This is a thread I started and you do not have to read it and you do not have to reply.

Why discussing something with mindless people?

If you consider me to be mindless then there is no point in discussing anything with you.

That I have already observed before.

Janimal, I realise that you were only quoting Niphtrique's comment

... but this still sound rather like a personal insult, so just please be careful

I'm sure that, within the myriad occurrances on Earth, we can find many, many strange coincidences.

This doesn't mean that we live in a virtual reality.

I know that it has long been suggested that we each imagine our own world ~ and, to an extent, this must be correct ~ but not to the extent that we live in an imaginary cyber world.

what we are accustomed here is discussion. somebody proposes an argument,then somebody counters and questions it - this is generally followed by a further response supporting the initial argument.

i find this a very stimulating and interesting process which brings out peoples reasons for their beliefs, and it has taught me much about people and society. in some cases my rebuttals come across rather strongly as in the case of religious matters where i perceive attitudes which directly harm society and progress. while i see value in religion i am very passionate about defeating its negative effects. i am well know here for exactly that. my avatar should tell you as much.

the strength of my rebuttal should not bother you if you have sufficient belief in your argument - i am genuinely disappointed that you have chosen to have a huff rather than offering an intelligent response to the points i have raised, which you have utterly failed to do. it leaves us at rather an unproductive impasse.

i strongly suspect that you are choosing to get into a huff and offer virtually monosyllabic responses because you have no arguments to support your beliefs beyond number and coincidence woo. sorry to have wasted your time.

Ok I know that I am going to regret this but:

The Celts do not now have a creation myth - instead we assume that man existed in one form or another always as a being of immanent suffering and this is known as "oron mor" or the "Song of the ocean", if I remember it correctly. You see suffering is eternal so it is up to man to find "Beauty" in all things because it is present in all things we just have to look. This "Beauty" is a form of energy and if found, in all natural things, then there is an everlasting abundant supply of this energy and this can be used to make things happen but it is up to man to make use of it on his own. Perhaps I didn't explain this concept as well as it was explained to me but the short end is that all answers are found in nature.

We assume that the Druid once knew the story of creation but this was taken from him by mother raven for some great treason which only makes sense since mankind only makes use of a very small portion of his mind and the rest is blank space (one of the few things that Celtic wisdom and modern science agree upon).

You all know the stories of Avalon, Rhianna and Arthur but the ones you don't know are the ones pertaining to modern era heroes. Pretty much all myths especially the ones told of creation are just that "MYTHS" - Tales not meant to be taken literally but fragmented stories told from mother to son, father to daughter on and on through the countless eons. Our history books can't get the history of "Custer's Last Stand" or "Washington on the Potomac" correct so do you really think that a story which is five millennia or even two millennia old is going to be anywhere close to correct?

We could have been born of a great white shark that came from the moon, nursed by two piles of seaweed and we would never know the difference! The Romans thought that they were founded by two brothers nursed to manhood by a mother wolf and today millions of Russians still hold that belief.

One thing is for certain and it is something I learned way too late in life - "History is written by the victors." Proven by Zinn, Quoted by ChurchHill, First said by ? - So we can say what we wish for now, theorize, quote and argue but in a hundred years who is gonna care? There is no need in getting mad about it all.

No, definitely there is no need to get angry over old stories and new ideas.

We can talk about them; accept or dismiss them, but you are right, there is no point in getting too upset about them

The Bible also indicates that Jesus was human ~ but we don't really know anything about him.

Yes, Christians call Jesus 'Son of God', but there were lots of 'Sons of Gods'. Hercules was one.


Yes, the Bible has been translated, edited, etc, etc. Who knows what it originally said???


Well, I think that the Bible is more sure of Adam being 'Son of God' than Jesus. And, scripturally, yes, very it is likely that Jesus was seen as the new Adam and Mary M the new Eve.



Where did this idea come from?
Yes, ancient mythologies are all about who begat whom, but I don't know this story.
Eve was called Mother of all living because she was supposedly the first human and, therefore, our gt gt gt ....... gt grandmother.


Which gospel?
How does this mean that Eve was god?
This seems to be a circular argument.
Eve may represent the 'Mother Goddess'. That would be logical.

Which gospel?
In the Bible, it mostly talks of men, re who begat whom. (Old English parish records only record the child's father.) Being born of a man implies that it was a male-dominated society, not that god was female ~ though, of course, gods have been female and there is evidence that the god of Judaism had a female companion ~ or wife.

Who says???

We know nothing about Adam or Jesus, so it is impossible to say this.

I think that re-incarnation could be a real phenomenon, but it simply is not possible to apply it here, because it is mythology. Some of it may be real or partially real, but that's all that can be said.

It is interesting to inspect the Bible to see what it originally meant, but we have to rely on good evidence.

This is possible, but men father children, too.
We know that the ancients venerated 'the mother' ~ mother Earth; mother goddess; fount of fertility. Maybe early texts refer to this. It has been shown that the Asherah was a female, who was with God.

The Bible is a set of ancient documents ~ bits may be reliable, but much is not.

I don't think that anything 'real' can be taken from this, but I agree that this is a valid interpretation of the belief.

Or that there were two texts which have been put together.

I know that there was tampering, but, biblically/symbolically, Eve did become the mother of all humans.

When was the Quram written and when was Genesis written? I'm guessing that the ealier work simply influenced the later work. Perhaps women were not considered important enough to write about??

The Bible says that they were both created individually by God ~ ie. 'sons of God'.

Anything is possible.

Rumours???! What rumours?

I can't see that. That doesn't sound logical in context.

Yes, lots of riddles to decipher.

Well, they do in the Bible. But did they, really? We don't know. And was he a Rabbi as we understand the term today?

Biblical symbolism, you mean??

The fact is, we just don't know.

The Bible is fascinating and much can be read into it. Jesus could have been a Rabbi, or a wandering preacher, or the leader of an insurrectionist gang, or a fictional mixture of all of them. It's great to ponder, but we still don't know.

Yes. I agree.

No. I cannot agree with this.

Yes!

Yes and yes.

No!

I agree with a lot of what you have read, but not with how you have interpreted the meaning thereof.

hi.

thanks for piking it apart to the extend i couldn't be bothered to...

i've been forwards backwards and sideways through this stuff, and what i have consistently felt is that exchanges like this highlight how open to interpretation any religious text is.

as such texts aren't backed by verifiable historical records or archaeology (apart from some very interesting exceptions) the interpretation is always completely subjective and either comes from the church leadership (as do much of the texts) or the individual. it can't possibly be objective, because an overall objective approach would force you to disregard the texts on basis of their unreliability.

it is interesting to critique the bible and its interpretation but it is ultimately no more useful than doing the same to the lord of the rings, which for now does not pretend to be anything other than fiction. lol in a few centuries i dare say it could turn into a holy book...

while analysis like this ultimately does point out its own futility in terms of aruging scripture, there is much to learn about human and societal psychology, cultural strands and civilisation.

the evidence seems to be that many (if not all ) early cults revered a mother goddess. the male god is a fabrication of matriarchal societies seeking to subjugate women. nothing more than a power game, and nothing to do with god shrouding his mystery, and the proof lies in the hideously misogynistic teachings of the catholic church and fundamentalist islam. its all got to go...

i see little reason to disbelieve the plot resurrected by the da vinci code, that mary magdalene was a leading figure in the early bible texts and was deliberately demoted to the status of whore by the vatican. fits right into their attitude to women.

damn - its scary to think that bloke in his 40's can be more of a feminist than billions of religious women. funny old world.