Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; the true mystery

I’ve found the real god. He’s large and noodly. and he has his own version of the bible.

Or maybe the real god is Zeus? The son of god, hercules?

The books seem kind of ridiculous in this context don’t they? But, that is how I and many other modern skeptics view the words “god”, “lord”, “YHVH”, and “jesus”.

They are relics, (like zeus) from a time long past. I don’t think that any of the ancient religious solve the mystery anymore, and I frankly wonder if they ever did.

Now, this statement doesn’t mean it’s not possible for those following the ancient religions don’t come closer to the mystery of life. But, to do so is no more a product of their religion than Nazism is a product of atheism.

To acknowledge the mystery, you must first think of life as a mystery, and very few people following the ancient religions think there is no mystery. All of life’s answers are contained within the holy book(s).

The moderates and christian mystics don’t help the situation IMO. They try drawing material from the books by reading so far between the lines to make the material more valuable than it ever was to those who wrote it. It’s as doubtful that such material was ever written into the book as it is that there is a “secret bible code”.

So now that I’ve completely debunked the ancient holy books, what do I intend to replace it with? Experience. The mystery of life is right outside your window. The mystery of life is within YOU, not a book. Not any book.

This theory explains why people can look at varying books and see inspiration where others do not. The inspiration for solving their mystery and applying them comes from within themselves.

Are you ready to search the unwritten book of life for the mystery?

scythekain wrote:

I dont know about a secret bible code, but if thats what your using to refer to the truth in the words, then so be it. I have a difficult time understanding why you feel these “moderates and christian mystics” arent helping the situation. I mean if they have a better understanding of the text, maybe even more than those who wrote it, and they are expressing it, why is that a problem. You have written that your theory

I agree to the extreme. But this interior produced inspiration is the same reasons why those “moderates and christian mystics” interpret the Bible as they do. Why downplay the understanding of the text when this understanding derives from action behind your theory?

No shit!
Its good to stay nutral about proofless ancient claims.
Practical understanding is were its at.
Religious theory (about “God’s” name/apearance) does NOT help people in real life situations.

I think they are reading in between the lines. At least the literalist reads what is there. The contextualist, reads so far between the lines and in such a metaphysical fashion that there is no way the original writers had such an intent in mind. Why is it dangerous?

It justifies belief in the bible as a book of holiness. So they can take “truths” like Mark 3:29 (doubt in the holy spirit condemns you to hell fire), or Luke 19:

Is this from a parable that means something else? Yes. But the “king” the parable is talking about is god and is jesus.

By holding the bible as valuable, you justify faith in contexts like this. If you are a mystic it’d be better to hold other books just as important to show the literalist that you don’t have favorites and to lower the importance of the bible (and other holy books).

I also think, that like the bible code you could apply the same level of contextualism to any book.

We can only enter the door of spirituality by first shrinking our ego. Once inside we will see the lovely garden of metaphysical beauty. But upon seeing the garden it will make your ego feel even smaller. For the realization that all we are is of our own making, will hit you like a breath blowing out a candle… The light of the candle is our own spark of life. Briefly flickering than put out abruptly. What use is the blown out candle flame? How hard it is to remember what a blown out candle looks like, when compared to a roaring candle flame.

I think the opposite is true (as I’ve shown with alice in wonderland) I think they play up the meaning of the words. They have no value to us as we have a completely different view of the world. The allegoricalist will say "when they referred to sheol as being below us, and space being like a sea, they weren’t being literal… when they were saying god lived in the firmament, it was allegorical…

The problem is that is how the ancients saw the world. History, myth and reality were all intertwined. They believed in mythology, the same way the greeks believed Zeus lived on Mt. Olympus.

Hello F(r)iends,

How many people are willing to testify that the Spaghetti Monster saved them and are willing to be crucified for this?

How much archaelogical data supports the assertions found in the Spaghetti Bible?

-Thirst

Quite a few.

venganza.org/

This is laughable. Are you asserting that archaelogical data backs up the bible? So when did christ die? when the gospels written in the 2nd century say? or 120 years earlier like Peter says?

So let me put it this way. There’s just as much proof for the spaghetti monster as there is Zeus, allah, jesus, god, ,I am and YHVH

Hello F(r)iends,

:laughing: =D>

Yeah, I can’t wait to hear about their cruccifixions on CNN…

You know what’s laughable? You are. You are a joke. You are pathetic. You pretend to “know” things you have no back up for… You are not interested in debating but masturbating. Enjoy yourself…

If you are interested in discussion, let me know.

-Thirst

scythekain wrote:

I feel what your saying, but just as I was alluding to in the common ground post, there is truth in all text, and the mystic can indeed see this. But simply put, this truth in itself my not directly be interpreted about life and the focus of life, etc. I mean anything can be considered and related back to God or truth in some way, but why do it with a text that isnt supposed to be directly related to God? Dont get me wrong, I understand your point, but these holy books were written for the purpose of explaining the world, and or how we should be in the world. Other books, not having this purpose, arent as important, even though the same type of knowledge in some ways can be related. Also, whats wrong with the Luke verse? If its truth, who cares how harsh it seems or sounds.

Thats the beauty of it all. The literalist will understand it in his terms as well. All is relative, so whatever interpretation is received at the time, is what one is supposed to be understanding. The mystic interpretations, in my opinion, are much closer to the truth, while the literalist, while still reading truth will still get truth, but not as pure or lucid.

You think theres much difference now? You cant speak for everyone, and considering everyone is at different levels, you can say the exact same thing about our times. We may not believe in mythology, but superstitions and other myths are still strong for some people, as well as history and reality, whats the difference besides the fact that more people are taking the more mystical veiw of the information?

illatative, I’ll answer you tomorrow.

Thirst, if all your going to do is try and debate with name calling don’t bother responding to anything I write. Seriously.

Humor can only go so far, and you went over the line about 40 posts ago. While trying to debate christs genealogy, you ignored all of my strong debates (typical straw man posting you prefer) and continued to try and pick at the genealogy with weak ass arguments.

This response, pretty much exemplies why this theory is actually quite famous now, I heard about it last year… and I keep hearing it popping up.

Hello F(r)iends,

Are you asserting that there is no archaelogical data that supports the bible? None at all? Are you really making this claim? That is, as you put it, laughable.

Also, we have argued, time and again, about the dates of the gospel. There is a piece of John that dates back to as early as 100 A.D. from the gospel of John (supposedly the last gospel of the four to be written). This suggests two things: (1) The last one was written in the worst case scenario as early as 100 A.D. and (2) The other gospels that were written before John MUST predate 100 A.D.

Now, the earliest texts we have on many historical events today are copies and these are copies of the originals that were made centuries after the original documents! We do not doubt the veracity of those documents though do we? Certainly not as much as we cast doubt on the biblical texts…

Scythekain, as for ignoring all yuor “strong” debates about genealogy… I asked you to make one point at a time. The issue is massive and I do not have the time (or patience) to debate all of them in one sitting. I have not ignored your “strong” debates, I just haven’t had time for them.

Old_Gobbo: How’s the weather?

-Thirst

It’s warm under my sheets.

Is that a pickup line?..

thirst,

  1. the genealogy argument was the weakest argument, it’s only supported by conjecture on both of our parts. The prophecy argument is the strong argument you avoided. Now here’s one question about that. What’s more likely? that matthew and luke knew jesus’ geneaology? or that they pulled patriarchal names out of the old testament that they liked?

  2. Why does John have to be last? most of the scholars I’ve read place them in the following order and time frame:

Mark post 70 AD (fall of the temple),then matthew and John with Luke written last at about 180 AD (Written for Theophilus of Antioch)

from Jesus 100 years before the christ:
To avoid copyright infringement I’ll have to summarize. He dates all of the epistles and other apocryphal texts of the time to pre 70 AD (the fall of the temple.) the one that is dated later than that, Barnabas was written about 90 AD.

All of these texts refer to the “christian church” by the “church of god”. So sometime between 90 AD and the writing of Mark there was an eschatological change, where they started calling the churches “synagogues”. The gospel of John, exists only in small fragments from the early half of the second century, and the whole gospels and acts can only be dated AS a WHOLE (each individual document) to the third or fourth century AD.)

Here’s my additional feeling on that. I think Mark was written in the Early second century probably… 10 - 20 years later Matthew and John were written either simultaneously or without knowledge of each other. Matthew is a re-writing of Mark emphasizing what he felt was important. And fixing the grammar of the story. So we’re now to about 140 AD. The Luke and Acts was probably written for Theophilus of Antioch like the gospel says. Dating it to post 180 AD.

It’s once again a retelling the only difference is that Luke has access to the gospel of John as well.

From there, the stories were refined further by church fathers, other “gospels” were written of Jesus’ life and it became an undisputed fact that Jesus lived in the time of the first century.

Except that Paul would disagree>

hebrews 8:4
If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.

hebrews 10:35
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.
36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.
37For in just a very little while,
"He who is coming will come and will not delay.

37 is an important line for several reasons.

It doesn’t say “coming again” the “second coming” of the lord. It simply says “COMING”. As with all messiah cults the essene’s believed that the lord christ was coming and will not delay.

  1. Archaelogy. I misunderstood what you were talking about here. Yes of course archaelogy backs up the Places in the bible. It was written by people in the era. As for prophesies? (of babylon capturing then releasing the jews 70 years later) It’s easy to prophesy history.

Think about this. Most biblical scholars date the writing of 1 chronicles, 2 chronicles to the era of 400 BC. IMO, much of the Torah and other books were written down at this time and they redacted the oral history of the jews into written history. There are a few I would place even later than that. I think the “prophet” daniel was written in the 200 - 0 BC range as he shares the resurrection belief that all jews have at that time.

So know let’s talk about events. a couple in particular.

The flood:

The flood is a retelling of the flood of gilgamesh. There is archealogical evidence that a HUGE flood swept through the fertile crescent about 3000 BC.* The story of gilgamesh also closely correlates with that of the flood of Noah. Re-read it and think if you think the story is actually talking about the flood of the entire earth or just a large area.

Sodom and Gohmorra:

Sodom originally meant “ash”. There is evidence of a city near the Dead Sea that got inundated by a rain of sulfur. Given that there is so much oil in the area, an earth quake could easily cause a rain of fire and sulfur to destroy the city.

The question is would people today say that god caused the event? Some have pined the recent destructive hurricanes and the tidal wave on god. But such is the belief of superstitious people.

I think one of the many records destroyed during the inquisition is “christian” writings from the first century that point to the event at pompeii as proof that christ was coming. From a historical standpoint, it could’ve been this event that cited the reason for Rome destroying the temple in Jerusalem, to get back at god.

(for those who don’t know, they date to about the same time. 70 - 80 AD)

Probably because multiple historians wrote about the same event and we can compare all of their writings to cull the truth of what actually happened. As for the “supernatural” events of the bible?

Why not also prove the supernatural events of the journey of Jason and the argonauts? They date from roughly the same time periods, what makes the bible more believable than the story of Jason?

*note it wasn’t a worldwide flood, as a non-biblical place was flooded at about 5000 BC, the city commonly referred to as Atlantis. The Island of crete was inundated by a tidal wave when a nearby volcano island (much like Krakatoa) erupted and collapsed in on itself causing a massive 100 ft wave according to some estimates. There was also a massive flood (probably caused by the same event) when the massive rock dam holding water out of the black sea from the mediteranean broke, flooding an ancient shoreline. Some scientists are pining this event as the Noahic flood, but it’s in the wrong area and the wrong time.

<-------------------

=D> =D>

DISCLAIMER TO ALL:
What I say below, will in all likelihood piss you off. That’s the intent, when you are pissed off it’s because I’ve offended something you believe in as truth. Only when you question your own truth do you truly grow.

illatative,

Sorry i don’t buy this relativistic squishy feel good stance. There is not truth in ALL text. Show me how my application of Alice in Wonderland is not a superfluous mass of made up writings. The only thing that validates the mystic in spreading the words of the bible out and inserting their own thougts is the age of the writings. They can get away with it because, they can say “The authors of these books really meant to say this”.

That’s shit. They didn’t really mean any of that, you’re making them mean that.

As I said to thirst, you could just as easily take the writings of Jason and the argonauts and apply a mystical definition to what they are really saying to that.

Does that mean that either the bible or the journey of Jason contain truth? (or alice in wonderland?).

No. You are applying a vacuous truth to an ancient text. And when mystics do so with the “holy books” they justify the belief of the literalist WHICH we should see as a dangerous thing.

You don’t think that Charles Manson didn’t read the bible do you? He believed that he was christ and applied the reading of luke 19:27 literally. He killed the non-believers.

Until the literalist, fundamentalist crowd (which IMO actually has the correct interpretation of the bible) decides to look at the books from a mythological standpoint and not a literalist standpoint, mystics would do good to place other books on their pedestals and remove the “holy books”.

You’re belief (and much like ACLU) that justifies all beliefs as having a “truth” to them is also damaging. Not all truths are created equal, and liberals like that are just as dangerous as the fundamentalists.

why?

You justify the fundamentalist. After all there is some truth to Mohammed and Joseph Smith right?

God is just a feeling inside of us, of being connected to humanity. You can emphasize it by practicing true agape, and empathy. The god of the holy books, is narrow minded and bigoted. He only wants certain people talking to him, and everyone else can rot in hell.

Think about the lack of empathy all fundamentalists are practicing. It’s they height of hypocrisy. While there up there enjoying the eternal paradise cruise of heaven, with or without their 70 virgins, all the people that wouldn’t buy into the belief or there particular brand of belief are stewing in hell.

Murder people (especially for your god) but still believe in god and not doubt the holy spirit? you’ll get to heaven. Help people goto church every day, never hurt a fly, but you doubt the holy spirit? That’s the one unforgiveable sin in ALL religion. So the one thing you can’t do? Think.

So say it with me. There is no truth in religion. We’ve got to find our own truth and that’s why we’re here philosophizing. But before we can philosphize about the new truth, we’ve got to discard the old truth…

In order to do that, you’ve got to recognize the danger of universalizing truth.

scythekain wrote:

You didnt piss me off, though I will say you have in some earlier post awhile back.

When I say there is truth in all text, Im more so referring to truth. Not necessarily a mystical interpretation, which in some cases, as with your Alice and wonderland case, is just simply that. Doesnt mean it cant be related to truth, hence the ideas you have made about shrinking of ego, etc. That IMO can be what I would refer to as what one should do in this world, its not necessarily truth in the way your using the word. Let me clarify the semantic misunderstanding. Truth, is for me, the reality to things. Theres no point in searching for truth in a fairy tale, regarldless if you can find it. The truth in the fairy tale would be in relation to the fairy tale. The truth in the Bible would be in relation to the reality of whats written, what really happened, or in the allegorical parts, the reality they allude to. See the difference? Mystical interpretations on text that arent “holy”, is pointless because those particular text, not having the purpose of conveying truth in the terms of our earthly existence, ie. what we should do, how we should do it, why we should do it, simply werent created for this purpose. The text that were created for this purpose then, should be interpreted as such. In the consideration of text that arent necessarily holy, but can be related to these terms of our earthly existence, then a mystical interpretation is warranted, and most often plausible, while a mystical interpretation on text that doesnt have this purpose in mind, though in relation to the truth behind all things and invariably can in some way allude to that truth, is simply pointless considering its purpose. Holy books were created in order to convey truth, therefore we can interpret these books in this way.

What you seem to be having a hard time understanding is, if truth exist, then it must exist in all things. Since we can only interpret truth relatively, there will invariably be different levels of the truth when considering its lucidity. Regadless, the truth is in all text, in all perceptions, ect, its just not filtered, because truth in itself is pure, and therefore there is no explanation of truth that can match this pureness because even when you apply language to it, its been contaminated. Think of it in terms of a conception. You have a pure conception in your mind, but when you try to convey it will expression, it becomes limited. Thats the way truth is.

I will speak on the Luke verse when I get back from work.

ill,

And you think any of the ancient books for the literalist or the mystic are useful for anyone but the folklorologist? The shrinking ego bit was good… it came from within my own mind and had nothing to do with Alice in Wonderland. Which is really my point, any sort of “claimed” mysticism from the holy books is derived from within and not from the books themselves. When you defend the book because it has enlightened a few, you have to remember that it has entranced MANY MANY more.

People that believe that you actually get 70 virgins when you martyr yourself for you cause.

People that believe that you should disallow stem cell research because it contains a human soul.

People that believe that marriages last for an eternity.

The ancient belief that god lives in the firmament, and that sheol is under the ground no longer applies to anyone’s beliefs of how the world works to this day.

There is very little reality in these books and you allude to it being greater than a “fairy tale” without understanding that most of the writings are nothing more than fairy tales.

Let me give you a modern day example. Let’s say that I come to you and call myself “prophet Yahweh” and that I can talk to the Aliens.

What would be the first thing to come to your mind? skepticism.

Let’s say I take the stance that the holocaust didn’t actually happen. Hitler was a nice guy and didn’t actually kill a bunch of people.

What would be the first thing to come to your mind? skepticism.

All to often we seperate this part of our brain from what we believe. Which makes you skeptical of all sorts of other important stuff like , evolution (which has helped us make all sorts of new vaccines), stem cell research, the true importance and fragility of life here on earth.

I challenged thirst to show me how Jason is different than Jesus.

How about you show me why the text of the holy books is more valid than other mythological texts? I’ve already shown how you can derive mystic truths from just about any text.

After you’ve done that, think about what it says about a god who hides things so far in between the lines that even the most devout believer doesn’t get it right.

Is that the kind of god you want to propogate?

Think about my challenge and question then return to this topic. Your not quite as bad of as the “bible code” followers though, they believe in a god that encodes secret messages into the bible.

and predicts the future (after it’s happened of course, like I said, it’s easy to predict something once it’s already happened.)

So their god:

Likes to hide secret messages from even the most devout followers.
Has predetermined from the very beginning what will happen. (if the future is really in the book, then the future is already known and written.)

Then also couple this with other christian beliefs, than you have people that are predetermined to roast in hell, because god didn’t like them.

Truth does not exist in all things. Goodness does not exist in all things. The longer we hold onto the ancient texts the more dangerous they become to our productivity and progress. Right now the US is the last civilized country to still have the death penalty, last place in health of it’s citizens, and last place in education (because we look at science with more skepticism than we do our own religions.)

well IMP, would agree with you there. I however don’t. Looking at truth in such a fashion is a very very dangerous thing to do. It leads to the acceptance of groups like NAMBLA (like the ACLU has done) or statements like thirst made in the “moral homosexual” thread about how “if hitler had won he would’ve been the moral right”

It’s important to remember what is right and wrong. And not look at life through the wishy washy glasses of moral relativism.

Tell that to the fundamentalist sitting next to you, reading the same holy book and interpreting it literally. Is he not getting the truth from the book? oh, that’s right HE IS. his truth that all homosexuals should be put to death is just as valid as any truth you got from the book.

Please do. Though it didn’t stop Manson from looking at it the way he did, nor will it stop future violent christians.

or these fellows (be sure to look at their websites)

forceministries.com/ - “It is literally true-there
are no atheists in foxholes-religion is precious under fire.”

aggressiveministries.org/ - “GET AGGRESSIVE OR GET DEVOURED!

Bob, felt that I’d been hanging around too many fundamentalists, when I posted this… The real truth is that you relativists are afraid to admit is that the fundamentalists have it right.

I mean think about it from a moderate christian point of view. Most of you believe in evolution which completely undoes the doctrine of original sin (which is the foundation of the religion) then some of you go even further…

“I don’t think jesus was actually resurrected I think it was a metaphysical transformation”

“Jesus was only kind of born a virgin, god inspired the seed of joseph.”

etc.

Ask yourself. Without the doctrine of original sin, how useful was christ’s sacrifice for sin?

There’s no 2 ways about this… any metaphysical interpretation, like my interpretation of Alice in wonderland comes from you not from the holy book, and like my interpretation it’s nowhere NEAR the original author’s intentions.

So like the ACLU’s acceptance of NAMBLA, by claiming “all religions can claim stake to a truth” you make it impossible to challenge all of the problems within said religion. You’ve made that persons beliefs (even though they think you are as much an infidel as any agnostic or atheist) justified.

scythekain, thank you for your reply. You wrote…

My view coincides with the belief that meaning can be derived from anything. Interpretation comes from within in all cases, so meaning comes from within in all cases. The thing is, before one comes to the interpretation that the mystics can come to, their interpretation provides for them the meaning that is specific to them and their life at the time. Its not necessarily wrong, its simply not as pure or lucid. Who knows, the mystics interpretation could be just as clouded, but regardless, it provides for meaning in relation to that person. When you say that the text have entranced many, how do you know thats not what was meant for them at the time. Considering the relative nature of life, people arent going to agree on everything, we have our own interpretations of what is. So if they are being entranced, and thats how they view the text or thats how their interpreting the text, then thats how they are supposed to be at that time. It might later change. For example, I used to take a more literal view of the Bible. I had often noticed inconsistencies and what not, and came to the point to where I felt none of it was valid, and that it was a bunch of made up folklore and stories, etc. After my bout of skepticism, I decided that instead of looking else where for information, I would find it for myself, realizing things not in relation to my past knowledge but rather with an open mind based on the logic the information contained within itself. After doing so for so long, I came to these mystic type understandings of reality. I mean I didnt go to church for a long time, I began to get into other religions, and finally came to the point to where I was like no religion is right for me, because God is within me and I can learn from the true source. Here lately, even still believing that, I have become increasingly more interested in religion, and when I read the text, I can see how much of what is written, relates directly to my new understanding of the world and my purpose in general. This is no different from my interpretation a few years ago, which was based in relation to the experiences of that time, and my understanding of life at that time. Everyone is on their own path, and the mystic understanding of the text isnt any more valid for anyone else besides the mystic-like individual who can comprehend and understand this interpretation based on his/her experience, just as the literalist understanding of the text arent any more valid for the mystic. Its all relative, and its all according to your level of awareness, growth, understanding of life, etc. Just because someone gets a different understanding doesnt mean their understanding is wrong, just different. This is why I say there is truth in all things, for how you perceive it, is the truth for you at that time, and directly relates to you at that time. Basically its the truth at all levels, some of the levels being more related to the true purpose of life, while the lower levels being more related to the superficial purposes of life, which inevitably arent as important, but must be understood at some level before you can reach the next levels.

These are beliefs based on interpretations, some believe this and some dont. Your expression and following of all the beliefs you accept will invariably put you in positions and situations where you will suffer or endure pleasure for following them, teaching you lifes lessons based on these beliefs, changing some, shaping or increasing in strength others, and the process continues.

Why does skepticism come to our mind first? Because our relative understanding of life calls for it. If we had no relatively based understanding of the world, ie. we were like a child, we wouldnt be as skeptical, we would most often believe you. I mean why wouldnt we, we havent had any other knowledge to use in order to debunk your expression based on logic. The holy text allow you to have your own understanding of God as it relates to you, then you go out into the world with this understanding, experiencing life in relation to it, causing you to be skeptical to some things and debunking them, while accepting others. Experience is based on this relative interpretation, and as a result meaning of experience will be directly related to this interpretation as well.

Im not exactly sure of what you are conveying here, could you expound please?

Mythological text were used to explain reality through the relative interpretation of the day, no different from the holy texts, just different understanding all pointing to the same thing, reality. Its human nature to believe in something, I mean our realities are based on our beliefs, which is inevitably how we will learn, so the ancients ascribed beliefs to reality. No matter how far fetched the ideas may seem, they directly were related to the truth that reality is, simply an interpretation, which is only what one can have.

Thats the beauty, everyone gets it right! Just in their own little relative ways. Even though there is disagreement, its all right. Remember God is the infinite, He consist of all, so all our little relative realities are in some way a part and reflection of Him. Thats definetely the type of God I would propogate, in order to understand we must learn, in order to learn we must experience. Some people feel as if they would rather not live, and rather not experience, I even used to feel this way, but what kind of life would it be if God just gave us all the knowledge were supposed to know? God as an entity from which all knowledge stems existence would be pointless. We would all be God, but this is contradictory with my idea of God. For if God is all and infinite, then there must be a lower nature or levels underneath the heights. Whats so beautiful about it is that God allows those entities in the lower level grow and rise to the heights. The lower levels are eternal(sheol, hell, earth, etc.), while the higher levels and all in between are just the same. Being conscious of it all, we have the opportunity to grow and experience it all. To experience our true infinite self within little relative limited selves that eventually will go beyond these limits at all levels to the point to where the limits go away. How wonderful is that? Not too wonderful for someone who feels like their stuck, but an immensely beautiful experience for someone who feels and knows theres eternally more.

lol. I feel you, I feel what your saying. But based on this whole relative veiw, everything that happens to someone happens perfectly in accordance to that individual, for that individual. Its our own reality we live in, and considering we create it, what happens to it must happen for us to learn to create it in a better way, eventually coming to a point of expansion, of acceptance of the other realities and thinking and a realization that all realities are simply a part of the whole reality that we all are a part of. This provides for much patience, love, and understanding of those others who are still limited within their realities, and the want and desire to help those within these realities, ultimately helping yourself to widen your limited reality as well. These attributes are what could be referred to as the higher attributes of man, leaving behind the lower attributes which derive from misunderstanding of the other realities such as hatred, envy, ect. The point is, everybody has to go through the lower to get to the higher and so on. So someones interpretation isnt wrong, because it provides for that person growth in relation to them. Since our individual experience has a direct effect on who we are, and our experience is ours alone, as many people as their are to experience are as many ways to grow and become a part of this higher realization. I personally believe skepticism to be kind of like a mid-point, where one realizes that all this stuff Ive been believing may not be true, and may not be whats real, so we decide to reject it all and find out on our own, finally coming to the realization that though those beliefs may not be correct, there must be something thats correct, and then the continuation of the journey to more understanding and the higher attributes commences.

Once again, I feel you, but really think about it. Regardless of how the individuals in the country look at religion, how many really follow it? I mean they might accept the beliefs, but how many act on them? Not many, we have a country full of Pharisees, they know the law, and sometimes they might follow it, but they dont practice the law with the correct intent. They practice it in order to justify their selfish needs. This is why were last. But believe it or not, no matter how bad these acts are on the manifested end, there is truth to it when it comes to themselves. These individuals will incur much pain and suffering, many will change, some might not before they die, but regardless the truth exist in the relative understanding, no matter whether its acted upon or ignored.

But its relative to you. You cant deny it, even if its wrong morally for that person, it will come back on them and teach them. They cant understand your position because they havent arrived at that understanding, but their pain and suffering, happiness and pleasure, ie. experience, will provide for it.

Yes it is. But thats his truth, and if it shouldnt exist, time will provide for a different view, whether it be this life or the next. lol I know what you think about that, but it coincides perfectly with my interpretation and understanding.

These individuals will suffer, and they are already experiencing much pain trust me. They will change either this time around or next.

My interpreatation of Luke 19:27… But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

I believe that this is the order of life. Those who dont allow God in their lives will invariably die. The King will slay them, its allegorical, and you understand that. Those who dont allow God to provide for them the knowledge they need in order to achieve everlasting life and come into Heaven will die. Thats the way it is. Their interpretation isnt wrong, its just flawed in relation to their current understanding of life and their past, they will learn from it.

We are both right.

This isnt me.

I agree with both points, because this is the way it is. These problems you speak of stem from your understanding, and your understanding is what will allow you to grow and the few others who are around your level, the others will learn for themselves, and for those who are near their level.

Hello F(r)iends,

(1) Scythekain, you just said the debate about genealogy was the weakest debate for BOTH of us and you follow that with a question about genealogy? To answer: Luke was a scholarly person that would have taken great care to ensure that his genealogy was correct, at best, you would have to agree that one of them was accurate and at worst you would have to agree that both COULD be accurate.

I did not avoid the prophecies issue… As I have repeated, it is a massive issue and takes time. I WILL GET BACK TO YOU ON THE PROPHECY ISSUE IN THAT OTHER THREAD AT A LATER TIME.

(2) Repeat: Paul’s epistles date back as early as 45 A.D. and within 15 years of the reported death of Christ.

(a) Paul personally testifies that he saw a resurrected Christ.
(b) Paul testifies that James (a former skeptic) saw the resurrected Christ.
(c) Paul testifies that Peter saw the resurrected Christ.
(d) Each has independently verified Christ cruccified.
(e) So, it matters not when the gospels were written, they were written in accordance to the earliest known church creed: that Christ was crucified and resurrected and that there were personal witnesses to this event.
(f) This can be verified in 1 Corinthians 15.
(g) A fragment of the gospel of John has been dated to as early as 100 A.D.
(h) This is before the dates you suggested. Your dates just don’t stand up to criticism.

Multiple people have written about Christ. The difference is that those that wrote about Christ lived during the time he walked on Earth. For example: Paul, James, Peter, Matthew, Luke, John… Also, we have Tacitus and Josephus that wrote about Christ.

How many people personally attest to witnessing these miracles? How many people personally are willing to die in testifying for these miracles? None.

-Thirst