Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Moderator cut: Discussion of moderator actions
[/font]
Snippet:Christians call Jesus Son of God but in the Quran God stresses that Jesus was human. There is ample evidence that the texts of the Gospels have been changed and that the role of Mary Magdalene has been altered. Jesus was a reincarnation of Adam while Mary Magdalene was a reincarnation of Eve. In the original creation story Eve was not made out of the rib of Adam but Eve gave birth to Adam. This is the reason why Eve was called Mother of All the Living. For 6,000 years God has hidden Her identity.
In the Gospel Adam is named Son of God while Jesus is called firstborn of all creation. This means that Adam was born and that Eve was God. The Gospel also states that Christians are children of God and born of God, which implies that God is a Mother and that the text has been altered later. The love of God Jesus was speaking of, is the love of a Goddess for Her husband. Jesus was born in the same way Adam was born, from a woman without the seed of a man. Eve and Adam have been around many times.Link:http://marilynvossavant.com/forum/vi...php?f=5&t=1782
Last edited by june 7th; 05-19-2012 at 10:07 AM..
Reason: Re-formatted to adhere to city-data's copyright rules.
In the Tao Te Ching the origin of all things is the Great Mother (Tao 6, 25, 52). Consequently yin comes before yang. This means that the woman comes before the man. The text in Genesis in which the woman Eve was made out of a rib of the man Adam does not make sense. The woman did not come from the man as has been written in Genesis, but the man Adam was born of the woman Eve. Eve was called Mother of All the Living (Gen. 3:20), while Christians are considered to be children of God and born of God (John 1:12-13), so it is still possible to arrive at the conclusion that Eve was God.
Niphtrique,
Thanks. You've shared a lot, some of which I have yet to read.
Some perspectives are very interesting & make sense, like the idea that a woman is God. Actually, I believe both male and female make one "whole" (wholy/holy).
I've often heard that Eve is the "mother of all living" but I hadn't considered the full meaning.
I believe that God is in all, that God is the space in which it all happens (consider the womb).
Like dark energy/matter that contains infinite potential & cannot be easily defined.
If I understand, Islam believes this also - that God has many names, many unknown.
Quote:
The story of The Fall may have symbolised the following:
- the shift from a matriarchal to a patriiarchal society as Adam was the son of Eve while he later became the head of the family;
- the discovery of shame associated with sexuality because Adam discovered his nakedness;
- the emergence of the ego, because Adam wanted to be like God;
- the emergence of the concept of good annd evil, because the tree symbolised knowledge of good and evil;
- the pursuit of knowledge without practiical purpose, because the tree also symbolised knowledge in general, while there was no need to eat from it.
This is also interesting - about falling from a materiarchal society to a patriarchal one.
Men tend to think compartmentally, whereas women tend to think about many things simultaniously - more wholy, in a sense.
Still, each sex has something unique to bring to create wholeness.
I've considered that the fall is dividing things between good and evil (a friend called evil - energy veil)... a veil that prevents seeing wholeness.
It seems that this fall, or isolation from wholeness, is the only way to progress individually.
Quote:
The Buddha himself rejected the idea of a Creator and had no views on creation. According to him questions on the origin of the world are useless. The Buddha thought that the existence of religions could be explained on psychological grounds:
Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and self-preservation. For self-protection man has created gods, on which he depends for his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parents. For self-preservation, man has conceived the idea of an immortal soul or atman, which will live eternally.
It makes sense that religion serves as authority figures, like parents.
Parents are our first "gods" - we believe they're perfect.
Religion or mentors, or anything we look to as perfect becomes subsequent gods.
I believe that the ultimate or best God - is as loving others as ourselves, which is dynamic in each circumstance and moment.
I just read about that word, "atman" - it's German for "breathing" & comes from the ancient Indian (Sanskrit) word Atman, meaning the indwelling divine spirit, or God within.
Jesus taught that the "kingdom of God is within you."
And breath is the simplest & most effective way of becoming "enlightened" or conscious/aware of spirituality within.
Lots of good stuff - I look forward to reading your other posts.
Last edited by SuperSoul; 05-18-2012 at 05:11 PM..
Buddha didn't reject the idea of a creator at all. He said the matter wasn't relevant to his method of ending suffering and finding Enlightenment. In some of the teachings of the Buddha, he mentions God, Brahma. In fact, the Buddha says it was God who told him to spread his teachings. At first he didn't want to, because he wasn't able to put his epiphany into words.
Most people have the time for 32,925 posts, so I am not ashamed for myself .
Ohhhh and she recovers nicely with an uppercut to the jaw!!!!
Seriously though, the best thing to do is sum up your argument or idea with a few short paragraphs and let the dialogue go where it will. It was far too long, I didn't read much of it.... sorry.
However, the claim you make here is seemingly as baseless as the claim that there is a God to begin with. You have to prove that before you can put forth any theory ABOUT that God. Good luck with that one. Not to mention your theory is pretty much shot down by the say.... oh I dont know...... few thousand verses in the Bible where Jesus refers to God as his father. So, unless they got some kinky role play thing go'n on...........
Niphtrique,
Thanks. You've shared a lot, some of which I have yet to read.
Some perspectives are very interesting & make sense, like the idea that a woman is God. Actually, I believe both male and female make one "whole" (wholy/holy).
I've often heard that Eve is the "mother of all living" but I hadn't considered the full meaning.
I believe that God is in all, that God is the space in which it all happens (consider the womb).
Like dark energy/matter that contains infinite potential & cannot be easily defined.
If I understand, Islam believes this also - that God has many names, many unknown.
This is also interesting - about falling from a materiarchal society to a patriarchal one.
Men tend to think compartmentally, whereas women tend to think about many things simultaniously - more wholy, in a sense.
Still, each sex has something unique to bring to create wholeness.
I've considered that the fall is dividing things between good and evil (a friend called evil - energy veil)... a veil that prevents seeing wholeness.
It seems that this fall, or isolation from wholeness, is the only way to progress individually.
It makes sense that religion serves as authority figures, like parents.
Parents are our first "gods" - we believe they're perfect.
Religion or mentors, or anything we look to as perfect becomes subsequent gods.
I believe that the ultimate or best God - is as loving others as ourselves, which is dynamic in each circumstance and moment.
I just read about that word, "atman" - it's German for "breathing" & comes from the ancient Indian (Sanskrit) word Atman, meaning the indwelling divine spirit, or God within.
Jesus taught that the "kingdom of God is within you."
And breath is the simplest & most effective way of becoming "enlightened" or conscious/aware of spirituality within.
Lots of good stuff - I look forward to reading your other posts.
If I am right then reality is just the way it is. Religions and science are just reflections of reality. I think that God is neither good or bad and that we are just entertainment. Eve was called Mother of All the Living because Adam gave Her this name. She was his mother and probably they already had children. At that time (just afther The Fall) Adam did not know other people so to him She was the Mother of All the Living.
If there is a God and God is all powerful then everything that happened is just part of the story, including bad things like the rise of Adolf Hitler and World War II. Assuming that we are only toys in the eyes of God this makes sense. I left some stuff out and the base document has a list of names that probably were reincarnations of Eve and Adam. This list includes Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler.
I do not think that God sees Adolf Hitler as a good leader. His rise seems to be a mere demonstration of what God is capable of doing, that She does not care about individuals and that we all have to comply to Her rules and Her plans if the End of Times arrives. This may seem rude and brutal but The Bible and The Quran are rude and brutal. Jesus being crucified for Her love is just one of those things. Eve lured Adam into eating from the forbidden fruit and some 4,000 years later She forced Jesus to accept responsibility for this.
"You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." - Morpheus in The Matrix
Last edited by niphtrique; 05-19-2012 at 04:15 AM..
Ohhhh and she recovers nicely with an uppercut to the jaw!!!!
Seriously though, the best thing to do is sum up your argument or idea with a few short paragraphs and let the dialogue go where it will. It was far too long, I didn't read much of it.... sorry.
However, the claim you make here is seemingly as baseless as the claim that there is a God to begin with. You have to prove that before you can put forth any theory ABOUT that God. Good luck with that one. Not to mention your theory is pretty much shot down by the say.... oh I dont know...... few thousand verses in the Bible where Jesus refers to God as his father. So, unless they got some kinky role play thing go'n on...........
This is what you get when you get into free interpretation of scripture. While it is interesting in a mind -boggling sort of way, it floats through a sort of stratospheric imaginary world where it alights on a Holy Book for some occasional springboard impetus into another flight of fancy.
There is almost no contact with reality at all. As Whippersnapper says, it picks up on the odd theological remark, freely improvises on it and ignores the huge number of passages that contradict it. It is an indication of the need to keep attached to reality, even though it seems restrictive and mentally circumscribing, one simply cannot cut the tethering ropes and let the mind go soaring off into the blue. That way, craziness lies.
I might mention...well, no names...but a leading UFO contactee. He wrote three books, the first of which was reasonable if you believed what he said, the second very uncomfortable with some wild claims and the third a collection of nutty incoherence. You could see the fellow losing contact with reality before your very eyes. It is a dangerous route to take and I council caution in taking that route.
I was reminded of UFO stuff because of the mention in the OP thesis of crop - circles. Right from the start the argument was that even the simple ones could not be made by humans because someone would see them, nobody could do them and there were all sorts of alien effects.
This was succeeded by the copycat effect in other countries (1) and a proliferation of complexity, with the theory adapted to fit the facts, a UFO 'nest' then being combined with 'feet' marks and then, when they became pictorial, the theory was changed to symbolic messages which were solemnly interpreted with pretty free imagination.
The turning point came when the first duplication of photos on a large scale appeared. That should have shown that it was a hoax, humans could do it and had done it (2). The alien 'effects' now looked very subjective and indeed easy enough to fake. There were still a few denialists who insisted that the aliens were using humans to pass their messages, but that is in the realms of craziness, not just crackpot. The subject was largely dropped and now crop- 'circles' are a sort of art - form with even advertisements being commissioned.
Which brings me to the Original poster. Since the ease with which these things in their simplest form can be constructed should have made it unnecessary to postulate alien origin and the hoaxers (Doug 'n' Dave) have come forwards -also that video of a circle 'appearing' also shown to be a hoax, there is no rational reason to suppose that the 'unexplained' ones are really alien.
This is where we have to choose between believing what is possible or even what is as yet unexplained (in crop circle terms, neither is really feasible these days) and being sensible skeptical where the case is weak or has been shown to be seriously flawed or discredited.
This is relevant not only to the OP, but to the whole way we approach the Fringe stuff. 'Well maybe...' is not an explanation. 'Who knows..' is not a reason, and 'science does not know everything' is not a valid rejection of rational, logical and evidence- based assessment of whacky claims.
So, sorry for the length and going odd into the world of UFOs but the link between religion and cult -thinking is striking. My thanks to the O poster for some intriguing material and a chance to show why we have to be sensible. Binge thinking can damage the mental health.
(1) the obvious counter to those who objected that the self - confessed hoaxers, Doug 'n' Dave could not have done the ones in other countries and the red light (as well as denouncing the pair as liars...how dare they discredit such wonderfool proof of flying saucers? ) that we hadn't got impartial comment.
(2) Indeed a foreshortened view of one crop 'circle' showed that the makers had tried an elongated ellipse. It was very uneven and was the clinching clue (for me) that the rest was done quite simply with peg, board and line, just as the hoaxers had said and shown. So far as I know nobody else noticed it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-19-2012 at 05:14 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
) that we hadn't got impartial comment.