sometimes there´s nothing more entertaining than X-tians!Anonymous said...
just so you know, the LIGHT is not satan. how would you know? It is Christ, he was brought into the world by God as a Light for men. Before Christ, men dwelt in darkness. They feared the light, of course they did that´s why there were cults that worshiped the sun everywhere! and rightly so as we are all sinners. We hide from the light. There is only one God of Israel, I´ll say it once again for you: ISis-RA-EL 3 different deities! the one true living God, the God that will judge all of us the same when we die. Not sure where you got your info from. Perhaps you are confusing idols the only one confused is you! that were worshiped by some of the Jews that God blotted out when he laid down his ten commandments. I am sheep, that´s the only point where I could agree as you seem to be a sheep! I´m not and I never wanted to be one! and my sheppard is Christ. I am proud to be in his flock, literally, because with Christ on my side, nothing that any human says can hurt me or sink my foundation. Take care guys!
Justin, "Christianity" in its self may not be unified, but belief in Christ and the word of God (ie the Bible) is not Christianity, Christianity is a word that we use to describe our religion, which 99% of the time gets it wrong by not teaching God's true doctrine.
As for your analysis of the bible not making sense, I suggest you read up on it. You see, the Jews, could not follow God's rules, wrong! they never cared for your god! why should they follow his rules? they made laws, God sent his son Jesus THE Christ maybe one day someone will tell you what it means to be the christ to free the Jews of their legalism (much like organized religion as become today). Jesus was not preaching against Judiasim, but telling the Jews that they had it all wrong. God realized that his chosen people, as much as he tried to get them to follow his commandments were just not capable. As we are not today. So Jesus THE Christ died for all our sins, mine and yours. Like a down payment so that we could get into heaven if we believe in him, spread his gospel, and confess him to men.
As per your lost book of Peter, I am confident in saying that the reason that this book is not part of the Holy Bible is because it never was to begin with. It has been agreed upon that there were only to be 5 gospels. by whom? I didn´t agree on anything! This perhaps was part of Gnosticism which was false teaching in the time of Christ, and carried on for some time after Christ, but was brought to light for what it was, false doctrine. In the bible it says, that if anyone comes with new revelation, or new "books" or "gospels" they claim where at one time part of the bible they are not true, remember what I said about Constantine? do something you normally don´t do and think about it! there might be a reason for that! that is why they are false. This is why the Mormon doctrine is completely false, The book of Revelation in the bible is the "Final revelation of Jesus Christ" This is why Islam is also not a true religion. Pretty neat huh? pretty crap! the got a holy book, a deity to worship, believers,... I´d say it is a true religion! at least not falser than yours! ok, there are differences as they worship a moongod, but...
Take care guys, still praying for you! snort some coke instead, maybe it´ll help you learn to get a life of your own!- to the members of "the flock": please, keep on entertaining me! more comments like this!
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
+framed+220x220.jpg)
.JPG)
+220.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
cults that worshipped the sun everywhere? well, since christianity emerged from Judaism, what matters is, "were there sun-worshipping cults within Judaism?" it's significant to note that the entire course of religious jewish thought from the periods when they were under Greek and then Roman rule (200-ish BCE to 70 CE) was about utterly rejecting foreign influences (read 1 and 2 maccabees). yes, the greeks did heavily influence jewish culture, but influence in religious thought was still regarded as compromise. from the new testament, it's clear the christian church was a movement of faithful religious jews, not some weird greek-influenced sect. yes, they have new understandings, but they ground it all in the hebrew bible, using a hebrew worldview.
ReplyDeletejust because zeitgeist says it doesn't make it true. the argument about "all those sun gods" looks nice on the surface, but if you actually research any of those gods and compare them to Jesus, you will find the similarities are skin-deep, and that the whole picture of the life, teachings, and death/resurrection of Jesus, and the movement he founded, is all very unique historically. the dead give-away that they're stretching to create a conspiracy theory is when they try to use the december 25th birthday as part of the similarity. the bible doesn't say Jesus was born december 25th. you can ask any Christian scholar/historian and he will tell you Jesus was probably born in the summer (the shepherds were out tending their flocks at night, aka when it wasn't outrageously hot), and that the post-Constantine church merged the sun-gods festival with the birth of Christ in (i think) the 4th century. everybody who knows early church history knows that "december 25th" is completely irrelevant to the historical person of Jesus and to the early church.
as for "is-ra-el"...that argument would be minimally compelling, except for the simple and totally obvious fact that those are the names of Egyptian gods, while "Israel" is the name of a people. you're saying israel named their nation after egyptian gods? even if that were true, what would it prove? it certainly wouldn't prove, as you said, that the hebrew God is actually three gods. if you could explain the hebrew name for GOD: "YHWH" with those terms, you'd be getting somewhere.
cults that worshipped the sun everywhere? well, since christianity emerged from Judaism, what matters is, "were there sun-worshipping cults within Judaism?"
ReplyDeleteyup, and stellar cults, and moon cults,...
yes, they have new understandings, but they ground it all in the hebrew bible, using a hebrew worldview.
like having sex with a "non-jew" is like having sex with an animal? or all non-jews are nothing more than cattle? what exactly have they understood?
just because zeitgeist says it doesn't make it true. the argument about "all those sun gods" looks nice on the surface, but if you actually research any of those gods and compare them to Jesus, you will find the similarities are skin-deep
and? who said they were 100% identically? even in Zeitgeist, while showing the similarities some differences are pointed out.
the bible doesn't say Jesus was born december 25th.
where/when did I say "the bible says Jesus was born december 25th?"
you can ask any Christian scholar/historian and he will tell you Jesus was probably born in the summer
I´d be more interested to see anything that one could consider to be an evidence of him being born at all?
everybody who knows early church history knows that "december 25th" is completely irrelevant to the historical person of Jesus and to the early church.
and once again: where is the slightest piece of evidence that there was a "historical person of Jesus"?
as for "is-ra-el"...that argument would be minimally compelling, except for the simple and totally obvious fact that those are the names of Egyptian gods, while "Israel" is the name of a people. you're saying israel named their nation after egyptian gods? even if that were true, what would it prove?
it would perhaps be a hint that those people worshiped those gods?
as they supposedly came out of Egyptian slavery (evidence for that???) one should think the religion of their "former masters" would have had some impact? as a matter of fact id had enough impact on christianity to believe in christ (the anointed one) in Egypt the anointed ones would be priests of the mystery religions that would anoint themselves with crocodile fat! and b.t.w. you´re wrong! Isis and Amen-Ra were Egyptian deities but El is a much older god! ever heard of the something called "the star of david"? you can ask any occult scholar/historian and he will tell you that this is a way older symbol called the star of El.
the hebrew name for GOD: "YHWH"
means:
orgasm / life spending energy / outburst of energy
"where is the slightest piece of evidence that there was a "historical person of Jesus"?"
ReplyDeleteummm...the canonical gospels...
the canonical gospels are four biographical/historical books written within 30-70 years of the events of which they speak, all speaking about the same guy and in many places providing second-source corroboration, which is an absurdly, ridiculously unique amount of information by historical standards. so, yes, that counts as a "slight piece of evidence."
of all the hypotheses you could come up with to explain the christian movement, the nonexistence of Jesus is just about the most implausible one you could choose.
i'm trying not to respond to every argument you make, because that would take forever, but i have to respond to that Israel thing...
sure, it's quite likely the Jews were influenced by Egyptian religious thought, but all I'm saying is it makes no sense to name your people after gods. if the hebrews started worshipping isis, ra, and el, the logical thing to do would be to call God "Israel"...not to call themselves "Israel"...they called themselves the names of another nation's gods? that makes absolutely no sense. why would they do that rather than replace "YHWH" with "Israel"?
furthermore, if you ask the Hebrews where "Israel" came from, they'd refer you to the story from Genesis 32 where God wrestles with Jacob and renames him "Israel," which means "God contended" in Hebrew. none of this sounds at all egyptian to me...does it to you?
i mean, you're not basing this argument solely on how the words sound, are you?
and i'm not necessarily doubting you that there were these sun and moon cults within judaism, but what is the evidence for them?
one thing that irks me about most of these arguments is that they're just suggestive enough to try to deconstruct the more standard theories, but the evidence behind them never seems strong enough to CONstruct new theories.
ReplyDeletei mean if it's true that the church was this sun-worshipping cult, shouldn't we be able to reread the entire new testament through that theological lens, exactly the same way we do with gnostic texts? i know you interpret a couple passages about light/darkness that way, but is there any sort of consistency in that interpretation when applied to the entire new testament? i highly, highly doubt it, because if there were then liberal scholars would be writing a heck of a lot more about it.
my general feeling from all the reading i've done on and in and about the NT, is that this theory is really not very compelling. i could be wrong, and i will continue to look into it, but it seems like whispery, suggestive, conspiracy theory type fluff to me.
the canonical gospels are four biographical/historical books written within 30-70 years of the events of which they speak, all speaking about the same guy and in many places providing second-source corroboration, which is an absurdly, ridiculously unique amount of information by historical standards. so, yes, that counts as a "slight piece of evidence."
ReplyDeletefollowing this logic the Gilgamesh story would count as evidence too!
or Homer´s story of Troy!
Philo lived throughout the supposed life of Jesus and wrote a
history of the Judeans which covered the whole of this period. He even lived in or near
Jerusalem when Jesus was said to have been born and Herod was supposed to have
killed the children, yet he doesn’t record any of this. He was there when Jesus is said to
have made his triumphant arrival in Jerusalem and when he was crucified and rose from
the dead on the third day.
What does Philo say about these fantastic events?
Nothing. Not a syllable.
None of this is mentioned in any Roman record or in the contemporary accounts of the writers of Greece and Alexandria who were familiar with what happened there. there should´ve been a guy who did all the things that he was supposed to have done and no one records it right from the start? this time "I highly, highly doubt" that!
for the Israel thing:
there are two levels of knowledge in Sun worship and/or any other ancient mystery religion. so it was never a thing of "the people" it was a thing of the initiated!
it´s like the christians that were tricked to praise AMEN-Ra during their prayers! ask any christian what this AMEN in the prayers means and where it comes from...
an initiate of the esoteric knowledge will read the Bible differently to a Christian or Jewish believer. The initiate will recognize the symbolism, the numerology and the esoteric codes, while the believer takes the text literally So the same text acts as a means of passing on esoteric knowledge to the initiated and creates a cage for the masses who are not initiated. Great scam!
i mean, you're not basing this argument solely on how the words sound, are you?
no, I don´t! as I don´t know how they would be pronounced in hebrew how could I?
and i'm not necessarily doubting you that there were these sun and moon cults within judaism, but what is the evidence for them?
archeology? historical records? (I admit I don´t trust most of the historical records and think that at least 80% of what yore taught in history classes at school is plain wrong!)
one thing that irks me about most of these arguments is that they're just suggestive enough to try to deconstruct the more standard theories, but the evidence behind them never seems strong enough to CONstruct new theories.
why should I want to construct a new theory? why should I feel sorry for people who ask to be treated as sheep?
i mean if it's true that the church was this sun-worshiping cult, shouldn't we be able to reread the entire new testament through that theological lens, exactly the same way we do with gnostic texts? i know you interpret a couple passages about light/darkness that way, but is there any sort of consistency in that interpretation when applied to the entire new testament?
there is! from start to finish! but I would suggest an occult lens rather than a theological!
i highly, highly doubt it, because if there were then liberal scholars would be writing a heck of a lot more about it.
my general feeling from all the reading i've done on and in and about the NT, is that this theory is really not very compelling. i could be wrong, and i will continue to look into it, but it seems like whispery, suggestive, conspiracy theory type fluff to me.
interesting point - maybe you should re-think what you consider to be "whispery, suggestive, conspiracy theory type fluff"?
"following this logic the Gilgamesh story would count as evidence too!
ReplyDeleteor Homer´s story of Troy!"
Sure, but do we worship Gilgamesh? Do we still worship the Greek gods? No, because the only God is the God of Israel. The bible and God is bigger than us, we will cease to exist, but the word will live on forever. These were man’s attempt to create gods, not the other way around as in God creating us.
"Philo lived throughout the supposed life of Jesus and wrote a
history of the Judeans which covered the whole of this period. He even lived in or near
Jerusalem when Jesus was said to have been born and Herod was supposed to have
killed the children, yet he doesn’t record any of this. He was there when Jesus is said to
have made his triumphant arrival in Jerusalem and when he was crucified and rose from
the dead on the third day.
What does Philo say about these fantastic events?
Nothing. Not a syllable."
Philo of Alexandria? As in Egypt? Not Jerusalem. Correct? Just want to make sure we are talking about the same guy. He was Jewish and supported the Jewish view that Yaweh is the one true living God. Also, there is no evidence that he lived during the time of Jesus. No one but Philo and God know when Philo lived and died.
"None of this is mentioned in any Roman record or in the contemporary accounts of the writers of Greece and Alexandria who were familiar with what happened there. there should´ve been a guy who did all the things that he was supposed to have done and no one records it right from the start? this time "I highly, highly doubt" that!"
Which Roman records? Daily records? Do you have copies of the records of Pontius Pilot? I would love for you to share them! You have to look at it like this, when Jesus was alive, he made a very small footprint on the world. He himself said that his word would grow after he was crucified. Why would the Romans be interested in something that didn’t really affect them at the time? The remaining records of the Romans (that survive to this day) are mainly writings about kings and rulers or Rome. We only find mention of Christianity after it gripped the Roman empire. Well after Jesus had died.
Sure, but do we worship Gilgamesh? Do we still worship the Greek gods?
ReplyDeleteI don´t know if you do? but according to your logic we shouldn´t worship the god of the bible neither!
Philo of Alexandria? As in Egypt? Not Jerusalem.
yup, Philo who first lived in Jerusalem and then moved to Alexandria
He was Jewish and supported the Jewish view that Yaweh is the one true living God
that would mean that the jewish viewpoint is a monotheistic which it was NOT in those days and as the jewish religion remained a mystery religion to this day I´m not sure if I´d say it is now!
the remaining fact is that you´ve no evidence for anything besides the canonical gospels that were shaped by Jerome after his orthodox point of view!
or did I miss anything important?
Pope I didn't realize there were more comments on that gigantic epic of a post a while back and now this one. Kind of going beyond what this burnt out mind can handle right now, but I do enjoy the dialogue. Where were you guys 15 years ago when I still had most of my brain and wasn't just dabbling in religious thought. Great stuff guys. You guys probably know or at least think you know more than me :-) I like these sites on the subject, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ , http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm (This is a quiet place in cyberspace
ReplyDeletedevoted to religious tolerance and scholarship), http://www.religioustolerance.org/index.htm#new . Thanx Pope for providing a stomping ground for discussion. More later...
"Justin, "Christianity" in its self may not be unified, but belief in Christ and the word of God (ie the Bible) is not Christianity, Christianity is a word that we use to describe our religion, which 99% of the time gets it wrong by not teaching God's true doctrine."
ReplyDeleteThe author here makes a good point. He considers himself part of the 1% that has it right and that's the one of the things humanity has in common, they all think they are right. The other 99% think they are right too. I am not an atheist and what I go by is what's right between myself and the God of my understanding. I don't want the responsibility of telling someone how it is because that is between them and God of their understanding. Socrates is probably the only one who had it "right" when he said, "the only thing I know, is that I don't know".
Hey Justin,
ReplyDeleteGood point, point taken, we are quick to point the finger. I think what I am really trying to say is that most chruches do not teach the bible, which is where they fall short, it would be like going to school, but not having books to learn from or corroborate what is being taught. But, armed with the bible, what else do you need, if that is God's word?
if that is God's word?
ReplyDeletethat´s the difficult part, even if the bible would´ve been god´s word somewhere in the past since Jerome shaped the canonical gospels after his viewpoint... it would be spoiled today!
@ justin
I don´t think I know more than anyone else...just once in a while (and/or when it comes down to religion as 99% of the people know less than nothing about it, they just think they do!)
"following this logic the Gilgamesh story would count as evidence too!
ReplyDeleteor Homer´s story of Troy!"
not at all. those are myth and legend, while the NT must be treated AT LEAST partly as serious history, since it claims to give eye-witness accounts, gives many irrelevant details (not typical of legends/myths), and has had its historical detail verified by archaeology on numerous occasions. even if we accept that jerome edited them, i still would think it completely illogical to say that these four books, which are stylistically close to detailed biographies, were about someone who didn't exist. that just seems insane to me (and to almost all the modern scholars i've ever read, liberal or conservative).
"What does Philo say about these fantastic events?
Nothing. Not a syllable."
this is an argument from the absence of evidence. sorry dude, but that's just not solid...no serious historian would ever accept that.
"why should I want to construct a new theory?"
you already did. you were presenting it to me in the last few paragraphs you wrote.
and you should want to construct a new theory because if your goal is truth, then when you abandon one theory because of some piece of evidence, you should try to create a new one that suitably includes that evidence.
"there is! from start to finish! but I would suggest an occult lens rather than a theological!"
would you refer me to some sources on this? i'd be interested to learn more about this.
just so you know where i'm coming from, i majored in religious studies at a secular college, so i have heard a lot of theories that are supposed to kill the traditional Christian understanding of the Bible. my impression from my time studying there is that there are huge disagreements among literally hundreds/maybe thousands of well-informed and serious scholars on just about everything you could think to argue about in the Bible.
i've read people who passionately and somewhat convincingly argued that Jesus was totally social and that his followers added in all the apocalyptic elements, and people who argued with the same passion and persuasiveness saying that he was totally apocalyptic and cared little for social causes. it sort of makes me think that to a large degree, biblical interpretation is just that; your own interpretation.
but, you know...send me some links or book recommendations and i'll look into it
even if we accept that jerome edited them, i still would think it completely illogical to say
ReplyDeleteI´m already tired so I´ll keep it short:
that these four books, which are stylistically close to detailed biographies, were about someone who didn't exist. that just seems insane to me (and to almost all the modern scholars i've ever read, liberal or conservative).
just curious: why does this seem insane?
"What does Philo say about these fantastic events?
Nothing. Not a syllable."
this is an argument from the absence of evidence. sorry dude, but that's just not solid...no serious historian would ever accept that.
to make a little clearer what I wanted to bring across: my problem is that there are "four books, which are stylistically close to detailed biographies" and nothing more! nothing, nowhere... somehow this alone rings my alarm bell!
"why should I want to construct a new theory?"
you already did. you were presenting it to me in the last few paragraphs you wrote.
no, I didn´t! I just presented you already existing theories! the same as you did. I could have advocated one including a living jesus if I would´ve wanted to cause of people like jerome and others there are things neither side could back up 100%! my goal is not "truth" my goal is to step on the toes of those who try to make something I deeply despise an
accepted part of our community!
would you refer me to some sources on this? i'd be interested to learn more about this.
as I said I´m tired so for now:
www.jordanmaxwell.com
or
www.michaeltsarion.com
should do it! b.t.w. jordan maxwell wrote a book together with 3 other people that was called "the book the church doesn´t want you to read" that´s on the subject!
if you´re interested in occult knowledge from a christian viewpoint I´d suggest Ralph Epperson
going to bed now! I´ll give you more sources and book titles tomorrow!
as promised more sources for you resarch:
ReplyDeletebesides the work of M.Tsarion and J.Maxwell I´d suggest the work of:
David Icke (which may be tricky as I don´t believe everything he says and most of his work is about conspiracy theory!)
Elaine Pagels - The Origin of Satan
Eric Jon Phelps has done some good stuff on the subject
now as I´m trying to point out some sources to you I recognize how difficult it is to name some non German sources. but the homepages of M.Tsarion and J.Maxwell should give you enough hints where to look for information. oh, and there´s a video documentary called "The Rings Of Power" it came in 4 parts and one part is about: was Jesus a historical person? even as I don´t believe he was, I´d consider their explanation worth seeing!
I´d like to add that I´d love to hear any christian explanation of why they use AMEN in their prayers and what it means!
ReplyDeletejesus was cool, but thats it! there is no evidence that he existed and no one will ever prove that he did. you cannot base that on books written by humans to me this is just propaganda not a proof. its not even that important anymore we have books and other stuff to educate ourselves and to know whats right or wrong or just using our common sense. isnt that why the mythological person jesus came to earth? to teach the right from wrong.
ReplyDeletebooks written by humans to me this is just propaganda not a proof
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%!
The bible was written by man, but dictated directly from God. Check out the book of Issiah. No way man could come up with that stuff himself. Sorry, not even Nostradomus could touch Issiah.
ReplyDeletebut it was written by a man who wrote he was dictated by god. just because u say "no way man could come up with all this stuff" it doesnt make it a proof that god exists. i can come up with better stuff than the book of isaiah like polar bears having sex with penguins and their baby comes to life to teach us that religion is a fraud and to save us.
ReplyDeleteThe bible was written by man, but dictated directly from God. Check out the book of Issiah. No way man could come up with that stuff himself. Sorry, not even Nostradomus could touch Issiah.
ReplyDeletesays who? evidence?
i can come up with better stuff than the book of isaiah like polar bears having sex with penguins and their baby comes to life to teach us that religion is a fraud and to save us.
sounds good! go ahead!
yeah, I would love to hear your prophesy, If it comes true, then I would think you were inspired by God. The reason I say that no man could make up the stuff in Isiaah is because it is all prophetic, and it is all coming true.
ReplyDeletesays who? evidence?
ReplyDeleteand b.t.w. it´s boring to ask the same over and over again!
"it sort of makes me think that to a large degree, biblical interpretation is just that; your own interpretation."
ReplyDeletea major thrust of this argument was just destroyed by this statement.
the bible is not historical truth. it has been tinkered with and edited numerous times, by whatever king felt the need to tip the scales in their favor. History is always colored by the people who are in power. Thus, the bible is a story, one with many secrets and hidden agendas, things that have been muddled through time, as I have stated. It then seems silly to really worry about an ancient text when it seems very likely that if Jesus ever came back, the world would probably shun him this time around.
I suggest we drop the silly christian rhetoric and start taking faith and belief into our own hands, from current causes and with current measures. Right now the earth is changing, war and deceipt are rampant, and some of you still really care to prove that Jesus was real and yet how many of those same fervent believers look back and say, "Well, Guatama was real, he did amazing things, but we dont bother with him because Jesus is the only one worth talking about."
Or do those people just not believe that he existed? What about the Maharajis in India? Amazing stuff. Yet all you care about is the written proof that Jesus lived and that christianity is the one true religion? Seriously?
Where is the world view? Christianity has no objectiveness. It is all based on a few texts by a small group of followers. And it completely disregards the major differences between all of humanity.
Lucifer was the light bringer. He was demonized by christianity because the idea of sharing the knowledge that there is more to the story than what the bible laid forth is considered heresy by a bunch of power hungry bishops and cardinals. They didnt want people to "See the light" so to speak, ie, see past the very loose based system that they were deriving their divine power from. The ability to transmit the word of god to people? but you can only be a man, speak latin, and not have sex (or maybe only with little boys? i dont know) They had the world by the balls! for over a thousand years! And now on a hardcore blog, a genre which has done light years worth of work to crack the facade and open up the human consciousness, to see outside the box, to not believe everything thats been told to you, it is within this forum that some of you choose to fight for the "truth of christianity"? It's "oneness"? It's infalliability? It's rubbish!
Save it for the church. Save it for the people that believe what you believe. Leave the rest of us to share and revel in the idea that 2000+ year old texts arent what really matter when going forth with our lives.
There is no doubt that religion has sundered the relationships of man, for thousands of year. Maybe the best thing is to just drop the shtick, live your life, believe what you want to believe and be tolerant and loving towards others.
Maybe thats what the original message was and it has just been perverted through centuries of arguments just like this.
[end rant]
cheers.
blend77/tim
@ blend77:
ReplyDeletehow true!
and b.t.w. as Jesus is supposed to have said: "all that came before me are nothing but robbers and thieves!" what does that make Moses and the 10 commandments?
ps. if I didnt mention, this blog kicks some serious ass..
ReplyDeleteI linked you over my way.
and also, why do christians always have to vigorously defend their standpoint? I was raised christian, went to CCD, went to a Catholic college, the only thing all of this did for me was A) make me never want to associate with any sort of christian ethic, and B) realize that the majority of christians are the most opinionated and stubborn bunch of people, with hypocracies out the ass, that I have ever come across. Jesus preached love and understanding, and how many christians really live by those tenets?
And its that same reason, that stubborness and unwillingness to see any other angle that leads them to constantly argue their point without any concern for the other side. You, Papst, made some statement, and now you have a few christians who feel the need to point out your fallacy rather than ever flip over that stone and look underneath it themselves. Blind faith is just that, blind, and is that something to base a religion off of?
Im am always reminded of my friend, who mustve gotten this idea from someone much greater and wiser than ourselves, when he talked about religion as a mountain, and we all stand around this mountain, we look up at it and we all see different sides, the mountain looks different from the north than it does from the south, so it goes that we all argue that what we see is the real mountain, when in fact we just cant see all sides of it at once. The mountain is bigger than one could take in in this subjective state of reasoning, so it goes to argument that if we could stop thinking about ourselves and what we see, then maybe we can begin to realize that it takes many viewpoints to establish what is, in essence, much bigger than all of us.
So anyone that steps up and wants to say "this is the way" because they read 4 ancient texts from zealous followers of one person should alway take that into account.
It with that "Grain of salt" that the truth of religion should be taken. I have a hunch we could have, as a human race, avoided thousands of years of senseless killing and war. Millions of people killed for no other reason other than they saw one side of the mountain and not the other.
It's still the same mountain.
something to think about for the X-tians! but I´ve to admit that thinking and X-ianity don´t go hand in hand that often!
ReplyDeleteI asked anybody to prove me wrong on any statement I made but with the exception of tracethetree no one even tried! all they had to offer was "read the bible" which i´ve done before what they would´ve known if they would have thought about what I´ve written!