RE: Genesis

RE: Genesis (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Shekicromaster -> RE: Genesis (11/1/2008 10:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin I asked these questions as I am what might be called a spiritual vagrant, a vagrant in that I will investigate any belief that presents itself to me and take what I believe to be truth as I see it. Currently, there is a bit of pagan, a bit of christianity, islam, hindi, taoism , buddhism and others yet to be defined. I seek my truth by crossing boundaries and listening to others. If I disagree, I leave the idea as not being for me personally. It is with this idea, this vagrancy that I have come to think that we are one people and our eventual goal is to unite and live for the betterment of humanity, not the destruction of it. I know only too well who and what it is that seeks to divide us, the trick is to recognise the instigator and follow the soul, not the ears via the training of the brain, who said life has to be logical. Oh, we can make war and destroy, we have become very good at it, but we can also love and love each other. Tell me, being good to people feels better than being bad to them. It sound a little utopian to me .. I do believe in equality of religions, but I0m not sure in the same source of it and the humanity. The same source in the human interest and desire for the transcendental, of course, but not in an outward unity. Not fan of mixing things either I must say. I like Christianity, I like Buddhism and Hinduism too, but if you mix everything at the end there is only confusion. It is like training three sports in the same time and some of them can be very different like some that need a lot of muscle and something that needs flexibility and a light physique... doing that we end up doing nothing properly. Buddhism can be equal to Christianity but it is not the same. It has a different approach, a different method, a different theology, a different practice, a different mind-frame that the practitioner is trying to develop. Of course no one is 100% correct. There is a nice principle in Jainism of anekantavada saying that there is not a single perfect position and that from their respective points of view different positions are equally right and that ultimately we can not have absolute truths in the relative world. I can't see much sense in trying to find a perfect religion, blending things.. religions are tools with their goal in the "transcendental", any religion can take us there probably and every religion is probably a manifestation of the spiritual tendencies in a specific environment of a certain place and time. If the goal of religions is a personal relationship with a higher being/state/whatever.. we could imagine it like a precious stone on the bottom of the lake. Religions are like boats. They take you form different directions to the point above the stone, in different boats.. but at the and you have to dive for it or it is all for nothing. What type of boat will one use doesn’t' meter and it is a waste of time to discuss differences and qualities of different boats, trying to make a perfect one.. there will never be a perfect one, but if the follower is sincere and has a sincere yearning he will probably be all right with any one as he is just waiting to in the water anyway. I don’t think it really meters if one believes in reincarnation, resurrection or something else. if he is worshiping Allah, Christ, Krishna or if he has a non theistic (Buddhists, Jains) approach.. At the end our effort in making something of our lives counts, going up the stairs, other things are circumstantial. It is better to get in any boat and start diving than to stay on the shore thinking too much about the boat construction. If there should be a difference than it should be between devotional/theistic (abrahamic religions and parts of Hinduism) and "wisdom" religions (sramana religions and parts of Hinduism). The differences between this categories are substantial. Basically the first are trying to "transcend" through surrender to a higher power, the second through wisdom and personal strength. And it is difficult to mix the two. Not impossible but as with sports developing opposite physical qualities one must give a lot of effort to have results in both. But differences between religions inside any of these categories are much more circumstantial. It is a difference in the mentality, culture, climate, historical conditions and so on so I'd say the best thing to do is to choose what is closer to us, follow that and while having respect for them not to think too much about others, it will just make us too analytical and intellectual and that is not the point. We can try to reason out things for eternity without getting an inch further as there can always be an argument opposing any conclusion, there is simply no final solution to "big questions" of that type. Comparing religions and analyzing them is interesting from an academic and historical point of view, from the spiritual one it seems to me to be just a big waste of time.

Shekicromaster -> RE: Genesis (11/1/2008 10:23:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper Well, I'll be. Not that I've ever actually read Genesis...and we don't all have the same bibles, btw...but I couldv'e sworn I knew the 'Adam and Eve' story. A serpent, and apple, poof out ya go, and Gawd punishes both of them by making childbirth painful. if you know a Jew versed in the scriptures you might be surprised in some parts... the mythical apple for example that entered the collective western imagination was probably not an apple at all in the original. Translations are a tricky thing.. not that it meters that much :D

Shekicromaster -> RE: Genesis (11/1/2008 11:00:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper I just saw 'The DaVinci Code' again last night. I had heard of the Council of Nicaea, and I knew that some writings were included and others were excluded as a 'bible' was agreed upon for use by the early Christians. Was there really a Gospel According to Mary Magdelene? That would just astound me. One of the most illogical parts of Religious Instruction for me as a Catholic UM was the whole business about Mary Magdelene. There during Christ's life on earth; there at the Crucifixtion; there to see the Risen Lord; and yet somehow a dirty, useless, irrelevant character? I never did quite figure that out. According to this web site I found, yes, a text known as the Gospel According to Mary Magedalene does exist. In part it is supposed to read: quote: When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her. But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, "Say what you (wish to) say I about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas." Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things. He questioned them about the Savior: "Did he really speak with a woman without our knowledge (and) not openly? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?" Then Mary wept and said to Peter, "My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?" Levi answered and said to Peter, "Peter, you have always been hot-tempered. Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well. That is why he loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect man and acquire him for ourselves as he commanded us, and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said. When [ ...] and they began to go forth [to] proclaim and to preach. http://www.thenazareneway.com/the_gospel_of_mary_magdalene.htm Is what this web site says in fact true? The Church I knew growing up could not have been more anti-woman, and as far as I can see, that hasn't changed. I wonder why Catholics are not more like Jews, free to wander into a variety of texts and adopt views from the mystical to the legalistic? candystripper [sm=pole.gif] . I wouldn't rely much on sources like the code. As with "newage folk" manipulating misunderstood scientific discoveries to develop exotic theories or the different conspiracy theories that not knowing something turn into believing in presumptions this type of texts are also just a lot of speculation with not that much evidence. Yes there were more than four Gospels and some were selected as there were different sects of early Christianity and only one prevailed. But what if some other gospels were selected? Than we should look upon those now in the Bible as something mysterious, hidden and conspirative. I'm not a Biblical scholar to know how all this happened but motives behind this choice, the historical and theological authenticy of different early Christian groups (as much as it is possible to determine now at all) should be the guidelines into making opinions, not just the enthusiasm about something exotic and secret. As it is today on a more global level in that time and place there was also probably a lot of mixing of ideas. Greek, especially neo-platonist ideas obviously influenced christanity. One could presume that different cults based on Greek and Egyptian mythology active at the time as well as some other heterodox religions (Zoroastrianism or younger dualists like Manichaeism and Gnosticism in general and so on) had their influence too. Well I'm guessing a little here, maybe there are some well informed Christians on the forum to eventually correct me. In any case if we presume that modern Judaism is not to dissimilar to the pre-Christian one (which I'm not sure of either) I must say that the little I've red of apocryphal Gospels does not look like something authors with Jewish background would write. Than again a lot can be questioned even about the accepted Gospels including the existence of Jesus himself... What you say of the Jews is partially true, they have a more scholarly approach and less dogmatic maybe and if someone develops something based on the scriptures that can not be easily refuted it is usually accepted instead of forcing a single approach to faith, at least that’s the impression I have. But even with such an approach they don’t accept exactly everything and anything and it seems to me that I was reading something about apocryphal scriptures in Judaism too. Not 100% sure though.

Shekicromaster -> RE: Genesis (11/1/2008 11:07:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Who benefits the most from hatred and distrust of other peoples? Weapons manufacturers and the leaders who use xenophobia to stay in power. Any who believes government is the solution and not the problem, who desires more government and not less, has a vested interest in emphasizing man's inhumanity to man. Who benefits? Fascists, Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Republicans (in particular, 100 Senators and 435 Representatives), and civil rights lawyers. Well I'd like to live in a utopian war-less, disease-les, hungry-less, greed-less, passion-less society but that is not the reality of our world. This "problem" in your country is the only thing that is keeping it from being destroyed by some other country’s "problem." And if there was no "problem" anywhere some barbarian tribes would take care of it (and of your house, and of you children and so on). Society develops because we want and need protection and are ready to give up some amount of personal freedom in that name. No one is keeping us from going back to the roots; move to a deep forest, a jungle or somewhere on the Himalayas...

corysub -> RE: Genesis (11/1/2008 11:46:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin If according to Genesis we are all descended from two or three people, is it that all of us in this present age are related and therefore the same people ? Could it be that if we are all related with the common ancestors that of Adam, Eve( and Lilith), our eventual aim is to once again be one people regardless of colour, ethnicity or faith ? Could it be even that the different faiths throughout the world have component parts of truth, that if taken and added together actually form a universal truth, a universal faith, a faith in humanity perhaps ? Perhaps it is that the truth was scattered as the quest for mankind ? Who actually benefits from the distrust and hatred of other races, faiths and ethnologies ? Despots with a thirst for power. "Divide and conquer"...slice and dice people into little boxes of color and religious beliefs has been a tried and true formula for gaining absolute power.

Termyn8or -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 12:11:46 AM)
What was the land of Nod ? T

TNstepsout -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 5:48:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper Who is Lillith? candystripper [sm=pole.gif] P.S. I'm not one who's been taught to 'take the bible literally' but as I understand it, science is moving towards a somewhat similar conclusion...that all humankind shares common ancestors. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-72910345.html Lileth was the first woman made for Adam, but she had an opinion so God made Eve. She caused trouble too with that whole apple thing, but since God made man with a penis, what choice did he have?

Musicmystery -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 5:58:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL candystripper as I understand it, science is moving towards a somewhat similar conclusion...that all humankind shares common ancestors. Well, now, perhaps, but the Neanderthals were a separate, less successful branch.

TNstepsout -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 6:11:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper I just saw 'The DaVinci Code' again last night. I had heard of the Council of Nicaea, and I knew that some writings were included and others were excluded as a 'bible' was agreed upon for use by the early Christians. The DaVinci code popularized a group of theories regarding Jesus and Mary Magdelene, the Knights Templars and King Arthur legends, but it is a work of fiction and does not go into enough details about all the evidence of these theories, nor does it give the complete story. Some of what get's thrown in is complete nonsense, and some of what is used in the movie has some pretty compelling evidence that it might be true. If you really want to know more on the subject you should read Holy Blood, Holy Grail for starters and it's follow-up Bloodline of the Holy Grail. The early Christian church had a lot of different factions and people with widely disparate beliefs and they were all vying for control. The group that finally won out did so by supressing opposing views. They eliminated and edited biblical stories and persecuted anyone who taught from "unauthorized" stories, so a lot was forgotten or relegated to the status of "myth". Some of these gaps are beginning to be filled in as our knowledge of those early times grows.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 6:29:59 AM)
Now THAT'S funny: reminding us that The DaVinci Code is a work of ficion. Uhm, excuse me, but the entire Bible is a work of fiction! I just saw where Hollywood is making a movie out of "Angels and Demons". UGH! I've read all 4 of Dan Brown's books and quite frankly, they all suck. TDC is arguably the best of the bunch, so maybe it could be said that Mr. Brown is improving as an author. On the other hand, saying TDC is the best of Dan Brown's books is sort of like being the valedictorian of your GED class... ~Dave

Musicmystery -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 6:41:28 AM)
Dave, Read Umberto Ecco's "Foucault's Pendulum." You've love it!

RealSub58 -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 10:46:32 AM)
The DaVinci Code is a hoax.Mary Magdeline was a prostitute until the Pope removed her stigma.Purgatory is neither of Christian nor of Catholic nor of Biblical origin, it came from Dante's Inferno and the Pope adopted it as doctrine. When it comes right down to who is right or wrong about Biblical doctrines, it all boils down to hermeneutics. The theory and methodology of interpretation, especially of scriptural text.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics What eventually was put together as 66 books of today's popular "known" Bible was basic upon the process of canonization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_of_the_Bible Books not included in the 66 books are known at the apocrypha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha There is also a specific reason the Old Testament ended with Malachi and The New Testament started with Matthew. There are 7 periods of time in the Chronology of Scripture and it was not written (a whole other subject) or cannonized in the order it appears today.The Bible is about history and the correct chronological order of that his historyhttp://www.biblehelpsonline.com/gw-lp-ckjv/ckjv000.htm Old Testament Books Genesis 1-22 Job Genesis 23-50 Exodus Psalm 90 Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Psalm 91 Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 1-16:13 Psalm 23 1 Samuel 16:14-19:11 Psalm 59 1 Samuel 19:12-21:15 Psalms 34,56 1 Samuel 22:1,2 Psalms 57,142 1 Samuel 22:3-23 Psalm 52 1 Samuel 23 Psalms 54,63 1 Samuel 24-31 2 Samuel 1-7 Psalm 30 2 Samuel 8:1-14 Psalm 60 2 Samuel 8:15-12:14 Psalms 51,32 2 Samuel 12:15-15:37 Psalms 3,69 2 Samuel 16-20 Psalms 64,70 2 Samuel 21,22 Psalm 18 2 Samuel 23,24 Psalms 4-9, 11-17, 19-22, 24-29, 31, 35-41, 53, 55, 58, 61, 62, 65, 68, 72, 86, 101, 103, 108-110, 138-141, 143-145 1 Kings 1-4 Proverbs Song of Solomon 1 Kings 5-11 Ecclesiastes 1 Kings 12-22 2 Kings 1-14:25 Jonah 2 Kings 14:26-29 Amos 2 Kings 15-25 Psalms 1, 2, 10, 33, 43, 66, 67, 71, 89, 92-100, 102, 104-106, 111-125, 127-136, 146-150 1 Chronicles 1-16 Psalms 42, 44-50, 73-85, 87, 88 1 Chronicles 17-29 2 Chronicles 1-21 Obadiah 2 Chronicles 22 Joel 2 Chronicles 23-26:8 Isaiah 1-5 2 Chronicles 26:9-23 Isaiah 6 2 Chronicles 27-32 Isaiah 7-66 Hosea Micah Nahum 2 Chronicles 33, 34 Zephaniah 2 Chronicles 35 Habakkuk Jeremiah 1-6, 11, 12, 26, 7-10, 14-20, 35, 36, 45, 25, 25, 46-49 Jeremiah 13, 22-24, 27-29, 50, 51, 30-33, 21, 34, 37-39, 52, 40-44 Lamentations 2 Chronicles 36:1-8 Daniel 2 Chronicles 36:9-21 Psalms 137 Ezekiel 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23 Ezra 1-5:1 Haggai Zechariah Psalms 107, 126 Ezra 5:2-6:22 Esther Ezra 7-10 Nehemiah Malachi New Testament Books Matthew Mark Luke John Acts 1-14 James Acts 15 Galatians Acts 16 Philippians Acts 17:1-10 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians Acts 17:11-18:11 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Acts 18:12-20:1 Ephesians Romans Acts 10:2-28:31 Colossians Hebrews Titus Philemon 1 Timothy 2 Timothy 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude The Revelation There are 5 chronological ways to read The Bible in over 50 translations, not versions.http://eword.gospelcom.net/year/ Why are there so many Bible translations / versions, and which is the best?KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?Should I use a paraphrase of the Bible?For more reading if you really care............. http://www.gotquestions.org/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=versions+of+Bible&search.x=11&search.y=19

RealSub58 -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 10:49:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNstepsout quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper Who is Lillith? candystripper [sm=pole.gif] P.S. I'm not one who's been taught to 'take the bible literally' but as I understand it, science is moving towards a somewhat similar conclusion...that all humankind shares common ancestors. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-72910345.html Lileth was the first woman made for Adam, but she had an opinion so God made Eve. She caused trouble too with that whole apple thing, but since God made man with a penis, what choice did he have? [sm=rofl.gif]

thishereboi -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 10:50:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 Now THAT'S funny: reminding us that The DaVinci Code is a work of ficion. Uhm, excuse me, but the entire Bible is a work of fiction! I just saw where Hollywood is making a movie out of "Angels and Demons". UGH! I've read all 4 of Dan Brown's books and quite frankly, they all suck. TDC is arguably the best of the bunch, so maybe it could be said that Mr. Brown is improving as an author. On the other hand, saying TDC is the best of Dan Brown's books is sort of like being the valedictorian of your GED class... ~Dave Not to be a smart ass, but I just have to ask.....after you read the first book and found out it sucked, why did you read the other 3?

candystripper -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 1:34:43 PM)
RealSub, that was an amazing post, thank you. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

tweedydaddy -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 4:26:42 PM)
I think they went off the boil after Peter Gabriel left, selling England by the pound is a classic though I prefer a trick of the tail. Phil Collins took them off in the wrong direction entirely.

TNstepsout -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 4:33:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 Now THAT'S funny: reminding us that The DaVinci Code is a work of ficion. Uhm, excuse me, but the entire Bible is a work of fiction! I just saw where Hollywood is making a movie out of "Angels and Demons". UGH! I've read all 4 of Dan Brown's books and quite frankly, they all suck. TDC is arguably the best of the bunch, so maybe it could be said that Mr. Brown is improving as an author. On the other hand, saying TDC is the best of Dan Brown's books is sort of like being the valedictorian of your GED class... ~Dave Well yeah, I know that, but what I meant to say was that the movie does not tell the whole story of the entire DaVinci code theory. To get that you have to read the non-fictions works the fictional stories were based on. I don't think there's a problem with Dan Brown's books. As works of fiction they are suspenseful, imaginative and fun. Since the movie came out a lot of people poked holes in the DaVinci code theories, but they did so based on Dan Brown's works of fiction, not on the original books that proposed these ideas. Those books contain a great deal more evidence and information and they are not as fanciful. I don't know that I believe all of the DaVinci code concepts, but I definately believe there is some truth to the idea that ancient knowledge was disguised and hidden to protect it from the church. I don't think that's a big stretch of the imagination. There were probably men of intelligence who felt stifled by the narrow concepts of the church and sought knowledge, but had to do so secretly. I imagine they hid/disguised some of their information in ways that other "members" would detect, but the average person would not.

TNstepsout -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 4:44:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealSub58 The DaVinci Code is a hoax.Mary Magdeline was a prostitute until the Pope removed her stigma.Purgatory is neither of Christian nor of Catholic nor of Biblical origin, it came from Dante's Inferno and the Pope adopted it as doctrine. When it comes right down to who is right or wrong about Biblical doctrines, it all boils down to hermeneutics. There's nothing in the Bible that indicates that Mary Madgelene was a prostitute. That was a convenient way to diminish her power in the early church. There are fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls that suggest her relationship with Jesus was more than just another disciple. That was inconvenient to the male dominated church that was forming.

scarlethiney -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 5:09:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin If according to Genesis we are all descended from two or three people, is it that all of us in this present age are related and therefore the same people ? Could it be that if we are all related with the common ancestors that of Adam, Eve( and Lilith), our eventual aim is to once again be one people regardless of colour, ethnicity or faith ? Could it be even that the different faiths throughout the world have component parts of truth, that if taken and added together actually form a universal truth, a universal faith, a faith in humanity perhaps ? Perhaps it is that the truth was scattered as the quest for mankind ? Who actually benefits from the distrust and hatred of other races, faiths and ethnologies ? I think the belief that we are working toward a "tan" race not only in colour but in mindset is a hope that many of us carry in our hearts. I know I do. So yes I do think we are all related on many different levels. Man diluted religion to conform to his needs, molded it to serve the purpose or quest of the time. Because we all have different perspectives it stands to reason that many religious components are a result of many different people's perspectives passed down through the ages. And yes the base of all religions are universal, the best parts of humanity are represented in all faiths- Forgiveness, kindness, humility, trust, unconditional love and peace. Control and power can be intoxicating and will continue to be used to control and separate us by race, economic status and even gender if we allow it. Government and the news have quite a vested future in controlling us and fueling any fires that will help separate the masses. We are not a force for change until we but aside separateness and come together as one race the only one that matters...... human. scarlet

DesFIP -> RE: Genesis (11/2/2008 5:13:42 PM)
Lilith was the name of the goddess thought to cause SIDS and stillborns. People didn't worship her, they gave offerings to ward her off. Not sure why she's supposed to be Adam's other wife. However since Cain clearly moved away and married a woman from somewhere else, obviously we aren't all descended solely from Adam and Eve. You can't read the Bible literally, it's a mix of parables and oral histories of several different traditions, all of which contradict each other.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875