressed all the time.And anyone can experience a quick change in moods due to stimuli.My spouse is grumpy until he gets a Snicker Bar.I'ld rather have glass of Sangria.
Name:Ladyhawk •
Date: 04/30/07 19:53
A: "Its the study of behavior and mental interactions. Their the reason half the worlds population has "bipolar" disorder. Psychology just gives excuses to people for their actions. Just really think about that...."
Joining this slightly off-topic discussion: jsm, an answer like this does little for your credibility. It tells me you have no personal knowledge of mental illness, no interest in finding out about it, a propensity to believe anything you're told and to get pretty aggressive about defending your ignorance. You're taking the easy way out--and the low road. I recommend Kay Redfield Jamison--and of course, an open mind.
Name:jsm •
Date: 05/01/07 0:39
A: Ladyhawk,
"Joining this slightly off-topic discussion: jsm, an answer like this does little for your credibility."
Haha... well I'm sorry to disappoint you
"It tells me you have no personal knowledge of mental illness, no interest in finding out about it, a propensity to believe anything you're told and to get pretty aggressive about defending your ignorance."
There are plenty of real mental disorders. I have schizophrenia, but I don't use it as an excuse for my actions. Look how many medications are out there. If your a little depressed take this, if your to happy take this. Don't you think the majority of "mental" illnesses are marketing schemes?
"You're taking the easy way out--and the low road. I recommend Kay Redfield Jamison--and of course, an open mind."
No... I'm taking the logical way out. I don't know to many psychologists that do field research within the medical field. I don't even have a Ph.D in a medical related field and I still know more about it then a psychologist would. I mean the majority diagnose you without doing any real scientific analysis. They just ask you your opinion and how you feel and vola! You got your meds...
Name:Ladyhawk •
Date: 05/01/07 4:43
A: " I have schizophrenia, but I don't use it as an excuse for my actions. Look how many medications are out there. If your a little depressed take this, if your to happy take this. Don't you think the majority of "mental" illnesses are marketing schemes?"
jsm: My sympathies, and apology. You do, then, know that organic disorders exist, and that there are times when aberrant behaviors are beyond control. It may be that your condition makes empathy difficult, but surely logic tells you that you are not the only person in the world to suffer disorders of this type. Why, then, should we suppose that others have any more "excuses" than you do?
"Excuse" is a judgemental word, implying deliberate wrong-doing with expectation of no consequences. Perhaps "explanation" is a better word. It had always been fascinating to me that people would rather assume evil in another person, than to muster compassion for someone who is clearly hampered by biological destiny.
Do I think the majority of mental illnesses are marketing schemes? No. I think they are the result of a world made too competitive, mean-spirited and fast-paced for a lot of people to live in without harm. Do I think the markets are taking advantage of this to make a lot of money off a lot of people who are made ill by this? Yes. But it does not automatically follow that people are looking for "excuses." They're trying to get well so they can cope. Are some of them looking to pills in lieu of doing the hard work? Sure. But there's a limit to how much compassion we can deny the mentally ill on the grounds that a certain percentage of them are biological charlatans.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 05/01/07 13:51
A: Hi,
Happy Beltane! I lit a green candle and walked around my garden this sunrise while a light mystical rain was falling.The sweetwater is special on this day.I read an article by Margot Adler that was on Beliefnet.com. in the Angel inspiration post.Have a fun day and remember there is more to May Day than worldwide protests or shows of military might.This is an agricultural celebration and the beginningof the Celtic summer.So if you can find Maypole celebrate and have fun and thank Gaia for her bounty.
Name:vvk •
Date: 11/26/07 6:18
A: Interesting me back in today, how do you think about the evidence?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 11/29/07 17:41
A: wk,
The evidence is fool-proof.
Name:Anchorite •
Date: 02/02/08 2:09
A: dear vvk, come back when you have some grammar.
