The Origin of Christianity (I report, You decide) ?

[dollar]

Dollar, I wonder if you yourself would try reading something?

http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.pdf

(This incredible book, by G.K. Chesterton, is in the public domain, and is probably available from a major bookstore or inter-library loan.)

At least the introduction and a couple of chapters, although for my complete respect you would have to read the entire book 'with an open mind', as you say.

The book does not immediately come to a point regarding astrology or paganism, but it does bear completely on your reasoning.

Any comments you have on it would be interesting for folks to hear!

Um This is a bit different than the stuff i'v been asking people to read. In that I haven't been telling people to read 189 page books... Forgive me if I have not the time to read this.

 

[dollar]

How is it stretching for me to look at what the text says and take it at face value? The only thing that could even be seen as stretching is the parallel to Rebekah, but given that there are many times that OT events are foreshadows of NT events, that's really not stretching.

Do you take the whole Bible at face value?

Please notice that only the one definition says that it means the 12 signs of the zodiac while the other one says "probably." what it actually means is not clear. At best these are guesses. Why rely on a guess?

I don't believe its a guess but your right. Why rely on guesses? Your guessing that the world mazzeroth doesn't mean the 12 zodiac signs.
Why do you suppose in many translations of the bible the world mazzeroth is nonexistent? I mean the word was in the original hebrew text.
By the way, who visited Jesus after he was born? The 3 Magi, or shall I say Astrologers!

If nothing you have posted so far has rung at all true, why would I want to spend my time reading though more of the same? I could swim in a sewer because it's something I've never done before, but I'd rather not. There are countless things that I can think of that would be a better use of my time.

Nothing rung true to you huh? Not one bit of the information rang true? Well i'm sorry to hear that.

 

[dollar]

Well despite my better judgment, I read the article you posted, and I have to say that I have never read anything more poorly researched. Just look up the Bible quotes that he mentions. They are so twisted and contorted, and outright changed to make them say what he needs them to say for the sake of his argument. It reminds me of every Watchtower magazine I have ever read.

It is obvious to anyone that reads the Bible, that God created the Heavens and the Earth and as such they are a testimony to Him. It is also obvious that God has given us the sun, and the moon to mark time. Beyond this, everything he said is a stretch at best.

I have not a problem with the God part. Its the Religion part that gets me.
It is quite interesting how the very thing which is supposed to unite all the humans on this earth with God actually seperates.

Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.

 

[dollar]

For the record - I do encounter God in my worship. Perhaps the problem is that you went to a Catholic church and not an Orthodox one?

I will offer you this: do not give up your search, even if it takes you far from Christianity. Pursue truth, pursue love, pursue God, and I have faith that He will find you.

Cheers,
Macarius

For the record - I'm a Ukrainian Catholic which is the closest damn thing to Orthodox there is.

Agian i'll leave you with the same thing to think about as I left for someone else:
Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.

 

[rusmeister]

Um This is a bit different than the stuff i'v been asking people to read. In that I haven't been telling people to read 189 page books... Forgive me if I have not the time to read this.

You are trying to solve serious theological questions. You can't hope to do it in soundbite form. (Or else you are not serious about seeing answers that contradict your current views)

I specifically said to read the intro and the first couple of chapters, at which point you will most likely find it interesting enough to continue voluntarily (again, if you are seriously interested).

Other people smarter than you and me have given serious thought to these questions. The answers cannot be arrived at or proved from a few posts. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously and not as nonsense, show that you know and understand the thinking underpinning Christian apologetics. GK Chesterton and CS Lewis are among its best defenders in the modern English-speaking world, thus, I recommend them. The book I pointed to offers excellent reasons to refute paganism (including astrology).

 

[rusmeister]

I have not a problem with the God part. Its the Religion part that gets me.
It is quite interesting how the very thing which is supposed to unite all the humans on this earth with God actually seperates.

Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.

One thing I'd add. You are right about children and Christianity agrees with you 100%.
Maybe there is one faith that really is not a humanized idea...? (That question is what the book addresses.)

 

[dollar]

One thing I'd add. You are right about children and Christianity agrees with you 100%.

Maybe there is one faith that really is not a humanized idea...? (That question is what the book addresses.)

A faith is humanized as long as the ones who wrote, organized, interpreted, and preach it to you are Human.

Children live perfectly close lives to God without any organized human group religion. The one faith which is not humanized is reality, which is something children see and adults dilute. Like I have said before, a child see's reality while an adult see's only what he wants to see.

A Christian child? No. A child is not christian (jewish, muslim, ect..) A child has not a clue what your talking about when you say we are Christian (jewish, ect..) Perhaps we can learn a lesson from them, for they truly are the closest thing to God as we both agree.

But we pound it into our childrens heads over and over: "your a christian, your a christian, your a christ..., your a..." and this plays over and over and over agian in the childs mind Untill it get to the point where finally the child believes he is a Christian and presto!!! We have created another product of human ingenuity of constantly telling them what they are untill they finally believe it themselves. This certainly is not how we become close to God!?!

When will humanity learn its closest to God by being Human. Not being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, ect... But HUMAN. When the day comes that humanity realizes they are all Human is the day peace on the world with God will rule.

Jesus tells us to come as a Child.
You should listen to him...

 

[Breaking Babylon]

No, not presto. Plenty of people tell themselves repeatedly that they are Christians, but that doesn't mean they are in Christ. The KKK tells themselves they are Christian, that doesn't make them Christian at all.

God never called us to be religious. The Pharisees are a perfect example of religion, and they were known as a brood of vipers to Christ. It's beyond 'religion'.

We have to deny ourselves, pick up our own crosses, and follow Him.

As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Running the marathon ahead of us and imitating the Saints before us.

There is much more to being a Christian than what you're suggesting.

Children are indeed close to God, before theology, apologetics, dogmas, creeds, canons... but, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old (as he grows older), he will not depart from it." It's our own shortcoming when we idolize 'religion' and put it in front of God.

Come to God as a child in childlike faith, in great humility, in the love as a child has for his father, seeking Him as the lost son. God didn't tell us to come to Him ignorant of Who He Is. We are born with a measure of faith and we must seek it out.

 

[Macarius]

For the record - I'm a Ukrainian Catholic which is the closest damn thing to Orthodox there is.

Agian i'll leave you with the same thing to think about as I left for someone else:
Look at children and remember we were once like them before we all turned into maniacs... The closest thing to God is a child. So pure, free of all these humanized ideas. The child see's reality while the adult see's only what he wants to see.

You don't sound Ukranian Catholic to me. You sound like a neo-gnostic.

You refuse to respond to my essential argument that your explanation offers no advantage over mine, and that it is irrelevant to changing either of our a-priori assumptions because which explanation we accept depends entirely on these a-priori assumptions.

Until you respond to that, and either accept that your line of arugmentation is bunk or offer me some reason for why your explanation is inherently superior to mine or why yours doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions... until then, we have nothing more to say to one another.

May God have mercy on us both,
Macarius

 

[dollar]

No, not presto. Plenty of people tell themselves repeatedly that they are Christians, but that doesn't mean they are in Christ. The KKK tells themselves they are Christian, that doesn't make them Christian at all.

Then we sure are creating a lot of false christians by always telling and presuring our children what they should be huh? Although I won't deny, some truly do have the will to be Christians.

God never called us to be religious. The Pharisees are a perfect example of religion, and they were known as a brood of vipers to Christ. It's beyond 'religion'.

Religion is mans attempt to understand and be closer to God as a group. Unfortunantly groups bring along with it human ideas which interfere with actually bringing us closer to God.

We have to deny ourselves, pick up our own crosses, and follow Him.

We need to deny our God - given gift of being ourselves?
God tells us individuality is evil, what is ment by this is don't forget you are connected to this world and universe. Don't get too caught up in yourself, This doesn't mean form a religion and get as many members as possible.
Yes we need to struggle with our own burdens while we follow God, no group is required for this.
We follow God by being what God made us, Human.

As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

To bad most are baptized as a baby and have no idea whats going on. All the baby thinks is thats its getting a bath.

Running the marathon ahead of us and imitating the Saints before us.

Organized Religions of the earth create saints not God.

There is much more to being a Christian than what you're suggesting.

Not really.

Children are indeed close to God, before theology, apologetics, dogmas, creeds, canons... but, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old (as he grows older), he will not depart from it." It's our own shortcoming when we idolize 'religion' and put it in front of God.

If children are indeed close to God why do they need to be taught how to be close to God?

Come to God as a child in childlike faith, in great humility, in the love as a child has for his father, seeking Him as the lost son. God didn't tell us to come to Him ignorant of Who He Is. We are born with a measure of faith and we must seek it out.

Like I said before children see reality while adults see only what they want to see.

The child see's a cloud as part of God - The adult see's a man in the clouds who watches everything they do.

The child see's nature as part of God - The adult see's nature as something the man in the clouds created

The child see's humans as humans - The adult see's humans as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect...

The child see's life as a gift - The adult see's life as a privilege

Who is more correct here?

Children are here as a reminder of what we are and were we came from. When we see children it reminds us we were once like them. We see how a child is first created through physical sex and we remember we were also. Saying that a man molded you in his hands and placed you in your mothers stomach is completely agianst God and the natural cycle he has put in place. Get a hold of yourself and get a grip on reality. We are separating ourselves from God by taking up the beliefs of man made human religions. Looking at children helps us see who we are and where we came from. Then we all remember we are all just part of this cycle of life which God put into motion...

 

[dollar]

You don't sound Ukranian Catholic to me. You sound like a neo-gnostic.

You refuse to respond to my essential argument that your explanation offers no advantage over mine, and that it is irrelevant to changing either of our a-priori assumptions because which explanation we accept depends entirely on these a-priori assumptions.

Until you respond to that, and either accept that your line of arugmentation is bunk or offer me some reason for why your explanation is inherently superior to mine or why yours doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions... until then, we have nothing more to say to one another.

May God have mercy on us both,
Macarius

Why my explanation is superior to yours?
Let me tell you what you believe:
There's a invisible man in the clouds who watches everything you do. He has a list of 10 things you cannot do. If you do any of these 10 things he has a special place for you to spend eternity full of fire and buring and death. But he loves you...

My belief doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions. Its the belief that everyone comes into this world with as a child which is God and nature. We have all agreed here that a child is the closest thing to God. So my belief is that of a child which makes my belief closest to God and not diluted by human ideas.

Your belief depends on the word of other humans and wether you will take their word as true or not. Its not like if you were living in a remote place with no contact to society that you would have a Bible to read from. These things are all products of society. You are distancing yourself from God by believing in these products of society.
Think about it.

 

[Macarius]

Why my explanation is superior to yours?
Let me tell you what you believe:
There's a invisible man in the clouds who watches everything you do. He has a list of 10 things you cannot do. If you do any of these 10 things he has a special place for you to spend eternity full of fire and buring and death. But he loves you...

Keep burning those strawmen. You haven't a clue what I believe, and your charicature here is unappreciated. Do you think this will convince anyone?

My belief doesn't depend on a-priori assumptions.

That's quite the a-priori assumption. Do you know what an a-priori assumption is? For the record, everyone's opinion depends on a-priori assumptions. For example, you ASSUME your sensory perceptions are capable of conveying truth to your brain and that your brain is capable of interpreting them. We don't take the religious convictions of a dolphin very seriously, so you assume (as do I) that the human brain is somehow more capable of theological conviction than a dolphin, or that our brains have more theological capability, or that God has revealed something to humans which dolphins aren't aware of or aren't capable of being aware of (this is my view).

Its the belief that everyone comes into this world with as a child which is God and nature. We have all agreed here that a child is the closest thing to God. So my belief is that of a child which makes my belief closest to God and not diluted by human ideas.

Re-asserting your belief doesn't make it true nor does it make it any superior to mine. I'm not saying I've given you any reason to adopt my worldview, just that, so far, you've given me absolutely none to adopt yours, and since you started this thread, the onus of proof is on you.

Your belief depends on the word of other humans and wether you will take their word as true or not.

And yet you take as true all those speculative scholars. Last time I checked they were human.

Furthermore, it's not like this is blind faith. I have faith in God because of what I know of God, and there are many sources of knowing. Yes - testimony is part of it. Why shouldn't it be? We accept human testimony for any number of things which we hold with tremendous conviction - things we haven't personally seen. Further, there is my own experience of God in prayer and the sacraments. That's unassailable because while you may attempt to explain it away, we will once again only be offering alternative possibilities to one another, and I will accept mine because it fits better with my experience, and you yours because it fits better with yours. See? A wash.

Its not like if you were living in a remote place with no contact to society that you would have a Bible to read from.

Seriously. I'm freakin ORTHODOX. This is my line!

I'm aware that there is an element of tradition. Obviously that isn't a problem for my epistomology. In fact, I take it as a matter of faith that God has preserved, through His action by the Holy Spirit, the Truth revealed by His Son and Word, Jesus Christ, and that the Church is the repository of that faith once delivered to all the saints, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Is there something problematic about that to you? Isn't that at the least, logically possible for an all powerful God to do? In fact, if you were God, wouldn't it make sense to reveal the truth to humanity and then preserve it eternally in the successors to those to whom you revealed it? That in itself isn't an argument, but I'm asking you to grant that my explanation is internally consistent and plausible.

These things are all products of society. You are distancing yourself from God by believing in these products of society.
Think about it.

You are also a product of society. To think otherwise is silliness. Why should I accept your product of society over the venerable and ancient product of society which I happen to believe is inspired by God, something which is confirmed by my own experience?

I would say that you are distancing yourself from God by pridefully thinking yourself better than the Truth revealed in His Son and handed down from Apostle to successor.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[dollar]

Keep burning those strawmen. You haven't a clue what I believe, and your charicature here is unappreciated. Do you think this will convince anyone?

This was not intended to cause any hurt, just thought.
Forgive me, but you are Christian and this is what most christians believe. Although indeed sometimes hurt is a necessary part of growing.

That's quite the a-priori assumption. Do you know what an a-priori assumption is? For the record, everyone's opinion depends on a-priori assumptions. For example, you ASSUME your sensory perceptions are capable of conveying truth to your brain and that your brain is capable of interpreting them. We don't take the religious convictions of a dolphin very seriously, so you assume (as do I) that the human brain is somehow more capable of theological conviction than a dolphin, or that our brains have more theological capability, or that God has revealed something to humans which dolphins aren't aware of or aren't capable of being aware of (this is my view).

Well my belief isn't an a-priori assumption, so whats all this talk. You assume by reading a book written by man that it convey's the truth to you.

Re-asserting your belief doesn't make it true nor does it make it any superior to mine. I'm not saying I've given you any reason to adopt my worldview, just that, so far, you've given me absolutely none to adopt yours, and since you started this thread, the onus of proof is on you.

It is superior just for that fact that it isn't just a produt of society or an ancient tradition passed on from years ago. The belief is that of one a child has when it first enters the world. This belief is based off of no prior knowledge, just closness to God.

And yet you take as true all those speculative scholars. Last time I checked they were human.

I didn't take as truth what the speculative scholars say. I take the truth as that which is free of human influence.

Furthermore, it's not like this is blind faith. I have faith in God because of what I know of God, and there are many sources of knowing. Yes - testimony is part of it. Why shouldn't it be? We accept human testimony for any number of things which we hold with tremendous conviction - things we haven't personally seen. Further, there is my own experience of God in prayer and the sacraments. That's unassailable because while you may attempt to explain it away, we will once again only be offering alternative possibilities to one another, and I will accept mine because it fits better with my experience, and you yours because it fits better with yours. See? A wash.

So you say you have experienced God. Very well but I just want you to be sure its really God and not your mind playing tricks on you. Sometimes if we believe something so much it can become reality for us. Give it thought.

Seriously. I'm freakin ORTHODOX. This is my line!

I'm aware that there is an element of tradition. Obviously that isn't a problem for my epistomology. In fact, I take it as a matter of faith that God has preserved, through His action by the Holy Spirit, the Truth revealed by His Son and Word, Jesus Christ, and that the Church is the repository of that faith once delivered to all the saints, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Very well

Is there something problematic about that to you? Isn't that at the least, logically possible for an all powerful God to do? In fact, if you were God, wouldn't it make sense to reveal the truth to humanity and then preserve it eternally in the successors to those to whom you revealed it? That in itself isn't an argument, but I'm asking you to grant that my explanation is internally consistent and plausible.

If I were God i'd make truth be what life is not a book be what truth is. Why? Just because not everyone can get a hold of the book, or have time to read it, or have interest in books, in fact some people hate to read. So why put it into a book? I don't know. Also its not like books were around forever...

You are also a product of society. To think otherwise is silliness. Why should I accept your product of society over the venerable and ancient product of society which I happen to believe is inspired by God, something which is confirmed by my own experience?

very well, but my belief still lies oustide of being a product of society because its the belief we first come into this world with.

I would say that you are distancing yourself from God by pridefully thinking yourself better than the Truth revealed in His Son and handed down from Apostle to successor.

In Christ,
Macarius

very well.

 

[dollar]

I'm curious as to why everyone has avoided telling me what they think of this little matter:

Ancients noticed the Sun moves south during winter, gets to a point where the sun stops moving south but also didn't move back north either for 3 days. They said the sun died for 3 days. When the Sun started moving north agian they said it ressurected from the dead. This "ressurection" of the sun after it "died" for 3 days happend on December 25th. They said the Sun was the salvation of the world because it was risen. The Sun is on the cross of the zodiac.

Please somebody tell me why this parallel's the Passion story so much.

 

[nutroll]

This was not intended to cause any hurt, just thought.
Forgive me, but you are Christian and this is what most christians believe. Although indeed sometimes hurt is a necessary part of growing.

Then go talk to those Christians about this.

Well my belief isn't an a-priori assumption, so whats all this talk. You assume by reading a book written by man that it convey's the truth to you.

No we don't.

It is superior just for that fact that it isn't just a produt of society or an ancient tradition passed on from years ago. The belief is that of one a child has when it first enters the world. This belief is based off of no prior knowledge, just closness to God.

So you are close to God and we are not? And how have you managed to maintain the beliefs of a child if you were raised Ukrainian Catholic. Presumably you must have lost it during that time.

I didn't take as truth what the speculative scholars say. I take the truth as that which is free of human influence.

Are you not human?

So you say you have experienced God. Very well but I just want you to be sure its really God and not your mind playing tricks on you. Sometimes if we believe something so much it can become reality for us. Give it thought.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

If I were God i'd make truth be what life is not a book be what truth is. Why? Just because not everyone can get a hold of the book, or have time to read it, or have interest in books, in fact some people hate to read. So why put it into a book? I don't know. Also its not like books were around forever...

You're not God, and so what you think God could, should, or would do has no bearing. Our beliefs are not contained in a book. They are an experience of the living God. Many great things are written down for the edification of the faithful, both in the Bible, and in the writings of the Holy Fathers. One does not need to be able to read to be an Orthodox Christian.

very well, but my belief still lies oustide of being a product of society because its the belief we first come into this world with.

I hate to break it to you, but there is no belief that is not a product of society. Everything one believes is either an affirmation of or denial of something they have observed, heard, seen, or otherwise encountered. The question is whether one has belief in something that is true or false. That applies as much to you as to any of us.

 

[Breaking Babylon]

Then we sure are creating a lot of false christians by always telling and presuring our children what they should be huh? Although I won't deny, some truly do have the will to be Christians.

I was never pressured into being or believing anything. How I found God, or how He found me, was completely outside of anything someone 'programmed' into my mind.

Religion is mans attempt to understand and be closer to God as a group. Unfortunantly groups bring along with it human ideas which interfere with actually bringing us closer to God.

So tell me how to get close to God.

We need to deny our God - given gift of being ourselves?

We need to deny our base passions that are born from sinful carnality and self-exaltation and strive for theosis, the state of being before the fall of man.

God tells us individuality is evil, what is ment by this is don't forget you are connected to this world and universe. Don't get too caught up in yourself, This doesn't mean form a religion and get as many members as possible.
Yes we need to struggle with our own burdens while we follow God, no group is required for this.
We follow God by being what God made us, Human.

Tell me what you think being a human is, and how we follow God in doing so.

To bad most are baptized as a baby and have no idea whats going on. All the baby thinks is thats its getting a bath.

Grace is beyond intelligence. What we think is of no concern, grace imparts the death and resurrection in baptism, not what a child, or what anyone, thinks.

Organized Religions of the earth create saints not God.

My God established a Church which creates Saints.

If children are indeed close to God why do they need to be taught how to be close to God?

Acts 8:30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
8:31 And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

Like I said before children see reality while adults see only what they want to see.

Clearly you are an adult.

The child see's a cloud as part of God - The adult see's a man in the clouds who watches everything they do.

The child see's nature as part of God - The adult see's nature as something the man in the clouds created

The child see's humans as humans - The adult see's humans as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, ect...

God is Spirit, everywhere present and filling all things. It was actually when I was a child that I believed there was some man in the clouds.

Children are here as a reminder of what we are and were we came from. When we see children it reminds us we were once like them. We see how a child is first created through physical sex and we remember we were also. Saying that a man molded you in his hands and placed you in your mothers stomach is completely agianst God and the natural cycle he has put in place. Get a hold of yourself and get a grip on reality. We are separating ourselves from God by taking up the beliefs of man made human religions. Looking at children helps us see who we are and where we came from. Then we all remember we are all just part of this cycle of life which God put into motion...[/quote]

Psalms 139:13-16:

• "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
  

So tell me, what God do you believe in? Tell us about the God you worship.
​

• 
  
  

 

[dollar]

My God established a Church which creates Saints.

So tell me, what God do you believe in? Tell us about the God you worship.​

AH HA!!! There it is.!
My God, your God, his God, her God. This is what is causing all the chaos on this little planet of ours. God is just God there is no alternative. Its just God!!!

What God I worship? I worship the God of all religions for they are all pointing to the same supreme being. The difference being these religions take the shall we say 'spiritual' and make it into whatever they want it to be. I believe God is nature, he makes the whole system of the universe work, we are all products of what he set in motion. God's works are within the Natural realm.

Its a fact many humans tend to call anything they don't understand to be 'one their God's mysteries' because if they do not understand something they feel they need to fill a void so they can go on with life feeling they understand everything. Religion is the big void filler of our time. Notice as science advances less and less things religion has to jump on and say its God. Religions intentions are sometimes really truly noble attemps to reach God but they are barking up the wrong tree.
I argue that fact that science is understanding God because it studies nature and "reveals" God to us.

Although I have nothing agianst the Bible at all. There are valuable lessons to learn in it. Some take the Bible all symbolic. Some take it completely literal. Although some take part of the Bible literal and part of it symbolic. You can't do that, you either take it literal or symbolic. Its not like in the story they have sections where it says "ok this is symbolic section and this is a literal section of events which really took place." It doesn't work like that, it reads as all one continuous story.
I believe the whole Bible is symbolic.
There are great symbolic teachings in it if you only read it as symbolic.

Think about it you get more out of Eve had a conflict going on in her mind, she was talking to herself about what to do, but her lower self convinced her to make the wrong choice which had great consequences for her and the ones she loved later in life THAN the snake talked Eve into eating the fruit which got both her and Adam in trouble.

Thoes who take the Bible literally often miss valuable lessons and it ends up causing harm instead. Example: The Crusades

 

[rusmeister]

Guys, this isn't a real debate. This is just a parody of a debate.

A real debate is reasoned answers to reasoned propositions. If neither side can agree on the most basic assumptions, the debate is over.

If only they would learn this in GT...

 

[nutroll]

I'm curious as to why everyone has avoided telling me what they think of this little matter:

Ancients noticed the Sun moves south during winter, gets to a point where the sun stops moving south but also didn't move back north either for 3 days. They said the sun died for 3 days. When the Sun started moving north agian they said it ressurected from the dead. This "ressurection" of the sun after it "died" for 3 days happend on December 25th. They said the Sun was the salvation of the world because it was risen. The Sun is on the cross of the zodiac.

Please somebody tell me why this parallel's the Passion story so much.

First of all, do you have a source for this that isn't one of the ridiculously researched ones that you've been peddling here? Second, others have addressed whether it makes sense to equate sun with son. Third, others have addressed that Jesus was not crucified or resurrected on December 25. So I guess it has been responded to enough to match the level of evidence you have seen fit to supply us with.

 

[nutroll]

AH HA!!! There it is.!
My God, your God, his God, her God. This is what is causing all the chaos on this little planet of ours. God is just God there is no alternative. Its just God!!!

We believe in one God. That was just a shorthand way of saying the actual God/ the thing you think is God but is a distortion of God. You know, the way you have been talking, but just flipped around. The thing that you point out in your very next sentence.

What God I worship? I worship the God of all religions for they are all pointing to the same supreme being. The difference being these religions take the shall we say 'spiritual' and make it into whatever they want it to be. I believe God is nature, he makes the whole system of the universe work, we are all products of what he set in motion. God's works are within the Natural realm.

By picking and choosing what you will believe from all the different religions, you are worshiping yourself. You are making a God in your own image, based on what you think God should be, and then worshiping that. Besides, I thought your God had nothing to do with society. But wait a minute. How many of the world religions believe that God is nature? Not a whole lot. So you don't really worship the God of all religions, you just think that all religions are faulty because they go beyond what you want to believe.

Its a fact many humans tend to call anything they don't understand to be 'one their God's mysteries' because if they do not understand something they feel they need to fill a void so they can go on with life feeling they understand everything. Religion is the big void filler of our time. Notice as science advances less and less things religion has to jump on and say its God. Religions intentions are sometimes really truly noble attemps to reach God but they are barking up the wrong tree.

We don't call anything we don't understand one of 'God's mysteries.' What God has not revealed to us, He has not revealed to us. We don't make up what we think God is or isn't, that would be another forum, not TAW. There might be other religions that "fill voids" but not Orthodoxy. I don't know what you are trying to say about science advancing less and less. Again, your a priori assumption is that all religions are equal and that if one religion is barking up the tree that all must be.

I argue that fact that science is understanding God because it studies nature and "reveals" God to us.

I think that science can help us understand the universe around us, and that insofar as this universe was created by God, it can tell us some things about the Creator of the World. I don't, however, agree with you that God is nature, so I think the knowledge of God that it brings is indirect rather than direct knowledge of God.

Although I have nothing agianst the Bible at all. There are valuable lessons to learn in it. Some take the Bible all symbolic. Some take it completely literal. Although some take part of the Bible literal and part of it symbolic. You can't do that, you either take it literal or symbolic. Its not like in the story they have sections where it says "ok this is symbolic section and this is a literal section of events which really took place." It doesn't work like that, it reads as all one continuous story.
I believe the whole Bible is symbolic.
There are great symbolic teachings in it if you only read it as symbolic.

Your contention that you can't take parts of the Bible literally and part of it symbolically is wrong. Though there are not passages that say that the following section is an allegory, there are sometimes indications within the text as to what was intended. As Orthodox, we also have the combined wisdom of the Church Fathers to help us understand what was intended in any given passage. The Bible is not a text book, nor is it a work of fiction. It was written by men who wrote in the style of their times. Sometimes this was heavily influenced by symbolism, other times not so much. The Bible also does not read as a continuous story. Your assertion that it does shows that you have not read it. There are many great teachings in the Bible if you take it literally as well.

Think about it you get more out of Eve had a conflict going on in her mind, she was talking to herself about what to do, but her lower self convinced her to make the wrong choice which had great consequences for her and the ones she loved later in life THAN the snake talked Eve into eating the fruit which got both her and Adam in trouble.

Do you really think that most Christians think the story of Adam and Eve is a story about some snake causing problems for people by way of an apple? We all understand what we can learn from that story. We don't need you to tell us what it means. Just because one believes that a story is literally true does not mean that it loses all of its symbolic meanings as well.

Thoes who take the Bible literally often miss valuable lessons and it ends up causing harm instead. Example: The Crusades

The Crusades has nothing to do with taking the Bible literally, but even if it does, that has nothing to do with the Orthodox Church. The only way that we were involved in the Crusades was by having Constantinople sacked. Again, you are assuming that a literalistic reading of the Bible (which is not what our Church does) precludes any meaning beyond the surface level. This is a false assumption.