Saul Luizaga wrote:
> IMO, Inherent human imperfection causes God guidelines 
> misinterpretations, voluntarily or not,

Why would God allow such a thing?

> but I think can be applied to every religion; 

I would think not.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Poor assumption. 
> 
> Well since I don't leave in US I think this is understandable, so things 
> are worse than this... yeah, is a matter of concern.
> 
>> What you get from these people is that they have gotten rich off of 
>> being the way they are, which involves belief also in their divine 
>> right to rule, etc., which means 1) exploitation, 2) cheating, 3) 
>> lying for their god, 4) making masses of money from these things, 5) 
>> being convinced that, since the world will end, they don't need to 
>> "do" anything about things like health care, poverty, the environment, 
>> etc. The #1 biggest group of idiots in the US that a) own large 
>> businesses, and b) deny the need to fix various problems we have, are 
>> also people that think all the problems are "signs of the coming end", 
>> and that apposing them is actually counter to what their god wants.
> 
> IMO, Inherent human imperfection causes God guidelines 
> misinterpretations, voluntarily or not, so followers of a faulty 
> interpretation in turn misinterpret again, purposely or not, further 
> misinterpretation gives the religious radicals, all these from a lack of 
> humbleness also inherent to Humans. Cause of imperfection: imperfect way 
> of love. I don't spec you to share this opinion, as you're an Atheist, 
> but I wrote it in case you wonder why the foolish religious behavior.
> 
Umm. Answer me this question.. A few hundred years **prior** to the 
Jewish religion there was one that worshipped El, which later became 
Elohim, which later got converted into some generic term for "god in 
general", all by the followers of **one tribe**. So, why did they pick 
the war monger Yahweh, instead of one of the other 6 sons of El, 
Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, Milcom, Hadad or Qos? Seems to me, that the only 
reason Yahweh won, and the rest people stopped worshiping, was 
**because**, during that time period, his followers killed everyone 
else, or forced them to convert, and then later on, the Romans tacked on 
Jesus, borrowed from several other legends, as a replacement for the Old 
Testament's new messiah, which was, **gasp!** supposed to, according to 
**every** text in it that mentions him, supposed to be another true 
follower of Yahweh. Which is to say, a mass murdering war leader, 
dedicated to obliterating infidels.

When you stop following the "official" mistranslated, historically 
ignorant, and badly distorted words of people that **needed** their god 
to be the one and only true god, you start having issues like this. What 
happened to the other 6, and how, when even the original Jewish texts 
still say things like, "you won't worship any of those *other* gods", 
while earlier talking about more than one of them doing and creating 
things, is Yahweh suddenly the "true one", when he was just Ares, as 
apposed to Zeus? I just don't get it... Well, other than its politically 
a lot more effective if your priests are the only ones making the rules, 
and everyone else's are all dead, or disempowered.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> IMO, Inherent human imperfection causes God guidelines 
>> misinterpretations, voluntarily or not,
> 
> Why would God allow such a thing?

Well IMO theologists have their own theories but personally I think He 
does so we can need each other to compensate our imperfect (selfish) 
behavior, but honestly I don't think that nobody can unswer why, you'd 
have to ask Him in person. But the fact is that we're imperfect in many 
ways but perfectibles.

> 
>> but I think can be applied to every religion; 
> 
> I would think not.

Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is 
about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each 
other the best way possible, you get me?

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Umm. Answer me this question.. A few hundred years **prior** to the 
> Jewish religion there was one that worshipped El, which later became 
> Elohim, which later got converted into some generic term for "god in 
> general", all by the followers of **one tribe**. So, why did they pick 
> the war monger Yahweh, instead of one of the other 6 sons of El, 
> Chemosh, Dagon, Baal, Milcom, Hadad or Qos? Seems to me, that the only 
> reason Yahweh won, and the rest people stopped worshiping, was 
> **because**, during that time period, his followers killed everyone 
> else, or forced them to convert, and then later on, the Romans tacked on 
> Jesus, borrowed from several other legends, as a replacement for the Old 
> Testament's new messiah, which was, **gasp!** supposed to, according to 
> **every** text in it that mentions him, supposed to be another true 
> follower of Yahweh. Which is to say, a mass murdering war leader, 
> dedicated to obliterating infidels.
> 
> When you stop following the "official" mistranslated, historically 
> ignorant, and badly distorted words of people that **needed** their god 
> to be the one and only true god, you start having issues like this. What 
> happened to the other 6, and how, when even the original Jewish texts 
> still say things like, "you won't worship any of those *other* gods", 
> while earlier talking about more than one of them doing and creating 
> things, is Yahweh suddenly the "true one", when he was just Ares, as 
> apposed to Zeus? I just don't get it... Well, other than its politically 
> a lot more effective if your priests are the only ones making the rules, 
> and everyone else's are all dead, or disempowered.

I can't answer your question as a Theologist, but I'll do my best as a 
spiritual person.

I have seen "The Davinci Code" and found that Jesus yes was in deed a 
great man... yeah you read it right, I know now he wasn't God, a God or 
the son of God, an Roman Emperor made him God for convenience, so the 
Bible for me is not the word of God but a very good source of Moral, 
Spiritual and Love guide, so about Yahweh being a mass murderer deity 
and other stuff, is not, and I don't think ever was, much concern for my 
behavior, but the practical teaching of Jesus Christ that I can apply to 
my life, I don't know if was also manipulated or not but is: "Love GOd 
above all else and your proxy as yourself", works every time and you 
don't need to meditate much since those are fairly simple word, but the 
meditation comes *how* we do this every day, is very difficult but if 
you try very hard can be achieved and is in escence what we all need... 
you can demand respect from a people that doesn't have love or never 
been taught how to express it in a good way if they never recieved it to 
begin with (sometime life is extraordinarily cruel and difficult for 
some people), so the trick is to teach respect to the ones who 
disrespects you *without* disrespect them.

I don't pretend to know everything about being a nice person but I learn 
about it and try to be one, I advice you the same.

Let me tell you a Godless example of it, maybe you know it already. Is a 
message in a Power Point presentation in Spanish so I can't post it 
here, so I'll translate it to you:

Title: "Your interior peace, depends on you"

"A legend tells that in a Tokio village lived a Samurai, who despite his 
advanced age, stand out for his Zen teachings to the young ones and 
could still defeat any adversary. One afternoon a foreign warrior 
appeared in the village known by his total lack of respect, he wanted to 
defeat the Samurai and increase his fame that way. The old man accepted 
the challenge and the young man started insult him, kicked some stones 
toward him, spat on his face, yelled insults, offended his ancestors and 
did a lot of things to offend and wake up anger and fury in the old man.

For hours the young man did everything to provoke the Samurai, but he 
remained impassive. At the end of the day, feeling exhausted and 
humiliated, the warrior retired himself.

The Samurai students, surprised, asked their Master how could he 
tolerate so much indignation and he answered:

- If someone comes to you with a present and you don't want to accept 
it, to whom belongs the present?

- His disciples answered: to who tried to deliver it.

- The same goes for lust, anger, defamation and insults. When they're 
not accepted, continue to belong to who carried them along.

*Your interior peace depends exclusively on you. The persons can't take 
your calm from you, unless you permit it.*"

I wrote this because you seem to needed because the way you write looks 
like you're very worked up by the things going on in your Country right 
now. I don't pretend to know what are your feeling, just thought you may 
need this.


Cheers.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Well not strictly, I don't know what every religion in the world is 
> about, but mainly every religion preaches how God want us to love each 
> other the best way possible, you get me?

Um, no. Indeed, most religions don't preach that.

Buddhism doesn't. Wicca doesn't. Greek gods weren't particularly admirable. 
Norse gods weren't particularly loving. Mayan gods wanted you to kill each 
other.

I'm pretty sure that even Islam doesn't preach that, but rather obedience to 
God over all else. I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in 
the old testament as well.

Indeed, unless you think every religion is Christianity and indeed only the 
loving parts of Christianity, I'm pretty sure that "most" is overblown.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in 
> the old testament as well.

  Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in 
>> the old testament as well.
> 
>   Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
> invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).

I stand corrected.  That's kind of obvious in retrospect.  D'oh!

Of course, that means "your neighbor" and probably doesn't mean, say, the 
Egyptian Pharaohs, the Samaritans, etc.

And I forgot to list scientology, as well. And I don't know what the Mormon 
stance on loving each other, but I'm pretty sure there's a bunch of caveats 
in there too, given they dislike their gay members loving their neighbors, 
for example.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in 
> >> the old testament as well.
> > 
> >   Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
> > invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).

> I stand corrected.  That's kind of obvious in retrospect.  D'oh!

> Of course, that means "your neighbor" and probably doesn't mean, say, the 
> Egyptian Pharaohs, the Samaritans, etc.

  It is probably true that "neighbor" in that Leviticus passage refers to
"your fellow Israelites" rather than "everybody".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> I'm also pretty sure that bit doesn't actually show up in 
>>>> the old testament as well.
>>>   Actually the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment is not an
>>> invention of the New Testament. It's based on Mosaic law (Leviticus 19:18).
> 
>> I stand corrected.  That's kind of obvious in retrospect.  D'oh!
> 
>> Of course, that means "your neighbor" and probably doesn't mean, say, the 
>> Egyptian Pharaohs, the Samaritans, etc.
> 
>   It is probably true that "neighbor" in that Leviticus passage refers to
> "your fellow Israelites" rather than "everybody".
> 
Given the rest of what is in those passages... good bet. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:

Hmm. Ok, like I was saying to someone earlier today, most of the 
principles of Western civilization are Roman, not Biblical. Same more or 
less goes for Jesus. We have basically:

1. 3 Gospels, which actually contradict each other on a number of 
points, all of them written starting 50 years after the fact, then the 
others *after* that, and none of them, apparently, at the same time, or 
even by people we can verify ever met each other. Revelations is even 
written by someone that "admits" never meeting anyone else.

2. Strong parallels between some events in Titus Flavius' campaigns 
against the Jewish people, which happened... 50 years after Jesus. There 
is some implication that he intended to be declared the "second coming", 
but things didn't work out right. I find it plausible, given that 
members of his families close cousins declared themselves the first 
Christians, that they opted to use their new "invented" religion to hold 
onto some power, even though their line no longer held the empire.

3. The only secondary, and usually the "most important" source, for many 
believers, is... a short section at the start of the works of Josephus, 
which "chronicles" those wars against the Jewish people. Problem is.. 
they are almost certain, based on style, content, its disconnect from 
the rest of the contents, etc., that it was added, probably 100+ years 
*after* the NT itself was written.

Basically, the reality is, we don't even have as much evidence of Jesus 
actually existing as we have to Noah, and we are pretty sure Noah was 
borrowed from the much older story of Gilgamesh.

That said.. What you get is a conglomeration of ideas. Much like the 
constitution of the US isn't all 100% original ideas, but a combination 
of many bits of prior thinking. Everything Jesus said was, in one form 
or another, existent in other faiths, social systems, etc. But, 
fragmentary. The same group teaching you about the value of treating 
servants well would also tell you to kill foreigners. The same ones 
telling you to valid truth, would also tell you to value human 
sacrifices. The Greek and Roman gods where all over the map, but even 
their own followers, like Plato and Aristotle where looking at things 
and asking, "How much of this makes sense, and shouldn't be just keep 
the stuff that does, and get rid of what doesn't?"

So, then you have to ask, "Ok, so what did he teach, really?" Well... If 
a modern Christian believes he did, they are probably wrong. Not always, 
but often. He had *some* good ideas, mangled, like all others who have 
had them, by the nature of his time, and assumptions about how the world 
was "supposed" to work, like rule by kings, slavery as so common he used 
it in parable, without condemning it, etc. Even telling people that they 
can't be disciples, unless they hate everyone they know, including 
themselves. One may as well try, as some did, to follow the teachings of 
Karl Marx, as though nothing he said had flaws, or condemn it all, 
because it was naive and incomplete. Difference is, we don't presume 
that his ideas are a religion, or refuse to change them, the way 
religions pretty much demand people treat their ideas (while slowly 
changing anyway, just in a tooth and nail fight to try to prevent it).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message