When religious discussion is no longer General.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:38 pm

Ted;1486028 wrote: The church ceased to be the church the apostles created. That started around 300 CE.

I think sooner than that. The church started changing right after Christ death. They allowed and absorbed paganism, and has not been the same since.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:35 am

It was then Romans that absorbed & allowed Paganism. To oppose them would have caused a bigger threat against the Empire. The notion of "Hearts & Minds" is nothing new.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:39 am

FourPart;1486169 wrote: It was then Romans that absorbed & allowed Paganism. To oppose them would have caused a bigger threat against the Empire. The notion of "Hearts & Minds" is nothing new.

Well yes, that' one reason the church changed, influence and fear from Rome ; but another reason is they wanted to grow; they wanted more members. And the new members brought in with them Roman philosophy, and that thinking mixed itself into the doctrines of the church. So both paganism and Roman Philosophy took the church away from its original doctrines and beliefs. These things determined the change the church went through, and it was a deadly mixture, which resulted in what we see today. A crippled church, that does not even know its crippled and riddled with paganism. Its blind to it, because for over 2,000 years the mixing has been going on and slowly blending in.

Its not that the bible or the " Ideal of a church" is wrong, its not; but the people ruined a good thing. And the right ideals of the bible or a church, cannot be destroyed by the shame that people did in history "If" the true believer that is not blind, understands what happened in history.

But even using " True believer", is an oxymoron , because most of the people who ruined the church, because they did not know what they were doing, they were believers, or meaning they really believed. Just like today, they really believe, but their belief system is flawed. The bible got infused with their traditional ideas, while it was being translated. And translation is NOT true doctrine , in many cases, and it requires a unique study to see these flaws. A different insight.

The bible is a rich book that got poorly translated.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:54 am

The basic laws / 'commandments' of the Bible are valid. They are the rules that naturally evolve within any society, regardless of religion. They are the rules that are essential for a society to co-exist. That doesn't make them any form of Divine Creation.

The basic teachings of Jesus are nothing more than pacifist philosophy - once again common to all faiths (including those, such as myself, with no faith). That, therefore is also nothing to do with Divine Intervention.

Uncle Remus wrote a whole collection of moral stories on, among others, Brer Rabbit. Once again, the dogma is sound, but that doesn't mean that there really were any talking rabbits, foxes, bears, etc.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:25 am

The bible has " Spiritual" aspects of it. Well just what does that mean? Well humans have a side of them that gets into their conscious thinking and goes beyond just " Normal thinking habits." We can project into things that are a mixture of philosophy, imagination, ethereal educative edification, and magnified morality. The bible gets into these areas in a down to earth manner, that can project the reader beyond the earth. The basic teachings of Jesus keyed in on these things, but they are hidden to people who put value on Uncle Remus and fiction that they think supports their disagreement with the incredible power of the bible, which exceeds any Atheist fiction or fables that they use to support their way of pitting fables against spirituality. The bible says absolutely nothing about talking rabbits, foxes or bears; nothing. The unspiritual mind just does not get it! They understand myths; depend on myths for support in their trying to make myths a competition against Spirituality.

Spirituality is a moral consciousness that can see a sound God, see soundness in the bible, and see soundness in the incredible teachings of Jesus. These things are just stronger than Atheism , and Atheism and its principles, has no defense against morality, which is a real tenant of the biblical teachings. They can't argue against morality, or goodness, or grace, or mercy, or salvation; all of which are biblical teachings.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:34 am

The Bible speaks of talking snakes, does it not?

There is a difference between Spirituality & Religion. I would even consider myself to be Spiritual to a certain degree. I believe in the principle of Karma inasmuch as if you do good by other people, not only is is more likely that they will do good by you, but that you will also get that feeling of self satisfaction knowing that you have done something to help someone. Conversely the same sort of thing happens when it comes to negative actions coming back to you, as well as preying on your mind with guilt.

I may be Spiritual, but there is no way in which I could be considered as being Religious.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:20 pm

FourPart;1486187 wrote: The Bible speaks of talking snakes, does it not?

There is a difference between Spirituality & Religion. I would even consider myself to be Spiritual to a certain degree. I believe in the principle of Karma inasmuch as if you do good by other people, not only is is more likely that they will do good by you, but that you will also get that feeling of self satisfaction knowing that you have done something to help someone. Conversely the same sort of thing happens when it comes to negative actions coming back to you, as well as preying on your mind with guilt.

I may be Spiritual, but there is no way in which I could be considered as being Religious.

The serpent, or snake in Genesis 3, is symbolic of a being, not an animal. Satan is called a Snake, or Serpent, he is called a " Dragon", and a Devil; all symbolic symbolism in biblical language. He is the " Symbol" of evil. When reading the bible, that must be understood as not being literal.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:05 pm

I was under the impression that Satan's fall from Grace was much later. Was he not previously one of God's former favourite angels?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Sep 25, 2015 12:36 pm

FourPart;1486299 wrote: I was under the impression that Satan's fall from Grace was much later. Was he not previously one of God's former favourite angels?

No he was not, that is a myth. Jesus said he was evil from his conception; a liar and the father of it.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 2:26 am

Curious how when things agree with your belief they are facts, yet when something that goes against it, even when taken from the same source, suddenly becomes a myth.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:37 am

FourPart;1486835 wrote: Curious how when things agree with your belief they are facts, yet when something that goes against it, even when taken from the same source, suddenly becomes a myth.

In John 8:44 Jesus said satan was a murderer from " The Beginning", meaning Four Part, he was created that way from the beginning of his life; he was never a good angel.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:30 pm

Mickiel;1486868 wrote: In John 8:44 Jesus said satan was a murderer from " The Beginning", meaning Four Part, he was created that way from the beginning of his life; he was never a good angel.
Does the Bible say that he was cast from Heaven or not? If he was not a good angel, then what was he doing in Heaven in the first place?

Also, if you want to be pedantic about it, I understand that only 2 angels are mentioned by name in the entire Bible - Michael & Gabriel. Does this mean that there are / were only 2? Why would God create an angel who was evil?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:44 pm

FourPart;1486884 wrote: Does the Bible say that he was cast from Heaven or not? If he was not a good angel, then what was he doing in Heaven in the first place?

Also, if you want to be pedantic about it, I understand that only 2 angels are mentioned by name in the entire Bible - Michael & Gabriel. Does this mean that there are / were only 2? Why would God create an angel who was evil?

In the first chapter of Job, God invited satan to heaven for a conversation and a dare. He gave him an audience , that's why he was there. There are more than 2 angels, I can't say how many, but I would guess in the millions. There are hints that there are legions of them. Jesus said he could call down " Legions of them" if he wanted to in the 26th chapter of Matthews . Legions are thousands. Jesus said he could call down 12 legions, that's at least 12,000. And God created satan evil because he wanted humanity to experience evil, before he brings his Kingdom to earth. He wanted a being to embodie evil; to represent it. To be it. God predestined humans to experience evil. So we would know how it is.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:54 am

Mickiel;1486886 wrote: In the first chapter of Job, God invited satan to heaven for a conversation and a dare. He gave him an audience , that's why he was there. There are more than 2 angels, I can't say how many, but I would guess in the millions. There are hints that there are legions of them. Jesus said he could call down " Legions of them" if he wanted to in the 26th chapter of Matthews . Legions are thousands. Jesus said he could call down 12 legions, that's at least 12,000. And God created satan evil because he wanted humanity to experience evil, before he brings his Kingdom to earth. He wanted a being to embodie evil; to represent it. To be it. God predestined humans to experience evil. So we would know how it is.

So where does it say that, giving his reasons? Or is that more unfounded interpretation. Who are all these thousands of angels? So far we have Michael & Gabriel. Only another 998 to go in order to qualify.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:20 pm

FourPart;1486904 wrote: So where does it say that, giving his reasons? Or is that more unfounded interpretation. Who are all these thousands of angels? So far we have Michael & Gabriel. Only another 998 to go in order to qualify.

No, there are at least 12,000 of them, but I think millions of them, in my opinion.

And where does what say what?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Sep 28, 2015 2:59 pm

Mickiel;1486922 wrote: No, there are at least 12,000 of them, but I think millions of them, in my opinion.

And where does what say what?

I suppose it all depends which version of the scripture you choose to follow. 2, 3, 5 or 7. Certainly not millions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Archangels

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 1:49 pm

FourPart;1486945 wrote: I suppose it all depends which version of the scripture you choose to follow. 2, 3, 5 or 7. Certainly not millions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Archangels

In Matt. 26:53 Jesus was being arrested by the Roman guard; one of his diciples got violent and Jesus rebuked him and told him if he wanted to, he could ask God to send 12 legions, ( or more than 12 thousand) of angels down and wipe the Roman guard out. Do the math; there are " More than" 12 thousand angels in heaven ; at least.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Sep 29, 2015 3:15 pm

Mickiel;1486991 wrote: In Matt. 26:53 Jesus was being arrested by the Roman guard; one of his diciples got violent and Jesus rebuked him and told him if he wanted to, he could ask God to send 12 legions, ( or more than 12 thousand) of angels down and wipe the Roman guard out. Do the math; there are " More than" 12 thousand angels in heaven ; at least.

And I am being most conservative; in the biblical days a legion of Roman Guards could be any where from 3,000 to 6,000; and Jesus could have been using those numerical terms in describing 12 legions of angels, which would put it closer to 78,000.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:45 pm

Claims of numbers - especially when used as empty threats are not exactly uncommon. Nevertheless, the guesstimated numbers was not the issue. The question was how many of them were actually identified by name? I could just as easily say there's millions of people who agree with me, but I would be hard pressed to back that up with names. The 12 Legions bit is basically a case of "My Dad's bigger than your Dad & my Dad's gonna beat your Dad up".

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:34 pm

Jesus could not ask for " More than 12 legions of angels" if they did not exist, and all 78,000 of them have names.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:41 am

Mickiel;1487089 wrote: Jesus could not ask for " More than 12 legions of angels" if they did not exist, and all 78,000 of them have names.
Of course he could. Anyone can ask for anything. Asking for something doesn't mean that something exists, nor does it mean you're likely to get it.

I might ask to have these millions of dollars that these Nigerian Widows keep wanting to pay into my bank account actually paid to me. Does that mean to say that the money really exists, or that I'd ever be likely to receive it.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Oct 06, 2015 9:11 am

FourPart;1487143 wrote: Of course he could. Anyone can ask for anything. Asking for something doesn't mean that something exists, nor does it mean you're likely to get it.

I might ask to have these millions of dollars that these Nigerian Widows keep wanting to pay into my bank account actually paid to me. Does that mean to say that the money really exists, or that I'd ever be likely to receive it.

I will never understand your tendency to use myths to prove your points.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:07 pm

Islam and its current dealings in our human history, has made religion no longer a general discussion, but a serious one.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:23 pm

Religious discussion, In my view, has become " Natural", its as if we look at it, like we would the sky. A real thing that has become something we have to look at every day;

Why Is Religion Natural? - CSI

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:32 pm

Religious discussion has been around since the human race came into being.

John Cary · Post by **John Cary** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:44 am

According to my opinion and knowledge God is one and unique and the religion is divided with many parts. And also the people abide by the rules according to the inherit.

John Cary · Post by **John Cary** » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:45 am

Ted;1492471 wrote: Religious discussion has been around since the human race came into being.

Agree when then man come and divided themselves then the discussion started.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:28 am

John Cary;1492712 wrote: According to my opinion and knowledge God is one and unique and the religion is divided with many parts. And also the people abide by the rules according to the inherit.

God does have a " One aspect" about him and religion is divided; yes. And people do live by inherited traditions, yes.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:14 am

John Cary;1492712 wrote: According to my opinion and knowledge God is one and unique and the religion is divided with many parts. And also the people abide by the rules according to the inherit.

I read this as "There is only one God and religions are descriptions of different aspects of the same God" - is this what you meant?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:26 am

Religious discussion will no longer be general because knowledge has increased. In Dan. 12:4, " But you Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even he time of the end, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." It was destiny that knowledge has increased. And this will change religious discussion.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 1:00 pm

Ted;1492471 wrote: Religious discussion has been around since the human race came into being.

I wonder which came first; religion or man?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:12 pm

An interesting article on religious belief;

Self-Deception and the Problem with Religious Belief Formation | Philosophy Talk

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:28 am

Mickiel;1494345 wrote: I wonder which came first; religion or man?

Before Man showed on the scene, there was little use for Religion.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:19 am

LarsMac;1494359 wrote: Before Man showed on the scene, there was little use for Religion.

I don't know, I could make a case that religion" Got into man", so it came from somewhere; it may have been here already?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:22 am

Mickiel;1494361 wrote: I don't know, I could make a case that religion" Got into man", so it came from somewhere; it may have been here already?

Well, you may attempt to make that case. But first you would have to offer up a definition of religion for which such a case might fit.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:46 am

LarsMac;1494362 wrote: Well, you may attempt to make that case. But first you would have to offer up a definition of religion for which such a case might fit.

Definition:

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

If you view God as infinite, then you have to believe that his belief and knowledge in himself is infinite as well and that he instilled it in man.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:31 am

ZAP;1494365 wrote: Definition:

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

If you view God as infinite, then you have to believe that his belief and knowledge in himself is infinite as well and that he instilled it in man.

God, having self-knowledge, does not need belief - God knowing himself is not religion.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:35 pm

ZAP;1494365 wrote: Definition:

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

If you view God as infinite, then you have to believe that his belief and knowledge in himself is infinite as well and that he instilled it in man.

I like that.

Before man was in existence, then, there was no need for " devotional and ritual observances, or a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. "

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:58 pm

I am from the influence that suggest something was here, before nothing came from it. I think existence is born from existence ; knowledge comes from knowledge; some kind of religion, is born from some other kind of religion; birds come from birds; kind comes from its own kind. Life comes from life.

The ideology of mankind came from another kind of consciousness, similar to man.

We can only be conscious of, those things which were already conscious before we were.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:31 am

There is another definition of religion, one that was here before we came along and changed it to how we define it now. Before we perverted it. It was; " Treat others right, and keep yourself unstained from these new definitions of life."

James 1:27, " Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father is this; To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Religion was once pure, its just not now. It was a concept that was older than human time; I think it was here before the world was.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:19 am

Mickiel;1494395 wrote: There is another definition of religion, one that was here before we came along and changed it to how we define it now. Before we perverted it. It was; " Treat others right, and keep yourself unstained from these new definitions of life."

James 1:27, " Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father is this; To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Religion was once pure, its just not now. It was a concept that was older than human time; I think it was here before the world was.

If it was "a concept that was older than human time", who conceived it and why? Who was to benefit and improve by it if it was here "before the world was"?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:25 am

ZAP;1494401 wrote: If it was "a concept that was older than human time", who conceived it and why? Who was to benefit and improve by it if it was here "before the world was"?

Non humans conceived it , and they benefitted from it. But see if one thinks that life only consists of humans and the planet earth, then you will have no vision of time and life before humanity.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:34 am

Mickiel;1494403 wrote: Non humans conceived it , and they benefitted from it. But see if one thinks that life only consists of humans and the planet earth, then you will have no vision of time and life before humanity.

So when and how would it have been transmitted to humans?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:30 am

Bryn Mawr;1494404 wrote: So when and how would it have been transmitted to humans?

I think it began when humans were " Secondly created", not with the first humans. Not primordial man, but man after Adam. And I think it got transmitted through the " Advent of consciousness." When humans became fully conscious of themselves and their surroundings. That is when knowledge began to appeal to man. And that gave birth to our awareness of religion, and all other things. It did not give birth to religion, just our awareness of it. It did not give birth to knowledge, just our beginning of knowledge.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:07 pm

Mickiel;1494408 wrote: I think it began when humans were " Secondly created", not with the first humans. Not primordial man, but man after Adam. And I think it got transmitted through the " Advent of consciousness." When humans became fully conscious of themselves and their surroundings. That is when knowledge began to appeal to man. And that gave birth to our awareness of religion, and all other things. It did not give birth to religion, just our awareness of it. It did not give birth to knowledge, just our beginning of knowledge.

So Adam and Eve did not worship God before the apple?

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:08 pm

Bryn Mawr;1494409 wrote: So Adam and Eve did not worship God before the apple?

Not sure why you are asking that question, but I'll answer it. No, they did not worship God before they had the run in with the serpent. They did not know how. They believed in God, because they knew he was real, but they had not yet developed much of an idea of " How" to handle knowing a being like God; they were basically grown babies. Immature and shallow.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:15 am

Mickiel;1494415 wrote: Not sure why you are asking that question, but I'll answer it. No, they did not worship God before they had the run in with the serpent. They did not know how. They believed in God, because they knew he was real, but they had not yet developed much of an idea of " How" to handle knowing a being like God; they were basically grown babies. Immature and shallow.

I was asking out of interest because it was an implication of your previous post.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:16 pm

In my view, my understanding of this, Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but I think they were the first humans that God gave full conscious awareness. I believe in creation; I believe that God first created primordial man, perhaps millions of years before Adam. I do not believe God gave them full conscious awareness. I think he gave them very high instincts. Why God did that, I just don't know; even this much is just a theory I hold to. I reject all other explanations of how we got here, that I have read or heard. After God created Adam, I believe he gave him a conscious spirit, which the bible calls " The Image of God", which I think simply means consciousness.

I think Adam and Eve were created in full grown adult bodies, but not mature consciousness. While living in Eden, I do not believe they developed a close relationship with God. I don't think God even wanted that; he wanted them to be just as weak and immature as they were , so they could fail his test and thus create " The Need for Christ to come to earth later."

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:31 pm

Mickiel;1494437 wrote: In my view, my understanding of this, Adam and Eve were not the first humans, but I think they were the first humans that God gave full conscious awareness. I believe in creation; I believe that God first created primordial man, perhaps millions of years before Adam. I do not believe God gave them full conscious awareness. I think he gave them very high instincts. Why God did that, I just don't know; even this much is just a theory I hold to. I reject all other explanations of how we got here, that I have read or heard. After God created Adam, I believe he gave him a conscious spirit, which the bible calls " The Image of God", which I think simply means consciousness.

I think Adam and Eve were created in full grown adult bodies, but not mature consciousness. While living in Eden, I do not believe they developed a close relationship with God. I don't think God even wanted that; he wanted them to be just as weak and immature as they were , so they could fail his test and thus create " The Need for Christ to come to earth later."

That there were proto-humans with limited consciousness before the first full humans is almost a given.

I've certainly heard the theory that God set Adam and Eve up to fail argued very convincingly but I would hold that, if this is so, then Adam and Eve did not "sin" - they did what they were made to do and that any "punishment" would be wrong. (not "punishment" in terms of God expelling them from the Garden of Eden as that would be part of the plan - show mankind what they can achieve then take it away in order to spur them on to do it but mans "punishment" of woman for *her* sin).

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:59 pm

Oh in my view its no doubt that Adam and Eve were set up, or simply " Set into a situation that they could not control." They were simply outclassed and manipulated by a being much more powerful than they; and that being was given access to them without defense from God. God was beginning the civilization of humanity, and he infused both good and evil into our picture; we had absolutely no choice in this.

This has affected all of humanity ever since. This is why religion is confused. Its why Atheism exist. This is how knowledge was incorporated , this is the beginning of science, exploration, curiosity and motivation; all this began with the events in Eden and the mixture Adam and Eve were exposed to.