Thread: Serve and Obey

I am interested to know what different Christians (because that is what I was raised), (but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, others if you care to respond), think about what it means to you to Serve and Obey God. To me, and my understanding of what God wants of me, it seems impossible to be what God wants me to be. Thus my predicament.

1.) What does obeying and serving God entail for you?

2.) Is it hard for you to serve and obey God? If so, why? If not, why?

I'm particularly interested in the day to day living, the daily rituals, the things you feel you are asked to do by God on a consistent basis. Thanks. :?

Cottontop,


Please first tell what *you* think entails obeying and serving God.
Thus, we can have a better starting point.

What does obeying and serving God entail for you?

To serve and obey an invisible entity while eschewing our origins is the ultimate ignorance of mankind.

Is it hard for you to serve and obey God? If so, why? If not, why?

It isn't so much hard as it is impossible to ignore what we are as humans and how we evolved to our current state to even consider a lifetime of servitude and obedience to that which has never been shown to exist.

Q,

I tend to agree with you. I know where you are coming from, and I am getting there, I think.

However, I was born and raised southern Baptist; I considered myself a devout Christian for at least the first 20 years of my life; the next 10 or so were a painful doubting process of myself and God; for the last 5, I have told God (if He exists) to "fuck off and leave me alone" bordering on "I can't really believe that there is a God." If there is a God as I was taught there was, then I don't want to know Him, I don't like Him. Mainly for letting His children suffer so much (me as well as those that I think have suffered so much more than me).

Water says I have a problem with authority figures, which I do, mainly because of corrupt authority figures I have known on Earth. I think though, that I do not transfer this problem onto the God I was taught existed as a child. My problem with the God I know stems more from false promises made in the Bible by Him and His Son. Promises that have been broken with me.

Water, I am interested in what others think about God. How you and Ellion and others here that do believe in God perceive Him or Her or It or Yourself. I will state what I was taught to believe later, but please tell me what you think first.

I do not want this thread to turn into a shouting match, or a fight. I am simply trying to learn something this time, though I do like to fight at times too, as you probably know. I am trying to avoid that here though. :| Peace.

in my own life i never think about such things as serving and obeying.
think about those words Serve and Obey. what kind of a relationship exists where one serves and obeys the other, what kind of results would such a relationship produce? another thread perhaps in -human behaviour.

Cotton

The conflict you now experience is a good thing. The worst thing you could do at this point is to give up the conflict and reserve yourself to your old beliefs.

The false and broken promises are irrelevant as they are merely myths dreamed up from an age of ignorance. It may be somewhat difficult for you to simply purge those events from your life, but they were important and served their purpose. They are best left forgotten.

Instead, look at your requirements for your life now and decide if the need to believe in invisible, all-poweful beings is one of them. If nature, in all its splendor, devoid of such beings, does not spur you to value your existence for what it is, then you have yet to cast off that need to believe.

Ellion,

For me it is hard to really go into what I believe sometimes. I am just tired of thinking about it, and I think it will take too much time for me to organize my thoughts and write it down.

However, where are you coming from when you say that you have never thought about things like serving and obeying? What would you consider yourself, if you had to label yourself? Again, from me anyway, you will get no criticism here. I am just exploring.

I tend to ask myself the same question about serving and obeying, but I feel that the Bible and the Koran and a few of the other major religions tend to teach that you have to in order to get into Heaven. I know that the Bible teaches that you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior, you have to recognize and accept that Jesus died on the cross to atone for man's sin. If you don't do these things, you will not get into Heaven. Instead, you will go to Hell, and suffer for eternity. This is the first and most basic tenet of the Bible and is what Christianity is based on. There is no escaping this. You must obey in this, at the least. Then, there are the parts of the Bible that talk about living your life in a way so that you will receive the fruits of the spirit here on Earth. Some look at this as guidance for how to live a Godly, happy and prosperous life on Earth, and that if you don't live according to the guidelines of the Bible, then you will not have as Godly, happy and prosperous life on Earth, as well as not be rewarded as greatly in Heaven.

Others will interpret the Bible differently. But, to me, the Bible basically says: Do what God says (and the Bible says that He said to do many things), live as Godly a life as possible, or you will not be happy here on Earth or as rewarded in Heaven, given that you have at least accepted Jesus Christ as your "personal" savior.

To me, this means serve and obey. Live as Christian a life as possible. To me, this creates a form of perfectionism in people that can be devastating. That is why I want to see what you think God wants from you.

what kind of a relationship exists where one serves and obeys the other, what kind of results would such a relationship produce?

The result is slavery.

Originally Posted by (Q)

The conflict you now experience is a good thing. The worst thing you could do at this point is to give up the conflict and reserve yourself to your old beliefs.

I think so too. I have a very low probability of going back to my old beliefs, but I am not ready yet to completely close the door as Christianity was a part of me for so long.

The false and broken promises are irrelevant as they are merely myths dreamed up from an age of ignorance. It may be somewhat difficult for you to simply purge those events from your life, but they were important and served their purpose. They are best left forgotten.

Myths is how I see them now too. Good way to describe how I feel about it actually. Thanks. Forgotten? Maybe not forgotten, maybe forgiven. I do believe in forgiveness still, but mainly because I see that it does have a positive affect on me. Forgiving myself has been a very hard, yet a very rewarding thing. It is something that allows me to overcome my tendency towards perfectionism.

Instead, look at your requirements for your life now and decide if the need to believe in invisible, all-poweful beings is one of them. If nature, in all its splendor, devoid of such beings, does not spur you to value your existence for what it is, then you have yet to cast off that need to believe.

I will tell you that the Christian upbringing has a very strong hold on me, and thus it is hard sometimes to look at the splendor of nature and not at least wonder if it must have taken a Supreme Being to create it.

However, tell me what you believe in Q. What would you label yourself if you had to?

Originally Posted by (Q)

what kind of a relationship exists where one serves and obeys the other, what kind of results would such a relationship produce?

The result is slavery.

Yes, so how does Ellion look at God? How do you define your relationship with God Ellion? This is what I want to here. Just briefly if you like.

I am not ready yet to completely close the door as Christianity was a part of me for so long.

That is understandable. No one but yourself can make those decisions for you and shouldn't until completely at ready. Search all aspects before doing so, that is the only way to find resolution; thorough and complete, definitively.

I do believe in forgiveness still, but mainly because I see that it does have a positive affect on me. Forgiving myself has been a very hard, yet a very rewarding thing.

Perhaps viewing forgiveness from a sociological instead of an ethereal standpoint may help to ease the burden and still be rewarding.

I will tell you that the Christian upbringing has a very strong hold on me, and thus it is hard sometimes to look at the splendor of nature and not at least wonder if it must have taken a Supreme Being to create it.

I see no problem here. You are recognizing the fact that there is more than one possibility to nature and are keeping your mind open to those possibilities.

While admiring nature, try instead to apply natural selection and slowly reverse time, all the while applying that concept. You may soon find that nature MUST have come unto its own, through the epochs of time coupled with its ever-changing properties, and in no way could have possibly been simply 'created.'

However, tell me what you believe in Q. What would you label yourself if you had to?

I don't label myself as anything - others do that for me.

I simply don't have a need to believe. It is that need to believe that has been instilled in us as a result of religion.

As humans, we want to understand, hence we are curious and inquisitive. We have evolved senses, which allow us to interact with our environment and an intelligence that gives us the opportunity to understand those interactions. Nowhere does a need to believe enter this symmetry.

It is only when one chooses ignorance of mankind and nature, whether due to folly or rejection, does the need to believe become a requirement.

Q,

Have you always felt this way? Were you never "religious?"

If you mean by 'religious,' had I ever believed in a supernatural power(s) that created the universe and controlled my destiny? No.

Cool, just wanted to know. Now, please, Ellion and Water, and others, tell me what your experience and belief in God means to you. If someone believes in the same God I did, but has a different outlook about Him than I did, I would very much like to hear what you think.

I grew up believing in a generic version of Christianity. Though my parents weren't religious, I think they both believed in some sort of god. But their god was one that could be reconciled with observations such as evolution and modern geology.

I had some religious relatives that tried to convince me that Seventh Day Adventism was the way. It didn't take.

Left to my own thoughts on the subject for the most part, I began to have doubts about the existence of a god by late grade school. I watched a film once about greek and roman mythology, such as Persephone spending part of the year in Hades, causing the seasons. The narrator explained that these myths were the way these ancient people had explained natural phenomena they couldn't understand. I thought to myself "What is the difference between this and Christianity"? By highschool I was an unbeliever, and have been since.

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Ellion,

For me it is hard to really go into what I believe sometimes. I am just tired of thinking about it, and I think it will take too much time for me to organize my thoughts and write it down.

you have been filled with so much advice and guidance on everything from what food to eat for breakfast to how to secure yourself a place in ever lasting bliss i am not surprised you dont want to think about it anymore.

However, where are you coming from when you say that you have never thought about things like serving and obeying?

i mentioned above and also in women and sex. there is nothing more i can say that would make my postion any clearer.

What would you consider yourself, if you had to label yourself?

if i was given absolute freedom to label myself without having to fit someone elses models i would not label myself at all. what is interesting is why you need to label me?

Again, from me anyway, you will get no criticism here. I am just exploring.

criticism is fine if it is productive and inoffensive.

I tend to ask myself the same question about serving and obeying,

what questions do you ask yourself?

but I feel that the Bible and the Koran and a few of the other major religions tend to teach that you have to in order to get into Heaven. I know that the Bible teaches that you have to accept Jesus as your personal savior, you have to recognize and accept that Jesus died on the cross to atone for man's sin. If you don't do these things, you will not get into Heaven. Instead, you will go to Hell, and suffer for eternity. This is the first and most basic tenet of the Bible and is what Christianity is based on. There is no escaping this. You must obey in this, at the least.

this is not sitting well with you? it doesnt sit well with me either but i cant provide answers for you.

Others will interpret the Bible differently. But, to me, the Bible basically says: Do what God says (and the Bible says that He said to do many things), live as Godly a life as possible, or you will not be happy here on Earth or as rewarded in Heaven, given that you have at least accepted Jesus Christ as your "personal" savior.

To me, this means serve and obey. Live as Christian a life as possible. To me, this creates a form of perfectionism in people that can be devastating. That is why I want to see what you think God wants from you.

i dont think god wants anything from me. perhaps i feel one thing that is to share the love that i have.

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Originally Posted by (Q)

what kind of a relationship exists where one serves and obeys the other, what kind of results would such a relationship produce?

The result is slavery.

Yes, so how does Ellion look at God? How do you define your relationship with God Ellion? This is what I want to here. Just briefly if you like.

i dont define it. defining is resticting, inhibiting and excluding. why would i want to do that? label something it becomes not something else. restrict something it becomes limited.

i dont define it. defining is resticting, inhibiting and excluding. why would i want to do that?

So that we may understand your position, why else?

We're not asking you to make any life changing decisions - just a few words.

Sounds like a cop-out.

So that we may understand your position, why else?

We're not asking you to make any life changing decisions - just a few words.

its like you want a box to put me in, a category and a label. i dont want to put myself into a box so that you can observe me better. if you need a label make one of your own up it will be as good as any that i can provide and if you want to understand me read my posts. i hope that makes my postion clearer.

Cottontop,

My problem with the God I know stems more from false promises made in the Bible by Him and His Son. Promises that have been broken with me.

What promises?

Water, I am interested in what others think about God. How you and Ellion and others here that do believe in God perceive Him or Her or It or Yourself. I will state what I was taught to believe later, but please tell me what you think first.

I do not "perceive" God as anything. Which doesn't mean God is invisible -- God's work is visible. I have no image for which I would say "This is God".

* * *

Originally Posted by ellion

in my own life i never think about such things as serving and obeying.
think about those words Serve and Obey. what kind of a relationship exists where one serves and obeys the other, what kind of results would such a relationship produce?

Humans always obey and serve something or someone. Be it their sex drive, or money, or partner, etc. -- they obey and serve.
Some are slaves to money, some are slaves to sex, some are slaves to prestige, some are slaves to their partners, some are slaves to their work. Etc.
We all have a master which we succomb to, and we choose this master. Not all masters are equally kind to us; if that master is drugs, it will likely kill us soon.
That we do have a master (whatever and whomever this may be) stems from us being caused entities -- we did not choose to be born; we are always depending on something or someone for our survival.


* * *

(Q),

Instead, look at your requirements for your life now and decide if the need to believe in invisible, all-poweful beings is one of them.

I think that you are stuck in the surface metaphor of religion. This is why no matter what anyone of the theists tells you makes sense to you.
I will not do your thinking for you, even though this seems to be exactly what you want.
All along, you've been dissecting the metaphor, but not the meaning.

If nature, in all its splendor, devoid of such beings, does not spur you to value your existence for what it is, then you have yet to cast off that need to believe.

What implicit assumptions!
What is "one's existence as it is"? The statistical estimate that a human life is nothing in comparison to the planet? Or some quasi-hippy "Oh, look, nature is so beautiful, we need no God" talk?


* * *

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Others will interpret the Bible differently. But, to me, the Bible basically says: Do what God says (and the Bible says that He said to do many things), live as Godly a life as possible, or you will not be happy here on Earth or as rewarded in Heaven, given that you have at least accepted Jesus Christ as your "personal" savior.

To me, this means serve and obey. Live as Christian a life as possible. To me, this creates a form of perfectionism in people that can be devastating. That is why I want to see what you think God wants from you.

One has to be perfect in faith, perfect in devotion, commitment. One can never be perfect in works; to be perfect in works is a nonsensical demand anyway.


* * *

(Q),

That is understandable. No one but yourself can make those decisions for you and shouldn't until completely at ready. Search all aspects before doing so, that is the only way to find resolution; thorough and complete, definitively.

We all know that it is impossible to search ALL aspects.

While admiring nature, try instead to apply natural selection

A tiger tearing up an antelope. A shark eating up a man. Parasites in the heart or eye. Hyenas eating an animal that is still alive.
For most people, this is not the "beauty" or "splendor" of nature.
Natural selection is admirable as long as it is not you yourself who is on the line, about to be eaten.

and slowly reverse time, all the while applying that concept. You may soon find that nature MUST have come unto its own, through the epochs of time coupled with its ever-changing properties, and in no way could have possibly been simply 'created.'

You can make this objection only if by "creation" you mean some sort of hocus-pocus.

Originally Posted by (Q)

i dont define it. defining is resticting, inhibiting and excluding. why would i want to do that?

So that we may understand your position, why else?

We're not asking you to make any life changing decisions - just a few words.

Sounds like a cop-out.

WHY would you like to understand his, mine, someone else's position about God?
What is your motivation for wanting to understand someone else's position about God?

Originally Posted by water

Originally Posted by (Q)

i dont define it. defining is resticting, inhibiting and excluding. why would i want to do that?

So that we may understand your position, why else?

We're not asking you to make any life changing decisions - just a few words.

Sounds like a cop-out.

WHY would you like to understand his, mine, someone else's position about God?
What is your motivation for wanting to understand someone else's position about God?

I can't speak for Q, but for me, my motivation is simple. To see if you and/or ellion or anyone else who cares to respond might have found a way to be truly happy and at peace in this life that I have not tried or thought of. My conclusion, so far in life, is that noone is really happy. Some just hide their misery better than others, from themselves and others. I want to find out if my conclusion is truly accurate, or if I have somehow deluded myself along the way, amidst all the drinking, drugging, fighting against my perceptions of God, against the corruption and delusion I have seen in this world, etc. If you have found a way to live that seems to work for you, and you feel somewhat at peace with yourself, I would like you to try to help me understand where you are coming from so that I might change my attitudes about life. So that I might be able to have a more positive outlook.

Originally Posted by ellion

its like you want a box to put me in, a category and a label. i dont want to put myself into a box so that you can observe me better. if you need a label make one of your own up it will be as good as any that i can provide and if you want to understand me read my posts. i hope that makes my postion clearer.

I'm not trying to label you Ellion. I was just trying to find a simple way for you to explain to me what your position about God is. If you'd rather not go into it again here, that's fine.

Originally Posted by water

Cottontop,

My problem with the God I know stems more from false promises made in the Bible by Him and His Son. Promises that have been broken with me.

What promises?

Example of a promise (apparently) made by God as told by Moses in Deuteronomy 1:11. " May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!" Look up the definition of blessed on your own, if you like. This is one promise, there are a multitude of others.

I do not "perceive" God as anything. Which doesn't mean God is invisible -- God's work is visible. I have no image for which I would say "This is God".

Okay, then what is visible about God's work? What do you see Him doing?

One has to be perfect in faith, perfect in devotion, commitment. One can never be perfect in works; to be perfect in works is a nonsensical demand anyway.

So, let's see. We cannot be perfect in works. I agree. We can, however, be perfect in faith, devotion and commitment. How do you explain this? How are you perfect in faith, devotion and commitment?

Cottontop3000,

I can't speak for Q, but for me, my motivation is simple. To see if you and/or ellion or anyone else who cares to respond might have found a way to be truly happy and at peace in this life that I have not tried or thought of. My conclusion, so far in life, is that noone is really happy. Some just hide their misery better than others, from themselves and others. I want to find out if my conclusion is truly accurate, or if I have somehow deluded myself along the way, amidst all the drinking, drugging, fighting against my perceptions of God, against the corruption and delusion I have seen in this world, etc.

It all depends on what you think "happiness" entails, and what it means to be "at peace".

If you have found a way to live that seems to work for you, and you feel somewhat at peace with yourself, I would like you to try to help me understand where you are coming from so that I might change my attitudes about life. So that I might be able to have a more positive outlook.

At the sight of the consumption of resources and production of waste, I find it next to impossible to be happy on earth. Things will doubtlessly be horrid beyond imagination when the oil runs out. To place your happiness into this world is sadly mislead, in my opinion. if you are looking for a positive outlook, *here*, it is beyond me how it could be found.

What might help you is to first ask yourself: Why do I want to be happy? What is my justification for the desire to be happy? Is it my right to be happy?

Cottontop,

Example of a promise (apparently) made by God as told by Moses in Deuteronomy 1:11. " May the Lord God of your fathers make you a thousand times more numerous than you are, and bless you as He has promised you!" Look up the definition of blessed on your own, if you like. This is one promise, there are a multitude of others.

But do you want any of the things God has promised?!

You said you don't want to have children. Do you think God will just give you children even though you do not want them, neither can you afford them?

This, and your life is not over yet; you do not know what is yet to come for you.

Okay, then what is visible about God's work? What do you see Him doing?

He "makes the world go round", literally.

So, let's see. We cannot be perfect in works. I agree. We can, however, be perfect in faith, devotion and commitment. How do you explain this?

This may sound like a strange and insultive comparison, but please forgive me its rudeness:
When you were an acoholic, you have been committed to it, haven't you? Think of those times, and how alcohol and drugs were your master, and how your life revolved around them all the time. They were your god.

That is a negative example, but it still demonstrates well what I am trying to say: You had unshakable faith that alcohol and drugs would bring you relief. You also were wholeheartedly committed to them, devoted.

You once were perfect in a faith, so you have made the experience of perfect faith. It was not faith in a good master though. But God won't do to you what alcohol and drugs did.

How are you perfect in faith, devotion and commitment?

I'm not, but I am striving for that.

i hope that makes my postion clearer.

Yes, in other words, you have absolutely nothing to say. Thanks for nothing.

I will not do your thinking for you, even though this seems to be exactly what you want.

You can't even think for yourself, why should you think for me?

What is "one's existence as it is"?

Our existence in nature, of course. Haven't you been paying attention?

We all know that it is impossible to search ALL aspects.

For you perhaps, who aren't interested in other aspects.

A tiger tearing up an antelope. A shark eating up a man. Parasites in the heart or eye. Hyenas eating an animal that is still alive.
For most people, this is not the "beauty" or "splendor" of nature.

Thank you for showing us all that you know nothing about natural selection. Bravo!

You may now return to your Sunday school class.

You can make this objection only if by "creation" you mean some sort of hocus-pocus.

Yes, hocus-pocus - now please go back to sleep and let the adults talk.

What is your motivation for wanting to understand someone else's position about God?

What is your motivation for haunting a science forum?

At the sight of the consumption of resources and production of waste, I find it next to impossible to be happy on earth. Things will doubtlessly be horrid beyond imagination when the oil runs out. To place your happiness into this world is sadly mislead, in my opinion. if you are looking for a positive outlook, *here*, it is beyond me how it could be found.

As you can see, Cottontop, theists ignore mankinds past, present and condemn their futures with defeatist attitudes, and then turn to their gods for comfort. It is exactly that type of worldview that will be the destruction of mankind. It truly sickens me.

Originally Posted by water

But do you want any of the things God has promised?!

I used to, when I was naive and an idealist. Then He, unless He was just a figment of my imagination, put me through Hell on Earth. No fault of my own, I think, unless you want to say my expectations of myself were too high. I think I did what He asked of me, more than most imo, but I couldn't do enough apparently. Now, I think I was just deluded. I think my delusion led to the self-inflicted pain and misery I went through.

You said you don't want to have children. Do you think God will just give you children even though you do not want them, neither can you afford them?

I could afford them, if I wanted to. Money is not a problem in the that sense. I don't want them to suffer like I have, in a world that is blinded by wealth and power, therefore I choose, for now, not to have them. I would like to have them, deep down, but I want to be able to give them something better than I have experienced. Something better than a world blinded by wealth, power, jealousy, fear, division and hatred. I am part of the problem, but I am trying to find a better way. I am trying, at this moment, to root out the diseases in me and the world, so that if I do decide to have children, they might have a better time of it than I have, so far.

Okay, then what is visible about God's work? What do you see Him doing?

He "makes the world go round", literally.

I don't like the way "He" apparently makes or lets it "go round."

So, let's see. We cannot be perfect in works. I agree. We can, however, be perfect in faith, devotion and commitment. How do you explain this?

This may sound like a strange and insultive comparison, but please forgive me its rudeness:
When you were an acoholic, you have been committed to it, haven't you? Think of those times, and how alcohol and drugs were your master, and how your life revolved around them all the time. They were your god.

That is a negative example, but it still demonstrates well what I am trying to say: You had unshakable faith that alcohol and drugs would bring you relief. You also were wholeheartedly committed to them, devoted.

You once were perfect in a faith, so you have made the experience of perfect faith. It was not faith in a good master though. But God won't do to you what alcohol and drugs did.

I'm not insulted by your example. If you say that I wanted something from alcohol, and later drugs, similar to what I wanted from God previously, you may be right. Don't forget though that I turned to alcohol and later drugs (cocaine and pot if anyone wants to talk to someone who has overcome them, at present. [it's funny that noone has started a thread, that I have seen, about drugs in general - maybe I'll do that]), because I felt like I had been betrayed by "God," and I hurt, and I needed something to help me escape the feelings of betrayal that pained and angered me so. There is a similarity also in that I have come to the conclusion that alcohol, drugs and God are all false gods, imo. They all lead to disillusionment, depression and feelings of sorrow and pain (physical and mental). I am looking, though, for a true God. Maybe I am on the right path, maybe not, that is why I am asking for you guys' opinions.

How are you perfect in faith, devotion and commitment?

I'm not, but I am striving for that.

That's okay. I'm just trying to tell you that I thought I had it at one time in my life, and I think I have found out that I was wrong in my thinking. I think that striving for perfection is a good goal, but I also think it is very important to admit to yourself that you will never reach "absolute" perfection, at least not in this life. Just give yourself a little slack if you ever think you are failing miserably. This has been a very difficult thing for me to do, but I think I am making progress, and I think it is the right thing to do, for me and everyone.

Q,

You have not answered my question:
WHY would you like to understand his, mine, someone else's position about God?
What is your motivation for wanting to understand someone else's position about God?


* * *

Cottontop3000,

But do you want any of the things God has promised?!

I used to, when I was naive and an idealist.

And now you are mature and a realist?

Then He, unless He was just a figment of my imagination, put me through Hell on Earth.

You are quick to blame God, but slow to have faith in Him.
If you want to blame God, you have to be sure it is indeed He who is responsible for your misery.

Now, I think I was just deluded. I think my delusion led to the self-inflicted pain and misery I went through.

Yes, and I think this delusion had nothing to do with God.

You said you don't want to have children. Do you think God will just give you children even though you do not want them, neither can you afford them?

I could afford them, if I wanted to. Money is not a problem in the that sense. I don't want them to suffer like I have, in a world that is blinded by wealth and power, therefore I choose, for now, not to have them. I would like to have them, deep down, but I want to be able to give them something better than I have experienced. Something better than a world blinded by wealth, power, jealousy, fear, division and hatred. I am part of the problem, but I am trying to find a better way. I am trying, at this moment, to root out the diseases in me and the world, so that if I do decide to have children, they might have a better time of it than I have, so far.

Point is, NOW you do not want to have children. Yet you NOW think that it is alright to say God "broke His promise". This is not fair of you.
If you don't want something, don't complain if you don't have it.

I don't like the way "He" apparently makes or lets it "go round."

Why not? On what standard do you assess that the world, as it is, is not good?

I'm not insulted by your example. If you say that I wanted something from alcohol, and later drugs, similar to what I wanted from God previously, you may be right. Don't forget though that I turned to alcohol and later drugs (cocaine and pot if anyone wants to talk to someone who has overcome them, at present. [it's funny that noone has started a thread, that I have seen, about drugs in general - maybe I'll do that]), because I felt like I had been betrayed by "God," and I hurt, and I needed something to help me escape the feelings of betrayal that pained and angered me so.

But you are still not sure whether it was indeed God that betrayed you.
Or whether it was your delusion of God that betrayed you -- with which you betrayed yourself.

There is a similarity also in that I have come to the conclusion that alcohol, drugs and God are all false gods, imo. They all lead to disillusionment, depression and feelings of sorrow and pain (physical and mental). I am looking, though, for a true God. Maybe I am on the right path, maybe not, that is why I am asking for you guys' opinions.

Then, for the sake of clarity, keep the capital G only for God.

I'm not, but I am striving for that.

That's okay.

"That's okay"? I'm not here for a pity party.

I think that striving for perfection is a good goal, but I also think it is very important to admit to yourself that you will never reach "absolute" perfection, at least not in this life. Just give yourself a little slack if you ever think you are failing miserably. This has been a very difficult thing for me to do, but I think I am making progress, and I think it is the right thing to do, for me and everyone.

I don't need that when it comes to faith.

I repeat my query from before:

Originally Posted by water

It all depends on what you think "happiness" entails, and what it means to be "at peace".

/.../

What might help you is to first ask yourself: Why do I want to be happy? What is my justification for the desire to be happy? Is it my right to be happy?

?

I want to find out if my conclusion is truly accurate

what if it isnt?
about being happy.
contentment and peace. view this>

http://www.imagehosting.us/imagehost...jpg/?id=592160

i gaurantee you will understand how i feel.

i will write a fuller response to this thread i havent the time today.

me too. got a headache. later.

Obeying and serving god; obeying and serving the divine; obeying and serving the divinity within us.

The greatest expression of this divinity being love (not the touchy feely kind).

So we obey god by loving god, and we do this by loving gods creation - by loving each other. For we are connected to god and he resides within us. So, whatever we do to each other we do to god.

By this one principal - loving god through each other - we must then follow all other of gods precepts; charity; non aggression; honour in family life.

If we behave with love and honour in all our dealings in this world, we will obey and serve god.

This is written in many religions in different words; but many scriptures have had much added apart from this, which clouds the message.

Meditation and prayer are useful, but most other doctrine and religious practice is unecessary to obey and serve god.

Originally Posted by water

Cottontop3000,

But do you want any of the things God has promised?!

I used to, when I was naive and an idealist.

And now you are mature and a realist?

Some of the time, I think. Sometimes, I am still just a little lost child. I am trying Water to find out what is really important to me. I think I have found out many things about myself. Some I like, some I don't. This is all very hard for me, as I am sure it is for others too. Don't play games with me, please. If you have something helpful to say, say it. Please stop answering all my questions with other questions.

You are quick to blame God, but slow to have faith in Him.
If you want to blame God, you have to be sure it is indeed He who is responsible for your misery.

I spent 20 years having what I thought was perfect faith in Him. I lost that faith because, like i've said, I felt like He betrayed me. I've come to terms with what man has done to me, but not what God has done or allowed to be done to me. If you know the "real" God, I am asking you to give me your point of view that it might help me to come to a better understanding of God for myself.

Yes, and I think this delusion had nothing to do with God.

Then help me understand God, and not what man/woman says God is.

Point is, NOW you do not want to have children. Yet you NOW think that it is alright to say God "broke His promise". This is not fair of you.
If you don't want something, don't complain if you don't have it.

Ohhh, you can be so frustrating. How is any of this supposed to help someone? Are you trying to help me? Are you playing with me? Please spell it out for me a little more clearly!! Unless you are just fucking with me.

"That's okay"? I'm not here for a pity party.

Didn't imply that you were.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Obeying and serving god; obeying and serving the divine; obeying and serving the divinity within us.

The greatest expression of this divinity being love (not the touchy feely kind).

So we obey god by loving god, and we do this by loving gods creation - by loving each other. For we are connected to god and he resides within us. So, whatever we do to each other we do to god.

By this one principal - loving god through each other - we must then follow all other of gods precepts; charity; non aggression; honour in family life.

If we behave with love and honour in all our dealings in this world, we will obey and serve god.

This is written in many religions in different words; but many scriptures have had much added apart from this, which clouds the message.

Meditation and prayer are useful, but most other doctrine and religious practice is unecessary to obey and serve god.

I like this. I feel instinctively, I think, and also through my experience in life, that to love each other (and to not be violent) is the right thing to do, whether it has anything to do with a "God" or not. I like more the idea of a God within each of us than I do the idea of a completely separate and distant God out there somewhere. For me, the hard part is not knowing for sure and being able to put this idea into daily practice. Thus, I isolate myself out of a somewhat misguided idea of what love is. I can't, so far, really love, but I can love through my isolation, sense I am so prone to violence, and I think I am loving by choosing a lesser evil over a greater evil. May sound like a cop out, and it is definitely not good for me, but in my mind, at least I am currently not overtly hurting anyone, which feels like it is about all I am capable of right now.

Cottontop3000,

Don't play games with me, please. If you have something helpful to say, say it. Please stop answering all my questions with other questions.

I am trying to be helpful, but it seems it isn't going anywhere for you.
Bottomline, if someone can't help you, don't look for ways to add them to your problems.

I tend to ask a lot of questions to get a better picture of the situation.

I spent 20 years having what I thought was perfect faith in Him. I lost that faith because, like i've said, I felt like He betrayed me. I've come to terms with what man has done to me, but not what God has done or allowed to be done to me. If you know the "real" God, I am asking you to give me your point of view that it might help me to come to a better understanding of God for myself.

I think you are on the way there. I can't tell you any definite answers; I can only point in directions, show where I have walked.

Yes, and I think this delusion had nothing to do with God.

Then help me understand God, and not what man/woman says God is.

Whatever I would say, would still be a " ... and not what man/woman says God is".

Do you see the problem now of people telling you about what God is?

The most I can do, anyway, is to sit here and listen to you.

Point is, NOW you do not want to have children. Yet you NOW think that it is alright to say God "broke His promise". This is not fair of you.
If you don't want something, don't complain if you don't have it.

Ohhh, you can be so frustrating. How is any of this supposed to help someone? Are you trying to help me? Are you playing with me? Please spell it out for me a little more clearly!! Unless you are just fucking with me.

Hm. I don't know how what I said above is unclear.
If you don't want to have children, if you are not ready to have them, then God won't give them to you. Or do you think He should, inspite your wishes?

* * *

The questions I asked about happiness -- they are important inasmuch as there is a common belief that we are entitled to happiness, and that injustice is happening if we aren't happy. Which is nothing but another one from the set "Life must be bliss 24/7, or it is not worth living". Happiness is a privilege, not a right.

I like more the idea of a God within each of us than I do the idea of a completely separate and distant God out there somewhere.

... Which, in Christianity, for example, is called "having the Holy Spirit".

Originally Posted by water

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Ohhh, you can be so frustrating. How is any of this supposed to help someone? Are you trying to help me? Are you playing with me? Please spell it out for me a little more clearly!! Unless you are just fucking with me.

Hm. I don't know how what I said above is unclear.
If you don't want to have children, if you are not ready to have them, then God won't give them to you. Or do you think He should, inspite your wishes?

I see. We have had a misunderstanding here. I don't want God to give me kids. In fact, I hope he doesn't anytime soon. The part of that verse out of Deuteronomy that I highlighted in bold is the part of the promise that I was talking about. His promise to bless us. Not the part about increasing our numbers a thousandfold. Did you not notice the bold?
* * *

The questions I asked about happiness -- they are important inasmuch as there is a common belief that we are entitled to happiness, and that injustice is happening if we aren't happy. Which is nothing but another one from the set "Life must be bliss 24/7, or it is not worth living". Happiness is a privilege, not a right.

I don't feel entitled to happiness. I feel that is one of God's promises. I feel like He broke His promise. Bless: (according to Webster's) 1: to hallow or consecrate by religious word or rite 2: to make the sign of the cross upon or over 3: to invoke divine care for 4: PRAISE, GLORIFY 5: to confer prosperity or happiness upon 6: PROTECT, PRESERVE

I gave all my praise to God for 20 years of my life (- 5 years from 0 to 5 I guess). I saw Him throw me to the wolves at West Point with no help. I saw Him let me get so depressed that I wanted to kill myself. I saw Him not let me kill myself (it was my fear of Hell, and my fear of hurting my family that kept me from doing it on several occasions). I saw Him not help me when I rededicated my life to Him in 1999. I saw Him allow me to stay depressed and miserable even after I rededicated my life to Him. Now, I say He was never there. I deluded myself into believing He was. I say the very idea of Him is what hurt me so much in the first place. I say FUCK the very idea of GOD!!!

I like more the idea of a God within each of us than I do the idea of a completely separate and distant God out there somewhere.

... Which, in Christianity, for example, is called "having the Holy Spirit".

Which, in Christianity, comes with a lot of rules that are impossible for ANY of his children to fulfill.

Cottontop3000,


Let's see:

P1: I don't feel entitled to happiness.
P2: I feel that is one of God's promises.
P3: I feel like He broke His promise.

I1 from P2: God promised you happiness, therefore you are entitled to it; you have the right to be happy.
I2 from P3 and I1: Your right has been violated.

I2 is in dissonance with P1.
You are holding inconsistent beliefs.

I gave all my praise to God for 20 years of my life (- 5 years from 0 to 5 I guess). I saw Him throw me to the wolves at West Point with no help. I saw Him let me get so depressed that I wanted to kill myself. I saw Him not let me kill myself (it was my fear of Hell, and my fear of hurting my family that kept me from doing it on several occasions). I saw Him not help me when I rededicated my life to Him in 1999. I saw Him allow me to stay depressed and miserable even after I rededicated my life to Him. Now, I say He was never there. I deluded myself into believing He was. I say the very idea of Him is what hurt me so much in the first place. I say FUCK the very idea of GOD!!!

/ ... /

Which, in Christianity, comes with a lot of rules that are impossible for ANY of his children to fulfill.

I think this is the core problem of yours:
(I am quoting form a private letter to me)

* * *

You can break down Christian denominations into two basic groups
Works based denominations.
and
Grace based denominations.

Now I am sure you know church 'theo jargon' but just to be sure we have our
word definitions in sync I will give you my definitions of "Works" and
"Grace"

Works:
Works are physical acts/actions there are two major sub divisions "Good
Works" and "Works of the Law"
Both are related.

Good works could be giving money or help to the poor or visiting the
lonely or any other act of caring done to make the lives of others more
bearable,

Works of the Law could be going to church on the Sabbath or eating
fish on Fridays or not stealing or not engaging in sex. Works of the law is
all about trying to succeed in successfully following the laws like the 10
commandments or other church laws like tithing (giving a percentage of your
earnings to the church)

Grace
Grace means two things in English scripture:

"Grace/peace of mind" and "Grace/forgivness".

Grace/peace of mind
When we say that someone has grace we are saying that the person have the
peace of mind that comes from knowing Jesus and knowing that whatever
happens in this world they have eternity with Jesus, They have everything in
proper perspective. A nuclear war might be starting but they remain in a
state of peaceful bliss knowing that in the end all will be well not matter
if they live or die.
Now the second Grace is more relevant to your question.

Grace/forgiveness:
Grace is the forgiveness of God that is available to us via acceptance of
Jesus as the Messiah, Redeemer and Lord. It is a gift in that people who
accept it do not have to successfully Do the Law. By a persons acknowledging
their need for a Savoir one is acknowledging the validity of the law by
seeking forgiveness for ones failure to Do the Law.

So now lets get back to the question.
Many Christians are brought up in Works based churches the emphasize the
need to do good deeds and to avoid doing bad deeds. This leads many young
Christians to believe that they must earn salvation by not doing sinful
things and doing good things. The problem comes for these young Christians
when they reach puberty and start to have sexual thoughts and desires. They
know that sexual sin is very wrong but they cannot stop themselves thinking
about it and lusting over other people. That's when demoralization kicks in.
They can not longer successfully resist sin and so they come to the
conclusion that they are not good enough to be saved and end up sinning to
excess.

Their basic belief system is worldly. They think they have to earn
the gift of grace they think they have to make themselves worthy of
salvation.


This is illogical to grace based Christians. The reason why one needs to be
saved is that they cannot save themselves. If a person could make themselves
worthy of salvation then they would not need a Savoir, they could get into
eternity by their own efforts. Jesus told them through a parable that a
doctor does not come to heal the healthy He comes to heal the sick. Jesus is
the salvation doctor for all those who agree with the will of God but
because of their carnal nature cannot live up to the perfection of the will
of God.

Christians who understand that they are saved not by how good they are but
by their acceptance of Gods grace do not face the same demoralization when
they hit puberty. While they do not like failing God's will they accept they
are just humans and are glad that they are saved through Jesus. Therefore
they can continue to resist sin without feeling demoralized when they
inevitably fall down.

People who seek to do good while accepting that they
will often fail will do more good then people who feel the need to do good
always but fail and give up on doing good altogether. People who seek to
resist evil will while accepting that sometimes they will loose it and have
an outburst of anger every now and then will end up hurting others
a lot less then people who feel the need to never do evil who find out that
they cannot achieve perfection and just give into the desire to let them
have it whenever they feel like it.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under
the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become
guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will
be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being
witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God,
through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God
set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through
faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance
God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to
demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and
the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is
boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No,
but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a
man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.


So the reason some "Christians" end up going wild and sinning to excess is
because they do not understand Grace, they do not understand that Jesus died
for them because they are sinners needing to be saved.

They fall down when they seek to turn the gift into a payment for works.

* * *

What you have said so far testifies that you have been brought up in a works based church, and this is why faith has been such a devastating and disappointing experience.

You wanted to *earn* what God had promised to give by grace, and this wanting to earn it is what was/is wrong.

Originally Posted by water

Cottontop3000,


Let's see:

P1: I don't feel entitled to happiness.
P2: I feel that is one of God's promises.
P3: I feel like He broke His promise.

I1 from P2: God promised you happiness, therefore you are entitled to it; you have the right to be happy.
I2 from P3 and I1: Your right has been violated.

I2 is in dissonance with P1.
You are holding inconsistent beliefs.

No, because apparently you are not listening to what I am saying. Add these two points to your list:

P4: I don't think God would break His promise.
P5: Therefore there is no God (at least not the kind the Bible spews on about).

What you have said so far testifies that you have been brought up in a works based church, and this is why faith has been such a devastating and disappointing experience.

You wanted to *earn* what God had promised to give by grace, and this wanting to earn it is what was/is wrong.

IMO, it's all wrong. Especially those who try to rationalize away the inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by Q

Yes, in other words, you have absolutely nothing to say. Thanks for nothing..

you have manners too! you truely are blessed!

Originally Posted by CottonTop

If you'd rather not go into it again here, that's fine.

you understand why a whisper must suffice.

Originally Posted by water

At the sight of the consumption of resources and production of waste, I find it next to impossible to be happy on earth.

it is not your responsibility. being happy will come form within not from without.

in my opinion. if you are looking for a positive outlook, *here*, it is beyond me how it could be found.

bu t it can be found and it is not beyond you it is within you. you seem to be connected so much to the spirtual energy, this comes through in the things you say but i often recognize an extreme pessimism. this makes me wonder why? why are you not lead to living water s of life how are you not connecting fully with that spirit. something is in the way. there seems to be something that stops you from embracing your life and accepting it as a gift. do you know what that is? you dont have to tell me.

Originally Posted by cottontop

I could afford them, if I wanted to. Money is not a problem in the that sense. I don't want them to suffer like I have, in a world that is blinded by wealth and power, therefore I choose, for now, not to have them.

withthis awareness you could probably give your childeren exactly what they needed something that money cannot buy and that power cannot take by force. you know what that is.

I would like to have them, deep down, but I want to be able to give them something better than I have experienced. Something better than a world blinded by wealth, power, jealousy, fear, division and hatred.

what is it that would stop you giving that?

I am part of the problem, but I am trying to find a better way. I am trying, at this moment, to root out the diseases in me and the world, so that if I do decide to have children, they might have a better time of it than I have, so far.

the best changes you can make are within you. the world can wait. wounded soldiers cannot fight.

I don't like the way "He" apparently makes or lets it "go round."

what do you see that disturbs you most?

Originally Posted by vashit's daughter

The greatest expression of this divinity being love (not the touchy feely kind).

is the body an offence to you? touch is a very effective way of communicating love to another creature.

Originally Posted by cottontop

Please stop answering all my questions with other questions.

Sorry i seem to do that a bit too dont i. it is because as i said above this is something within yourself that you need to find, anything i tell you is useless you must experience truth for yourself then no-one will ever take it away from you. i hope my questions will point your thoughts in the right direction but i cannot change your rmind or bring peace to your heart. peace is already in your heart and the truth you already know you just have to get back home.

sorry i still havent caught up with this thread or really offered anything new but i am getting a headache and need some rest.

I'm glad you all are trying. I am actually kind of tired of the whole religion thing again. Like I get everyday, after I've had enough. Anyway, respond some more if you like. No big deal, either way, honestly. I'd rather just get lost in sex. Where did that analbeads get off to now?

Cottontop3000,

Let's see:

P1: I don't feel entitled to happiness.
P2: I feel that is one of God's promises.
P3: I feel like He broke His promise.

I1 from P2: God promised you happiness, therefore you are entitled to it; you have the right to be happy.
I2 from P3 and I1: Your right has been violated.

I2 is in dissonance with P1.
You are holding inconsistent beliefs.

No, because apparently you are not listening to what I am saying. Add these two points to your list:

P4: I don't think God would break His promise.
P5: Therefore there is no God (at least not the kind the Bible spews on about).

Are you sure God broke His promise? Is your life over, are you dead now, and you can speak with surety that God has not broken His promise?

Take this personally: You are a self-absorbed little mimosa dipshit panzy.
You give God no chance to do what you want of Him; you want Him to do yesterday what you will wish for tomorrow.

What you have said so far testifies that you have been brought up in a works based church, and this is why faith has been such a devastating and disappointing experience.

You wanted to *earn* what God had promised to give by grace, and this wanting to earn it is what was/is wrong.

IMO, it's all wrong. Especially those who try to rationalize away the inconsistencies.

Have you even read the post? I am trying to make clear to you where your trouble comes from, the misunderstanding it is based on.

Now, for crying out loud, stop playing the victim, it has been enough of that.


* * *


ellion,

bu t it can be found and it is not beyond you it is within you. you seem to be connected so much to the spirtual energy, this comes through in the things you say but i often recognize an extreme pessimism. this makes me wonder why? why are you not lead to living water s of life how are you not connecting fully with that spirit. something is in the way. there seems to be something that stops you from embracing your life and accepting it as a gift. do you know what that is? you dont have to tell me.

I know what it is. It is incurable.

water said:
P1: "I don't feel entitled to happiness."
*************
M*W: Why do you feel that way? I believe everyone is entitled to experience happiness. Being "happy" comes from within, not from without! You are dismissing your own power to be happy!
*************
water said:
P2: "I feel that is one of God's promises."
*************
M*W: Okay, but if you believe that it "is one of God's promises," why do you doubt that what your "God promised" to you that won't happen? If you believe in your God, why can you not believe in yourself? It is from within where all good things originate!
*************
P3: I feel like He broke His promise.
*************
M*W: I do understand what you are saying, but if "God broke his promise to you," you would have allowed it or even maybe wanted your God to "break his promise!" Ultimately, you are in control of your own happiness!
*************
I1 from P2: God promised you happiness, therefore you are entitled to it; you have the right to be happy. You're looking the wrong way to find happiness! Happiness is self-created.
*************
M*W: We all have the "right to be happy." That is not the promise of any "God." That is your rightful human choice. No one but you can allow yourself to be "happy."
*************
I2 from P3 and I1: Your right to happiness has been violated. It is up to YOU to find that happiness!
*************
M*W: If you feel your "right has been violated," then you, yes YOU, allowed it to happen! Stop trying to sabotage yourself!
*************
I2 is in dissonance with P1. You are holding inconsistent beliefs. Happiness is yours for the taking. Why would you even look somewhere else to find it?
*************
M*W: water, I think you are confused.
(1) you desire happiness, but
(2) you believe happiness only comes from "God;"
(3) therefore, you are limiting your own happiness!
*************
water: You can break down Christian denominations into two basic groups. Works based denominations
and Grace based denominations.
*************
M*W: Why should your happiness be limited to two Christian denominations -- those that promote works or those that promote grace???
*************
water: Now I am sure you know church 'theo jargon' but just to be sure we have our word definitions in sync I will give you my definitions of "Works" and
"Grace"

Works:
Works are physical acts/actions there are two major sub divisions "Good works" and "Works of the Law" Both are related.

Good works could be giving money or help to the poor or visiting the lonely or any other act of caring done to make the lives of others more
bearable,

Works of the Law could be going to church on the Sabbath or eating fish on Fridays or not stealing or not engaging in sex. Works of the law is all about trying to succeed in successfully following the laws like the 10 commandments or other church laws like tithing (giving a percentage of your earnings to the church)

Grace
Grace means two things in English scripture:

"Grace/peace of mind" and "Grace/forgivness".

Grace/peace of mind is When we say that someone has grace we are saying that the person have the peace of mind that comes from knowing Jesus and knowing that whatever happens in this world they have eternity with Jesus, They have everything in proper perspective. A nuclear war might be starting but they remain in a state of peaceful bliss knowing that in the end all will be well not matter if they live or die. Now the second Grace is more relevant to your question.

Grace/forgiveness:
Grace is the forgiveness of God that is available to us via acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah, Redeemer and Lord. It is a gift in that people who accept it do not have to successfully Do the Law. By a persons acknowledging their need for a Savoir one is acknowledging the validity of the law by seeking forgiveness for ones failure to Do the Law.

So now lets get back to the question. Many Christians are brought up in Works based churches the emphasize the need to do good deeds and to avoid doing bad deeds. This leads many young Christians to believe that they must earn salvation by not doing sinful
things and doing good things. The problem comes for these young Christians when they reach puberty and start to have sexual thoughts and desires. They
know that sexual sin is very wrong but they cannot stop themselves thinking about it and lusting over other people. That's when demoralization kicks in.
They can not longer successfully resist sin and so they come to the conclusion that they are not good enough to be saved and end up sinning to excess.

Their basic belief system is worldly. They think they have to earn the gift of grace they think they have to make themselves worthy of salvation.

This is illogical to grace based Christians. The reason why one needs to be saved is that they cannot save themselves. If a person could make themselves
worthy of salvation then they would not need a Savoir, they could get into eternity by their own efforts. Jesus told them through a parable that a
doctor does not come to heal the healthy He comes to heal the sick. Jesus is the salvation doctor for all those who agree with the will of God but because of their carnal nature cannot live up to the perfection of the will of God.

Christians who understand that they are saved not by how good they are but by their acceptance of Gods grace do not face the same demoralization when they hit puberty. While they do not like failing God's will they accept they are just humans and are glad that they are saved through Jesus. Therefore they can continue to resist sin without feeling demoralized when they inevitably fall down.

People who seek to do good while accepting that they will often fail will do more good then people who feel the need to do good always but fail and give up on doing good altogether. People who seek to
resist evil will while accepting that sometimes they will loose it and have an outburst of anger every now and then will end up hurting others a lot less then people who feel the need to never do evil who find out that they cannot achieve perfection and just give into the desire to let them have it whenever they feel like it.

Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.
For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously ommitted, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a hman is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

So the reason some "Christians" end up going wild and sinning to excess is because they do not understand Grace, they do not understand that Jesus died for them because they are sinners needing to be saved.

They fall down when they seek to turn the gift into a payment for works.

What you have said so far testifies that you have been brought up in a works based church, and this is why faith has been such a devastating and disappointing experience. You wanted to *earn* what God had promised to give by grace, and this wanting to earn it is what was/is wrong."
*************
M*W: "Grace" is that peacefulness and righteousness we find within ourselves -- and not from other seekers!

Take this personally: You are a self-absorbed little mimosa dipshit panzy.

Cottontop is taking a big step - one that will rid him of pie-in-the-sky fantasies, will allow him to think on his own and decide what's best for his future, will lift the burden of fear from his life permiting him to live it to the fullest instead of wasting it praying for a fictitious afterlife.

Cottontop has more courage in his little finger than you have in your...

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Obeying and serving god; obeying and serving the divine; obeying and serving the divinity within us.

The greatest expression of this divinity being love (not the touchy feely kind).

So we obey god by loving god, and we do this by loving gods creation - by loving each other. For we are connected to god and he resides within us. So, whatever we do to each other we do to god.

.

I like this. I feel instinctively, I think, and also through my experience in life, that to love each other (and to not be violent) is the right thing to do, whether it has anything to do with a "God" or not. I like more the idea of a God within each of us than I do the idea of a completely separate and distant God out there somewhere. For me, the hard part is not knowing for sure and being able to put this idea into daily practice. Thus, I isolate myself out of a somewhat misguided idea of what love is. I can't, so far, really love, but I can love through my isolation, sense I am so prone to violence, and I think I am loving by choosing a lesser evil over a greater evil. May sound like a cop out, and it is definitely not good for me, but in my mind, at least I am currently not overtly hurting anyone, which feels like it is about all I am capable of right now.

Please dont think that because I write a nice paragraph about love, it is easy for any of us to express love all the time, with all the pressures and stresses of daily life. It is not.

You say the hard part is not knowing about god for sure, and then not knowing whether to put love in daily practice. Well if you feel it is instictively right, do it. Then you will learn more about god.

You have it the wrong way round. Dont wait to know about god before you try to love. Love to know god. What you give you will receive! we dont know when but we will receive. If you want some thing - give it first. Sounds strange maybe but it is a principal that does work.

We all have circumstance to overcome. This is the task god has put in front of us. To overcome circumstance, not to fall victim to them.

You may find karma and reincarnation helpful when looking at circumstance. The bible does not contain all knowledge on god or life (even though some say it does) . also even the bible still contains evidence of teachings of reincarnation.

Vashti's Daughter,

You know what? You just reminded me of something. When I was in high school, I wrote an essay about exactly what you just talked about. I forget the title, though my mom may still have it somewhere (she kept everything). The essay was about how if you want to receive in life (whatever it is) you first need to give. "Give and ye shall receive." That was during my most devout days as a Christian.

What does that mean to me? I don't really know, but I think that is something that may be true. I've always believed that the Bible has good stuff in it, but over the years I have come to disbelieve the parts about their really being a supreme God. The whole thing just seems too man-made to me. Seems too likely that it was man-inspired and not "some God out there" inspired.

I've gone back and forth, and am still not sure, whether I think it was inspired by "wise" men or power-hungry, evil "men." Maybe some of both; I haven't decided yet.

"Give and ye shall receive." Lie or not? True or wishful thinking? Beneficial to anyone, or just the rich and powerful? I think I need to think more about this.

Originally Posted by (Q)

Take this personally: You are a self-absorbed little mimosa dipshit panzy.

Cottontop is taking a big step - one that will rid him of pie-in-the-sky fantasies, will allow him to think on his own and decide what's best for his future, will lift the burden of fear from his life permiting him to live it to the fullest instead of wasting it praying for a fictitious afterlife.

Cottontop has more courage in his little finger than you have in your...

It's nice that you are taking interest in CT's case.
But your criticism of me is totally misplaced. I know far more about CT than you think, and we are on far different terms than you think.

And I am not praying for an afterlife, neither do I believe in it.


* * *

Medicine*Woman,

P1: "I don't feel entitled to happiness."
*************
M*W: Why do you feel that way? I believe everyone is entitled to experience happiness. Being "happy" comes from within, not from without! You are dismissing your own power to be happy!
*************
water said:
P2: "I feel that is one of God's promises."
*************
M*W: Okay, but if you believe that it "is one of God's promises," why do you doubt that what your "God promised" to you that won't happen? If you believe in your God, why can you not believe in yourself? It is from within where all good things originate!
*************
P3: I feel like He broke His promise.
*************
M*W: I do understand what you are saying, but if "God broke his promise to you," you would have allowed it or even maybe wanted your God to "break his promise!" Ultimately, you are in control of your own happiness!
*************
I1 from P2: God promised you happiness, therefore you are entitled to it; you have the right to be happy. You're looking the wrong way to find happiness! Happiness is self-created.
*************
M*W: We all have the "right to be happy." That is not the promise of any "God." That is your rightful human choice. No one but you can allow yourself to be "happy."
*************
I2 from P3 and I1: Your right to happiness has been violated. It is up to YOU to find that happiness!
*************
M*W: If you feel your "right has been violated," then you, yes YOU, allowed it to happen! Stop trying to sabotage yourself!
*************
I2 is in dissonance with P1. You are holding inconsistent beliefs.
Happiness is yours for the taking. Why would you even look somewhere else to find it?
*************
M*W: water, I think you are confused.
(1) you desire happiness, but
(2) you believe happiness only comes from "God;"
(3) therefore, you are limiting your own happiness!
*************

Please tell this to Cottontop, as what I have said in the form of premises is merely a clarification of his own argument.

water: You can break down Christian denominations into two basic groups. Works based denominations
and Grace based denominations.
*************
M*W: Why should your happiness be limited to two Christian denominations -- those that promote works or those that promote grace???

That there are basically two groups of Christian denominations is merely an observation of the present situation in Christian churches.

This is pertinent inasmuch as I am trying to find out what CT's church background is, and thus, where his trouble comes from, so that it can be understood and overcome.

M*W: "Grace" is that peacefulness and righteousness we find within ourselves -- and not from other seekers!

? Who is saying anything about grace coming from other seekers?

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

"Give and ye shall receive." That was during my most devout days as a Christian.
What does that mean to me? I don't really know, but I think that is something that may be true. .

It is a true principal. If you want love, give it. If you want security, make others secure. If you want freedom, give othes theirs. If you want respect then respect others.

Try it.

We often discount all religious advice, because some of it has been corrupted, but we should not.

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

I've always believed that the Bible has good stuff in it, but over the years I have come to disbelieve the parts about their really being a supreme God. The whole thing just seems too man-made to me. Seems too likely that it was man-inspired and not "some God out there" inspired.

I've gone back and forth, and am still not sure, whether I think it was inspired by "wise" men or power-hungry, evil "men." Maybe some of both; I haven't decided yet.
.

The bible was written my men - who were god inspired. Over the years it has been changed little by little. Copied by hand a thousand times, each time the copier having his own personal agenda.

It was severly reorganised in the 2nd century at the time of the gnostic / orthodox split. - who says the right camp won.

What we have now probably bears little resemblance to the early teachings and writings of early christianity.

Yes there is still much good stuff in it, but we have to bear the above in mind when reading it.

Other teachers have come since Jesus (as many came before) to tell us where we have gone wrong, but christianity ignores them.

Quote Cotton:
“To see if you and/or ellion or anyone else who cares to respond might have found a way to be truly happy and at peace in this life that I have not tried or thought of.”

* You share wisely here Cotton. Have you ever come across the below regarding the quest for “happiness”.

Six Mistakes of Man

More than 2,000 years ago, the Roman orator Cicero listed the following 6 mistakes of man:
1. The delusion that individual advancement is made by crushing others.
2. The tendency to worry about things that cannot be changed.
3. Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it.
4. Refusing to set aside trivial preferences.
5. Neglecting development and refinement of mind and not acquiring the habit of reading and study.
6. Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do.

I know far more about CT than you think, and we are on far different terms than you think.

It appears, according to Cottontop, that you understand very little about his plight. He is more or less finished with god fantasies and all you're doing is trying to drag him back into one.

Ohhh, you can be so frustrating. How is any of this supposed to help someone? Are you trying to help me? Are you playing with me? Please spell it out for me a little more clearly!! Unless you are just fucking with me.

And I am not praying for an afterlife, neither do I believe in it.

Notice how your particular god fantasy contradicts that of other believers. That should tell you something.

The bible was written my men - who were god inspired.

Unfortunately, god inspiration cannot be verified. We can only assume that the bible was written by men.

Over the years it has been changed little by little. Copied by hand a thousand times, each time the copier having his own personal agenda

Do you not read what it is you write? You just said it was changed by those who had their own agendas - why couldn't the bible have originally been written by men who had their own agendas?

Originally Posted by (Q)

It appears, according to Cottontop, that you understand very little about his plight. He is more or less finished with god fantasies and all you're doing is trying to drag him back into one.

?
First of all, how could I "drag him back"? Is he a mindless object? I think not.

And secondly, his frustrations with religion come from a particular religious upbringing and I am trying to show him where his upbringing went wrong, where it bred paradoxes, so that he could resolve those long-held paradoxes.

So far, he has tried to abandon them as a whole -- but it didn't work that way, as the issue is too complex for such an approach.

Notice how your particular god fantasy contradicts that of other believers. That should tell you something.

It is only you and those who think like you who have problems with my not fitting in with other believers.
I don't care if my understanding of God contradicts that of some John Doe.

Originally Posted by (Q)

[i]
Do you not read what it is you write? You just said it was changed by those who had their own agendas - why couldn't the bible have originally been written by men who had their own agendas?

Do you not read what you write.... Listen to what you are suggesting. Some 1900 or so years ago, a few men decided to get together and make up a huge story about something that went against all the religions of the time. Something that they could be jailed or killed for making up. why??

Maybe you will suggest that they knew hundreds of years later christianity would be one of the worlds major religions, and they were just setting things up for some corrupt bishops or somthing. What , could they see into the future?? and why would they crae what happened 500 years later.


And we are not just talking about making up a story, but a religion, a way of life, an interpretation of jewish scripture.

why do you imagine such a thing would happen?

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Do you not read what you write.... Listen to what you are suggesting. Some 1900 or so years ago, a few men decided to get together and make up a huge story about something that went against all the religions of the time. Something that they could be jailed or killed for making up. why??

I would defer to Medicine Woman or Skinwalker with regards to this. I think that they would say that much of Christianity is or was based on earlier religions and was not really that unique or different. IMO, there could have been several reasons for these men to get together and write what they did:

1.) In Moses' time, which well pre-dated the Roman empire, (I think that is the time-frame you refer to above), if Moses even actually existed, you could make an argument that Moses was a man who saw his people oppressed by Egyptians, and thought of a way for them to escape their bondage (like the American Revolution, though not separated by a whole ocean, only a small Red sea), and saw a way to guide them as best he knew to the "Promised Land." In order to motivate and lead people on such a rebellious, dangerous and "unheard of" journey, I think he would have had to become more than a mere human (though entirely human at the same time, in my eyes), at least to his followers. It's not unheard of in ancient times, or even in the present, for men or women to seem like they are more than human (Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler even). Just depends on the needs of the people at the time. I'm not saying Moses couldn't have had good intentions, but he might also have become in later life (and he was supposed to have lived a very, very long life) something less ideal. He easily could have been corrupted by power, as it seems he had absolute power over his followers.

2.) In Jesus' time, men who were proponents of Moses' law could have just seen discrepancies in either Moses' teachings, in the way the church was headed at the time, in the way people were thinking about the church and Moses' law, or in any of many other reasons to come up with modifications to the law of "God" as related by Moses. Perhaps they saw a need to make the laws of "God" more appealing to the oprressed of the Roman empire. Perhaps they saw a need to make the old laws more modern and applicable, or portray "God" in a more loving and benevolent manner than He was portrayed by Moses and others before this time. Could they have had a vested interest (for money or power, or simple love for their kin) to lead their people in a slightly different direction? I don't know for sure, but to me, the above makes more sense to me (if you can read between the lines as well) than the idea of some "God" that only talked to His people in the beginning and left it to men to carry on in His stead for millenia afterwards, allowing His word to be distorted and corrupted.

Maybe you will suggest that they knew hundreds of years later christianity would be one of the worlds major religions, and they were just setting things up for some corrupt bishops or somthing. What , could they see into the future?? and why would they crae what happened 500 years later.

No, perhaps just setting things up for themselves and/or their loved ones at the time. The best way to commit evil is to disguise it as good. (paraphrased from L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth dekalogy, book 2 Black Genesis [sci-fi satire], and no, I am not now or have I ever been a Scientologist. I don't even know what they believe in, though I am going to look into it because a lot of the satire in the series that is mentioned above has legitimate roots, imo.)

And we are not just talking about making up a story, but a religion, a way of life, an interpretation of jewish scripture.

why do you imagine such a thing would happen?

Like I've said, there are probably many reasons why man would do such a thing. I've no doubt that we will likely never know the truth, even in death. :P

Vashti's Daughter: "Do you not read what it is you write? You just said it was changed by those who had their own agendas - why couldn't the bible have originally been written by men who had their own agendas?"
*************
M*W: Since Cottontop deferred to me, I will respond. Those 'allegedly inspired scribes' certainly did have their own agendas. The bible was written, but it was not divinely inspired by anyone. It was based on the agenda of the scribe of the day... the day when the Church WAS the State! So, this must be taken into consideration when interpreting what the bible might be saying.
*************
Vashti's Daughter: Do you not read what you write.... Listen to what you are suggesting. Some 1900 or so years ago, a few men decided to get together and make up a huge story about something that went against all the religions of the time. Something that they could be jailed or killed for making up. why??
*************
M*W: Why?? Because the Church WAS the State!
*************
Vashti's Daughter: Maybe you will suggest that they knew hundreds of years later christianity would be one of the worlds major religions, and they were just setting things up for some corrupt bishops or somthing. What could they see into the future?? and why would they create what happened 500 years later.
*************
M*W: The period of time you intimate was BEFORE printing presses which didn't appear until about 1525 AD. The early church fathers never set out to form a religion that would possibly be adhered to two millenia into the future! All they wanted to do at the time was control the masses which was quite easy when nobody could read and there weren't any biblical documents handy. This has nothing to do with "corrupt bishops." And, no, the early church fathers could not "see into the future." They were just as humanly limited as we are. It was nothing more than a 'business deal.' They saw a profit at the end of the tunnel in their control tactics.

Then came Martin Luther who put a kink into the early church fathers' credo. Luther appealed to those the RCC had lost. Ongoing was the mission of the christian church as late as today. Problem is -- the Christian Church is a dying breed. Only 25% of the worldwide population believes in Christianity! So, what does the other 75% believe? -- Not in Christianity! The odds are that when 75% of anything occurs, it's a majority. Sorry, babe, your religion is dying.

How many people do YOU know who claim to be 'Christian' but don't go to any church or follow any religion? Being 'Christian' sort of falls into a black hole when asked. There are at least 8% give-or-take of those so-called 'Christians' who answer affirmatively even though they do not practice Christianity! The statistics don't lie.
*************
Vashti's Daughter: And we are not just talking about making up a story, but a religion, a way of life, an interpretation of jewish scripture.
*************
M*W: The Christian 'religion' was 'made-up' by Paul. Jesus (and he probably didn't even exist) had NOTHING to do with ChristianitY!!!!!!!!!! Paul of Tarsus was the ad-man who promoted Jesus.

You fail to understand that 'Jesus' was created from a combination of 16 earlier dying demigod saviors. Therefore, your precious Jesus Christ of Nazareth never existed!!!!! I guess by now you are vomiting. No?
*************
Vashti's Daughter: why do you imagine such a thing would happen?
*************
M*W: Again, my little naive one, the Church WAS the State. There is no such thing as Jesus nor is there anything such thing as 'Christianity.' It simply does NOT exist!

Seriously, you can't have it both ways. Evidently the first century Church was not the State, it was very far from being the State.

Christianity as we now have it, from a first century point of view, is the creation of Paul. But Jesus himself existed, of that I have no doubt. He wasn't born in Bethlehem, obviously there was no virgin birth, and Herod never slaughtered all the first-born of course. Neither did Jesus rise from the dead. To my mind there seems little doubt that the crucifixion took place, and there seems to be one detail common to all the accounts - that he was on the cross for less than a day before purportedly "dying". (Even as a child that struck me as curious - a proto-skeptic even then!) After that I believe that whatever else happened, he vanished from history, I don't believe there's any viable evidence for Jesus's presence at Masada or Qumran (let alone France!).

Jesus existed, and he gathered followers, and he said things. It is possible he was in the tradition of the Cynics (a theory I read in Q: The Lost Gospel), a man who preached and lived a life of complete poverty. Or he may have been in the Gnostic tradition that was one of the losing factions among his later followers. It's not certain that Jesus was entirely concerned with his Judaic upbringing at all (if he was even a Jew? Maybe that was a Pauline fabrication), but Paul certainly related his Christianity through the Mosaic scripture to a new kind of Judaism.

Christianity was a new religious sect, and their chief enemy was not the Sanhedrin, the Jewish court of Jerusalem, but rather the Roman State. Rome had control and took taxes from all the official religions of the empire, and was not inclined to accept a religion that primarily preached sedition (ie that the Emperor was not the supreme authority). That was, until the very start of the fourth century when Constantine must have smoked the wrong weed, had a vision, and made Christianity the state religion. It is this event which gives us the Christianity of today, without which it probably would have simply withered and died. But from then on, the fate of Rome and the fate of Christianity became intimately intertwined.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

I guess by now you are vomiting. No?

This is the kind of thing that is, quite rightly, criticised by the religious on this forum. Why go for this mocking tone? It only highlights the paucity of your case.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

M*W: Again, my little naive one, the Church WAS the State. There is no such thing as Jesus nor is there anything such thing as 'Christianity.' It simply does NOT exist!

Sometimes, MW, you sound on the verge of desperation. I find the same with Fundamentalists who cling dogmatically to the most ridiculous and indefensible positions. They cling so desperately that one feels instinctively that they are on the verge of losing their faith altogether. You constantly talk of having rejected Christianity and theism in general on the grounds that it's all just based on books with no proof or substantive evidence. Yet you yourself cling to a load of unsubstantive books, seemingly whatever you've most recently read, causing you to rant about Moses the Egyptian Pharaoh, Paul the deceitful epileptic, the divine feminine (from the execrable Da Vinci Code) and most recently this "16 demigods" thing I don't know where you got that from. (Though I accept that Christian worship did indeed borrow ritual and mythology from pre-existing cults). It's almost like you're on the verge of falling into full Christian worship!

Of course - how could church be state at the conception of christianity. Impossible. There was a jewish state and a roman state, neither were christain.

Of course christianity has the same traits as previous religions. Why, because if there is one supreme god then it will be the same god to all peoples and all religions, which means that there there is only one religion expressed in differing ways to different peoples and at different times.

Jesus, Moses and Mohammed all had great respect fo reach other. It is the men that came later that cause problems. and what was the religion of abraham (before judaism) maybe jainism or zorastrianism - who knows.

And what is wrong with this continuum of religion? Nothing, what is wrong is peoples refusal to develop and desire for static dogmatic religion.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

M*W: The period of time you intimate was BEFORE printing presses which didn't appear until about 1525 AD. The early church fathers never set out to form a religion that would possibly be adhered to two millenia into the future! All they wanted to do at the time was control the masses which was quite easy when nobody could read and there weren't any biblical documents handy. This has nothing to do with "corrupt bishops." And, no, the early church fathers could not "see into the future." They were just as humanly limited as we are. It was nothing more than a 'business deal.' They saw a profit at the end of the tunnel in their control tactics.
!

Duh - I know it was before printing presses, which is why said copied by hand.

Control the masses - you think the romans needed christianity to control the masses. They built up the largest and most powerful empire in history without the aid of christianity. They were perfectly capable of controlling the masses without it.

So the early christians were killed by the thousand because they saw profit at the end of the tunnel!

Well my little ignorant one, truth really is stranger than fiction I guess.

Originally Posted by Cottontop3000

However, I was born and raised southern Baptist; I considered myself a devout Christian for at least the first 20 years of my life; the next 10 or so were a painful doubting process of myself and God; for the last 5, I have told God (if He exists) to "fuck off and leave me alone" bordering on "I can't really believe that there is a God." If there is a God as I was taught there was, then I don't want to know Him, I don't like Him. Mainly for letting His children suffer so much (me as well as those that I think have suffered so much more than me)..

"In order to fully accept a truth, we must first wholeheartedly reject it" Carl Jung.

he could resolve those long-held paradoxes.

Religion IS the paradox and he is resolving it by rejecting it.

I don't care if my understanding of God contradicts that of some John Doe.

That is why religion and your so-called understanding of god are in your imagination. There can only be 3 possibilities with that contradiction; either you are wrong, they are wrong or you're both wrong - I suspect the latter.

a few men decided to get together and make up a huge story about something that went against all the religions of the time. Something that they could be jailed or killed for making up. why??

There can be a multitude of reasons why people make up religions. Power over people is a primary reason. I can' believe you're so naive.

why do you imagine such a thing would happen?

The same reason why thousands of other religions have been created over the years - power over people. Paul may have really, really believed in what he wrote when he created Christianity (almost one hundred years after the alleged incident) but that doesn't mean any of it is true - how could it be?

Why, because if there is one supreme god then it will be the same god to all peoples and all religions, which means that there there is only one religion expressed in differing ways to different peoples and at different times.

That makes no sense at all - if there is one supreme god, there would be only one religion and it would be clear to all, including me.

And what is wrong with this continuum of religion?

Do you enjoy living a lie?

Originally Posted by (Q)

[i]Why, because if there is one supreme god then it will be the same god to all peoples and all religions, which means that there there is only one religion expressed in differing ways to different peoples and at different times. [/i

That makes no sense at all - if there is one supreme god, there would be only one religion and it would be clear to all, including me.]?

Why would there be one religion? religions are made by men!

Certain individuals have higher levels of god consciousness (access to higher consciousnes) and are able to bring teachings to the world. From this other individuals develop religions based on those truths. These religions usually fall into error fairly quickly.

Originally Posted by (Q)

[Do you enjoy living a lie?

I enjoy my life and I enjoy my beliefs!

Originally Posted by (Q)

The same reason why thousands of other religions have been created over the years - power over people. ?

No, this is the reason religions have been manipulated and changed through time, not the reason they were created.

Think about it, its completely illogical to start a new religion to control a population or gain power. To gain power you need access to an existing religion that all the people adhere to and then change it to your own advantage. Creating a new religion that goes against what most people believe will never bring an individual power within their lifetime.

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Originally Posted by (Q)

The same reason why thousands of other religions have been created over the years - power over people. ?

No, this is the reason religions have been manipulated and changed through time, not the reason they were created.

Think about it, its completely illogical to start a new religion to control a population or gain power. To gain power you need access to an existing religion that all the people adhere to and then change it to your own advantage. Creating a new religion that goes against what most people believe will never bring an individual power within their lifetime.

This rebuttal seems plausible but is actually incorrect.

Take Moses for instance and look at how much clout he gained by turning the Israelittes to monotheism (they were at first polytheists, as you will see in the burning calf incident.)

I think it goes both ways.

I think some religions are created with good intentions, especially at first. Then, as time goes on they may and probably will get corrupted by either themselves or others.

At the same time, I think there are other people starting new religions to gain something for themselves in their lifetime (be it prestige, power, money, ego-stroking, whatever).

In the end, though, I think religions of the sort that are predominant today are finished. There is too much evidence to contradict the assertions made by the Bible, the Koran, the BG, whatever. I think that as people become more educated, religion will suffer and then die.

About the ethics and morals ingrained in us through such past beliefs though, I need to think more about that. I don't want to see us start killing and stealing more freely than we already do because we say God is NOT. A case could be made that as long as the morals and ethics of God continue, God continues, regardless of whether we end religion or not.

So, the question to me is, did God inspire these morals or did Man inspire them from some innate sense of right and wrong? Probably the latter, imo. Just writing as I think.

Albus Dumbledore: Take Moses for instance and look at how much clout he gained by turning the Israelittes to monotheism (they were at first polytheists, as you will see in the burning calf incident.)
*************
M*W: Before Moses (aka the Pharaoh Akhenaten) turned the 'Israelites' to monotheism, he made a law in Egypt that all people must worship the first and only 'god' the sun. Some rebelled and Moses fled -- or so the story goes. The 'Israelites' you refer to were actually a relatively small tribe of Egyptian 'Ibiru' nomad shepherds. They didn't become 'Israelites' until much later.

The problem here is the translation of the Torah. Stories about Moses were myths as was the Exodus. Biblical scholars and archeologists have concluded that it never happened. In fact, a lot of the bible stories never happened as they were written but taken from earlier Sumerian myths like the story of Gilgamesh compared to the myth of Noah and the Flood. The Moses of the Torah may not have existed as written but was embellished from earlier myths. One clue to the mythological interpretation of the Torah, Moses described in detail about his own death! So, either someone else wrote the Torah, or Moses was a mythological character himself!

"Some rebelled and Moses fled - or so the story goes." Which story is that - the Biblical story in which Moses, originally a prince of Egypt who turned on his adoptive father (brother?) and led the Jews to Exodus, or the story of Akhenaten which iirc ended with the polytheistic priestly faction turning against the Ra-worship and simply assassinating him, changing his son Tut Ankh Aten's name back to Tut Ankh Amun to begin the Egyptian move back to the traditional polytheism they espoused, and then assassinated him, too, in short order?

It seems that your story isn't really compatible with either of them.

The reality or otherwise of one guy called Moses persuading a group of Palestinian nomads to monotheism doesn't alter the fact that something like that must have happened.

Silas: M*W said: "Some rebelled and Moses fled - or so the story goes."
*************
Silas: Which story is that - the Biblical story in which Moses, originally a prince of Egypt who turned on his adoptive father (brother?) and led the Jews to Exodus, or the story of Akhenaten which iirc ended with the polytheistic priestly faction turning against the Ra-worship and simply assassinating him, changing his son Tut Ankh Aten's name back to Tut Ankh Amun to begin the Egyptian move back to the traditional polytheism they espoused, and then assassinated him, too, in short order?

It seems that your story isn't really compatible with either of them.
*************
M*W: You should know by now that I would discount the biblical version. However, you are correct about Moses' son, King Tut. It is possible that Moses was assassinated, and it's been documented that Tut for sure was when they found the hole in Tut's skull.

The other thing is that the story of the Exodus, Moses wasn't leading 'Jews' to the Promised Land. They were Egyptian 'Ibiru' who later became the Hebrews. Then, even later, they were considered to be from the tribe of Judah, hence, they were then called 'Jews.'

I always believed that the Exodus occurred until I read some scholarly research in BAR and some other reference materials. I feel quite sure there may have been many 'exoduses' in those days. Interestingly, these people were "nomads," and "exodusing" about the desert was their chosen lot in life.
*************
Silas: The reality or otherwise of one guy called Moses persuading a group of Palestinian nomads to monotheism doesn't alter the fact that something like that must have happened.
*************
M*W: And, I don't disagree with you about that. In fact, the mere name 'Moses' was a common name. In the bible, Moses was called by many names, including his birth name of Aminadab. He was given the name 'Moses' by the pharaoh's daughter since she pulled him from the river. 'Moses' means something like 'born of water.' Moses' proper title would have been 'Tuthmosis' as Moses' paternal ancestors were called. I find this a bit odd since it was allegedly the Moses of Exodus fame who was pulled from the river, so how did Tuthmosis I, II, III and IV, get their titles? Were they all allegedly pulled from a water source?

Then when Moses became pharaoh, he was given the kingly title of Amenhotep IV after his father's title Amenhotep III. To clear this up a bit, Moses was Egyptian. He was born in Egypt, and grew up in Egypt, although not much of anything has been written about his youth. If he did, in fact, lead an exodus, he never made it to the Promised Land according to the bible myth.

When Moses started monotheistic Ra-worship, he changed his name to Akhenaten and Akhenamun -- "Amun" and "Aten" being names for the sun. The Egyptian culture allowed for many names and titles, so it can be extremely confusing to figure them all out. This is especially true seeing as how incestual relationships were not frowned upon, in fact, they were required to keep the pharaonic crown in the family. It has been documented that Moses had children with three (or more) women, including his eldest daughter. His brother Aaron whose Egyptian name was Semenkhkare shared Moses' daughters and wives with him. Homosexuality was also a proper activity within and without one's family. Some researchers have documented Moses' sodomy with Aaron from translating the hieroglyphics.

I do appreciate your comments and corrections. At least when you tell me I'm wrong about something, I appreciate your vast fund of knowledge to learn from.

Originally Posted by water

Originally Posted by ellion

bu t it can be found and it is not beyond you it is within you. you seem to be connected so much to the spirtual energy, this comes through in the things you say but i often recognize an extreme pessimism. this makes me wonder why? why are you not lead to living water s of life how are you not connecting fully with that spirit. something is in the way. there seems to be something that stops you from embracing your life and accepting it as a gift. do you know what that is? you dont have to tell me.

I know what it is. It is incurable.

suprise, surprise! youre pessimistic about your pessimissm.

Vashti,

Think about it, its completely illogical to start a new religion to control a population or gain power. To gain power you need access to an existing religion that all the people adhere to and then change it to your own advantage. Creating a new religion that goes against what most people believe will never bring an individual power within their lifetime.

And when you examine Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, that is exactly what they did. Christianity become official because it was chosen by a politician needed power i.e. Constantine, when the old Roman gods were out of favor. Islam was created by a very ambitious madman also seeking power. And Judaism is simply an authoritarian nightmare where politics and religion are inseparable, at least that was the case when Judaism arose.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

M*W: Before Moses (aka the Pharaoh Akhenaten) turned the 'Israelites' to monotheism, he made a law in Egypt that all people must worship the first and only 'god' the sun. Some rebelled and Moses fled -- or so the story goes. The 'Israelites' you refer to were actually a relatively small tribe of Egyptian 'Ibiru' nomad shepherds. They didn't become 'Israelites' until much later.!

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

When Moses started monotheistic Ra-worship, he changed his name to Akhenaten and Akhenamun -- "Amun" and "Aten" being names for the sun. .

Originally Posted by Silas

"Some rebelled and Moses fled - or so the story goes." Which story is that - the Biblical story in which Moses, originally a prince of Egypt who turned on his adoptive father (brother?) and led the Jews to Exodus, or the story of Akhenaten which iirc ended with the polytheistic priestly faction turning against the Ra-worship and simply assassinating him, changing his son Tut Ankh Aten's name back to Tut Ankh Amun to begin the Egyptian move back to the traditional polytheism they espoused, and then assassinated him, too, in short order?
.

Actually you are all very correct in your linking of Moses and Jesus back to ancient Egypt. Egypt is the root of the esoteric tradition that has been handed trough the generation and still exists today.

The origin of all of all the ‘abraham’ religions actually lies in Sufism. It is a common misconception that Sufism is an offshoot of Islam. In fact Islam is an offshoot of Sufism, and Sufism traces is roots back to ancient Egypt.

“The common premise is that Sufism is an Islamic group practicing a form of mysticism that originated in Persia. Sufism has nothing to do with Islam or Persia, and everything to do with the quiet people of Ancient and Baladi Egypt” - Tehuti Research Foundation


We can also follow the roots of Christianity back through the Gnostic path to ancient Egypt as well. Just look to the Rosicrucians and you can see that. There has been a direct line of intitiatic and esoteric learning and teaching going back through the ages.

(Don’t take my word for it research Rosicrucian, Sufism and Egypt)

And these esoteric, ‘mystical’ traditions have always been persecuted and called heretical by the APOSTATE, and corrupted mainstream religions of the days, because they speak the truth about the nature of man and the nature of god.

You are closer to the truth than you realize, now you are looking at Egypt. May you get there quickly.

The Gnostic teachings have espoused that man contains a portion of the divinity of god, and when we look at mystical Hinduism we find teaching that Atman and Brahman are essentially the same (cant remember the name for this but I have it written down and I will post it tomorrow). And it is here that we start to see the oneness of world religion, maybe 7000 years ago

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

You fail to understand that 'Jesus' was created from a combination of 16 earlier dying demigod saviors. .

Yes you are right, now you are getting close. Because Jesus never said he was the ONLY son of god, there were many before him and many after him as well. This supports what I say about the continuity of religion.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

One clue to the mythological interpretation of the Torah, Moses described in detail about his own death! So, either someone else wrote the Torah, or Moses was a mythological character himself!

This is no mystery - even if Moses wrote the original torah, it would be obvious that it has been added to. Even Jewish scholars admit that it is unlikely to be preserved as the original. And this is the accusation that the Koran throws at the Jews – that they altered the scriptures!

Why would there be one religion? religions are made by men!

Exactly, that is why religion is bogus.

Certain individuals have higher levels of god consciousness (access to higher consciousnes) and are able to bring teachings to the world.

I'm told that almost everyday from people standing on the street standing on soapboxes - do you believe them too?

How do you know it wasn't a lie?

From this other individuals develop religions based on those truths. These religions usually fall into error fairly quickly.

Again, you have no idea whether they are truths or lies. There is no reason other than your own blind faith to believe the originators of the religion or those others.

I enjoy my life and I enjoy my beliefs!

So, even though there is a likely chance those beliefs were made up by ordinary men with agendas, you'll continue to blindly follow them, hook, line and sinker?

Originally Posted by (Q)

I enjoy my life and I enjoy my beliefs!

So, even though there is a likely chance those beliefs were made up by ordinary men with agendas, you'll continue to blindly follow them, hook, line and sinker?

As you do not fully know and understand my beliefs and where they come from (as I have never fully espoused them on this site) , it seems preclusive and a little hasty of you to make such judgements.

No, this is the reason religions have been manipulated and changed through time, not the reason they were created.

There is no reason to think otherwise that religions were not created to manipulate or changed to manipulate. The agenda is still the same.

You are too proud to ever admit the beliefs you've held thus far could be wrong.

Think about it, its completely illogical to start a new religion to control a population or gain power.

Are you brain-dead? The best way for someone who wishes to have control over people is for them to start a religion. This is a fact and has already happened on many occassions through history.

Creating a new religion that goes against what most people believe will never bring an individual power within their lifetime.

That is incorrect, there are hundreds of new religions appearing all the time, many who see their creators having ultimate power over their flocks:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/org/faith_ne...movements.html

You cannot show that your religion is any different than the others or is any more valid.

As you do not fully know and understand my beliefs and where they come from (as I have never fully espoused them on this site, nor do I intend to) , it seems preclusive of you to make such judgements.

Bullshit! You believe in a deity - that is more than enough to understand.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

Silas: M*W said: "Some rebelled and Moses fled - or so the story goes."
*************
Silas: Which story is that - the Biblical story in which Moses, originally a prince of Egypt who turned on his adoptive father (brother?) and led the Jews to Exodus, or the story of Akhenaten which iirc ended with the polytheistic priestly faction turning against the Ra-worship and simply assassinating him, changing his son Tut Ankh Aten's name back to Tut Ankh Amun to begin the Egyptian move back to the traditional polytheism they espoused, and then assassinated him, too, in short order?

It seems that your story isn't really compatible with either of them.
*************
M*W: You should know by now that I would discount the biblical version. However, you are correct about Moses' son, King Tut. It is possible that Moses was assassinated, and it's been documented that Tut for sure was when they found the hole in Tut's skull.

What concerns me is that even now, you're still referring to the Egyptian king as Moses. There is no point of contact between the two characters! One was the actual King of the greatest nation in the world at that time, whose revolutionary monotheistic ideas failed to outlive him. The other is the mythological figure who gave a small, homeless and stateless people a unique monotheism of their own (for example, it wasn't Sun worship) the fundamental philosophy of which has lasted until this day.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

The other thing is that the story of the Exodus, Moses wasn't leading 'Jews' to the Promised Land. They were Egyptian 'Ibiru' who later became the Hebrews. Then, even later, they were considered to be from the tribe of Judah, hence, they were then called 'Jews.'

I always believed that the Exodus occurred until I read some scholarly research in BAR and some other reference materials. I feel quite sure there may have been many 'exoduses' in those days. Interestingly, these people were "nomads," and "exodusing" about the desert was their chosen lot in life.

In fact there's an even better explanation of the Exodus - it is nothing more than the recasting into ancient history of the Babylonian Exile. Well, maybe not better, but it was in Thomas L. Thompson's The Bible in History.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

*************
Silas: The reality or otherwise of one guy called Moses persuading a group of Palestinian nomads to monotheism doesn't alter the fact that something like that must have happened.
*************
M*W: And, I don't disagree with you about that. In fact, the mere name 'Moses' was a common name. In the bible, Moses was called by many names, including his birth name of Aminadab. He was given the name 'Moses' by the pharaoh's daughter since she pulled him from the river. 'Moses' means something like 'born of water.' Moses' proper title would have been 'Tuthmosis' as Moses' paternal ancestors were called. I find this a bit odd since it was allegedly the Moses of Exodus fame who was pulled from the river, so how did Tuthmosis I, II, III and IV, get their titles? Were they all allegedly pulled from a water source?

As Isaac Asimov pointed out in his Guide to the Bible, "Why would an Egyptian Princess give a name with a Hebrew meaning?" Moses may be Hebrew for "drawn from the water", but that's nothing more than typical Biblical punning (as when Eve, giving birth to Cain, said, "I have gotten a man from Yahweh", because Cain sounded like the Hebrew for "get" or something.

In Egyptian, Moses is closest to the Egyptian word that simply means "Son" or "Son of". Thus Tutmose is the son of Tut and Rameses is the son of Ra.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

Then when Moses became pharaoh, he was given the kingly title of Amenhotep IV after his father's title Amenhotep III. To clear this up a bit, Moses was Egyptian. He was born in Egypt, and grew up in Egypt, although not much of anything has been written about his youth. If he did, in fact, lead an exodus, he never made it to the Promised Land according to the bible myth.

When Moses started monotheistic Ra-worship, he changed his name to Akhenaten and Akhenamun -- "Amun" and "Aten" being names for the sun.

I think you've misunderstood there - Amun was the god of his family and priests, the god he rejected.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

I do appreciate your comments and corrections. At least when you tell me I'm wrong about something, I appreciate your vast fund of knowledge to learn from.

Well, you've made me feel somewhat abashed now! My knowledge is undoubtedly no more vast than yours, by the way. We both have odd but voracious reading habits. I feel I look at even supposedly rational material with a more skeptical eye, but I could be wrong.

Silas: "What concerns me is that even now, you're still referring to the Egyptian king as Moses. There is no point of contact between the two characters!
*************
M*W: I must disagree here. There is prevalent scholarly documentation in the literature that Moses of the Torah was, in fact, the Pharaoh Akhenaten, of the 18th Dynasty.

My references include:

Fairman, H.W. The Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vo. 25, 1966.

Freud, S. Moses and Monotheism, London, 1939.

Gardiner, A.H. Egypt of the Pharaohs, Clarendon Press, 1961.

Osman, A. Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, Bear & Company, 2002.

Samson, J. Nefertiti and Cleopatra: Queen-Monarchs of Ancient Egypt, The Rubicon Press, 1985.

Samson, J. Armana, City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Nefertiti as Pharaoh, A&P Press, 1978.
*************
Silas: One was the actual King of the greatest nation in the world at that time, whose revolutionary monotheistic ideas failed to outlive him. The other is the mythological figure who gave a small, homeless and stateless people a unique monotheism of their own (for example, it wasn't Sun worship) the fundamental philosophy of which has lasted until this day.
*************
M*W: I've also read that Moses was a mythological character taken from Greek mythological characters like Zeus and Achilles.
*************
Silas: In fact there's an even better explanation of the Exodus - it is nothing more than the recasting into ancient history of the Babylonian Exile. Well, maybe not better, but it was in Thomas L. Thompson's The Bible in History.
*************
M*W: Yes, I believe this could be true, and I suppose there could be many conflicting exiles like this.
*************
Silas: The reality or otherwise of one guy called Moses persuading a group of Palestinian nomads to monotheism doesn't alter the fact that something like that must have happened.
*************
M*W: There were many Moses' of the Eighteenth Dynasty, and I would expect there would be some confusion between them all. Not only that, they all had several names and titles! For example the Eighteenth Dynasty (1575 BC-1308 BC) included:

Ahmosis (1575-1550 BC)
Amenhotep I (1550-1528 BC)
Tuthmosis I (1528-1510 BC)
Tuthmosis II (1528-1510 BC)
Hatshepsut (1510-1490 BC)
Tuthmosis III (1490-1436 BC) aka Moses' GGGFather
Amenhotep II (1436-1413 BC) aka Moses' GGFather
Tuthmosis IV (1413-1405 BC) aka Moses' grandfather
Amenhotep III (1405-1367 BC) aka pharaoh adopted Moses
Amenhotep IV (1367-1350 BC) aka Moses/Akhenaten
Nerfertiti (1367-1350 BC) aka wife/co-regent of Moses
Semenkhkare (1350-1347 BC) aka Moses' brother Aaron
Tutankhamun (1347-1339 BC) aka Moses' son
Aye (1339-1335 BC)
Horemheb (1335-1308 BC)
*************
Silas: As Isaac Asimov pointed out in his Guide to the Bible, "Why would an Egyptian Princess give a name with a Hebrew meaning?"
*************
M*W: Good point. My guess is that the Egyptian Princess spoke Egyptian and not Hebrew, since the Hebrew language didn't exist at the time of Moses. The Hebrew language evolved out of the Egyptian language just as Arabic did. The confusing part is the Torah which was written in Hebrew. It was previously thought that Moses wrote the Torah, but I don't believe he did. Perhaps some of the scribes of the Ibiru (later the Hebrews) wrote in the newly formed Hebrew language, and they described Moses' death while on the Exodus. If Moses had written the Torah himself, how did he describe his own death and continue to write? Or, it could have simply been poetic.
*************
Silas: Moses may be Hebrew for "drawn from the water", but that's nothing more than typical Biblical punning (as when Eve, giving birth to Cain, said, "I have gotten a man from Yahweh", because Cain sounded like the Hebrew for "get" or something.
*************
M*W: I don't believe this was anything more than allegory. There is a close resemblance of Cain to Canaan, so it may be metaphorical. I don't believe Eve nor Adam were human beings nor did they have language. Surely, if they did, it wasn't that interpretation in English, and there is no way they could be speaking Hebrew!
*************
Silas: In Egyptian, Moses is closest to the Egyptian word that simply means "Son" or "Son of". Thus Tutmose is the son of Tut and Rameses is the son of Ra.
*************
M*W: I can see the connection as you state it, but 'Ra' was the sun god. However, I don't believe I've read anywhere that King Tut had children. I could be wrong. 'The Ramses' were pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty. More than likely, Ramses II was the more notable one. Ramses I only ruled for two years; Ramses II for 67 years.

Interestingly, 'Ramses' can be broken down to 'Ra', the sun god, and 'Moses' the creator of monotheism. Some scholars wrote about 'Ramose'. Also, in those ancient languages such as Egyptian-Hebrew-Arabic-Aramaic, the first syllable of the name was put on the end as in 'im-eloh' which sounds like 'Im-manu-el' to a degree, with the 'im' being plural. Maybe this could be the confusion of Jesus not being named 'Immanuel' as recorded in the NT. I love linguistics, so I sometimes can see other words being derived into others.
*************
Silas: I think you've misunderstood there - Amun was the god of his family and priests, the god he rejected.
*************
M*W: 'Amun', I've read is interchangeable with 'Aten.' 'Amun' means 'faithful one' in Aramaic. I don't know what it is in Hebrew, Egyptian or Arabic. I do know that the word 'amun' was translated 'amen' ("whatever pharaoh wants" -- "so be it") according to the Bible. Of course, Bible believers will adamantly deny this! See the Amen-hoteps of the Eighteenth Dynasty!
*************
Silas: Well, you've made me feel somewhat abashed now! My knowledge is undoubtedly no more vast than yours, by the way. We both have odd but voracious reading habits. I feel I look at even supposedly rational material with a more skeptical eye, but I could be wrong.
*************
M*W: I am an obsessive-compulsive reader, and I cross-reference everything that I'm unsure of. I have come to the conclusion that whomever the monotheistic Moses might be, the entire bible has been mis-translated. In essence, the Torah was taken from earlier ancient laws of the area and just repeated according to 'Moses.' But, in reality, the monotheistic religions of the Jews, Arabs and Christians, were all misinterpreted and were based on ancient Egyptian beliefs of 'Ra' and 'son of' 'Ra' or 'Moses' as you indicated. I believe there is no factual basis for any of these monotheistic religions. Then, we go back as far as ancient humans who feared and awed the sun and solar system. There is no other god except what has been created in the minds of the needy.

MW,

You missed one: Charelton Heston, "The Ten Commandments (1956)", Moses

Edit: Oops! Wrong dynasty...

Originally Posted by Vashti's Daughter

Actually you are all very correct in your linking of Moses and Jesus back to ancient Egypt. Egypt is the root of the esoteric tradition that has been handed trough the generation and still exists today.

The origin of all of all the ‘abraham’ religions actually lies in Sufism. It is a common misconception that Sufism is an offshoot of Islam. In fact Islam is an offshoot of Sufism, and Sufism traces is roots back to ancient Egypt.

“The common premise is that Sufism is an Islamic group practicing a form of mysticism that originated in Persia. Sufism has nothing to do with Islam or Persia, and everything to do with the quiet people of Ancient and Baladi Egypt” - Tehuti Research Foundation


We can also follow the roots of Christianity back through the Gnostic path to ancient Egypt as well. Just look to the Rosicrucians and you can see that. There has been a direct line of intitiatic and esoteric learning and teaching going back through the ages.

(Don’t take my word for it research Rosicrucian, Sufism and Egypt)

And these esoteric, ‘mystical’ traditions have always been persecuted and called heretical by the APOSTATE, and corrupted mainstream religions of the days, because they speak the truth about the nature of man and the nature of god.

You are closer to the truth than you realize, now you are looking at Egypt. May you get there quickly.

The Gnostic teachings have espoused that man contains a portion of the divinity of god, and when we look at mystical Hinduism we find teaching that Atman and Brahman are essentially the same (cant remember the name for this but I have it written down and I will post it tomorrow). And it is here that we start to see the oneness of world religion, maybe 7000 years ago

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

You fail to understand that 'Jesus' was created from a combination of 16 earlier dying demigod saviors. .

Yes you are right, now you are getting close. Because Jesus never said he was the ONLY son of god, there were many before him and many after him as well. This supports what I say about the continuity of religion..

The information I did not have yesterday about the Hindu term for oneness of self and god, is Mahavakya - gnosticism by another name in another culture.

Note - One could also read Hazrat Inayat Khan for information on the origins of Sufism coming from ancient egypt. (Sufist scholar who came from India aroung 1900 ad to bring sufi teachings to the west)

Originally Posted by ellion

Originally Posted by water

I know what it is. It is incurable.

suprise, surprise! youre pessimistic about your pessimissm.

You have no idea what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

Silas: "What concerns me is that even now, you're still referring to the Egyptian king as Moses. There is no point of contact between the two characters!
*************
M*W: I must disagree here. There is prevalent scholarly documentation in the literature that Moses of the Torah was, in fact, the Pharaoh Akhenaten, of the 18th Dynasty.

My references include:

Fairman, H.W. The Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vo. 25, 1966.

Freud, S. Moses and Monotheism, London, 1939.

Gardiner, A.H. Egypt of the Pharaohs, Clarendon Press, 1961.

Osman, A. Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, Bear & Company, 2002.

Samson, J. Nefertiti and Cleopatra: Queen-Monarchs of Ancient Egypt, The Rubicon Press, 1985.

Samson, J. Armana, City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Nefertiti as Pharaoh, A&P Press, 1978.

I'm willing to bet that only Osman actually attempts to make this connection between Akhenaten and Moses (it being his principle thesis, after all), and the others are simply scholarly works about the Egyptian Kings, or about Moses in his historical context, without suggesting that Moses was one Pharaoh in particular.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

*************
Silas: One was the actual King of the greatest nation in the world at that time, whose revolutionary monotheistic ideas failed to outlive him. The other is the mythological figure who gave a small, homeless and stateless people a unique monotheism of their own (for example, it wasn't Sun worship) the fundamental philosophy of which has lasted until this day.
*************
M*W: I've also read that Moses was a mythological character taken from Greek mythological characters like Zeus and Achilles.

I'll get onto your surprisingly literal interpretation of the Biblical Moses later on. My point was not really that Moses is mythological, my point was that Akhenaton died and his monotheism died with him, but the Yahvism which came from a nomadic people who were from further East of Egypt is still with us. Moses and Akhenaton may have shared some characteristics (which goes as far as an enthusiasm for monotheism, as far as I can see), but they were evidently two different people.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

*************
Silas: In fact there's an even better explanation of the Exodus - it is nothing more than the recasting into ancient history of the Babylonian Exile. Well, maybe not better, but it was in Thomas L. Thompson's The Bible in History.
*************
M*W: Yes, I believe this could be true, and I suppose there could be many conflicting exiles like this.

Not really. The Babylonian Exile of 587BCE is a historical fact. It is also the central defining point of the entire Yahvist religion, of the Jewish people. It was during the Exile that the various stories of Jewish folklore were first collected, along with some stories that were adapted from the mythos of their Babylonian hosts, such as the Creation and the Flood. The Pentateuch, the supposed Books of Moses, actually date from this time, with only Deuteronomy being demonstrably pre-Exilic.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

*************
Silas: As Isaac Asimov pointed out in his Guide to the Bible, "Why would an Egyptian Princess give a name with a Hebrew meaning?"
*************
M*W: Good point. My guess is that the Egyptian Princess spoke Egyptian and not Hebrew, since the Hebrew language didn't exist at the time of Moses. The Hebrew language evolved out of the Egyptian language just as Arabic did. The confusing part is the Torah which was written in Hebrew. It was previously thought that Moses wrote the Torah, but I don't believe he did.

You need to catch up. No serious biblical scholar has believed that Moses himself wrote the Torah for at least a century and a quarter.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

*************
Silas: In Egyptian, Moses is closest to the Egyptian word that simply means "Son" or "Son of". Thus Tutmose is the son of Tut and Rameses is the son of Ra.
*************
M*W: I can see the connection as you state it, but 'Ra' was the sun god. However, I don't believe I've read anywhere that King Tut had children. I could be wrong.

I'm not stating a connection, I'm telling you what the meaning of m_s_s is. Rameses was the "Son of Ra (the Sun) indeed. I should have said that Tutmose was the Son of Toth. When I said "son of Tut" I was not referring to Tutankhamun.

Can I also interject here on behalf of the rest of the world against what you Americans seem to believe: There is not and never has been any such person as "King Tut" . Particularly if you rhyme it with "butt"! Tutankhamun was a short-lived Pharaoh. There were various pharaohs called Tuthmose or variations thereon. "King Tut" is a barbarism, lately perpertrated even by the Discovery Channel in their advertising (in British newspapers yet!) for a documentary about him.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

Interestingly, 'Ramses' can be broken down to 'Ra', the sun god, and 'Moses' the creator of monotheism.

Only in your fantasy world where the creator of monotheism was known to the Egyptians as Moses. Moses is the Hebrew Moshe or Moishe. For mythological reasons the Hebrews linked their folk hero Moishe to the kings of Egypt. It did not happen in the other direction! The founder of monotheism in Egypt was never known by any name remotely resembling Moses or Moishe. There is no reason to suppose the Egyptians were even aware of Moses's existence.

Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman

M*W: I am an obsessive-compulsive reader, and I cross-reference everything that I'm unsure of. I have come to the conclusion that whomever the monotheistic Moses might be, the entire bible has been mis-translated. In essence, the Torah was taken from earlier ancient laws of the area and just repeated according to 'Moses.' But, in reality, the monotheistic religions of the Jews, Arabs and Christians, were all misinterpreted and were based on ancient Egyptian beliefs of 'Ra' and 'son of' 'Ra' or 'Moses' as you indicated. I believe there is no factual basis for any of these monotheistic religions. Then, we go back as far as ancient humans who feared and awed the sun and solar system. There is no other god except what has been created in the minds of the needy.

I admire your industry, but I simply cannot find rational reasons for following you in your conclusions.

I believe that Yahvism is not remotely Egyptian in origin. In the old days, centuries before the Exile, the Israelites were not monotheistic, they were henotheistic. This means that Yahweh was their God, the God of Israel. Gods in those days were considered all-powerful only within their own land. Yahweh enjoined the Israelites to fight their neighbours the Moabites (for example) and defeat them and their god, Chemosh. The Moabite Stone, also known as the Meshe Stele, which dates from the 9th Century BCE, tells the story of some battles the Moabites had with Israel. It tells it from Moab's point of view as opposed to Israel's (and celebrates their victory against Israel), and it mentions Yahweh by name (indicating that Yahweh, at least, certainly predates the Exilic period: he's not an invention of the Babylonians) but apart from that it's all in exactly the kind of language and terms that you see in the Hebraic Bible accounts. Israel and Moab were deadly enemies, but they shared a common culture, and a broad theology. This is the point. The culture and theology of the Egyptians was quite different, and even if the Egyptians evolved a monotheism of their own, it was still quite different from that of the Eastern Fertile Crescent Semites, the Canaanites.

Originally Posted by water

Originally Posted by ellion

Originally Posted by water

I know what it is. It is incurable.

suprise, surprise! youre pessimistic about your pessimissm.

You have no idea what I am talking about.

what are you talking about?

if its that thing i said you didnt need to tell me, you dont need to tell me.

Originally Posted by ellion

Originally Posted by water

Originally Posted by ellion

Originally Posted by water

I know what it is. It is incurable.

suprise, surprise! youre pessimistic about your pessimissm.

You have no idea what I am talking about.

what are you talking about?

if its that thing i said you didnt need to tell me, you dont need to tell me.

... and we can continue this wonderful non-communication!