# G-d, the Universe and Everything



## djewell (Mar 1, 2006)

I thought I would start a thread about G-d. What do you believe? Why? 

I must first say, I believe in G-d. I believe he exists and is active and is exactly as described in the Torah of Moses. I believe he gave the Jews 613 commandments to follow in order to repair the world and to be an example to the nations.

I believe he created the universe in 7 literal days, and, although there is no scientific evidence, I have _emunoh pshuttoh_ (simple faith).

I DO NOT believe that he was ever on this earth in a human form, and I DO NOT believe that Jesus Christ was the Jewish Messiah. In fact, I even deny that he represented any core Jewish values. But: his message has found a home in the non-Jewish people of the world and that message has been generally good for them.

But, enough from me, what do you believe about G-d?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 1, 2006)

I believe in God. I just don't believe he is single or the one in charge. His wife is.

I think that Osiris, Odin, Jehovah, Father Sky, Green Man, etc. are probably just different names to describe the same thing. In other words, I believe in a male deity but I don't believe in the Abrahamic interpretation of God.


----------



## Tiger's_Lily (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm not a religious person, never have been! 

The only other thing I'll add to this is, I really don't like what I see happening world wide, in the name of religion. That's my opinion!


----------



## UberAris (Mar 1, 2006)

I believe in The Lord, His son, and The Holy Spirit... but I'd prefir to keep my extended feelings on the subject to myself.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 1, 2006)

This could possibly be one of those volatile threads...but hopefully not.

I was a Born Again, Bible Thumping, All consuming, Believer for many years. Met my first husband through Christian circles...but I found that the foundation that many of us stand on is not made of firm ground, but is in fact built on sand. With my faith shattered and my dreams trashed, I reassessed what God meant and what He was to me.

I have tamed my "fire" to know that I have a personal relationship with my God; He is my Saviour and my friend...not some Over Lord chalking up my mistakes; counting them against me and sending hail and brimstone on my head when he thinks I've gone to far. I have learned the hard way that true friends are hard to find...that true believers even more so.

I am Jewish by birth heritage only...I nor any of my immediate family were ever practicing Jews...in fact they didn't even know we were Jewish until we did some research. But I digress...I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God, I do believe that He is The Father, Son and Holy Spirit - 3 in one. I believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. 

I too grieve over the "righteous" acts that are done in the name of God...which in fact I do not believe are righteous in any way.

So I guess another side of me comes out...in the Late evening here in Alaska...CAUSE I CAN'T SLEEP. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT!


----------



## 1300 Class (Mar 1, 2006)

I believe in god. I beleive he created the universe. I believe in a whole host of other things related to this subject and its interpretations. These are my beliefs, and I couldn't care less what anyone else believes in. There are alot of things done in the name of god, and fair enough, if thats how you want to do things, fair enough.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 1, 2006)

Who is G-d? Sounds like a rapper. 

*ahem* sorry. Couldn't resist. Now, my thoughts...

I believe there is (or was) something that was a catalyst. Back at the beginning of everything, before the big bang, something set that off and started this whole mess. Then it sat back and watched while evolution took its natural course. Kind of like how a single spark can set a city on fire... I believe there is power in everything - animals, plants, all of the earth around us. Humans are not 'better' than the other animals, nor are we the only ones with a soul. I believe in reincarnation, that every living thing will come back again after it dies.

And I believe that religious fundamentalists like Fred Phelps or whatever his name is should






=Divals


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 1, 2006)

As at least the old-timers here know, I'm an Erisian. (Not that it's not dead obvious. )

I believe in a female deity, who has her own life and better things to do than babysitting us. When the unexplainable happens, at least I know who's responsible.

Some say that "God helps those who help themselves." I take that to an extreme.


----------



## prickly (Mar 1, 2006)

5 or so years in dimensions world and never a post. then someone presses the incense button. of course, i'm incensed about a number of things in this modern world including the looming environmental disaster (excessive packaging and gas-guzzling cars being my particular incense-provoking issues), our inability to impact on poverty, crass governments and their ability to fuck up so much at home yet still feel compelled to wage war here, there, and everywhere (that suits them), and unsurprisingly, size-related prejudice.

none of those things would invoke a post in dims though. not quite high enough on the incense-ometer to get me to register. religion and god? now you're talking! of course, easy to start some diatribe and blah, blah on and on, but then i'd sound like a southern preacher, middle-eastern imman, or any other religious salesman, and i despise those people.

easier to just wonder how it is that anyone of intelligence can believe unproven, totally hokey stories in books, and then go and hang their whole lives, their every waking action on those stories. 

and just look what those beliefs have done over the years. the misery, the lives lost, the total fucking waste in the name of some entity that doesn't appear to have done a single good thing for this world. and it continues on a daily basis (and yes, i am awaiting with baited breath the list of good things).

do i condemn personal beliefs in some god or other? not really, i just find it really disappointing at times, especially from "modern" westerners with access to so much education and information (imagine my level of disappointment when i see the return of creationist teaching in schools).

do i want people to keep religion to themselves? on the whole, yes. i see religion expressed and before long i see conflict and misery. and i don't care whether that's two people arguing, or "civilisations colliding". that's the advantage of fact-based logic and science. they can certainly generate intellectual dogma and belligerence, but i don't remember anyone going to war on the basis of a poorly executed proof of some far-distant stellar event.

umm, i guess some may well consider this diatribe in fact, but that's my view on the hateful subject.


----------



## Donna (Mar 1, 2006)

Welcome to the boards, Prickly (and a big F-U to you too  )

I think I shall quote Einstein on this and then shut up...

"Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind."


----------



## rainyday (Mar 1, 2006)

I believe in The Lord, His son, and The Holy Spirit. I also believe in Gods incredible love and compassion, even for those who feel most unlovable, and the grace that is His gift to us in return for faith.

Religion and faith though? Often two different things.

Prickster, weve talked about faith before, so I know youre going to reject this , but even most intelligent among us has a heart, and the heart can often grasp things the mind is much too literal to envision. We assume if we can see it, its true. But what if the mind is wrong and far more really goes on than were able to see with the tools currently available to us? "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

All I can say is when youre watching the love of your life lowered into the ground in a box and the thing you want most in the world is to see that person again, science can do nothing to help you. Faith can.


BTW, djewell, you might get additional responses if you posted a poll about this. Seems like an interesting topic for one.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 1, 2006)

RedHead said:


> This could possibly be one of those volatile threads...but hopefully not.
> 
> I was a Born Again, Bible Thumping, All consuming, Believer for many years. Met my first husband through Christian circles...but I found that the foundation that many of us stand on is not made of firm ground, but is in fact built on sand. With my faith shattered and my dreams trashed, I reassessed what God meant and what He was to me.
> 
> ...




It's refreshing to hear of someone who was an extreme fundamentalist realize that such a position is "shaky," as you said, and moderate (and thereby enlighten and deepen, in my opinion) their views. Today, it seems like too many people are moving in the other direction. I had an uncle who was recently "born-again," and we can't see him without him starting to sermonize. At my great-uncle's recent funeral, he even implied that the deceased was rotting in hell as we mourned. ... Oh well.

I think a lot of people are just desperate to believe something 100%, to do away with questions and doubt, especially as they age, and that makes various kinds of fundamentalism attractive to them.

Oh man, Fred Phelps... what a wacko. If you find godhatesfags.com offensive (which it obviously is), just visit godhatessweden.com and you'll realize that this guy is off his rocker. I think he also has godhatesamerica.com and godhatescanada.com now too. For an awesome parody of Mr. Phelps (honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, though), see godhatesfigs.com.

As for my views on religion... I'm an agnostic, but if I had to bet I'd bet that there is no god. Just seems quite arbitrary to me.


----------



## Zandoz (Mar 1, 2006)

I'll just say I'm a golden ruleist, and leave it at that. Any more would likely offend a large portion of the deital belief spectrum.


----------



## bigsexy920 (Mar 1, 2006)

Well first of all when you put G-D I thought you were saying g*d Darn ANYWAY. 

I was brought up Catholic but they dont like me now cause Im divoriced I consider myself a non practicing christian. I need to get my but to church.


----------



## prickly (Mar 1, 2006)

yes, rainers, we have talked about this stuff before, so yes you know my views!

i hate that you had to witness what you did, but to me faith would make not one jot of difference. i have lost people dear to me at various ages of my life and in those cases also science was no help. and i fail to see what help faith would have been to me or those people. and it sure as hell isn't helping anyone either around me or in the wider world.

i would never deny someone their private thoughts and beliefs, no matter how hokey, if it helps get them through the shit that life deals. but i do object to the idea that their faith or religion is what i and others need in our lives. why do i need it? why do i need some god? i'm still waiting for the list of "god's" good deeds. or perhaps his name is earl?


----------



## Jane (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm basically a Bokanonist....i.e. whatever it takes to make you act nicely towards the rest of the occupants of this planet, go for it.

I don't impose my obscure beliefs on others and hope they will do the same.

I live by the Sermon on the Mount, and tend to treat others as I would be treated.

I don't need a threat of hell or a promise of heaven to make me behave.


----------



## rainyday (Mar 1, 2006)

prickly said:


> i'm still waiting for the list of "god's" good deeds. or perhaps his name is earl?



Hmmm, well, God seems to be what got you to actually post after five years of lurking when nothing else could. Why don't you start making the good deeds list and label that as item #1.

Giant  and a  too.


----------



## MissToodles (Mar 1, 2006)

This might sound cliched, but I feel like I had a spritiual ephiphany on a mountain's equinox in Vermont. For many years, I considered myself an athesist. I was raised in a secular jewish household where the descion was left up to us. I always thought I was too "smart" to believe in God, to let myself be guided blinded by a higher power.

But seeing the world and the silence all around me, without the low hum of electricity changed my mind. I'm not a creationist and not sure if I believe in God but my experience made me envious. Envious of the people who have faith and can pray. I struggle with this issue almost every day and think about it quite a bit.


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 1, 2006)

I grew up in the Vatican II Catholic tradition. I was energized by the legacy of Pope John XXIII and have become increasingly disillusioned by the resurgence of "traditionalists" who are relentlessly driving the church back toward a tyrannical, medieval model that is as far from the "Good News" as one can get.

I have not given up on the church as yet because there are still sincere, loving people in it who do good work. But with the exception of its understandable condemnation of the consumeristic elements of American culture and its inability to threaten any penalties below the supernatural, the current face of the Roman church most closely matches that of the neo-cons running our largest economies, stifling all dissent and promoting an ever more centralized hierarchy of power. It is said that the only unforgivable sin is to reject the Holy Spirit. I believe that sin is committed every time a voice from among the assembly is stifled.

This has driven me into a fierce agnosticism. I am still willing to believe in ideals like compassion, justice and peace, and even to adopt the myths that people choose to illustrate them. I do NOT believe in people and institutions who clearly are more interested in their own survival, prosperity and power than in the welfare of those who commit themselves to their guidance. Neither do I accept their interpretations of myth, scripture and tradition that are used to excuse cruelty and domination for the sake of convenience and expedience. I allow that no human-run institution is perfect but there is a fundamental difference between seeking order and unity and imposing docility and obedience.

I choose to recommit myself to the ideals I see in Christianity and other faiths regularly. For me that is the essence of faith, not assenting to a list of predetermined historical factoids but conscientiously adopting the humble, philanthropic attitude that is core to the religion and committing oneself, despite the risks, to behavior that makes the attitude more real in the world. I'm not talking about proselytizing, I mean living as an example. The only person you should be trying to "convert" is yourself. The only person whose behavior you should be trying to "improve" is your own. 

One thing I choose to continue believing in is the importance of community, so I still go to church, as frustrating as it is, just to stay in touch, to share joyful moments, sorrows, crises and mutual help. But seldom do I hear preaching that isn't designed to either extract donations or to appeal to sentimentality and feelgoodism. It can be so much better than the prevailing spiritual paralysis. I've seen it. But not for awhile.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 1, 2006)

I seek truth. Whenever I find it, I change myself to conform with the new knowledge I've gained.

All truth comes from God, so I have more in common with other truth-seekers of other faiths than I do with correligionists who have ceased to search for truth.


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 1, 2006)

Divals said:


> Who is G-d? Sounds like a rapper.



It is a tradition among devout Jews NOT to mention the name of the deity, or to even spell the sacred name. 

One reason there are multiple proper names for "G-d" in the Chrisitian world is a misunderstanding of this practice. One important name is made of four letters, a J (or Y), an H, a V (or W) and another H. When points (vowels) were added to the Hebrew scriptures, it was thought that adding vowels to the name would be too tempting for readers. Normally, the cantor substitutes the title "Adonai" ("Lord"). So the vowels for "Adonai", A-O-A were added, creating a "nonsense" version of the word that would remind the cantor what to say. 

When Christians started becoming acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, they transliterated the hybrid word and that became a new name for you-know-who. Later, more sophisticated but culturally insensitive scholars put in the "proper" vowels. And those with more sensitivity replaced the "tetragammeton" (literally "four letters") with the word "LORD", which is why some versions have lines like, "The LORD, the Lord..." The first term is actually a substitution. So verses with the divine name vary considerably between translations.


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 1, 2006)

djewell said:


> "...I have _emunoh pshuttoh_ (simple faith)."


I admire your commitment to your faith, djewell, and I mean no disrespect. However, I am intrigued by your assertion of "simple" faith. It appears to me that this means unquestioning assent to the literal interpretation of Torah. But is that possible? Even literalism is an interpretation. Do the Chassidim never debate or disagree over the meaning of a passage?

This "simple faith" also appears to lead to a very complicated practice. 613 commandments is a lot of obligation. The observance of days and utterances, lighting of candles, handling of foods, animals and grains, the wearing of special clothing and devices to properly pray, these all demonstrate arduous dedication to the pursuit of personal perfection. To do them well takes considerable time and concentration.

But are there not contradictions in the taryag? Do not their mitzvot compete for the limited time of any human being? Which is more important, the proper wearing of tefillin or not oppressing an alien? What about mitzvot that are currently impossible to fulfill? What of all the requirements for the sanctuary, the altar and sacrificial offerings? Or kings, high priests and the Sanhedrin? What does one do when there are no more Amalekites to kill or Canaanites to enslave? How can one be perfect attempting to observe all these requirements and still be a functioning human being?

How is all this "simple"? 
-------------------------------------------
_I hate, I spurn your feasts, says the LORD, I take no pleasure in your solemnities; Your cereal offerings I will not accept, nor consider your stall-fed peace offerings. Away with your noisy songs! I will not listen to the melodies of your harps. But if you would offer me burnt offerings, then let justice surge like water, and goodness like an unfailing stream. -Amos 5:21-24_


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 1, 2006)

I think it's high time someone makes a more accurate translation of the bible, right from the original writings (yeah, like those exist any more...)

It'd probably get rid of a LOT of nonsense that a lot of people take for, dare I say it, gospel truth. 

=Divals


----------



## Jane (Mar 1, 2006)

Jane said:


> I'm basically a Bokanonist....i.e. whatever it takes to make you act nicely towards the rest of the occupants of this planet, go for it.
> 
> I don't impose my obscure beliefs on others and hope they will do the same.
> 
> ...


Did I mention this was today. Tomorrow, who knows, yesterday was different.


----------



## Moonchild (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm the founding member of the International Heathens for Jesus Movement.

And by that I mean I'm Christian. I don't follow any actual religion though. Nor do I go to church (wouldn't be opposed, but I have work on Saturdays and Sundays).

Just because the topic was mentioned in the thread already, I don't necessarily take everything literally and do not question the validity of theories that the six days in which the world was created are not actually 144 hours, or evolution.



Divals said:


> I think it's high time someone makes a more accurate translation of the bible, right from the original writings (yeah, like those exist any more...)
> 
> It'd probably get rid of a LOT of nonsense that a lot of people take for, dare I say it, gospel truth.
> 
> =Divals



Well, they've done pretty much as well as they can. The King James Version is a literal, word-for-word translation (so some things could get lost in the translation) and the New International Version attempts to interpret verses that a literal translation seems not to work with (allowing for just plain ol' being wrong).


----------



## Zoom (Mar 1, 2006)

I'd like to buy a vowel Pat.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 1, 2006)

Moonchild said:


> Well, they've done pretty much as well as they can. The King James Version is a literal, word-for-word translation (so some things could get lost in the translation) and the New International Version attempts to interpret verses that a literal translation seems not to work with (allowing for just plain ol' being wrong).



Actually, as far as I remember, the King James version was heavily edited; mostly to push such things as the Divine Right of Kings and suchlike, and also his and his scholars' personal views. I wouldn't count on it being all that accurate.

=Divals


----------



## djewell (Mar 1, 2006)

NotAnExpert said:


> I admire your commitment to your faith, djewell, and I mean no disrespect. However, I am intrigued by your assertion of "simple" faith. It appears to me that this means unquestioning assent to the literal interpretation of Torah. But is that possible? Even literalism is an interpretation. Do the Chassidim never debate or disagree over the meaning of a passage?
> 
> This "simple faith" also appears to lead to a very complicated practice. 613 commandments is a lot of obligation. The observance of days and utterances, lighting of candles, handling of foods, animals and grains, the wearing of special clothing and devices to properly pray, these all demonstrate arduous dedication to the pursuit of personal perfection. To do them well takes considerable time and concentration.
> 
> ...



I said I have simple FAITH. The ACTIONS are not so simple.

Luckily, we are guided by the sages of Jewish history, _Chaza"l_, the teachers of blessed memory. They instructed us in the ways of G-d's torah, They taught us how to act. They illuminated the "sea of talmud" and gave us the ability to do and hear.



> Which is more important, the proper wearing of tefillin or not oppressing an alien?



This is a non-question. We call tefillin a time-bound mitzvoh (to be done at specific times) and not oppressing a ger tzedek a non-time-bound mitzvoh. There is no competition. 



> It appears to me that this means unquestioning assent to the literal interpretation of Torah. But is that possible? Even literalism is an interpretation. Do the Chassidim never debate or disagree over the meaning of a passage?



No unquestioning assent. That is not Jewish. Do Chassidim never debate? *has a hearty laugh* NO! ch"v (G-d forbid). We debate over EVERYTHING!



> This "simple faith" also appears to lead to a very complicated practice. 613 commandments is a lot of obligation. The observance of days and utterances, lighting of candles, handling of foods, animals and grains, the wearing of special clothing and devices to properly pray, these all demonstrate arduous dedication to the pursuit of personal perfection. To do them well takes considerable time and concentration.



Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Orso (Mar 1, 2006)

I'm an agnostic, I think that one needs faith to believe in God and the same amount of faith, just of contrary sign, to disbelieve, and I don't have either.

I think, anyway, that if God exist, he/she/it/they definitely does not care for us human, and has by far more interesting things to do than spending time giving us precepts, laws and commandments or checking if anybody strayed from the straight and narrow path.

I think that this idea comes out just from the enormous presumption of manknid, which is sure to be so important and significant that even God must follow human activities


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 2, 2006)

Divals said:


> I think it's high time someone makes a more accurate translation of the bible, right from the original writings (yeah, like those exist any more...)



Hoo! Two big problems. One is source material. The original scriptures crumbled into dust centuries ago. Except for some Second Century fragments, the few oldest surviving Bibles are from the Fourth Century. And they don't agree with each other or with all the later surviving ones. It's not a huge discrepancy, a changed word here and there, some dropped sections, some added verses. (The end of Mark's gospel is a clear example.) But the differences tend to reflect the biases of their copyists. And the question is always which one is the "correct" version. I won't even mention the problems that result from the physical deterioration of the manuscripts.

Contemporary Jewish Bibles are derived from a version known as the Masoretic text, which was composed in the Tenth Century to overcome the problems of disagreeing versions. Christian Bibles come in two flavors. Evangelical Protestant versions are translated from a 12th Century Orthodox Greek text. Other translations start with an 18th Century scholarly composition derived primarily from two Fourth Century manuscripts. In every case, decisions had to be made about which sources were better. That's why the Dead Sea Scrolls were such a big deal. They were an opportunity to see some First Century manuscript, nowhere near a complete Bible, but still another link to the originals (albeit, copied by an obscure and peculiar sect).

The other big problem is that the Bibles we read are translations. The Muslims have a point when they say if you can't read Arabic, you can't read the real Quran. If you can't read Hebrew or Greek, you are at least one step removed from the actual text. Why does that matter? Some words don't have an equivalent in another language. Idioms and cultural references often don't translate. There are even a few old words that only appear once and in no other literature, so we have to guess what they mean. Translators have two choices, literalism (which is accurate but may lose the reader) or paraphrase (which can convey the meaning but is hard to analyze because it's already an interpretation). And even the English language and Western culture change over time, so new translations will always be coming out, and they'll always be a compromise.

I suspect that, even if a perfect first edition of the Bible were to suddenly drop from the sky, we'd still squabble over it because even with perfect textual comprehension, scripture still requires interpretation. There are too many contradictions and theologically difficult passages to expect everyone to agree, no matter how "perfect" the source is. The Bible can still be a good guide to life (keeping in mind that some of the stories serve as _bad_ examples). But if you're looking for historical authority and absolute moral certainty there, you could to be disillusioned. For some reason, the Creator did not think it crucial for us to have an "exact" copy.


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 2, 2006)

Moonchild said:


> The King James Version is a literal, word-for-word translation (so some things could get lost in the translation)...





Divals said:


> Actually, as far as I remember, the King James version was heavily edited; mostly to push such things as the Divine Right of Kings and suchlike, and also his and his scholars' personal views. I wouldn't count on it being all that accurate.



Actually, the King James was considered a refreshing break because previous versions were engaged in a bitter footnote war between Catholics and Protestants. The Authorized (KJV) Version was produced footnote free. Which is not to say it was particularly accurate. It went through several editions to get the worst of the goofs out.


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 2, 2006)

djewell said:


> I said I have simple FAITH. The ACTIONS are not so simple.



So I see. A good answer! Thank you.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 2, 2006)

I believe in god and the goddess. I believe one cannot exist without the other.

Wayne and I are members of "the Frisbee on the Roof" religion. (if you think that's a real religion, you missed the point completely) LOL


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 2, 2006)

Actually about King James. He was pissed off at the Pope and created his own Bible - The King James version.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 2, 2006)

Just to toss in more fun with the Bible, the canon itself depends on which denomination compiled it The first canon was from Marcion, who tossed everything he felt was contaminated by Judaism, very few books left. In response, various bishops of prominent cities produced their own lists of which books they knew were valid scripture - the others having fallen under suspicion due to additions and deletions. With papyrus scrolls, it was pretty easy to see a cut 'n' paste job, and they were everywhere. 

The Gospel of Thomas is a great example of this. It begins with essentially a re-stating of the Sermon on the Mount, with a few variations, adds a prophetic section about the bad stuff that will befall those who follow after Satan, and then wraps up with a bit about how women can't go to heaven. That last bit is in a totally different handwriting and written on different papyrus. Clearly, some aspect of its legitimacy can be doubted.

So they have to start counting lines of the books and then they find out there are differences in versions, some small, some doctrinally at loggerheads. Moreover, there were bishops who claimed they were the last place an apostle preached, so they had the definitive writings of that apostle. The Coptic church claims an affinity with St. Mark, and has extra writings from him. The Abysinnian church claims it has more accurate scriptures because it was free from persecutions and later interference by Roman political figures. Their canon is also the largest, including about 20 books no other denomination has.

The actual canon agreed-upon by Roman Christianity includes Revelations and Hebrews, but under protests from bishops of the day who doubted their legitimacy. That is why they're placed at the end of their respective sections, the Catholic Epistles and the Pauline Epistles.

In the medieval period, occasional breakaway groups would write their own version of the Bible, either with or without an ancient text, and use that version to establish the legitimacy of their faith in opposition to the dominant Catholic Church. That's why the Catholics banned reading of certain Bibles - not all of them - during the middle ages.

Later on, Lorenzo Valla in the Renaissance examined the text of the Vulgate and found numerous errors and inconsistencies in it, but dared not publish his writings on the issue. Erasmus acquired Valla's textual criticism and published it, then worked on a new Greek translation of the Bible. When Luther broke with Rome at Worms in 1521, he went into hiding at Wartburg Castle and worked on a German version of the Bible from Erasmus' Greek version.

Although Henry VIII executed William Tyndale for translating the Bible into English, as the English church moved further from Rome, it, too, sought a national language version of the scriptures. Hence our KJV.

There were other Bibles written during this time period with deliberate changes added or removed to discredit competing faiths. One Protestant version was crass enough to toss in a "There shall arise one, a Pope, who shall be the Antichrist." Bad form.

There are denominations who mistrust all scriptures handled by government authorities over large stretches of time. These Restorationist movements seek to return to the original Christianity of Jesus and are perhaps the most radical in their emphasis on legitimacy of a text's authorship. The most radical of the Restorationist movements, the Mormons, claim new revelation in correction of the biblical text. Their Joseph Smith text, however, was neither completed nor edited at the time of the death of Joseph Smith, so there is some issue with the notes in the text - were they all from their founder, or were some added or removed by those who later acquired the notes? 

The notion of an open canon vs. a closed canon is another fascinating avenue. In addition to the Mormons, several other denominations claim new scriptures and divine inspiration while others insist the canon closed at the end of the first century AD. There are similar open/closed debates within Islam - the Shi'a/Sunni conflict. Judaism has a closed canon, but a vast amount of commentary on that canon, making for a partially open canon in as far as interpretation is concerned.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Red (Mar 2, 2006)

*quietly sitting, reading posts, contemplating joining in and giving my opinion.........................................................................................................................Naaaaah, far too complicated for this time of day!*


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 2, 2006)

Fatland -- EXCELLENT post!


----------



## BBW Betty (Mar 2, 2006)

NotAnExpert said:


> I grew up in the Vatican II Catholic tradition. ....I have not given up on the church as yet ....



I hated to chop apart your whole post, but I felt these two lines provided me the best starting point. I actually found this thread right after it started, and did not have time to give it a proper response.

I am a practicing Catholic, and happy to be so. Most people, including a lot of Catholics, misunderstand a lot of things. My husband and I are currently taking the RCIA classes, as he will be joining the Church at the Easter Vigil. I'm looking forward to us being able to take Communion together after more than 3 years of marriage.

The Nicene Creed delineates the basis of the Catholic faith. I would copy it here, but this will be long enough, anyway. (It's basically the Apostle's Creed, with a little more detail.)

Of course, just as with any insititution run by humans, there are some things that need changing. I really don't think ANY religious organization is completely free from error. I have often said I don't trust anyone who quotes chapter and verse, b/c they usually take it out of context. Then you have to realize that many traditions within the Church were started in a particular time and place, and so still reflect that. (BTW, this means I would like to seem women ordained as priests, someday.) I have simply tried to keep the beliefs and faith separate from things like gender roles within the organization. After all, some of Christ's earliest, most complete followers were women.

Hope I didn't ramble too much. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts on the subject. Thanks to djewell for being brave enough to start this thread.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 2, 2006)

BBW Betty said:


> After all, some of Christ's earliest, most complete followers were women.




Don't say that too loud Betty - you may be called a heretic!

And seeing as the Catholic Church has such a strong Goddess figure in Mary I am still confused by them not ordaining women. Go figure.:doh:


----------



## HappyFatChick (Mar 2, 2006)

I am a Christian but sometimes not a very good one.
I believe my purpose here is to serve Him(God). To get people to church. To get them saved.
Sometimes I'm not very good at it. Sometimes I get angry about stupid things
like traffic,cruelty to animals,and wls. And then I 'backslide',forget about my
purpose and don't do as much for Him as I should.
Christianity is about love. We're supposed to love each other. Sometimes that's hard too.
I just try as best I can,talk to Him constantly,listen, and thank Him for everything everyday.
He is my Lord. My savior. And my best friend.:smitten:


----------



## Sandie S-R (Mar 2, 2006)

fatlane said:


> I seek truth. Whenever I find it, I change myself to conform with the new knowledge I've gained.
> 
> All truth comes from God, so I have more in common with other truth-seekers of other faiths than I do with correligionists who have ceased to search for truth.



Very well put, FL. You and I are on pretty much the same page. I believe that G-d is universal. All intellegence is G-d, all life is G-d, all truth is G-d, and we have total free choice and free will in how we live our lives. I don't believe Jesus was a savior...but a great teacher, as was Budah, Mohammad, Emerson and Thoreau. I'm a bit more pholosophical about my faith, because my faith lies in people, and truth, and love.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 2, 2006)

I think this thing that we're inside of (the universe), and all of us together and all living and inanimate objects together are God. And whatever's outside of it might be "God" too. And time is an illusion, like light or any existence, but we can't tell because we're stuck in it, moving through it, down a line. Our bodies are both a prison and a temple. The largest and smallest possible things imaginable combined to bring us here. The brightest and darkest. Really all "time" already happened - we couldn't be here if it hadn't. What created all this? Not for us to know.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 2, 2006)

I'm really sorry to all the people this is probably going to offend... but I still can't help but think how funny the whole "G-d" thing is. It looks like either a rapper (Yo yo G-D dawg wassup!) or a noise that you make when your brain suddenly stops working (ga-dhh, ga-dhh...). I think if you seriously believe that there's someone so much better than you that you can't even say their name or even their title, you have SERIOUS self-worth issues.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 2, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Fatland -- EXCELLENT post!



I'm a walking wikipedia, I tell ya... BTW, the Council of Macon actually took a vote on whether women were humans or animals. "Human" won by one vote. Although Islam preached gender equality, subsequent passages in the Hadith and local traditions returned women to subservient roles. Buddhism originally taught that if women lived lives free of desire, they could be reborn as men on their next step to Nirvana. Sikhism actually taught full equality of sexes and did away with customs such as the one requiring women to walk behind their husbands. Sikhs could walk side by side...


----------



## fatlane (Mar 2, 2006)

Divals said:


> I'm really sorry to all the people this is probably going to offend... but I still can't help but think how funny the whole "G-d" thing is. It looks like either a rapper (Yo yo G-D dawg wassup!) or a noise that you make when your brain suddenly stops working (ga-dhh, ga-dhh...). I think if you seriously believe that there's someone so much better than you that you can't even say their name or even their title, you have SERIOUS self-worth issues.


Not necessarily. There are many possible reasons why one would not say a name of *{$DEITY}*, ranging from magical tabu to respect for one's divine authority/creator/parent, as applicable to one's faith.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 2, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Not necessarily. There are many possible reasons why one would not say a name of *{$DEITY}*, ranging from magical tabu to respect for one's divine authority/creator/parent, as applicable to one's faith.



Ehh. It seems more like worship than respect. I think worshipful attitudes like that are kind of disgusting, meself. Respect, however, is all well and good (perhaps I'm not showing enough... gomen!)

=Divals


----------



## djewell (Mar 3, 2006)

Divals said:


> I'm really sorry to all the people this is probably going to offend... but I still can't help but think how funny the whole "G-d" thing is. It looks like either a rapper (Yo yo G-D dawg wassup!) or a noise that you make when your brain suddenly stops working (ga-dhh, ga-dhh...). I think if you seriously believe that there's someone so much better than you that you can't even say their name or even their title, you have SERIOUS self-worth issues.



The "ga-dhh, ga-dhh" sound. You mean like the Millenium Falcon breaking down? Amusing.

By this post I can see you're a Nietzschean. Very good. HE had self-worth issues. Let me know when you become an uber-mensch!

Let me put it like this: if you knew there was an omnipotent, omnipresent person out there, then it wouldn't be that surprising that we respect its name so much. You just find it odd because you don't understand.


----------



## TJF (Mar 3, 2006)

Hi everyone,

I'm impressed by this thread, and by the absence of the usual yelling and disrespect that often comes with it. I've been coming to Dimensions here since late 1996, when I was around 22 years old. This time so far has not only been a time of sexual discovery and self-acceptance of my preference of fat girls, but also a time of religious discovery. I was raised an atheist, but I'm actually Jewish by Halachic Law - and a German Jew on top (being a Jew in the country of the Holocaust has it's special moments).

MissToodles, I totally get your epiphany experience; I had mine in Paradise Valley (of all) near Phoenix, AZ. I read Abraham Heschel to top it, and have been a believer ever since.

Now, I love G-d. Not only as the Eternal One, but also the concept behind "G-d". To me, the idea of spelling HaShems name "G-d" symbolizes that G-d is the supreme question, asked to be answered by every human being, and we've got to respond in faith, and even more so, in action. So "G-d" as a spelling solution really tells the story that He "is who He is, and will be who He will be" (Exodus 3,14), but it's not for us to materially know who He is. We cannot know Him, we may only know His ways. "G-d" represents, so to speak, a "?", and we have to answer in the affirmative "!".

Now, "G-d" being this supreme question to answer (go read Kafka to see a modern Jew grapple with that "?" without resort to tradition) ought to make us humble human beings. We're put in our place. We're not degraded though, on the contrary - the Talmud tells us to always carry a paper with is where on one side it is written "The world was created only for you", and on the other side "You're nothing but dust". I think this brings out humility, and love of the grandeur of being, both of which we experience in partnership with G-d. We're privileged to be able to answer with the exclamation mark of our lives to the question G-d asks us.

So much about my interpretation.

Now, on to what's been plaguing me, at times more often than at other times, and I'm curious how others deal with this - I'm not sure G-d enjoys what I'm doing at Dimensions, which is mostly oogling fat girls, and write them a mail of admiration sometimes (and being a mediator between feuding parties every few months). You see, I basically check out paysites, and while it can be argued that this board here is different from the paysite board, well, my sexual appetite doesn't diminish when I'm over here. I love to hear, talk, and think about fat, and I love it when a woman gains weight. And I'm enforcing weight gain by way of admiration. I also love stories about weight gain, and love fanta-sizing. Mind you, I'm not an obsessed feeder, I'm all about consent and health first, and I do keep such issues out of my wonderful relationship with my plump girlfriend (though she knows about my fantasies and gets off on my talking them through while "knowing each other"). But the lines between what is imagined and that what is real is sometimes blurry, isn't it, and it certainly blurs in the world wide web where the virtual presence of fat and gaining girls makes it easy for me to enjoy a ride mostly in my imagination, while of course the girl on the other side of the screen is also struggling with the real issues (besides all the bliss of an admiring community).

djewell, G-d doesn't like gluttony, and excess, and while I wouldn't want to associate a lust and an appetite for life, and food, and sensual experiences (which are best with fat!) with gluttony and excess - well, the lines are blurry, aren't they? HaShem is critical of the fat bellies in exile in some books of the prophets. I'd love to know how you deal with this? I mean, in your community, do you go around telling people you're a regular over here at Dimensions? Our "token Jew", as you've called yourself? What do you feel when a woman is called a "Goddess" (I feel uncomfortable with such names)? I haven't seen you over that the paysite board, but still... what are your thoughts on this?

Have a good Shabbos y'all, Jews and Non-Jews alike,
TJF


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 3, 2006)

BBW Betty said:


> My husband and I are currently taking the RCIA classes, as he will be joining the Church at the Easter Vigil.


Hey, I spent five years on an RCIA core team. I still do dismissals. (Scarey, eh?) Preliminary congrats to your husband!


BBW Betty said:


> The Nicene Creed delineates the basis of the Catholic faith. I would copy it here, but this will be long enough, anyway. (It's basically the Apostle's Creed, with a little more detail.)


One thing that's always amused me: The Creed requires one to believe in Pontius Pilate, but *NOT* in the devil. And yet at baptism, the catechumen must renounce old Nick.


BBW Betty said:


> (BTW, this means I would like to seem women ordained as priests, someday.) I have simply tried to keep the beliefs and faith separate from things like gender roles within the organization. After all, some of Christ's earliest, most complete followers were women.


I did say I haven't quite given up. A lot of my respect goes to women who are even more frustrated than I am, but keep trying to make a difference. Some of the Bible changes I mentioned elsewhere involved masculinizing or de-ranking the names of women in Acts and the letters of Paul who appeared too prominent for the tastes of mysoginist scribes. The early church actually had a lot of woman power.


Sandie_Zitkus said:


> And seeing as the Catholic Church has such a strong Goddess figure in Mary I am still confused by them not ordaining women. Go figure.:doh:


It's really sad. Mary's up on a pedestal (with all that signifies), pure, subservient, nurturing, unthreatening, a love substitute for priests and a court of last appeal for the hopeless. They seem to forget she was a Jewish mother. It's in the Bible. Look in the Gospel of John at the Wedding in Cana. When a problem comes up, does Mary _ask_ Jesus to help? No. "My goodness, they've run out of wine. At a wedding no less. Who could have let this happen?" And when Jesus protests that now is not the time, she wanders over to the servants and says, "He's a smart boy, do what he says," and leaves the room!

Stop me if you've heard this one. A guy's up on a scaffold helping remodel the inside of an old church. While he's working, an old lady comes in, kneels down right below him, whips out her rosary and starts praying. He decides to have some fun. Quietly he whispers, "Hey Lady, this is Jesus Christ." She keeps praying like she didn't hear. So he tries a little louder, still no response. Louder still, no good. One more try, "Hey Lady, this-" but he's cut off when she shouts, "Shut up, Jesus, I'm talking to your mother!"


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 3, 2006)

djewell said:


> Let me put it like this: if you knew there was an omnipotent, omnipresent person out there, then it wouldn't be that surprising that we respect its name so much.



The Goddess has many names so people like myself don't get hung up on things like that. An all powerful deity isn't going to get offended by people calling her by name or by different names.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 3, 2006)

djewell said:


> The "ga-dhh, ga-dhh" sound. You mean like the Millenium Falcon breaking down? Amusing.
> 
> By this post I can see you're a Nietzschean. Very good. HE had self-worth issues. Let me know when you become an uber-mensch!
> 
> Let me put it like this: if you knew there was an omnipotent, omnipresent person out there, then it wouldn't be that surprising that we respect its name so much. You just find it odd because you don't understand.



A Nietszchean? Nope, actually. 

It's not respectful to refuse to say a name. It's just silly. It's like if I respected someone so I stopped talking to or looking at them. 

=Divals


----------



## Jane (Mar 3, 2006)

fatlane said:


> I'm a walking wikipedia, I tell ya...


Give you 15 years, and like all my friends my age, you won't be able to recall the next door neighbor's name, until in the middle of the night when you wake up for no reason.

Honestly, GIGO turns into GI....nothing out.


----------



## Friday (Mar 3, 2006)

Why would a spiritual being without an corporeal body and no mate need to have a sexual identity?


----------



## fatlane (Mar 3, 2006)

Friday said:


> Why would a spiritual being without an corporeal body and no mate need to have a sexual identity?


If said being had a body and a mate, then, yeah, sexual identity comes into play. Not all who walk this earth (or roll, for those in wheelchairs... I could go on to include other mobility impairments, but I'm sure you all get my drift) envision a Supreme Being as non-corporeal. Sure, they get hacked into tiny bits on occasion by those who do, but the belief persists.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 3, 2006)

As I was growing up my family was not religious. Golden rule, stuff like that was the creed but no one visited church except for maybe Easter and the occasional wedding. I was curious about G-d at times. I'd been privy to the usual G-d horror told in religious circles and wondered what His issues were, how He worked and what He wants from people - but not strong enough for me to go looking or anything.

Then when I was a teen I had this totally random religious experience so to speak. That moment and countless others since then literally force me to acknowledge that G-d exists. It's something for which I can't enjoy the luxury of denial, a medical term or some other conclusion - and I've thoroughly checked.


----------



## BBW Betty (Mar 3, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> And seeing as the Catholic Church has such a strong Goddess figure in Mary I am still confused by them not ordaining women. Go figure.:doh:



Mary does indeed hold a special place in the Catholic tradition, but she is no goddess--capitalized or otherwise. By accepting what God called her to do, and becoming the Mother of Jesus--the second part of the Trinity, she became the very first Christian. As such, she is the most important of all the Saints. We ask the Saints to pray for us, much the same as we ask people here on earth to do so. Their Sainthood is recognition of the wonderful things they accomplished doing the Lord's work.

I myself find there is always more to learn about my faith, so I will not pretend to have all the answers. Part of the answer must be that it is *faith*, the definition of which is to believe without having proof. I hope that, for everyone, whatever their faith, they learn and grow in it, making themselves and the world around them better.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 3, 2006)

Saint John Cheez-Whiz prays for money and power, but he's an asshat. 

=Divals


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 3, 2006)

Betty I did not mean to upset you but Mary is a rehash of every other Goddess story I hve ever read or seen and there are thousands of years of storys about Goddesses.

She was a Virgin empregnated by a God who then gave birth to a man/God. Sounds like the story of Hercules to me.

I'm not belittling anyones faith - I don't do that - just stating some historical facts.
 





BBW Betty said:


> Mary does indeed hold a special place in the Catholic tradition, but she is no goddess--capitalized or otherwise. By accepting what God called her to do, and becoming the Mother of Jesus--the second part of the Trinity, she became the very first Christian. As such, she is the most important of all the Saints. We ask the Saints to pray for us, much the same as we ask people here on earth to do so. Their Sainthood is recognition of the wonderful things they accomplished doing the Lord's work.
> 
> I myself find there is always more to learn about my faith, so I will not pretend to have all the answers. Part of the answer must be that it is *faith*, the definition of which is to believe without having proof. I hope that, for everyone, whatever their faith, they learn and grow in it, making themselves and the world around them better.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 3, 2006)

To be sure, the reverence attached to Mary was not officially formalized until the Council of Ephesus in 431. It arrived later on to the Roman West.

There are strong parallels to the Isis/Horus cycle, but that doesn't necessarily mean copycatting happened. There are many similar ideas expressed in myths and folk tales of cultures geographically isolated from each other.

The actual doctrine of Immaculate Conception was not defined officially in the Catholic Church until 1854.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 3, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Betty I did not mean to upset you but Mary is a rehash of every other Goddess story I hve ever read or seen and there are thousands of years of storys about Goddesses.
> 
> She was a Virgin empregnated by a God who then gave birth to a man/God. Sounds like the story of Hercules to me.
> 
> I'm not belittling anyones faith - I don't do that - just stating some historical facts.



What do you believe in these goddesses for since they're all the same person, as you imply? You got your goddess, somebody else has their Diana, the kids have their Barbies, somebody's got their Mary. What do you care if they're all the same? Or is it that you believe that you behold the Gucci of all godesses and the rest are just knockoffs? Everybody believes that about their religion. In the beginning some culture of people said, "Ooh, wouldn't it be cool if like, there were a supreme mother who looks after us and told us not to kill people or steal their stuff?" Other cultures did so too, 'cause everybody loves their mother, and to this day everybody fights over who was first.


----------



## Stormy (Mar 3, 2006)

I worship a modern day prophet named Eric. His Earth body lives in Tennessee but his Spirit is everywhere. Eric passes messages between me and God. He says that God has commanded him to take seven wives, which he plans to do after Earth laws allow him to get rid of the one he has. Eric calls me Jiksert taba Ilnaz, which means remnant of the Lord. I dont know if this means or whether he plans to make me one of his wives, but even if not he has promised me that we will spend eternity together in paradise, as long as I continue to do everything God has him tell me to. I send him as much of my income as I can afford, always at least 30%, and weed and other gifts too. When he feels that I have been particularly generous with my compensation for his guidance, he allows me to call him after his wife and kids are asleep for phone sex.

I suppose there is a small chance that Eric is just a manipulative pervert, but Im not taking any chances.


----------



## djewell (Mar 3, 2006)

Divals said:


> A Nietszchean? Nope, actually.
> 
> It's not respectful to refuse to say a name. It's just silly. It's like if I respected someone so I stopped talking to or looking at them.
> 
> =Divals



I never said I was showing respect. I'm showing complete and utter _bittul _(self-nullification).

And your ideas are Nietzschean.


----------



## Stormy (Mar 3, 2006)

Orso said:


> I'm an agnostic, I think that one needs faith to believe in God and the same amount of faith, just of contrary sign, to disbelieve, and I don't have either.
> 
> I think, anyway, that if God exist, he/she/it/they definitely does not care for us human, and has by far more interesting things to do than spending time giving us precepts, laws and commandments or checking if anybody strayed from the straight and narrow path.


Seriously, that is very similar to the way I feel. If there is any sort of deity I think it is highly unlikely to be anything like any stupid, insignificant human imagines it to be.

I think death is the hardest thing about not being religious. Never did I want to be so much as when my dog, the first dog of my own as an adult, with whom I was very closely bonded, died. I’d give or do almost anything to be with her again and would love to think that when I die we, as well as other animals and people I’ve been close to, will be reunited but it is too unreasonable for me to believe. I just don’t believe in things without evidence.

http://the-brights.net/


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 3, 2006)

Ahh, deism... very popular during the 18th century/enlightenment.

I definitely believe that humans are to some extent 'hardwired' for religion. There's a great essay by E.O. Wilson called "The Biological Basis of Morality" for anyone who is interested in this topic. Also there was an interesting article on the topic a couple months ago in Atlantic Monthly. It seems like religious believers are generally more psychologically sound than nonbelievers--if you can convince yourself to believe without a shadow of a doubt, you get purpose in life, comfort about death, ultimate knowledge and security, etc. The problem for me is that I can't force myself to believe things that seem inherently unbelievable.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 3, 2006)

Lilly,

I am unsure what ticked you off - as I said I am not belittling anyones beliefs - but you are mine. I am not going to get into a discussion of *which came first* Basically because Goddess worship was around Centuries before the Gods were created.

I was just wondering out loud (which I won't do again) why a church that has such a prominent female figure in their liturgy does not allow women to be ordained. That's all. I was not saying any goddess was better than any other.

Your analogy of where Goddess worship came from is kind of offensive to me too.

I respect your right to believe what you to and would never belittle your belief system. I had hoped I could get the same respect from you and others here.






LillyBBBW said:


> What do you believe in these goddesses for since they're all the same person, as you imply? You got your goddess, somebody else has their Diana, the kids have their Barbies, somebody's got their Mary. What do you care if they're all the same? Or is it that you believe that you behold the Gucci of all godesses and the rest are just knockoffs? Everybody believes that about their religion. In the beginning some culture of people said, "Ooh, wouldn't it be cool if like, there were a supreme mother who looks after us and told us not to kill people or steal their stuff?" Other cultures did so too, 'cause everybody loves their mother, and to this day everybody fights over who was first.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 3, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> You got your goddess, somebody else has their Diana, the kids have their Barbies, somebody's got their Mary. What do you care if they're all the same?



I personally think that Mary is another interpretation of the Goddess. Historically speaking there is also evidence that Mary was added to early Christianity to help convert Pagans that couldn't grasp the concept on one male deity. This did backfire and a sect of Christianity rose that worshipped Mary over God and Jesus.



> Or is it that you believe that you behold the Gucci of all godesses and the rest are just knockoffs? Everybody believes that about their religion.



Basically Witch and Wiccan based faiths are the "I'm okay, you're okay" of the spiritual realm. A core belief being that everyone has their own spiritual path and interpret the divine in a way they can understand. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim beliefs that they are only the true chosen people is alien belief among Wiccans and Witches.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 3, 2006)

Thank you Jack - you said it much better than I could have!  



Jack Skellington said:


> I personally think that Mary is another interpretation of the Goddess. Historically speaking there is also evidence that Mary was added to early Christianity to help convert Pagans that couldn't grasp the concept on one male deity. This did backfire and a sect of Christianity rose that worshipped Mary over God and Jesus.
> 
> Basically Witch and Wiccan based faiths are the "I'm okay, you're okay" of the spiritual realm. A core belief being that everyone has their own spiritual path and interpret the divine in a way they can understand. The Christian, Jewish and Muslim beliefs that they are only the true chosen people is alien belief among Wiccans and Witches.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 3, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Lilly,
> 
> I am unsure what ticked you off - as I said I am not belittling anyones beliefs - but you are mine. I am not going to get into a discussion of *which came first* Basically because Goddess worship was around Centuries before the Gods were created.
> 
> ...



I was not intending to be offensive to you Sandy, and I wasn't belittling your faith at all. If I offended you I apologize. I didn't see your original post as to why women aren't ordained in Catholicism. 

As to origins, which came first is a pretty tough thing to prove. You can find similarities in beliefs, customs and folklore on almost every continent through people who had no contact or knowledge of each other - they just gave it another name. Just when you settle on one discovery, another pops up that dates back farther. And who knows what beliefs existed among people who didn't have the patience to scrawl something on a wall of carve out a Venus statue? I don't think there's any way to settle on who/where Goddess worship originated or if it would make any difference at all. In every culture some form of belief in a Great Spirit, G-d or Goddess can be found. Belief in a higher power seems to be a common thread among lots of cultures springing up independently of each other and not spread through one particular source.

I'm aware of the "I'm okay, you're okay" standpoint of Wicca. It's just that I've seen alot of pagans giving Catholics a hard time about Mary which to me seems to counter this belief. When I saw your post it made me think of that, however I didn't know this conversation stemmed from an inquiry about female ministers so I do apologize if I came of a little nippy.


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 3, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> I'm aware of the "I'm okay, you're okay" standpoint of Wicca. It's just that I've seen alot of pagans giving Catholics a hard time about Mary which to me seems to counter this belief. When I saw your post it made me think of that, however I didn't know this conversation stemmed from an inquiry about female ministers so I do apologize if I came of a little nippy.


A lot of Pagans give Christians a hard time in general. A lot of Pagans are ex-Christians who haven't quite gotten over it.

(Oddly enough, it is *exactly* the same behavior I see from Linux geeks toward Windows people. There are several valid maps here - "Free Software" = "Open mind" is one obvious one. How weird...)


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 3, 2006)

ataraxia said:


> A lot of Pagans give Christians a hard time in general. A lot of Pagans are ex-Christians who haven't quite gotten over it.
> 
> (Oddly enough, it is *exactly* the same behavior I see from Linux geeks toward Windows people. There are several valid maps here - "Free Software" = "Open mind" is one obvious one. How weird...)


I've never seen that behavior on the part of pagans I've known. It's just that far too many Christians seem to be very defensive of their beliefs, and regard any question as a threat.

I've been on both sides myself - raised Catholic, but now consider myself a freethinker.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 3, 2006)

Stormy said:


> I worship a modern day prophet named Eric. His Earth body lives in Tennessee but his Spirit is everywhere. Eric passes messages between me and God. He says that God has commanded him to take seven wives, which he plans to do after Earth laws allow him to get rid of the one he has. Eric calls me Jiksert taba Ilnaz, which means remnant of the Lord. I dont know if this means or whether he plans to make me one of his wives, but even if not he has promised me that we will spend eternity together in paradise, as long as I continue to do everything God has him tell me to. I send him as much of my income as I can afford, always at least 30%, and weed and other gifts too. When he feels that I have been particularly generous with my compensation for his guidance, he allows me to call him after his wife and kids are asleep for phone sex.
> I suppose there is a small chance that Eric is just a manipulative pervert, but Im not taking any chances.



Oh, you know Eric too?   Whatta riot! Dude kills me! :doh: 
We used to party together in college. He always said one day he'd try something like this.


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 3, 2006)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> I've never seen that behavior on the part of pagans I've known. It's just that far too many Christians seem to be very defensive of their beliefs, and regard any question as a threat.
> 
> I've been on both sides myself - raised Catholic, but now consider myself a freethinker.


I was raised Catholic too. (Lots of us, eh?)

I think a lot of what I'm seeing that other don't comes from mostly knowing Pagans who were no older than 20. Big bias there.

If you really want a laundry-list of how Wiccans in particular can goof it up, see this page. This guy pulls no punches and is often quite offensive. I found it a good read, though. (Edit: it appears to be down. I'll miss it.)


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 3, 2006)

ataraxia said:


> I was raised Catholic too. (Lots of us, eh?)
> 
> I think a lot of what I'm seeing that other don't comes from mostly knowing Pagans who were no older than 20. Big bias there.
> 
> If you really want a laundry-list of how Wiccans in particular can goof it up, see this page. This guy pulls no punches and is often quite offensive. I found it a good read, though. (Edit: it appears to be down. I'll miss it.)



Oh poo. I loved that site!  I'll miss it too.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 3, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> It's just that I've seen alot of pagans giving Catholics a hard time about Mary which to me seems to counter this belief.



I'm personally not aware of Wiccans giving Catholics any hard times over Mary. (I have no problem with people calling the Goddess Mary or Isis or whatever.) I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But my understanding the problems over Mary come from other Judeo-Christian faiths that see Mary as a from of idolatry or Goddess worship. 



ataraxia said:


> A lot of Pagans give Christians a hard time in general. A lot of Pagans are ex-Christians who haven't quite gotten over it.



I was born a Witch and come from a blood line of Witches. So I probably have a different view on these things than ex-Christians or first generation Wiccans. The only negative views I have of Christians come from less than pleasant Christian people I've had to deal with during my life. But I view them as individuals and don't judge the rest of their faith by their cruel and violent behavior.



Wayne_Zitkus said:


> I've never seen that behavior on the part of pagans I've known. It's just that far too many Christians seem to be very defensive of their beliefs, and regard any question as a threat.



Yes, exactly. The recent cultural shift of Pagans feeling less fearful to stick up for themselves and their beliefs is seen as a challenge to some Christians. Sticking up for yourself when you are being told you follow a false God and are going to Hell is not anti-Christian.

I'd also like to remind people, the kids that hang around Hot Topic all day aren't Pagans. They are rude spoiled kids that have watched one too many episodes of Charmed.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> Oh poo. I loved that site!  I'll miss it too.



But would you love a site called whychristianssuck.com? I'm guessing not. The tone of your posts come of as a person that has some issues with people that have differences in opinion on faith and religious history. I'm not saying you actually do. But that's impression your posts seem to project at times.

For the record, I have no problem with a site like whywiccansuck.com. But then, I'm a Witch and not a Wiccan. I do have problems with Wiccans that make uninformed statements like Witchcraft didn't exist before Gerald Gardner. Gardner plagiarized the heredity Strega he studied and mixed those beliefs with a bit of Buddhism and Native American beliefs, among others. I also personally believe he down played the status of the Goddess a bit. I'm guessing probably due to his own male ego. 

Gerald Gardner didn't even start what became known as the new age movement. The mysticism and occult movement had actually been building and developing since the early 1800s. People also tend to over look authors and researchers like the pioneering Dion Fortune over more visible and self promoting people in the movement like Gardner and Aleister Crowley.


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 4, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> But would you love a site called whychristianssuck.com?


I'd likely have been bored by it a little, since I already have opinions on the subject.  (I know this wasn't in reply to me.)

After all, you have to keep in mind that Erisians are pagans too - just very weird ones. I feel like I ought to remove myself a bit from this thread, since it's clear to me that I take the subject a lot less seriously than some of the rest of you do.


----------



## Thrifty McGriff (Mar 4, 2006)

I'm an agnostic. I'd be happy if there was something to experience after death, but I'm just not a person of faith, so I'm not expecting anything. I can't do it and I never will be able to. I've experienced death and it is brutal, but it doesn't convince me of a divine being and an afterlife any more than the widespread suffering and misdeeds of humanity do. Some people of faith might consider it a sad existence, but I know I would prefer this existence over one of faith. I respect others views and beliefs, but I dislike the fundamentalists and the preachers, vehemently so. 

I have other thoughts and opinions on religion but I would do well to keep them to myself else I get tarred, feathered, flogged, and guillotined.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> But would you love a site called whychristianssuck.com? I'm guessing not. The tone of your posts come of as a person that has some issues with people that have differences in opinion on faith and religious history. I'm not saying you actually do. But that's impression your posts seem to project at times.



If you've never visited http://www.Landoverbaptist.org I suggest you do! It is definitely your answer for whychristianssuck.com.

Just because I am beholding to a belief that is different from your own doesn't necessarily mean I'm intolerant or harbor hostility towards people of other faiths. If Sandy Zitkas can challenge the Catholic church and their policy of discrimination against women, why am I considered hostile by sharing my perceptions on religious history? We can all carry on an intelligent conversation in regards to the negatives that come about due to the way Christianity/Catholicism is applied by some people, but if I say I encountered a few bad Pagans I'm accused of having an intolerant tone. And no, they were not your garden variety twenty-something mall rats who think it's cool to paint pentagrams on churches in clear nail polish. I can at least acknowledge the bad apples in my faith without getting defensive or pretending they don't exist.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 4, 2006)

ataraxia said:


> After all, you have to keep in mind that Erisians are pagans too - just very weird ones.



Other than her appearances on The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy (my favorite show) my knowledge of Eris is fairly limited. I do know she is the Goddess of chaos and the sister of Ares the God of war. Eris enjoyed less deadly forms of discord than her brother but was still considered rather malicious. 

Could you give me your personal interpretation of Eris? I've read that Discordians see Eris as more lighthearted and mischievous than actually truly cruel as depicted in Greek mythology.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> If you've never visited http://www.Landoverbaptist.org I suggest you do! It is definitely your answer for whychristianssuck.com.



I've been there. I didn't think it was really all that funny. But it's also obviously a parody site and not a commentary on Christians like whywiccansuck is on Wiccans. 



> Just because I am beholding to a belief that is different from your own doesn't necessarily mean I'm intolerant or harbor hostility towards people of other faiths.



I never said hostile and that was not my intention. But by your own self admission you do admit to comming off a bit snippy to Sandy.



> I can at least acknowledge the bad apples in my faith without getting defensive or pretending they don't exist.



I've never said they don't exist. There are obviously bad people in every group. I'm sure that they are plenty of Pagan jerks. I have just not personally come across any Pagans that have problems with Mary and that's what I was referring to. I personally like her. But I have come across some Christians that do have a problems with her, like I mentioned.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I have just not personally come across any Pagans that have problems with Mary and that's what I was referring to. I personally like her. But I have come across some Christians that do have a problems with her, like I mentioned.



I encountered quite a few shortly after the death of Pope John Paul II. The Pope really loved Mary and many Catholics strongly believed that Mary might make an appearance at the Pope's funeral. Many Christians accused Catholics of idolatry, the usual hodge podge of Christian love and evangelism.  But some hard core ribbing also came from some Pagans who said Mary is really the Goddess and whatnot. It stemmed from some Catholics declaring that theirs is the first church and St. Peter was the first Pope and all other religions are just knockoffs, etc. It caused some Pagans to get rather testy. 

I'd heard some people talk about Mary being another version of the Goddess but it really reached a fever pitch for a while when the Pope died. Weather it's true or false, I thought it was pretty nasty for all involved to show boat during such a sad time for Catholics. Anyway, this has been my experience.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> I'd heard some people talk about Mary being another version of the Goddess but it really reached a fever pitch for a while when the Pope died. Weather it's true or false, I thought it was pretty nasty for all involved to show boat during such a sad time for Catholics. Anyway, this has been my experience.



Many Pagans do think Mary is the Goddess. That's why we love her. If you don't think of or interpret Mary as the Goddess, that's cool. But you shouldn't take it as an insult that there are people that do. Catholics love Mary and so do many Pagans. No harm in that.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Many Pagans do think Mary is the Goddess. That's why we love her. If you don't think of or interpret Mary as the Goddess, that's cool. But you shouldn't take it as an insult that there are people that do. Catholics love Mary and so do many Pagans. No harm in that.



It seems Catholics take offense to having Mary compared to a Pagan Goddess. I'm not 100% certain of how the Catholics truly view Mary but it really upset a lot of people to hear her compared to a Goddess of Pagan origin. I had no idea Pagans felt that way about Mary, it's news to me!


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> If Sandy Zitkas can challenge the Catholic church and their policy of discrimination against women, why am I considered hostile by sharing my perceptions on religious history?



Lilly - where did I do that. I was just making an observation about a church that idolizes a woman and yet does not ordain women. I find it strange. I did not ever imply a challenge of anyones faith.

I'm a witch - I am not wiccan. Like Jack I was born into a family of Strega (Italian for witch). I live my life as peacefully as possible and respect all things. I feel badly that you think I was challenging anyone. I live by one rule "Live and let live".

Peace.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> It seems Catholics take offense to having Mary compared to a Pagan Goddess. I'm not 100% certain of how the Catholics truly view Mary but it really upset a lot of people to hear her compared to a Goddess of Pagan origin. I had no idea Pagans felt that way about Mary, it's news to me!




Many, many Pagans love Mary because they see her as a modern interpritation of the Goddess. I don't see why that would be offensive to anyone.


----------



## BBW Betty (Mar 4, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Betty I did not mean to upset you but Mary is a rehash of every other Goddess story I hve ever read or seen and there are thousands of years of storys about Goddesses.
> 
> She was a Virgin empregnated by a God who then gave birth to a man/God. Sounds like the story of Hercules to me.
> 
> I'm not belittling anyones faith - I don't do that - just stating some historical facts.



Hi, Sandie. Sorry it has taken me so long to get back here. I was in no way upset, I just saw an opportunity to educate people on a very often mistaken concept within the Catholic church. Our little exchange certainly set off a chain, though, didn't it?

I know there are millions of interpretations, and connections among various religions and faiths, and find it fascinating. I'm always willing to learn more about others, just to understand their point of view. But I also intend to maintain my own, very Catholic faith.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Lilly - where did I do that. I was just making an observation about a church that idolizes a woman and yet does not ordain women. I find it strange. I did not ever imply a challenge of anyones faith.



The word "challenge" is not one that always implies aggression. One might use it in this way:

_"The story of Deborah and St. Joan of Arc *challenges* the notion that women shouldn't have leadership roles in the church."_

Your observation about the church's policy on women was a challenging one but my saying so was not meant to imply that you were picking on anyone.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Many, many Pagans love Mary because they see her as a modern interpritation of the Goddess. I don't see why that would be offensive to anyone.



Mary was a real person who was born, lived and breathed on this planet. Her existence is confirmed, her decedents accounted for, her steps traced, her grave marked. I believe Jack alluded to religious leaders elevating Mary within the church in order to compete with Goddess worship and I'm inclined to agree. 

That being said, Mary was elevated as a competitor to the Goddess, not the actual Goddess Herself. There are lots of people who ignorantly claim that Wicca/Witches are minions of Satan. It's not true, but people believe this and are comfortable with it. Some would argue that insisting that Mary is another manifestation of the Goddess is akin to this. I'm not trying to take it away from you, I'm just trying to point out why some find it offensive.


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 4, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Other than her appearances on The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy (my favorite show) my knowledge of Eris is fairly limited. I do know she is the Goddess of chaos and the sister of Ares the God of war. Eris enjoyed less deadly forms of discord than her brother but was still considered rather malicious.
> 
> Could you give me your personal interpretation of Eris? I've read that Discordians see Eris as more lighthearted and mischievous than actually truly cruel as depicted in Greek mythology.


I'm so glad you used the term "personal interpretation" here. That's the only thing any of Eris' worshippers are entitled to give 

I consider Eris to be another aspect of the (obviously) very widespread concept of Goddess-worship. Some faiths have the "Maiden, Mother, and Crone" concepts - this one might be called the "I just finished a hard week of work, it's Friday night, I want to have some fun, and don't give me your crap" aspect of that deity. If you know what I mean. 

I generally only invoke religious reasoning when "ordinary" reasoning fails - to explain the unexplainable. A deity of extermely whimsical behavior goes a long way towards doing that. 

It is common for Discordians to explicitly refute the original ancient Greek conception of Eris. It's not really all that useful, after all.

Discordianism is explicitly revisionistic and inventive. There's no pretending that we're continuing an ancient phenomenon. Some other faiths really _are_ doing something like that - we _know_ that we're not. You might call it a postmodern approach to religion - very slippery.

Just consider me as a rather "generic" goddess-worshipper with an irreverent attitude about the whole thing, and you'll have a fairly good picture.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 4, 2006)

ataraxia said:


> "I just finished a hard week of work, it's Friday night, I want to have some fun, and don't give me your crap" aspect of that deity. If you know what I mean.



I guessing from this Discordians see Eris is more of the stuff happens type of Goddess then?



> Discordianism is explicitly revisionistic and inventive. There's no pretending that we're continuing an ancient phenomenon. Some other faiths really _are_ doing something like that - we _know_ that we're not.



I personally don't think Wicca is a direct continuation. I don't think the majority of of Wiccans do either. It shares common grounds with Discordianism in being an update of Goddess worship. Just obviously not as irreverent. 

Thanks for the info Ataraxia.


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 4, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I guessing from this Discordians see Eris is more of the stuff happens type of Goddess then?


Most definitely.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> There are lots of people who ignorantly claim that Wicca/Witches are minions of Satan. It's not true, but people believe this and are comfortable with it. Some would argue that insisting that Mary is another manifestation of the Goddess is akin to this. I'm not trying to take it away from you, I'm just trying to point out why some find it offensive.



But there's a big difference in Christians telling someone they worship the Devil, an evil God in the Christian faith, to a Witch or Wiccan saying we love Mary too because we interpret her as the Goddess. One is obviously meant as an insult and the other is not. 

In other words Witches, Wiccans and Pagans are comparing Mary to something they deeply love and respect and the Christians that call Witches devil worshippers are comparing them to something they fear and despise.


----------



## BBW Betty (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> Mary was a real person who was born, lived and breathed on this planet. Her existence is confirmed, her decedents accounted for, her steps traced, her grave marked. I believe Jack alluded to religious leaders elevating Mary within the church in order to compete with Goddess worship and I'm inclined to agree.



Hi Lily. I've really been enjoying your posts, but I have to disagree with you on some of this. Mary's grave has never been marked. Catholics hold that at the time of her death, she was immediately assumed body and soul into Heaven. There is no consensus as to whether she died physically before this ocurrence, but the Assumption is one of our accepted traditions, and the celebration of it is a Holy Day of Obligation for us.

We also hold that she is "Blessed Mary, ever virgin," so there would be no decendents. Just a matter of our belief, but a very strong one in the Catholic church. 

BTW, I'm impressed by the fact people can discuss these differences without becoming hostile. Renews hope for humanity, regardless of faith, ya know? I know I'm learning a lot about various religions. Sandie and Jack, thanks for the info on witches/wicca (I know, I know...not the same thing, but I can't help putting them in a category together). And to find out that Pagans think so highly of Mary--that is enlightening!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

BBW Betty said:


> Hi Lily. I've really been enjoying your posts, but I have to disagree with you on some of this. Mary's grave has never been marked. Catholics hold that at the time of her death, she was immediately assumed body and soul into Heaven. There is no consensus as to whether she died physically before this ocurrence, but the Assumption is one of our accepted traditions, and the celebration of it is a Holy Day of Obligation for us.
> 
> We also hold that she is "Blessed Mary, ever virgin," so there would be no decendents. Just a matter of our belief, but a very strong one in the Catholic church.
> 
> BTW, I'm impressed by the fact people can discuss these differences without becoming hostile. Renews hope for humanity, regardless of faith, ya know? I know I'm learning a lot about various religions. Sandie and Jack, thanks for the info on witches/wicca (I know, I know...not the same thing, but I can't help putting them in a category together). And to find out that Pagans think so highly of Mary--that is enlightening!



I know Betty.  I'm learning a lot from this discussion too. My comments were based on two things. Recently I watched a documentary that traced the steps of Jesus and questioned the possibility of weather or not any of the claims of religion could hold up to concrete evidence. In this documentary they were able to discover a small portion of a 'stable' that lies in the exact location of where it is claimed Jesus was born. The main portion of the building was destroyed, but it is very common to find the holding portion for feed and grain holding stalls to remain in tact due to it's construction being in the ground.

Another portion of that documentary followed the steps of Mary, where she lived out her final days, the spot where she liked to sit and reflect and then finally her resting place which was also shown in the film. Of course the site is heatedly contested for various reasons but scientists seem satisfied that Mary's body indeed lies therein.

Also the bible itself alludes to Jesus having brothers. In several accounts in the bible when Jesus was teaching in the temple his family, on a mission of intervention, arrived at the temple asking to have a word with Him. One of the passages alludes to a tense argument between Jesus and his brothers and in the book of Acts, it is explained that his mother and brothers were there at Pentecost along with the disciples, Mary Magdalene and various others. So though it is widely held that Mary remained a virgin the bible indicates that Mary had other children referred to as blood relatives of Jesus by all accounts. All of these things are interpreted differently by many people though and I suppose it will be a source of debate for a long time with neither side changing their minds.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> But there's a big difference in Christians telling someone they worship the Devil, an evil God in the Christian faith, to a Witch or Wiccan saying we love Mary too because we interpret her as the Goddess. One is obviously meant as an insult and the other is not.
> 
> In other words Witches, Wiccans and Pagans are comparing Mary to something they deeply love and respect and the Christians that call Witches devil worshippers are comparing them to something they fear and despise.



Many people don't realize, as I had not before now, that Pagans deeply love and respect Mary.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 4, 2006)

Current listening - "Mary, Mary" by The Monkees.


----------



## BBW Betty (Mar 4, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> Also the bible itself alludes to Jesus having brothers. In several accounts in the bible when Jesus was teaching in the temple his family, on a mission of intervention, arrived at the temple asking to have a word with Him. One of the passages alludes to a tense argument between Jesus and his brothers and in the book of Acts, it is explained that his mother and brothers were there at Pentecost along with the disciples, Mary Magdalene and various others. So though it is widely held that Mary remained a virgin the bible indicates that Mary had other children referred to as blood relatives of Jesus by all accounts. All of these things are interpreted differently by many people though and I suppose it will be a source of debate for a long time with neither side changing their minds.



I tried to respond before, but technology doesn't always cooperate.

I think we might have seen the same show. There is one school of thought that "brothers" refers to cousins or "kinfolk," and others think that maybe Joseph had been married previously, and that wife died, and there were children from that marriage. Especially since he was older than she was. I guess it's one of those things we won't know until we are done on this earth.

I think it's great that the more scientists try to refute the Bible, they are less and less able to do so. Of course, I don't think that science and faith are mutually exclusive, either. I really think that God made the natural laws, and that scientists are discovering them as we go.

There are so many events and interpretations of history, I agree that this debate could go on forever.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 4, 2006)

BBW Betty said:


> I tried to respond before, but technology doesn't always cooperate.
> 
> I think we might have seen the same show. There is one school of thought that "brothers" refers to cousins or "kinfolk," and others think that maybe Joseph had been married previously, and that wife died, and there were children from that marriage. Especially since he was older than she was. I guess it's one of those things we won't know until we are done on this earth.
> 
> ...



Wasn't that an interesting show?  While no one can prove for sure if the stories of the bible are true or false, most of the evidence found according to biblical descriptions make the events totally plausible. It was a good one.

In many ways I envy the Catholic church and how you worship. Some of the most powerful and meaningful church services I've attended have taken place in the Catholic church. In the churches I regularly attend there seems to be this bankruptcy of reverence and reflection to the point where the services are a multi media showcase complete with rock bands and all kinds of other stuff. I could go on and on about it as it's been a pet peeve of mine for a long time but these pompous displays make the church look desperate. They're designed to lure in more people but many of us feel it dumbs down the services and insults our intelligence. 

The services in my view are prime examples of this 'ME' focused form of worship where it's all about keeping people entertained and engaged rather than a focus on God which the Catholic church seems to have been able to hold on to throughout the centuries. I've only been to a handful of Catholic services in my lifetime either for weddings or to see a colleague sing but I wound up weeping like a toddler at each. I've had this conversation with some of my friends at church and everyone agrees, the Catholic church has something that most other churches have lost in it's effort to keep up with trends and appeal to more people.


----------



## djewell (Mar 4, 2006)

Judaism has a "goddess" kinda. We call it the shekhinah (G-d's presence). It's considered by Kabbalists to be the feminine manifestation of G-d.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 5, 2006)

djewell said:


> Judaism has a "goddess" kinda. We call it the shekhinah (G-d's presence). It's considered by Kabbalists to be the feminine manifestation of G-d.



That's interesting! I'd heard the shekhinah glory of G-d referred to quite a bit but never knew it was considered a feminine manifestation. Do you have any info on why it's thought to be a female characteristic? Deeply curious.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 5, 2006)

From what I understand the Hebrews and Canannites called the Goddess Asherah. She was the queen of Heaven and the consort of Jehovah.


----------



## djewell (Mar 5, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> That's interesting! I'd heard the shekhinah glory of G-d referred to quite a bit but never knew it was considered a feminine manifestation. Do you have any info on why it's thought to be a female characteristic? Deeply curious.



Because its immanent, which is very much like a Jewish mother. Plus we have the transcendent side (havayah elokim->Hashem) so they realized there must be a feminine, immanent side.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 5, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> From what I understand the Hebrews and Canannites called the Goddess Asherah. She was the queen of Heaven and the consort of Jehovah.



Asherah/Ashtoreth would have been the consort of Ba'al, not Jehovah. Her worship should not be confused with Cybele, a major goddess from Phrygia.


----------



## NotAnExpert (Mar 6, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> It seems Catholics take offense to having Mary compared to a Pagan Goddess. I'm not 100% certain of how the Catholics truly view Mary but it really upset a lot of people to hear her compared to a Goddess of Pagan origin. I had no idea Pagans felt that way about Mary, it's news to me!



It could be that some Catholics simply don't want to allow the Goddess enough legitimacy to be compared to Mary but there are also genuine thological technicalities that don't permit Mary to be considered as a goddess.

The technical problem is that Mary is not worshippable. Mary is a special case, primarily because of her title as the "Mother of God", an _a posteriori_ statment that looks like a logical pretzle but is in fact a precept of the Catholic church. Technically, the regard offered to the saints is known as "dulia", which means "veneration". Prayers to them are meant to promote sympathetic intercession because saints do not have supernatural powers of their own. They're more of a heavenly lobbying group. Because of her family connections, Mary is considered to be in an extra-influential position. Her veneration is termed "hyper-dulia". Actual worship ("latria") belongs to God alone. 

So the umbrage is likely due to the mistaken notion that Mary is some kind of supernatural being. This ruffles monotheists' feathers. Christians have already fought a few civil wars over how Jesus can be divine and human at the same time and how one deity can be three people at the same time anyway. (Jews and Muslims keep it much simpler.)

Still, Catholics are often accused of "worshipping" Mary and other saints. For that matter, they've been accused of worshipping "graven images" too. And I admit, it can be hard to tell the difference just by looking.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 6, 2006)

Wow, offline for a couple of days and I miss all of this.

I think that this has been extremely enlightening for many of us. There were some that have had extreme prejudice towards "born-again Christians/Judeao Christianity", Witches, Wicca, Judiasim and Catholics. I would hope that each one of us will walk away feeling different about those around us. Different in the sense that; one person is not the representative of a whole sect; i.e; Jesse Jackson speaks for all African Americans or Jerry Fallwell for all BAC. I would hope that each one of us will take from this an understanding of each other and that not all Christians are insane people and the likewise said about Witches and Wiccans.

It was really great to see everyone taking a stance of respect...that does not happen often regardless of the forum.


----------



## prickly (Mar 6, 2006)

Yes, several forum pages of stimulating shit on religion. Who ever would have thought there were so many in and outs and details?

Still don't see anyone telling me some fundamentals though. Like why religion causes so much trouble; and no, i don't want to hear about fundamentalists, etc. After all, some bloke in a rice field in Iran and some geyser in a pub in Belfast are as likely to go and fight for their "religion" as some gun-toting fuckwad in a cave somewhere.

Oh, and where is the list of god's good deeds to man and mankind? I'm still waiting for that one!

*snort


----------



## prickly (Mar 6, 2006)

And before the wiccans and whatever else they are called get on my case, i don't remember seeing you chaps going to war, bombing buses, or lambasting non-believers. That sounds way more reasonable to me, whatever it's all about. And no, i don't want to know what it's all about, thanks.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 6, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Asherah/Ashtoreth would have been the consort of Ba'al, not Jehovah. Her worship should not be confused with Cybele, a major goddess from Phrygia.



That, like anything else in religious history, is a matter of interpretation.

From this site.

http://www.mcs.ca/vitalspark/2020_schools/314gdes00.html

"Jehovah/Yahweh is a form of YHWH which originally represented the Heavenly Family - Y/El, father; H/Asherah, mother; W/He, son and H/Anath, daughter. Anath (Anahita in Persia) was Queen of the Heavens and her brother He, was King of the Heavens. He and his father El, merged to become Jehovah. Asherah/Ashtoreth (double serpents - wisdom) and Anath were then joined to become Jehovah's consort, the SHEKINAH/MATRONIT. Sarah (Princess), wife/sister of Abraham, revered as a goddess of health and fertility, is said to be embodied in Shekinah (Indwelling). Celts worshipped Shekinah at dolmens/cromlechs."


----------



## djewell (Mar 6, 2006)

@ Prickly: Militant atheists such as yourself have caused more troubles for humanity than G-d, whether or not it exists. Please desist in belittling those of us that have faith.

@Jack Skellington: Maybe I would take that interpretation more seriously if it hadn't come from Canada's New Consciousness Network. Sites of a religious nature usually don't contain scientific "interpretations." Where did they get this scholarship?


----------



## fatlane (Mar 6, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> That, like anything else in religious history, is a matter of interpretation.
> 
> From this site.
> 
> ...



That site is in error. There were syncretic cults among the Hebrews who merged Phonecian deities with Moses' monotheistic chap, replacing Ba'al with Jehovah, but they were consistently broken up by orthodox clergy. Worship of Astarte/Asherah/Ashtoreth involved sacred prostitution, which was right out as far as adherents to the Law of Moses were concerned. Didn't stop others from "mixing with strange gods", though. The description above would not illustrate primitive Hebrew beliefs, but a syncretic mix after they mingled with Phonecians.

There was a later, much more influential syncretic event to follow when the Jews encountered the Zoroastrians after the Persians conquered Babylon.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 6, 2006)

djewell said:


> Where did they get this scholarship?



Eh, who knows. 

But I have come across a variety of sites and books over the years that share the view that Jehovah had a consort. I've seen her referred to as Sophia, Shekinah, Matronit and Asherah.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Mar 6, 2006)

djewell said:


> @ Prickly: Militant atheists such as yourself have caused more troubles for humanity than G-d, whether or not it exists. Please desist in belittling those of us that have faith.


Conversely, please refrain from belittling those of us who choose NOT to believe. If you want respect, you have to be willing to give it as well.


----------



## djewell (Mar 6, 2006)

I agree. And I apologize. But don't you think prickly is a bit too ZEALOUS in his humanism?


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 6, 2006)

I think this thread is beginning to do just what we were afraid it would do right from the start. Once people go on the defensive, no good will come of it.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 6, 2006)

ataraxia said:


> I think this thread is beginning to do just what we were afraid it would do right from the start. Once people go on the defensive, no good will come of it.



Indeed. If this thread is of God, it will prosper. If it is not of God, it will wither.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 7, 2006)

prickly said:


> Yes, several forum pages of stimulating shit on religion. Who ever would have thought there were so many in and outs and details?
> 
> Still don't see anyone telling me some fundamentals though. Like why religion causes so much trouble; and no, i don't want to hear about fundamentalists, etc. After all, some bloke in a rice field in Iran and some geyser in a pub in Belfast are as likely to go and fight for their "religion" as some gun-toting fuckwad in a cave somewhere.
> 
> ...



Goodness you certainly are a PRICKly sort of guy. Besides it's not RELIGION that causes so much trouble....it is the people in the religion. Religion really has nothing to do with faith, just as faith without works is just as dead.

List of God's Good Deed's

Well...I don't purport to speak for God, but I have read his autobiogaphy Here are a couple

He made the mountains...so that I may gaze upon them. Indeed that is good!
He made me with a free will ...so that I could choose to believe in Him; but only if I want to.
He gave us opposable thumbs and the intelligence to use them to create. What we created is another thing altogether though.
He gave us endless discussions and arguments about his exsistence while purportedly not even existing My personal FAV
He created cats (okay, we're really talking about me, but since you asked for a list I can put what I want on it)
He created both perfection and imperfection so that we may know the difference.

Well...I'm somewhat done for now...given enough time I could probably come up with thousands (keep in mind that I'm a woman)

Oh YAH speaking of that...He created Man, then woman and made us so that we fit perfectly together while we make love...He made it pleasurable, not a duty. He made it a truly beautiful thing. 

And that my PRICKlyfriend is truly a Good Deed!


----------



## djewell (Mar 7, 2006)

RedHead said:


> Goodness you certainly are a PRICKly sort of guy. Besides it's not RELIGION that causes so much trouble....it is the people in the religion. Religion really has nothing to do with faith, just as faith without works is just as dead.
> 
> List of God's Good Deed's
> 
> ...



Might I add that the concept of G-d has given some of the greatest minds in history an anchor to keep them afloat when enlightenment threatened to destroy them. Whether or not He exists, having Him in my framework (worldview) has kept me personally afloat.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 7, 2006)

Shalom my friend


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 7, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Eh, who knows.
> 
> But I have come across a variety of sites and books over the years that share the view that Jehovah had a consort. I've seen her referred to as Sophia, Shekinah, Matronit and Asherah.



And then there is the school of thought that Jesus and Mary Magdelane were actually married and Mary is the "Holy Grail" because she carried the seed of Jesus.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 7, 2006)

djewell said:


> I agree. And I apologize. But don't you think prickly is a bit too ZEALOUS in his humanism?



I don't - he's entitled to his opinion.


----------



## BBW Betty (Mar 7, 2006)

djewell said:


> I agree. And I apologize. But don't you think prickly is a bit too ZEALOUS in his humanism?



He certainly is entitled to his opinion, but it does appear that he is the only one ranting at others b/c they have faith. That is unfortunately the most likely thing to start a "religious" war here. For the most part, people have been willing to read and learn from each other.


----------



## prickly (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm not sure that being of no faith and expressing perfectly legitimate reasons equates to ranting or causing a religous war on the boards! if you follow that logic then anyone who disagrees on anything is a ranter and a warmonger.

And RedHead, i appreciate you efforts at a list of god's good deeds. I also enjoy all of those things, except that i happen to believe they are nothing to do with any gods, but are simply a result of the occurence and evolution of stellar, chemical, geophysical and biological events and processes. 

Also, why did god's list of good deeds stop at preventing natural disasters, famine, pestilence, poverty, war, terrorism, dictatorship, inequality, fundamentalism, self-destructive global warming, etc, etc. Surely someone who likes us, even created us, would stop all of that? Simplistic view compared to a load of stuff on sins, suffering and "god" knows what, i know, but i can't help thinking that someone who could stop all that would go ahead and do so. I mean, wouldn't you if you could?


----------



## RedHead (Mar 7, 2006)

prickly said:


> I'm not sure that being of no faith and expressing perfectly legitimate reasons equates to ranting or causing a religous war on the boards! if you follow that logic then anyone who disagrees on anything is a ranter and a warmonger.
> 
> And RedHead, i appreciate you efforts at a list of god's good deeds. I also enjoy all of those things, except that i happen to believe they are nothing to do with any gods, but are simply a result of the occurence and evolution of stellar, chemical, geophysical and biological events and processes.
> 
> Also, why did god's list of good deeds stop at preventing natural disasters, famine, pestilence, poverty, war, terrorism, dictatorship, inequality, fundamentalism, self-destructive global warming, etc, etc. Surely someone who likes us, even created us, would stop all of that? Simplistic view compared to a load of stuff on sins, suffering and "god" knows what, i know, but i can't help thinking that someone who could stop all that would go ahead and do so. I mean, wouldn't you if you could?



To be honest if I had the power to stop it all...I don't think I would. Now pick yourself up off the floor. Some of the most wonderful things I learned in life have been through the fire/pain/loss/suffering. Besides IF you had ever read the bible; you would see that God is not a CONTROL FREAK. We have choices, it's like the pebble in the pond; what rock we throw causes reprecussions...God isn't going to reach down and stop these ripples...and besides how do we know He didn't stop some (yah wrap your mind around that one, kind of like the time continuom thing) We have caused some of these very things to occur by our own actions, i.e.; storms increasing, biological hazards poisoning our enviroment.

So I can't see a legitimate argument on your behalf. Who would want to have a God who controlled everything we do and say like a giant puppeteer? Not me!


----------



## Aliena (Mar 7, 2006)

I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. 

I have NOTHING to do with religion. I am guided by faith, love, and the words of Christ. 
I do not try to put God in a package of any kind, knowing that something as powerful to create the splendor of the universe is only a pixel of His grandeur on my mind's screen. I find myself in perpetual awe of His love.

I live my life as best I can to His Word of which the Holy Spirit (via my heart) guides me.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 7, 2006)

prickly said:


> I'm not sure that being of no faith and expressing perfectly legitimate reasons equates to ranting or causing a religous war on the boards! if you follow that logic then anyone who disagrees on anything is a ranter and a warmonger.
> 
> And RedHead, i appreciate you efforts at a list of god's good deeds. I also enjoy all of those things, except that i happen to believe they are nothing to do with any gods, but are simply a result of the occurence and evolution of stellar, chemical, geophysical and biological events and processes.
> 
> Also, why did god's list of good deeds stop at preventing natural disasters, famine, pestilence, poverty, war, terrorism, dictatorship, inequality, fundamentalism, self-destructive global warming, etc, etc. Surely someone who likes us, even created us, would stop all of that? Simplistic view compared to a load of stuff on sins, suffering and "god" knows what, i know, but i can't help thinking that someone who could stop all that would go ahead and do so. I mean, wouldn't you if you could?




This isn't heaven, that's why. You want the world to be covered in leather, but you don't seem to realize you can get the same benefits from wearing comfortable shoes.


----------



## prickly (Mar 7, 2006)

fatlane, I don't want to wear shoes or be in leather or any such metaphors. Remember, i don't beleive in any of that shit. I was posing a purely rhetorical question, not expecting any answers that make any sense to me!

RedHead, I don't believe in gods, so it makes no odds to me whether we think there is someone controlling or otherwise. But it is rather easy to say that your "god" doesn't want to control. So what does he want? Be good to us, or let us suffer? Is he a procrastinator? Doesn't no what to do with us, his tricky creations? Lazy? Can't be arsed with it all? Or is it simply a load of piffle, with a convenient answer to all the "difficult" questions? Oh, and, no, i haven't wasted my time reading the bible. Not that i would argue against anyone indulging in the reading matter of their choice. One man's meat, etc.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 7, 2006)

prickly said:


> fatlane, I don't want to wear shoes or be in leather or any such metaphors. Remember, i don't beleive in any of that shit. I was posing a purely rhetorical question, not expecting any answers that make any sense to me!
> 
> RedHead, I don't believe in gods, so it makes no odds to me whether we think there is someone controlling or otherwise. But it is rather easy to say that your "god" doesn't want to control. So what does he want? Be good to us, or let us suffer? Is he a procrastinator? Doesn't no what to do with us, his tricky creations? Lazy? Can't be arsed with it all? Or is it simply a load of piffle, with a convenient answer to all the "difficult" questions? Oh, and, no, i haven't wasted my time reading the bible. Not that i would argue against anyone indulging in the reading matter of their choice. One man's meat, etc.



Fair enough. Then you're either a weak atheist, who really doesn't give a care, or a strong atheist, who actually believes in the absence of any sort of god. 

But if you're a stong atheist, answers to those questions do matter, as they're part of a larger debate regarding right and wrong: but your manner is confrontational, so one questions if your responses would be constructive or pushing an agenda. If you're a weak atheist, then the answers don't mean a thing to you anyway, so why bother?


----------



## RedHead (Mar 7, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Fair enough. Then you're either a weak atheist, who really doesn't give a care, or a strong atheist, who actually believes in the absence of any sort of god.
> 
> But if you're a stong atheist, answers to those questions do matter, as they're part of a larger debate regarding right and wrong: but your manner is confrontational, so one questions if your responses would be constructive or pushing an agenda. If you're a weak atheist, then the answers don't mean a thing to you anyway, so why bother?



FL - I'd have to agree here. PRICKly seems to want to argue, but yet has no argument. In order to have a debate there is a certain order to things. Logical discourse will follow; you have shown none. If you just want to be inflammatory and mean...then have enough guts to just say so. If you really want to open up a discourse on religion then may I suggest you actually discourse!


----------



## HappyFatChick (Mar 7, 2006)

The minute God gave us free will, we started screwing things up. Beginning with Adam and Eve all the way up to now where the world is a freakin disaster.
We can choose good or evil. It's up to us. I choose good. I choose God.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 7, 2006)

HappyFatChick said:


> The minute God gave us free will, we started screwing things up. Beginning with Adam and Eve all the way up to now where the world is a freakin disaster.
> We can choose good or evil. It's up to us. I choose good. I choose God.



Isn't it technically Adam and Lillith, according to the Talmud?

Lillith was awesome. Best female biblical character by far.

=Divals


----------



## rainyday (Mar 7, 2006)

Prickster, same question I asked today:

For someone for whom "it makes no odds to me whether we think there is someone controlling or otherwise," why so fired up? 

And another:
If you could, would you shift everyone to seeing things the same way you do?


----------



## fatlane (Mar 8, 2006)

RedHead said:


> FL - I'd have to agree here. PRICKly seems to want to argue, but yet has no argument. In order to have a debate there is a certain order to things. Logical discourse will follow; you have shown none. If you just want to be inflammatory and mean...then have enough guts to just say so. If you really want to open up a discourse on religion then may I suggest you actually discourse!




Man: Is this the right room for an argument?
Other Manpause) I've told you once.
Man: No you haven't!
Other Man: Yes I have.
M: When?
O: Just now.
M: No you didn't!
O: Yes I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I did!
M: You didn't!
O: I'm telling you, I did!
M: You didn't!
O: (breaking into the developing argument) Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute
argument, or the full half hour?
M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.
O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.
Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not!
O: Now let's get one thing perfectly clear: I most definitely told you!
M: Oh no you didn't!
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: Oh no you didn't! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: Oh no you didn't! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: Oh no you didn't! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: Oh no you didn't! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: Oh no you didn't! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: No you DIDN'T! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: No you DIDN'T! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: No you DIDN'T! 
O: Oh yes I did! 
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

(pause)

M: It's just contradiction!
O: No it isn't!
M: It IS!
O: It is NOT!
M: You just contradicted me!
O: No I didn't!
M: You DID!
O: No no no!
M: You did just then!
O: Nonsense!
M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

(pause)

O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is!
(pause)
I came here for a good argument!
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an *argument*!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a
proposition.
O: No it isn't!
M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
M: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
O: Yes it is!
M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just
the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
O: It is NOT!
M: It is!
O: Not at all!
M: It is!

>DING!< The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.

O: Thank you, that's it.
M: (stunned) What?

O: That's it. Good morning.
M: But I was just getting interested!
O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!!
O: I'm afraid it was.
M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....

(pause)
O: (dirty look) I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
M: WHAT??
O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five
minutes.
M: But that was never five minutes just now!
(pause... the Other Man raises his eyebrows)
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!
O: I told you...
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!
M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.
O: Thank you.
M: (clears throat) Well...
O: Well WHAT?
M: That was never five minutes just now.
O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Well I just paid!
O: No you didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: I DID!!!
O: YOU didn't!
M: (unable to talk straight he's so mad) I don't want to argue about it!
O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!
M: Ah HAH!! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH!
Gotcha!

O: (pause) No you haven't!
M: Yes I have!
If you're arguing, I must have paid.
O: Not necessarily. 
I *could* be arguing in my spare time.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 8, 2006)

EEEEESH! *shhh* Don't bring up the first wife - there's always a fight when you do that. (Ixnay on the Ifeway!):doh: 




Divals said:


> Isn't it technically Adam and Lillith, according to the Talmud?
> 
> Lillith was awesome. Best female biblical character by far.
> 
> =Divals


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 8, 2006)

prickly said:


> Yes, several forum pages of stimulating shit on religion. Who ever would have thought there were so many in and outs and details?
> 
> Still don't see anyone telling me some fundamentals though. Like why religion causes so much trouble; and no, i don't want to hear about fundamentalists, etc. After all, some bloke in a rice field in Iran and some geyser in a pub in Belfast are as likely to go and fight for their "religion" as some gun-toting fuckwad in a cave somewhere.
> 
> ...



It's because people are inherently hostile and screwed up. Any excuse to fight, judge and find fault: sex, politics, race, pets, love, money, land, employment, heritage, weather conditions, spilt milk, etc. If these people weren't foaming at the mouth in one religion they would surely be doing so elsewhere. Maybe we should do away with everything one by one and then finally we can get some peace and quiet around here, eh Prickly?

As far as good deeds of religion, ask me that after your house burned down, you survive a Tsunami, you become homeless and need to eat or find clothing; or you find hope and renewal from things like drugs, sexual abuse, chronic pain. Just because some people use sex to commit violent acts against children I'm not going to try to regulate or stop you from getting laid.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 8, 2006)

Divals said:


> Isn't it technically Adam and Lillith, according to the Talmud?
> 
> Lillith was awesome. Best female biblical character by far.
> 
> =Divals



No. The Talmud never indicates that Lilith was Adams first wife. Lilith is actually a fictional character made up by a Rabbi merely as a demonstration in a parable.


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 8, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> No. The Talmud never indicates that Lilith was Adams first wife. Lilith is actually a fictional character made up by a Rabbi merely as a demonstration in a parable.



Alrighty, well, first and foremost - most of the characters in the old testament - Noah, Adam, Eve, etc. - are fictional, and were made up as demonstrations in parables.

And secondly...
From New Covenant Ministries: Hecate is associated anciently and today with willow tree worship from which the words 'wicker', 'Wicca', and 'wicked' are derived in our English language. She reigns over all and every kind of enchantment, sorcery and spell-casting. A clue as to her true origin may perhaps be found in the Talmud where she is described as Lillith, the first wife of Adam, who rebelled against her husband when he insisted that the proper patriarchal order established by the Creator, Yahweh, be respected.

I also suggest you look at Lillith's Origins, complete with quotations from the Kabbala (My bad, mixed it up with the Talmud - I'm not exactly up on my religious texts).

and

The Talmud, in which four appearances are noted.

=Divals


----------



## prickly (Mar 8, 2006)

Red and Tall: I have neither the talent or the time for intellectual arguments and discourse. As to being a weak aethiest, i'm not sure i get that. I don't believe in gods, simple. 

Lilly: I would put survival of a disaster down to good old-fashioned luck, just like winning the lottery!

Rainy: Fired up? Hell, you know i just like to cause trouble! And would i have everyone think like me? Of course i would! That would at least put an end to all violence in the name of religion. Now, wouldn't that be progress!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 8, 2006)

prickly said:


> Lilly: I would put survival of a disaster down to good old-fashioned luck, just like winning the lottery!



I agree. Afterall, what does one say to the thousands of others searching for dead relatives in the rubble? It's what happens after a Tsunami that demonstrate the good of religion. For example, there are people who will give their time, spend their own money, offer their coat, help you to rebuild simply because they see a hidden value in things that go beyond hoarding their 'winnings' all to themselves. It's the difference between bitching and moaning about the way things are and rolling up your sleeve to become a part of the solution because your creed teaches you to do unto others what you would have done for you in the same situation. Most if not all religions teach some version of this of which you'd be very grateful if you've ever been the beneficiary. A whole lot of otherwise beer drinking, fist throwing, purse snatching, crack smoking, child ignoring reprobates are well served in having some form of faith to give them what the prisons and intellectual elitist rhetoric cannot.


----------



## prickly (Mar 8, 2006)

Well, if I believe in anything it's the innate goodness of people. Who in their right mind wouldn't help after a disaster? I fail to see why religion comes into that or any good deed. But i guess some need a framework in which to act. My problem with all of that, is that a framework based on some religion or other seems to quickly lead to "my framework is better than yours" thinking and thereafter fundamentalism. And that, in a nutshell is my problem with religion and gods!


----------



## Jane (Mar 8, 2006)

prickly said:


> But i guess some need a framework in which to act.


Yes, many people do. Many can imagine themselves as part of a "church group" doing good, rather than as a part of "humankind." I sure can't explain it.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 8, 2006)

I don't necessarily believe in the innate goodness in people. I believe we have good people and we have bad people whose minds are made up on how they want to go about things. I've seen a guy who will refuse to give up his seat on the bus for the elderly or the handicapped, or the beast who will launch his pitbull on the neighbor's cat for sport. I don't feel that every human being comes bursting from the womb looking for an opportunity to show kindness to others. 

I do however believe in mankinds obsession with asserting their beliefs, territory or rights at the expense of other's if necessary. In order for them to be right, you must be wrong and vice versa. "If you can't see/feel what I do then you must be stupid," kind of mentality. Of that fallacy all have their guilty entities. Many do manage to practice their beliefs or non beliefs peacefully and with respect to the liberties of others without falling victim to this but it's this need to assert that rears it's ugly head.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 8, 2006)

prickly said:


> Remember, i don't beleive in any of that shit.



Um... can't you discuss this issue without calling other people's beliefs "shit"? I think people have been pretty respectful toward you. Why can't you return the favor?


----------



## djewell (Mar 8, 2006)

Omein omain to the above. 

About Dival's website. OK. So, might I mention something here: kabbalah (the segment of Jewish belief to which Lilis belongs) is by no means canon or definite. It is a continuum. Belief in Lilis sort of just evolved out of the Jewish religion, and now is of no importance except for scholars outside of the Orthodox Jewish tradition. People who make a huge tumult over Lilis are making a mountain out of a mole-hill, so to speak.

Prickly: all I can say is Ouch. You've launched some pretty strongly-worded diatribes against religion and believers. History has shown us this is usually followed by a crusade. Hm. Killing believers in the name of nonbelief. Interesting.


----------



## prickly (Mar 8, 2006)

Shit? Sorry if the word shit seems a bit strong. Fraid I do think it's shit though. But i wouldn't worry, it's only my opinion and you know what they say about them.

Diatribe? Of course! It's much easier than intellectual discourse, and i already stated somewhere above that i don't have the talent for that. But just like all the "believers", i happen to think i'm right, yet i don't see anyone calling that diatribe. Anyway, no offence taken, i'm thick-skinned. 

Crusades? Yes, well, we have moved on from the middle ages or whenever all that stuff occurred. Or should i say the non-religious, previously crusading amongst us have. Not so sure about the rest as i see plenty of pretty gruesome stuff going on in the name of "modern" religion. 

Anyway, all been covered before. I'm bored with this now. What else shall we talk about?


----------



## prickly (Mar 8, 2006)

Whoops, forgot to agree completely with you! See, that's the difference between you and me (and others and me). You can type eloquence, i can type diatribe. But hey ho.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 8, 2006)

You don't need a PhD to stick your thumb up or down. Without alternative viewpoints expressed it makes the discussion of ideas vapidly one dimensional. 

Thanks for the cool compliment!


----------



## prickly (Mar 8, 2006)

what a great word! used way too little in my view. and yet, you'd think with the internet it would be seen all the time!!


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 8, 2006)

prickly said:


> Shit? Sorry if the word shit seems a bit strong. Fraid I do think it's shit though. But i wouldn't worry, it's only my opinion and you know what they say about them.



Frankly I don't give a rat's ass what your opinion is, since everyone's relationship with God is personal. But I thought maybe, just maybe, you'd want your point of view to be understood by others, and to perhaps participate in healthy debate. However, expressing yourself the way you have -- with vituperativeness and belittling the beliefs of others -- is no way to go about that.

If you want to make athiests look bad, keep up the good work. You're making some of the fundies I know look downright tolerant. And believe me, if you knew them, you'd know what a tall order that is.


----------



## ataraxia (Mar 8, 2006)

I'm getting the impression that prickly's used to a much blunter, rougher -- even cruder -- crowd. What would be a normal post elsewhere looks like an asshole post here on Dimensions. Cussing and ranting of course is done here, but not all the time like this.

Dude, you're coming across like a raving nut with steam coming out of his ears. Tone it down until you really need to use it, huh?


----------



## prickly (Mar 9, 2006)

Vickie: Quite amusing that you put me in the same category as religious fundamentalists! Now all I have to do is get all my aethiest brothers and sisters together, come up with some hokey doctrine, build some places of "worship", get all dogmatic and worked up about, decide that our doctrine is definitely the best, get even more worked up about it, start a fight with some other bunch of dogmatists, escalate things in some way or other, and there you have it. My own fully-fledged religion! Oh, and if I introduce a bit of corruption, hypocrisy, questionable activities with younger "church" members, self-serving enrichment, and prejudice (any number of possibilities there; gays, one creed or another, pro-abortionists, single mothers, darwinists, supporters of women's rights, divorcees, contraceptive users, etc, etc.), there you have it.

But again only my view, which you are free to ignore! You have to admit that my new fantasy religion does seem somewhat familiar though.

Ataraxia: Don't call me dude, as it's very patronising. Am I a roughneck who likes to use swear words where something more appropriate will do. I most certainly am! Steam coming out of my ears? Not at all, i'm a very chilled person.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 9, 2006)

prickly said:


> Vickie: Quite amusing that you put me in the same category as religious fundamentalists! Now all I have to do is get all my aethiest brothers and sisters together, come up with some hokey doctrine, build some places of "worship", get all dogmatic and worked up about, decide that our doctrine is definitely the best, get even more worked up about it, start a fight with some other bunch of dogmatists, escalate things in some way or other, and there you have it. My own fully-fledged religion! Oh, and if I introduce a bit of corruption, hypocrisy, questionable activities with younger "church" members, self-serving enrichment, and prejudice (any number of possibilities there; gays, one creed or another, pro-abortionists, single mothers, darwinists, supporters of women's rights, divorcees, contraceptive users, etc, etc.), there you have it.
> 
> But again only my view, which you are free to ignore! You have to admit that my new fantasy religion does seem somewhat familiar though.
> 
> Ataraxia: Don't call me dude, as it's very patronising. Am I a roughneck who likes to use swear words where something more appropriate will do. I most certainly am! Steam coming out of my ears? Not at all, i'm a very chilled person.




Prickly....you once again have missed the point. But what can we expect from the dullest tool in the box?! 

And if someone want to call you Dude, Dude...then just as you so eloquently put it...just ignore it


----------



## prickly (Mar 9, 2006)

Red: Dull, that's like blunt isn't it? I can live with that. Oh, and I don't mind missing the point as it's far easier answering a point of one's own invention.

And don't call me dude!! As for ignoring it, I'm like most people here, I ignore, but then don't at the same time. If we all REALLY ignored, then these threads wouldn't meander on and on in a rather amusing fashion.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 9, 2006)

dull ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dl)
adj. dull·er, dull·est 
Intellectually weak or obtuse; stupid. 
*Lacking responsiveness or alertness; insensitive. 
Dispirited; depressed. *
Not brisk or rapid; sluggish: Business is dull. 
*Not having a sharp edge or point*; blunt: a dull knife. ***really like this one
Not intensely or keenly felt: a dull ache. 
*Arousing no interest or curiosity; boring: a dull play. *
*Not bright or vivid.* Used of a color: a dull brown. 
Cloudy or overcast: a dull sky. 
*Not clear or resonant*: a dull thud

Prickly....I think a multitude of these fit your Dude-ish self....especially the first one....again...dull, dull, dull!


----------



## fatlane (Mar 9, 2006)

prickly said:


> Hey, you guys figured it out. I'm just being controversial to push all your buttons. If you want to ignore me, you'll probably have a much better time on this forum.



Great idea, Prickly! (ignore)

WOW! What a difference! Neat-o! Now I don't have to get bothered by your invective! OK, so "invective" is being generous, but why not? Life's too short to waste on arguments, acrid comments, and people who obviously don't want to have a real dialogue.

Never see you later, Prickly!


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 9, 2006)

Prickly, it's one thing to disagree with someone.. and quite another to openly attack them for disagreeing with you. I don't believe in the Christian mishmash any more than you do, but you don't see me attacking people about it. Simmer down, dude.

=Divals


----------



## RedHead (Mar 9, 2006)

Divals said:


> Prickly, it's one thing to disagree with someone.. and quite another to openly attack them for disagreeing with you. I don't believe in the Christian mishmash any more than you do, but you don't see me attacking people about it. Simmer down, dude.
> 
> =Divals




SNORT...you called him Dude....LOL. This totally cracks me up...Okay...that was funny now; I don't care who yah are!


----------



## Allie Cat (Mar 9, 2006)

RedHead said:


> SNORT...you called him Dude....LOL. This totally cracks me up...Okay...that was funny now; I don't care who yah are!



Funny was the game plan 

=Divals


----------



## Miss Vickie (Mar 9, 2006)

prickly said:


> Vickie: Quite amusing that you put me in the same category as religious fundamentalists!



Well, it just goes to show that people of any religious (or non-religious) stripe can act like raving, intolerant asshats. It's a gift, ya know.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 9, 2006)

Miss Vickie said:


> Well, it just goes to show that people of any religious (or non-religious) stripe can act like raving, intolerant asshats. It's a gift, ya know.




Okay....let's just rename this thread pick on Prick Dude.....this is amusing me far more than anything else at this moment.

Anyone else?? Please...I could use some more giggles.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 9, 2006)

Ooops, hey, I just heard that GOD will be making an appearance on this thread later in the week so you people better quiet down and behave. I'm not saying WHICH God tho....we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 9, 2006)

Santaclear said:


> Ooops, hey, I just heard that GOD will be making an appearance on this thread later in the week so you people better quiet down and behave. I'm not saying WHICH God tho....we'll have to wait and see.




Santa...it's gonna be DUDE G_D

And I never promise to be good; I don't like to break promise's


----------



## prickly (Mar 10, 2006)

hehe, this is amusing me just as much as you lot! and why would fatlane put me on ignore when i'm just so much fun, and provide such incisive, coherent debate? beats me.


----------



## prickly (Mar 10, 2006)

and no, i won't simmer down! i'm only just beginning to rev up my fervent dogma. it is almost a religous experience in fact. *snort


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 10, 2006)

prickly said:


> and no, i won't simmer down! i'm only just beginning to rev up my fervent dogma. it is almost a religous experience in fact. *snort



You're the World's Worst Dentist.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 10, 2006)

prickly said:


> hehe, this is amusing me just as much as you lot! and why would fatlane put me on ignore *when i'm just so much fun, and provide such incisive, coherent debate? beats me.*




Incisive???Coherent????Debate???? Beat you YES please

You haven't offered up anything incisive...incinderary yes, but definitely not incisive. As for coherent debate...please you haven't debated at all...you have offered up no logical discourse..you have name called and have not responded to any of the logical and linear thinking that has been put in front of you.

As for being fun...since I am amused that you hate being called Dude, Dude...I will agree with that...but limited to the above stated reason...other than that not so much Dude!


----------



## djewell (Mar 12, 2006)

Well, at least it lasted 7 pages.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 12, 2006)

Yep...and it only really fell apart on the last couple...Good Job Djewell!


----------



## djewell (Mar 12, 2006)

Thank you.

*blushes*<--and with a beard that just looks weird.


----------



## RedHead (Mar 12, 2006)

Okay...since we can only see your eyes...we did not know about beard. Any chance on full picture??


----------



## djewell (Mar 13, 2006)

View the profile, and you shall see my face.


----------



## rainyday (Mar 13, 2006)

djewell, in a post a while back you mentioned the practice of using a matchmaker and it sounded like that's how you'll eventually be partnered (correct me if I'm remembering wrong). I hope you don't mind me asking, but I'm curious whether a matchmaker will take a preference for a fat woman into consideration. Something I was watching on TV this weekend made me wonder about this.


----------



## djewell (Mar 13, 2006)

rainyday said:


> djewell, in a post a while back you mentioned the practice of using a matchmaker and it sounded like that's how you'll eventually be partnered (correct me if I'm remembering wrong). I hope you don't mind me asking, but I'm curious whether a matchmaker will take a preference for a fat woman into consideration. Something I was watching on TV this weekend made me wonder about this.



The matchmaker makes a SUGGESTION. I will make the final choice. But, I'm not going to judge the suggestions of the matchmaker solely on their weight. It's an amalgam of personality, soul and thirdly sexual attractiveness for me. If I told this to the matchmaker, he or she would certainly be glad to take it into consideration.

I hope this expands your understanding, and don't be afraid to ask in the future.


----------



## rainyday (Mar 14, 2006)

djewell said:


> The matchmaker makes a SUGGESTION. I will make the final choice. But, I'm not going to judge the suggestions of the matchmaker solely on their weight. It's an amalgam of personality, soul and thirdly sexual attractiveness for me. If I told this to the matchmaker, he or she would certainly be glad to take it into consideration.
> 
> I hope this expands your understanding, and don't be afraid to ask in the future.



Sounds like you have more say so than I realized. I also didn't know men served as matchmakers too. Interesting. Thanks for the response.


----------



## djewell (Mar 14, 2006)

rainyday said:


> Sounds like you have more say so than I realized. I also didn't know men served as matchmakers too. Interesting. Thanks for the response.



You're welcome.


----------

