Honestly from the time when the stories were first told till the time when they were finally written down there would have been plenty of stuff added to it and plenty of exaggeration although the bible is more or less an exciting nursery rime book to teach morals. so no it is not literal.... well thats what me thinks
The Bible, Literal or Allegorical?
- Thread starter Brutus1964
- Start date
and you are totally right Jolly.
you could read easops fables or the arabian nights and get just as much fantasy, humour, terror, moral content, and even read harry potter or the lord of the rings, for the same thing, and there better written and easier to read..
you could read easops fables or the arabian nights and get just as much fantasy, humour, terror, moral content, and even read harry potter or the lord of the rings, for the same thing, and there better written and easier to read..
cole grey said:
Well yeah, you are right. Religion as it has ben indoctrinated to us via the patriarchy has basically split us in two, between a good and an evil. It did/does this so as to divide and control. doing this means you are 'shaky'--'un-balanced' not trusting yourself. in this state then the authority which spins this lie can KEEP his hold over you. whay? cause he claims : "I HAVE THEEEE ANSWER!".....this is where 'God's middles men come in--the p[riests, for example. in Catolic times they would actually spin that the more mony you gave them, the more they could help save your soul. This was a biggie reason for the Protestant revolution
So....then it supposedly becomes secualar--the political world. Are things then different. NO. They have gotten rid of 'God' but also MEANING, ie., spirituality. ANY distrss about this situation now is termed by the new preists--the shrinks--as being 'mental illness', and only through them with their 'help' can you be 'normal'
Michael said:Maybe you are suggesting someone's subjective experience can be objectively analyzed by science? I posted that the dream phenomena can be studied scientifically – and (are you ready for this) it is.
Are you ready for THIS? you cannot measure someone's subjective experience objectively. Think about it? how can you? you might measure dendrite activity, synapse activity, etc etc, but you CANNOT experience that other's subJECTIVe experience. this is why the 'hard problem' in sceince Is the 'hard' problem
PS: you'd better get hip kid. . .. .
Tell me duendy – Talk with the dead lately
Not lately, but some years back i had the most incredible experience. It was an 'OBE' where i met entities, and have a powerful interactive experience with them. Not only that but there was a kind of deep mythological significance to it. Obviously someone with the entrenched attitude that you seem to have would presume you could KNOW what i experienced, and its MEANING. But i know you cant
Try reading what I wrote. I said “Scientific Process” – the Method used by scientists to investigate phenomena. That has absolutely nothing to do with . .. “making everything toxic, and doing great violence to many people.”
Actually Michael the very scientific method also, yes. When science emerged, therer was an agreement between prominent science people and the church. THAT the church would deal with spiritual matters/'quality' and science with 'Earth'/physics/quantity. This is an important and revealing point, and shows the similar premise both these so-called opposite worldviews share/d. In that both ASSUME matter is not enspirited! Thus both worldviews have been toxic in regards material reality
Guess what duendy, you may find this surprising but people have been violent toward other people and causing millions of species to go extinct LONG BEFORE the scientific process was used.
That is just something people like yourself HAVe to believe so as to justify the damge you do NOW. Actually, much of what came before the patriarchy took control has obviously been destroyed. but there ARe hints
Try again.
look, Michael, i am talking. i am not that convinced i will ever convice you. you seem FAR to coksure.
Do you even know what allopathy is? There is a different definition in Europe as compared with in America.
By allopathic medicine i am speaking of what medical science believes is THE best for us, under their diagnostical and prescripturial authority. Apparently many deaths are caused by allopathic medicine every year. AND many animals are its victims too. for anything to be allowed on humans has to be tested on animals.
Regardless, that has nothing at all to do with my post - unless you're going to rank "Spirit Alien-Anal-Alignment Tuners/Reiki/Aura-Clearing" with Chinese Medicinal herbs.
you are being silly
I think the two may be a bit different - don't you?
Listen mate, you can buy into your belief of whatever BS you’d like. I couldn’t care less. If you want to believe you can talk with the dead – hey that’s fine. You want to interpret your dreams as having some meaning outside of your own personal psychology – go for it. You want to have your aura cleared or attuned it’s your cash. And suckers are parted from it every minute. As a matter of fact – guess what! You can have your Aura cleansed and your tarot cards read . . . RIGHT OVER THE PHONE. Just $10minute to get the psychic powers juiced up
Go for it mate!
Oh maybe you don’t beweeve in dat shtuff . . . . . hypocrite aye mate :bugeye:
if i can just analyze and intuit your reponse style for a moment? i would say that it is childish, and defensive. if you ARe so convinced about what you profess, why the snide remarks and condescending babytalk?
duendy said:
But there are people who take religious ideals and do a lot of good with them. So, are the religions bad, or are the people who abuse religion for their own gain bad?
A knife can be used for good or for bad. Organized religions are just groups of people, some of whom are nice, some of whom are self-serving to the point of perversity.
cole grey said:
duendy...the 'problem' is the problem of the patriarchal spiltting of GODDESS...as Monica Sjoo says, 'the devil is the curse of those who embrace the patriarchy'
you see prior to this tranistion, where psyche is split by indoctrination into a good and an evil with repective archetypal opposing gods, GODDESs was BOTH. in that She was the 'Womb-Tomb'...we are born from her and die into her to be reborn....a cyclic movement reflected in Goddess mythology in the motif of her son/lover who is the 'everliving, everydying, everregenerating god'. What Christianity did was just keep the former, 'everliving' and demonize the latter VITAL part of the dynamical creative process. So we have Jesus Christ, for example, 'acending' to the 'Father' in 'eternity'. Nature now is not involved. all that matters is salvation.
let me explain that the son/lover had various related associations as being Nature, and its natrual cycles, the Horned God, the hallucinogenic fruit which inspires...etc. All of these associations become demonized by the church.
As a result of this oppressive dogma, we get all forms of stress and violence and confusions (think of the church's behaviour...the Inquisition, and its unprecedented cruelty and mureder of women and heretics in the name of God'!) and wars. THEN, ironically, the very dogmatists blame their 'devil', which was their own scriptural invention!
Duendy
I think you are spending too much time with the hallucinogenic fruit.
I think you are spending too much time with the hallucinogenic fruit.
Brutus1964 said:Duendy
I think you are spending too much time with the hallucinogenic fruit.
i was 15 when i first had it. it was a trick played on me by some people i had met. i didn't realize what it was cause the tablet was so increibly tiny (LSD) and it was ahalf of one, so it was very incredibly tiny
I have had over the years periodically, LSD and magic mushrooms.
It was having these experiences that inspired me to look their history in our species. THE book that truned me onto looking at mythology and religion egarding their relevanve (and believe me it is C E N T R A L!) was J M. Allegro,s marvelously controversial book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross
you have a nice nature Brutus and i enjoy arguing with you. whether i will get anywhere ....hmmmm...haha
duendy: ...the 'problem' is the problem of the patriarchal spiltting of GODDESS...as Monica Sjoo says, 'the devil is the curse of those who embrace the patriarchy'
*************
M*W: Wow! Am I impressed! You're familiar with Monica Sjoo's writings!
*************
M*W: Wow! Am I impressed! You're familiar with Monica Sjoo's writings!
DUENDY,duendy said:
Yes, the dogma BRUTUS is holding onto does require a "double-bind", or possibly many of them. One, that satan is responsible, and also not responsible, for evil. Another, that a person has free-will only if allowed to choose along the full spectrum of "evil" (otherwise they have what BRUTUS calls "conditional will"), but also has free-will if they can choose between "God" and "not God", even if the "not God" is not "evil".
But do we get "all" forms of stress, violence, and war from the dogma? I don't imagine you are saying that all stress, violence, and war is caused by the dogma. It seems like there are other reasons why human existence has been marred by purposefully caused suffering.
Why is the word "God" understood by you as being masculine, and needed to be opposed by the word "Goddess"? If you think a better description of God would have both masculine and feminine aspects, isn't "goddess" misleading? Maybe we need a new word...
Cole Grey
What you seem to be implying is that unless I am completely free to become an ax murderer and that freedom is not restricted in any way then that is the only way I can have free will? If there are any beariers at all then I would have no free will. In other words because it is illegal for me to be an ax murderer then that law is taking away my free will. Here is were you are wrong. Free will means that what ever I am physically able to do I am free to do. Everyone is capable of being extremely good or extremely evil. But just because you can do something does not you must do something. I could become an ax murderer if I chose, but my values keep me from doing that. The fact that I choose not to become an ax murderer is also my free will. How I live my life morally is my choice. Because I have morals and values that keep me from doing something is not at all taking away my free will. We have free will but we are not free from the consequences of our will. Many times the thought of the consequences keeps us from doing something. That still is not taking away our free will. It is an act of free will not to do something because you fear the consequences. Your argument that we have no free will unless we exercise the full spectrum of evil is wrong. Conditional will would be if God put a limit on the amount of evil he would allow in the world. That would be like God saying that I will allow men to cheat on an exam but they will not be allowed to become ax murderer. God does not allow or disalow any evil. Evil just is. It is a product of our free will. He did not create evil so he does not regulate it. If he did then God would restrict our free will, and he does not do that. He has set down commandments to help us be happier and live a better life, but he does not force it on anyone. He does not force people to do good, the same as he does not stop people from being evil. It is our choice.
What you seem to be implying is that unless I am completely free to become an ax murderer and that freedom is not restricted in any way then that is the only way I can have free will? If there are any beariers at all then I would have no free will. In other words because it is illegal for me to be an ax murderer then that law is taking away my free will. Here is were you are wrong. Free will means that what ever I am physically able to do I am free to do. Everyone is capable of being extremely good or extremely evil. But just because you can do something does not you must do something. I could become an ax murderer if I chose, but my values keep me from doing that. The fact that I choose not to become an ax murderer is also my free will. How I live my life morally is my choice. Because I have morals and values that keep me from doing something is not at all taking away my free will. We have free will but we are not free from the consequences of our will. Many times the thought of the consequences keeps us from doing something. That still is not taking away our free will. It is an act of free will not to do something because you fear the consequences. Your argument that we have no free will unless we exercise the full spectrum of evil is wrong. Conditional will would be if God put a limit on the amount of evil he would allow in the world. That would be like God saying that I will allow men to cheat on an exam but they will not be allowed to become ax murderer. God does not allow or disalow any evil. Evil just is. It is a product of our free will. He did not create evil so he does not regulate it. If he did then God would restrict our free will, and he does not do that. He has set down commandments to help us be happier and live a better life, but he does not force it on anyone. He does not force people to do good, the same as he does not stop people from being evil. It is our choice.
Last edited:
Where does this goddess come from? True, pagans did have goddesses, but they also had more than one. Which one is the real goddess?
Has nothing to do with Christianity. Your forgetting the roots of Christianity, Judaism, had a long past demonizing these other gods. Early Christians simply choose to adopt the Jewish belief: that these other gods were no-gods.
LSD, its creation being funded by the government, did not exist back then. The only evidence of this so-called demonization that I've been able to found is a warning to stay a way from drug induced plants and one of the acts of the Apostles, which is not in the Bible.
The Inquisition came much after early Christianity, after the Abigensian crusade, in fact.
I never held to your definition of free-will, but here, in your words, YOUR definition is explained...
YOU say that if God were to "regulate" evil it would "restrict" our free-will, I don't.
First you point out, in having the idea that if my, "...freedom is not restricted in any way then that is the only way I can have free will", I would be incorrect.
If you don't see the contradiction here, you should print this excerpt, of your own words, and put it on your wall. You might need to read your words a few times. It is always hard to make sense out of confusion, but keep trying. It is like the opposite of those pictures that came out which, if would unfocus your eyes long enough, would reveal an image. You need to STOP unfocusing if you want to make any sense...
Brutus1964 said:
YOU say that if God were to "regulate" evil it would "restrict" our free-will, I don't.
First you point out, in having the idea that if my, "...freedom is not restricted in any way then that is the only way I can have free will", I would be incorrect.
If you don't see the contradiction here, you should print this excerpt, of your own words, and put it on your wall. You might need to read your words a few times. It is always hard to make sense out of confusion, but keep trying. It is like the opposite of those pictures that came out which, if would unfocus your eyes long enough, would reveal an image. You need to STOP unfocusing if you want to make any sense...
Cole Grey
Please inlighten me with your thoughts of what free will is, and why God should regulate it?
Why?
Also it seems like we are argueing this same point in two threads. This one and "Can Evil Exist with an Omnipotent God?" This arguement might be more applicable to the latter thread.
Also Cole Grey it would be appreciated if you would argue your points without the condescension.
Please inlighten me with your thoughts of what free will is, and why God should regulate it?
Why?
Also it seems like we are argueing this same point in two threads. This one and "Can Evil Exist with an Omnipotent God?" This arguement might be more applicable to the latter thread.
Also Cole Grey it would be appreciated if you would argue your points without the condescension.
Last edited:
I am sorry that I let myself get frustrated, I am trying to credit you with having ideas that do not depend on circular logic, and point out to you that by making circular arguments, you present the image that you haven't thought through the ideas you are arguing about.
I think my simplest, easiest, definition of free-will is probably the same as yours- the ability to think for yourself.
Your written arguments however present a different viewpoint-
BRUTUS- "Conditional will would be if God put a limit on the amount of evil he would allow in the world. That would be like God saying that I will allow men to cheat on an exam but they will not be allowed to become ax murderer. God does not allow or disalow any evil. Evil just is. It is a product of our free will. He did not create evil so he does not regulate it. If he did then God would restrict our free will..."
You are right that we are talking on two different threads, but that is partially because you use many of the same arguments to answer most questions, which presents the idea that you aren't listening, just talking.
I am not God, but I would say that if God is truly real, God loves your persistence in God's defense. God would probably love you anyway, but that isn't the point. I'm cool with you and everything, I would just appreciate some really well thought out written arguments, arguments that might live up to very important ideas you have which might turn out to be proved correct someday. I would just like to be able to understand what those ideas are without having to use circular logic.
I think my simplest, easiest, definition of free-will is probably the same as yours- the ability to think for yourself.
Your written arguments however present a different viewpoint-
BRUTUS- "Conditional will would be if God put a limit on the amount of evil he would allow in the world. That would be like God saying that I will allow men to cheat on an exam but they will not be allowed to become ax murderer. God does not allow or disalow any evil. Evil just is. It is a product of our free will. He did not create evil so he does not regulate it. If he did then God would restrict our free will..."
You are right that we are talking on two different threads, but that is partially because you use many of the same arguments to answer most questions, which presents the idea that you aren't listening, just talking.
I am not God, but I would say that if God is truly real, God loves your persistence in God's defense. God would probably love you anyway, but that isn't the point. I'm cool with you and everything, I would just appreciate some really well thought out written arguments, arguments that might live up to very important ideas you have which might turn out to be proved correct someday. I would just like to be able to understand what those ideas are without having to use circular logic.
cole grey said:
It is a very complex question you ask, and to research about it means understanding what the transition from a sense of an all embracing Goddess/Mother who was source of birth AND death, to a transcendent sky-god 'father' whose 'body' was NOT Nature--as it is with Goddess
So when use the term 'Goddess' i am not opposing maleness, for maleness is birthed by the woman--is grown in woman's body, and is delivered from her body and is nurtered by her. so there is this very special bond. in Goddess myth we have the motif of her 'son/lover/consort' also representing the Horned God. so masculinity isn't denigrated as it became withg the patriarchy and its 'God', where myth then continues to put woman down, ESPECIALLY her wild aspect
THAt is what i oppose. when 'God' is used to put down Femininity and Nature. this is SO SO dangerous, and its results are seriously being played out now
okinrus: Where does this goddess come from? True, pagans did have goddesses, but they also had more than one. Which one is the real goddess?
*************
M*W: There have been many Goddesses in herstory.
*************
okinrus: Has nothing to do with Christianity. Your forgetting the roots of Christianity, Judaism, had a long past demonizing these other gods. Early Christians simply choose to adopt the Jewish belief: that these other gods were no-gods.
*************
M*W: If one would delve deeply into the TRUE life and teachings of Jesus, and pay NO attention to what Paul wrote, one would clearly find sacred Goddess worship. The roots of 'Paul's christianity' were planted in Judaism, but the roots of Jesus' teachings of enlightenment were planted in the Beloved Disciple -- Mary Magdalen.
*************
okinrus: LSD, its creation being funded by the government, did not exist back then. The only evidence of this so-called demonization that I've been able to found is a warning to stay a way from drug induced plants and one of the acts of the Apostles, which is not in the Bible.
*************
M*W: okinrus, I'm quite sure that certain parts of many common plants of the day had hallucinogenic properties, and they weren't illegal then. In the Bible where it mentions herbs, roots, stems, seeds, flowers, petals, thorns, bark, attar, etc., I am sure that these naturally occuring plants had medicinal properties, spiritual properties, and even mystical properties. And, where did they come from? The Goddess Gaia -- Mother Nature.
*************
okinrus: The Inquisition came much after early Christianity, after the Abigensian crusade, in fact.
*************
M*W: The Roman Catholic Church fueled the Inquisition by stalking women of all ages who used plants to make oils to heal and cure the sick, to ease the pain of childbirth, to make potions from natural sources such as food, medicine, and anointing bodies for sacramental rites such as birth, marriage, kingship, death, etc., just like Mary Magdalen anointed Jesus either right before or after their wedding at Cana with the Spikenard she made and kept in her alabaster jar. It is only the Goddess who can anoint. It is only the Goddess who will use the products of nature for positive reasons. It is only the Goddess who has the power to create.
Goddesses are called by many names: Adath, Al Lat, Al Uzza, Anahita, Anaitis, Anat, Anath, Aphrodite, Arinna, Artemis, Aruru, Asherah, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Ate, Athar, Attar, Athena, Attoret, Au Set, Baalat, Brigit, Cerridwen, Cybele, Danu, Demeter, Devi, Diana, Elat, Ertebelle, Ereshkigal, Gaia, HannaHanna, Hat-Hor, Hathor, Hepat, Hera, Inanna, Inara, Ininni, Innin, Ishara, Ishtar, Isis, Istar, Kupapa, Lato, Lilwanis, Maat, Mami, Mawu, Nammu, Neith, Nekhebt, Nidaba, Nikkal, Nina, Ningal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Ninmah, Ninsikil, Nut, Rhea, Sarasvati, Shala, Sybella, Tiamat, Ua Zit, Utu, Wurumsemu, to name a few. Many goddesses go by several names, such as:
-Anat, Anath
-Artemis, Diana
-Asherah, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Ishara, Ishtar, Isis, Queen Esther, Mary Magdalen
-Cybele, Sybella
-Hat-Hor, Hathor
-Mani, Mawu, Nammu
Goddesses don't die, they only bleed. The blood they shed nourishes and replenishes the Earth for all creation.
*************
M*W: There have been many Goddesses in herstory.
*************
okinrus: Has nothing to do with Christianity. Your forgetting the roots of Christianity, Judaism, had a long past demonizing these other gods. Early Christians simply choose to adopt the Jewish belief: that these other gods were no-gods.
*************
M*W: If one would delve deeply into the TRUE life and teachings of Jesus, and pay NO attention to what Paul wrote, one would clearly find sacred Goddess worship. The roots of 'Paul's christianity' were planted in Judaism, but the roots of Jesus' teachings of enlightenment were planted in the Beloved Disciple -- Mary Magdalen.
*************
okinrus: LSD, its creation being funded by the government, did not exist back then. The only evidence of this so-called demonization that I've been able to found is a warning to stay a way from drug induced plants and one of the acts of the Apostles, which is not in the Bible.
*************
M*W: okinrus, I'm quite sure that certain parts of many common plants of the day had hallucinogenic properties, and they weren't illegal then. In the Bible where it mentions herbs, roots, stems, seeds, flowers, petals, thorns, bark, attar, etc., I am sure that these naturally occuring plants had medicinal properties, spiritual properties, and even mystical properties. And, where did they come from? The Goddess Gaia -- Mother Nature.
*************
okinrus: The Inquisition came much after early Christianity, after the Abigensian crusade, in fact.
*************
M*W: The Roman Catholic Church fueled the Inquisition by stalking women of all ages who used plants to make oils to heal and cure the sick, to ease the pain of childbirth, to make potions from natural sources such as food, medicine, and anointing bodies for sacramental rites such as birth, marriage, kingship, death, etc., just like Mary Magdalen anointed Jesus either right before or after their wedding at Cana with the Spikenard she made and kept in her alabaster jar. It is only the Goddess who can anoint. It is only the Goddess who will use the products of nature for positive reasons. It is only the Goddess who has the power to create.
Goddesses are called by many names: Adath, Al Lat, Al Uzza, Anahita, Anaitis, Anat, Anath, Aphrodite, Arinna, Artemis, Aruru, Asherah, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Ate, Athar, Attar, Athena, Attoret, Au Set, Baalat, Brigit, Cerridwen, Cybele, Danu, Demeter, Devi, Diana, Elat, Ertebelle, Ereshkigal, Gaia, HannaHanna, Hat-Hor, Hathor, Hepat, Hera, Inanna, Inara, Ininni, Innin, Ishara, Ishtar, Isis, Istar, Kupapa, Lato, Lilwanis, Maat, Mami, Mawu, Nammu, Neith, Nekhebt, Nidaba, Nikkal, Nina, Ningal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Ninmah, Ninsikil, Nut, Rhea, Sarasvati, Shala, Sybella, Tiamat, Ua Zit, Utu, Wurumsemu, to name a few. Many goddesses go by several names, such as:
-Anat, Anath
-Artemis, Diana
-Asherah, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Ishara, Ishtar, Isis, Queen Esther, Mary Magdalen
-Cybele, Sybella
-Hat-Hor, Hathor
-Mani, Mawu, Nammu
Goddesses don't die, they only bleed. The blood they shed nourishes and replenishes the Earth for all creation.