EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[Raasyvibe]

Well jesus was wrong then (wasn't the first time) - unlimited understanding equals unlimited love and leads to universal forgiveness - that's one of them facts that is (as subjectively proven by me to me). And what exactly is the holy spirit when it's at home? Just so i know not to blaspheme against it - if it can't be defined clearly and obviously, then what's to stop some priest saying 'that bloke was blaspheming against the holy spirit and should be killed; but this bloke [my mate] wasn't so is fine'

You've got more vague about hell now, which is good - what about my point about understanding of your own flaws leading inevitably to understanding/forgiveness? If you now agree that it could be self induced, then where does god/jesus even come into it?

God offered a choice, Jesus offered redemption. Ignoring both see's the sinful nature kill you as a spiritual being (So the theology goes)

Holy spirit - spirit of love, truth and grace which preceded our creation. The Bible and Christianity seems to suggest that an evil person (Your hitler, brady etc) is that way inclined eternally and that if God is rejected now in this life (threescore years and ten), their heart is set that way for all eternity. To affirm this perennial rebellion, it seems to cite Satan - who is still a bad boy causing havoc, after all these aeons. Once the soul is gone; it's gone.

It does seem quite a difficult concept to accept fully, though our knowledge of how ones heart inclines over millions of years is clearly untestable.

Have you ever read up on stoicism raas?

No.

(and you seem to be quite interested in anton lavey for a christian - did you know he was an atheist and didn't actually believe in satan or god? (i didn't watch the vid though)

Most Satanists fit that category. I understand the same is true for Lavey, but in that interview he talks about channeling demons and befriending them, which seems to contradict what I thought about him.


Edit: Interesting discussion on the matter
http://www.modernchurchofsatan.com/grotto/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4583


If LaVey did not believe in the Supernatural then why?...

"People always insist that LaVey did not believe at all in the supernatural or in spiritual beings and stuff. So why did he say things like you should not use protective circles and Pentagrams to protect yourself from these Powers and Forces as only by being in league with them can you utilize them? "


"Personally from all that I have heard I'd say yes he believed - just not the way those clamouring to the contrary understand. Why would anyone do so many things without audiences and to ends such would not approve "

 

[Vurtual]

As far as i know (which isn't much) lavey was quite interested in the 'supernatural' (as in magic and such), but still an atheist (the two aren't mutually exclusive)

Your position is a bit confused - you say there's divine plan, and yet people can damn themselves to eternity by their actions - or not; therefore making multiple possibilities. And you say we have free will too, but all those free will choices add up to infinite possibilities, and therefore no plan (unless you mean the entire multiverse is the plan (everything possible all together is still not really a plan though is it).

God offered a choice, Jesus offered redemption. Ignoring both see's the sinful nature kill you as a spiritual being (So the theology goes)

I'm afraid that's just bollocks as far as i'm concerned, and sticking theology on the end doesn't help - you might as well stick mohammed guru nanak or krishna in there for all the sense it makes to me. Do you think jesus offered this redmeption to any of the other intelligent life inevitably in the universe (estimates say there are 10 billion earth-like planets just in our galaxy (and billions of other galaxies))

Holy spirit - spirit of love, truth and grace which preceded our creation. The Bible and Christianity seems to suggest that an evil person (Your hitler, brady etc) is that way inclined eternally and that if God is rejected now in this life (threescore years and ten), their heart is set that way for all eternity. To affirm this perennial rebellion, it seems to cite Satan - who is still a bad boy causing havoc, after all these aeons. Once the soul is gone; it's gone.

It does seem quite a difficult concept to accept fully, though our knowledge of how ones heart inclines over millions of years is clearly untestable.

I think you're interpreting most of that out of a mix of the bible and later writers, which is good (it bloody needs it - while you're at it, you could ditch the homophobia). So the general idea is that we have this whole probably infinite universe of matter which we just spend 70 years in, then go to some other unspecified place for untold billions of years where we never change - if nothing else that's an awful waste of material. It's a very simplistic and human centric way to think of something as large scale as a universe or an ultimate deity. Compare this to the depth and detail of hindu cosmology covering trillions of years and numerous universes (and getting various physics concepts pretty much right intuitively) - the judaeo-christian cosmology at root is just some backwater cult in comparison, knocked off from babylonian religion (not to be too insulting, but it's true - sort of on a par with a giant turtle on four elephants) - to be fair, it got more sophisticated later on (not least because the stoicism and neoplatonism added).

From wikipedia page on hindu cosmology:

The Rig Veda's view of the cosmos also sees one true divine principle self-projecting as the divine word, Vaak, 'birthing' the cosmos that we know, from the monistic Hiranyagarbha or Golden Womb. The universe is considered to constantly expand since creation and disappear into a thin haze after billions of years.[citation needed] An alternate view is that the universe begins to contract after reaching its maximum expansion limits until it disappears into a fraction of a millimeter.[citation needed] The creation begins anew after billions of years (Solar years) of non-existence.

The puranic view asserts that the universe is created, destroyed, and re-created in an eternally repetitive series of cycles. In Hindu cosmology, a universe endures for about 4,320,000,000 years (one day of Brahma, the creator or kalpa) and is then destroyed by fire or water elements. At this point, Brahma rests for one night, just as long as the day. This process, named pralaya (literally especial dissolution in Sanskrit, commonly translated as Cataclysm), repeats for 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Human Years) that represents Brahma's lifespan. Brahma is regarded as a manifestation of Brahman as the creator.

In current occurrence of Universe, we are believed to be in the 51st year of the present Brahma and so about 156 trillion years have elapsed since he was born as Brahma. After Brahma's "death", it is necessary that another 100 Brahma years (311 Trillion, 40 Billion Years) pass until a new Brahma is born and the whole creation begins anew. This process is repeated again and again, forever.

...
The concept of multiverses is mentioned many times in Hindu Puranic literature, such as in the Bhagavata Purana (400–1000 CE):

Every universe is covered by seven layers — earth, water, fire, air, sky, the total energy and false ego — each ten times greater than the previous one. There are innumerable universes besides this one, and although they are unlimitedly large, they move about like atoms in You. Therefore You are called unlimited (Bhagavata Purana 6.16.37)

After separating the different universes, the gigantic universal form of the Lord, which came out of the causal ocean, the place of appearance for the first puruṣa-avatāra, entered into each of the separate universes, desiring to lie on the created transcendental water (Bhagavata Purana 2.10.10)
Even though over a period of time I might count all the atoms of the universe, I could not count all of My opulences which I manifest within innumerable universes (Bhagavata Purana 11.16.39)

Parts of that page could pass for a roger penrose lecture.

Really though, read some of marcus aurelius' quotes - you'll be hard pressed to find anything unchristian in there (except him being a roman emperor who probably killed christians of course). i think various early church fathers made efforts to explain how the original stoics were somehow still 'ok' by christianity, because of how similar the messages were (like some waffle about the holy spirit influencing them)

Some marcus aurelius:

“Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them.”
“You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.”
“The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts.”
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”
“Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”
“Accept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together,but do so with all your heart.”
“When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ...”
“The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.”
“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.”

The bold one sums up my view on why punishment dimensions wouldn't be created by a putative loving god (and why capital punishment is wrong)

 

[rickolasnice]

Sure, rass.. this is one of the sites that got me going.. most of what I said is said better here: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#

Please do read the site, properly, and let me know what you think.. I don't want a step by step rebuttal or anything..

I'm out of this argument for now anyway.

Much love

 

[Raasyvibe]

I think you're interpreting most of that out of a mix of the bible and later writers, which is good (it bloody needs it - while you're at it, you could ditch the homophobia).

Christianity is not homophobic. There's lot's of considerable criticism you could give the religion, but homophobia is not one of them.

The bible does not condone homophobia and Christians who follow the bible properly are not homophobic.

I wrote this in detail here
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-II-Exodus?p=12393079&viewfull=1#post12393079

So the general idea is that we have this whole probably infinite universe of matter which we just spend 70 years in, then go to some other unspecified place for untold billions of years where we never change - if nothing else that's an awful waste of material. It's a very simplistic and human centric way to think of something as large scale as a universe or an ultimate deity. Compare this to the depth and detail of hindu cosmology covering trillions of years and numerous universes (and getting various physics concepts pretty much right intuitively) - the judaeo-christian cosmology at root is just some backwater cult in comparison, knocked off from babylonian religion (not to be too insulting, but it's true - sort of on a par with a giant turtle on four elephants) - to be fair, it got more sophisticated later on (not least because the stoicism and neoplatonism added).

With my Christian hat and rosary taken off, the idea of heaven and hell does sound a little too simplistic. I would like to think of various stages of hell or re-incarnation, made to bring a person into repentance. Even the Catholics throw in purgatory, though the bible does not speak of it. At the same time I see sense in "eternal punishment" when (as I explained earlier) the concept of a sin being eternal.ie - If you've done something unforgivable, nothing can eraze that doing for all eternity.

Just what hell is, how many levels it has and how it works out to be eternal is contentious and something the bible is not clear on.

Big subject. While you get your head around it, check out peoples NDE's and experiences of hell on youtube. fascinating stuff
(recommend
-woman who commits suicide beautiful advice for suicide sufferer's here
- Satanic voodoo priest who wants to go to hell, goes there and comes back and follows Christ:








ricko, you next

 

[Vurtual]

Christianity is not homophobic. There's lot's of considerable criticism you could give the religion, but homophobia is not one of them.

The bible does not condone homophobia and Christians who follow the bible properly are not homophobic.

Yeah, we've been through this, but telling people that they aren't doing it right because they love (and fuck) who they want to is homophobic, if only passive-aggressive homophobia (like saying i wish you no ill at all, but you're not following god's plan are you) - and i'm pretty damn sure that large parts of christianity and many individual christians have taken part in aggressive-aggressive homophobia. I'm well aware that applying jesus' important lessons about love and the golden rule properly should preclude homophobia, but it bloody well doesn't in many cases (and applying these simple rules (which jesus didn't invent) also negates loads of other guff in the bible)

And i like the nuance you're giving to heaven and hell as concepts - now do this to the historical veracity and coherence of the bible as a whole .

What's wrong with the quakers anyway? if there's some christians who have done good stuff per head of population it's them (greenpeace, amnesty, oxfam, discovering quasars, introducing hot chocolate in brum to help with alcoholism etc)

 

[rickolasnice]

Christianity is not homophobic. There's lot's of considerable criticism you could give the religion, but homophobia is not one of them.

The bible does not condone homophobia and Christians who follow the bible properly are not homophobic.3

Eh? Do we define a religion by it's doctrine or the consensus of it's followers?

In both cases Christianity is, in a way, homophobic..

Your post about it in detail is flawed.. You use the old testament and the writings of Paul to justify your claims.. You cannot use those sources without acknowledging the rest of it.. which includes extreme sexism, slavery, etc etc (Focussing on Paul, here)

I guess it's fair to say that women should stay quiet in church and if they want to learn they should ask their husbands at home? That they should cover their head because otherwise it is an abomination?

 

[Raasyvibe]

forgive my lateness in these replies... after 3 or so years of pouring your heart out, and no-one prepared to listen you begin to lose heart for this thread.

Eh? Do we define a religion by it's doctrine or the consensus of it's followers?

In both cases Christianity is, in a way, homophobic..

Your post about it in detail is flawed.. You use the old testament and the writings of Paul to justify your claims.. You cannot use those sources without acknowledging the rest of it.. which includes extreme sexism, slavery, etc etc (Focussing on Paul, here)

I guess it's fair to say that women should stay quiet in church and if they want to learn they should ask their husbands at home? That they should cover their head because otherwise it is an abomination?

Paul might be a woman hating, racist, evil, slave trading son of a gun. Whatever else he says is irrelevant, the fact remains. The bible and Christianity is no way homophobic.

Also Paul's letters do not include "Extreme sexism", a couple of verses can be misread as misogynist, but "extreme sexism" is something you've just made up.

Yeah, we've been through this, but telling people that they aren't doing it right because they love (and fuck) who they want to is homophobic, if only passive-aggressive homophobia (like saying i wish you no ill at all, but you're not following god's plan are you) - and i'm pretty damn sure that large parts of christianity and many individual christians have taken part in aggressive-aggressive homophobia. I'm well aware that applying jesus' important lessons about love and the golden rule properly should preclude homophobia, but it bloody well doesn't in many cases (and applying these simple rules (which jesus didn't invent) also negates loads of other guff in the bible)

And i like the nuance you're giving to heaven and hell as concepts - now do this to the historical veracity and coherence of the bible as a whole .

What's wrong with the quakers anyway? if there's some christians who have done good stuff per head of population it's them (greenpeace, amnesty, oxfam, discovering quasars, introducing hot chocolate in brum to help with alcoholism etc)

No it isn't homophobic. Christianity makes a distinguish between love in an intended way, and love in an unintended way. That's it. It suggests, for instance, that me and you are not meant to be together. That doesn't make it homophobic, it's just saying some people are meant for each other and some aren't.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Whether the Bible is homophobic is definitely open to interperatation. Whether (the majority of) Christianity is, definitely isn't.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^No, look you've joined in too late. I've demonstrated and clarified that the bible is in no way homophobic, those who argue otherwise are blind.


Homophobia inside of the church, is definitely in the minority. I think all denominations condemn the westboro Baptist "God hates gays" campaigns.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

You're nuts son, the Roman Catholic church is without a doubt homophobic and they represent the vast majority of worldwide Christians.

Given the language it's written in a lot of what the Bible talks about is open to interperatation. Whether it even talks about homosexuality is open to interperatation, but if the passage most people quote on the subject is indeed talking about it then it's fair to say it's homophobic. You can't really 'demonstrate' much from the bible given the amount of times it's been translated before getting to English and the changing nature of language. That you think you can be so sure of what it means is pretty amusing.

'Blind' lol, how ironic.

 

[Raasyvibe]

You're nuts son, the Roman Catholic church is without a doubt homophobic and they represent the vast majority of worldwide Christians.

Quite a statement. Prove it then, because I don't believe you at all. Show me why and where they are homophobic.



As for translational errors, yes they do occur but nothing significant enough to change the religions entire incentive from peace loving to homophobia. You're just talking nonsense in an attempt to verify your incorrect statement.


here's my original post on the bible and homophobia:
http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...-II-Exodus?p=12393079&viewfull=1#post12393079

 

[Josh]

Quite a statement. Prove it then, because I don't believe you at all. Show me why and where they are homophobic.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Does this page on catholic.com, which claims that homosexuality is a sin in the second sentence, count as proof?

Probably not, since you'll find some way of turning it back around again.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

The Roman Catholic church's many restrictions on what you can and cannot do within their organisation if you are a homosexual is clear homophobia, to claim otherwise is just being obtuse. If I was to open a business and start introducing similar rules within my organisation I would be breaking the law in this country.

It's nice that you think Christianity is peace loving, 'blind' lol. Same as on many different subjects the bible is totally contradictory on the matter, and history has shown that the people who follow Christianity have very defintiely not been peace loving. There are many good, peace loving Christians who I have a lot of time for, but for some reason they follow and support organisations that have clearly shown themselves not to be (*cough* the crusades *cough*).

It's cute that you're so sure you've got everything worked out. You keep studying that bible my friend, there's lots of good stuff in there.

 

[Raasyvibe]

The Roman Catholic church's many restrictions on what you can and cannot do within their organisation if you are a homosexual is clear homophobia, to claim otherwise is just being obtuse. If I was to open a business and start introducing similar rules within my organisation I would be breaking the law in this country.

It's nice that you think Christianity is peace loving, 'blind' lol. Same as on many different subjects the bible is totally contradictory on the matter, and history has shown that the people who follow Christianity have very defintiely not been peace loving. There are many good, peace loving Christians who I have a lot of time for, but for some reason they follow and support organisations that have clearly shown themselves not to be (*cough* the crusades *cough*).

It's cute that you're so sure you've got everything worked out. You keep studying that bible my friend, there's lots of good stuff in there.

Owen Omen,

Christianity is a peace-loving religion. If members do not follow this, where does the fault lie? With the members, or the church itself? The answer is obvious. You cannot assess the church upon the actions of spiritual abusers.

The Roman Catholic church's many restrictions on what you can and cannot do within their organisation if you are a homosexual is clear homophobia, to claim otherwise is just being obtuse.

Another sweeping statement. Again, show me where and why? give some proof to your claims. You're still yet to show me any.








Josh, one sec looking at ur post now

 

[Raasyvibe]

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality

Does this page on catholic.com, which claims that homosexuality is a sin in the second sentence, count as proof?

Probably not, since you'll find some way of turning it back around again.

oh right, homosexual desires are sinful. As are heterosexual desires.

Lusting over another human is sinful, boy or girl... And this is because

Christianity makes a distinguish between love in an intended way, and love in an unintended way.

so if ur lusting over a person, boy or girl it's sinful... don't panic though! it's completely natural, for no person is without sin

NSFW:

"Ecclesiastes 7:20 Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

And Christ does not hate you for this, because he loves all people (1 John 4:8 )









is that answer good enough??

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Owen Omen,

Christianity is a peace-loving religion. If members do not follow this, where does the fault lie? With the members, or the church itself? The answer is obvious. You cannot assess the church upon the actions of spiritual abusers.

Another sweeping statement. Again, show me where and why? give some proof to your claims. You're still yet to show me any.


Josh, one sec looking at ur post now

As for the first bit, I totally agree that the fault lies with the organisations that are responsible for those atrocities. Don't be so simple. If you then go and lend your support to that organisation then wtf? You're going to tell me you're (the proverbial you before you get all shitty....) peace loving but you're a member of a church that is founded on violence and forcing your beliefs on people? Come on.....that doesn't add up. People have to be judged by their actions not just by what comes out of their mouths, and if they're happy to lend support to such an organisation whilst claiming to be peaceful they're obviously not thinking or they're not as peace loving as they say they are.

Are you peace loving? Would you lend your support to an organisation founded on murder and controlling people's thought (I have no idea what denomination you are btw)?


As for the second bit, you really want me to go and find sources for the roman catholic church's refusal to allow homosexuals to occupy certain positions in their organisation? Or are you claiming that isn't homophobic?

 

[Josh]

oh right, homosexual desires are sinful. As are heterosexual desires.

Lusting over another human is sinful, boy or girl... And this is because



so if ur lusting over a person, boy or girl it's sinful... don't panic though! it's completely natural, for no person is without sin

NSFW:

"Ecclesiastes 7:20 Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

And Christ does not hate you for this, because he loves all people (1 John 4:8 )









is that answer good enough??

But Raas, what about all the other sins you do? Isn't drinking port til you vomit on the carpet a sin, for example? Or is it just OK to sin all the time because you found one line in the Bible which says so? If that's the case, why can't you let us post images which are(n't) offensive, because we're all allowed to sin too right?

I don't know, it's a good job we don't all believe that lusting after members of the opposite sex is a sin, as a species I reckon we'd go extinct pretty quickly if that was the case.

 

[Raasyvibe]

^ You haven't addressed the post at all, so guessing my response was sufficient. Thank you.

In terms of extinction, faith of God comes in. If we're intended to be spiritual people, there will be spiritual partners. Way too many couples claim to be twin flames/soul mates to negate the idea.

And as for me vomiting on the carpet, well im not perfect and don't have a great relationship with God. I'll happily admit that. 10 years ago, I would never drink or even take caffeine, I was that aescetic. Now times have changed. I keep Christian virtues locked in my heart however; strive for compassion. Not to hurt humans or animals. And by puking on the carpet I hurt no-one but myself.

 

[koneko]

Have you no experience of lust within a loving relationship? Desire for your spouse bringing your union of love together.

Maybe its worth risking it and trying it out for yourself sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

^ You haven't addressed the post at all, so guessing my response was sufficient. Thank you.

You talking to me?

Yes I have, I exactly addressed it. You're just not answering because you can't.

You have a commendable but hilarious belief in your beliefs.