As far I am concerned and what I understood is that you can talk about how Christianity started without going to the bible to prove your point .
what I have always been saying is that the necessity of life brought the thoughts of religions . Of course there are thousands of religions in this globe .

Wow, someone has quite a grudge against christianity, yeah?
it's unreasonable to believe in such things and one should dismiss all of science? THAT's unreasonable..
Just because science can't explain something doesn't make it not real. Or how about the things science CAN explain...maybe how a rabbit "works". Science has done a great job at explaining how things work. What it hasn't "reasonably" explained is how things came into being.
Are you trying to tell me that that rabbit evolved from what once was just dust floating around in space? THAT is harder for me to believe than believing in the idea of someone actually having designed things to be the way they are...
Science shows in great detail that our world is so complex that chance most likely has nothing to do with how it came into being...

No, I'm not trying to tell you that at all. You're jumping to humongous conclusions far beyond anything that I've said or even implied.

I'm not an atheist. Just because I see that the biblical picture has to be a myth doesn't mean that I'm an atheist, nor does it mean that I have a grudge against Christianity. If you're going to assume that, then you must also assume that the early Christians had a 'grudge' against the Greek Religions when they proclaimed them to be nothing more than false mythologies.

Recognizing that something is false doesn't imply that someone has a grudge against it. Do you think that Albert Einstein had a grudge against Newtonian physics when he replaced it with Relativity? To recognize that something is false does not imply that someone has a grudge against it. It simply means that they've recognized that it's false.

As far as things like evolution are concerned, yes, I absolutely do believe that we evolved from the atoms. The atoms is where the blueprint for life lies. Not in molecular DNA. The blueprint for biological creatures may indeed reside in DNA, but the blueprint for DNA resides in the atoms, mainly in the carbon atom, but clearly not exclusively since other atoms are used as well.

However, when you talk about 'intelligent' design you really need to think far deeper than you are implying. You look around you at the 'finished products' of evolution and assume that these products were the goal of evolution (or the designer of DNA). But it's not that simple.

You see there are many more possibilities than you see around you. Humans are only one of potentially infinitely many possibilities. There is no reason whatsoever that we should assume that humans are the best possible thing that could evolve. On the contrary there may be many possibilities that could evolve that would be far better than the human condition.

Just look at the geological history of the earth. There were many species that came before us. We haven't been around for very long at all. Geologically speaking we're barely toddlers as a species. We may or may not survive for very long. The dinosaurs lasted for 300 million years. We've barely been around for 2 million years at the most and that's reaching back to very primitive forms that you might even hesitate to call "human".

Will we last as long as the dinosaurs did? If so, just look at how young we are as a species!

If not, what will replace us when we fail and die off as a species? Will that be better than us? Or worse?

Who could possibly know.

It's extremely naïve to look at the human condition and imagine that we were the goal of the universe. We might be nothing more than a sneeze on geological time scales. We haven't been around long enough yet to even really claim a foothold actually.

Arguments that try to claim that the Bible is true simply because life must have an 'intelligent designer' are totally unwarranted arguments. There are many religions that claim their creators are 'intelligent', and most of them have doctrines that actually support their claims. The fact is that the biblical doctrine doesn't support an 'intelligent' creator. An intelligent creator doesn't ask people to stone each other to death. An intelligent creator doesn't design a universe where it's necessary to get himself nailed to a pole to save it. That's just not an 'intelligent design'.

I personally don't believe in the scientific or the biblical pictures at all. I also feel there is truth in both and that it a misunderstanding that leads to conclusions by both camps so to say.

If you look closely at the events as explained in the bible and line that up with other mentionings of god and time as in the psalms, you start to get the picture that time is not important to god but to man. God is out of the time space continuum. David says - a day is as a thousand years to god and again he state a Night is as a thousand years also. so does that mean a full 24 hr. period is then 2000 yrs.? no it is an allegorical, symbolistic statement, meant to be taken just that way. In other words there is no specific times with god and his creation. each day could have been a trillion yrs. or a billion. Does that then mean if it was a billion that the earth as we know it took 6 billion yrs to form? no because each period referred to can with god be what ever amount he wants it to be if he is an all knowing all powerful god as is stated. Therefore 1 day may have been several billion yrs, the next a few million and so on till man came into being. i'm not up to date with the oldest fossils of man so I'll leave that to others.

As to scientific holdings, they are mostly theories, so i do not seem them as the "Absolute truth", but i cannot deny that many things found are truth. I will not argue against those. But as to evolution i do not agree simply because there is no real proof showing man evolving from monkey or lemur or mammal to man either early or later, the falsification of drawings showing such are just that - till that is "unquestionably proven" it remains to be seen at least by me.

The main thing to think on is to see that both scientific and religious takes can be and live in the same world without sounding preposterous, at least to me. now have at it crocks-

After realizing the things that some devout Christians believe, like "the world was created in seven days," etc. I don't think my belief in galaxy aliens is all that far fetched. And yet they have the gall to make fun of me.

I find that funny.

The following is my theory from information I have gathered from various sources.

The idea of sacrifice, particularly blood sacrifices originate, I believe, from the Draconians who are blood drinking flesh eating creatures.

They dominate the galaxy as rulers, and are lead by a female queen. She is considered a goddess. These creatures live a long time in their bodies and they incarnate into new bodies retaining their identity and memories each time.

They are a female dominated society with their own religious beliefs and they are heavy into ritual sacrifice. They are humanoid, and the royalty have bat wings. They have two legs and and tail, two arms etc just like humans. They actually look something like our idea of the devil. That is probably where our idea of what the devil looked like originated from. They come in different colors. Red, black, gray, and white.

So if you really want to know where the idea of blood sacrifices came from, there you have it. These galaxy aliens have been around since before humans and will be in this galaxy long after the human race is gone.

JB

Thank you, Tribo. Well put

To understand the true background to the religions, we need to appreciate the basis of all ancient religion going back to the Phoenicians, the Babylonians and beyond.

It was the Sun.

The hierarchy focused on the Sun because, they understood its true power as an amazing generator of electromagnetic energy which is affecting our lives and behavior every second of every day The Sun contains 99% of the mass of this solar system.

Just think about that. The Sun is the solar system and when it changes, we change. Understanding these Sun cycles, and the changing nature of the energy it projects, allows you to anticipate how human beings are most likely to react to various events at different times.

As with the texts that form the basis of the various religions, there are two levels of knowledge in Sun worship.

In the ancient world, the hierarchy focused on the Sun because they knew its effect at a deep level, while the masses worshiped the Sun because its heat and light had an obvious and crucial role in ensuring an abundant harvest.

In the same way, an initiate of the esoteric knowledge will read the Bible differently to a Christian or Jewish believer.

The initiate will recognize the symbolism, the numerology and the esoteric codes, while the believer takes the text literally, So the same text acts as a means of passing on esoteric knowledge to the initiated and creates a prison-religion for the masses who are not initiated. Great scam!

JB

NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY WRITING, THIS IS RESEARCH. ~JB

oh wise one - you make the same claims as Christians with your hidden knowledge and esoteric stance, secret meanings and numerology stink of kabbalah and gnosticism, teachings and writings though i know you don't refer to them directly, these things can be understood without the aid of any outside sources in my opinion, no one has to have secret knowledge to do so. as far as I'm concerned, in fact that draws me even further away from it if that is true.

To understand the ancient Sun symbolism is to understand the major religions.

NOTE: THIS IS NOT MY WRITING, THIS IS RESEARCH. ~JB

"In the ancient world they used one particular symbol for the Sun’s journey through the year. This is still a fundamental symbol used by the Babylonian Brotherhood. It symbolized both the Phoenician depictions of Barati and was on the shield of her British expression, Britannia.

The symbol:
The ancients took the circle of the zodiac (a Greek word meaning animal circle) and inserted a cross to mark the four seasons. At the center of the cross, they placed the Sun.

December 25th

So many of the pre-Christian deities were said to have been born on December 25th because of this symbolism. On December 2lst-22nd, you have the winter solstice when, in the northern hemisphere, the Sun is at the lowest point of its power in the annual cycle.

The Sun, the ancients said, had symbolically ‘died’. By December 25th, the Sun had demonstrably begun its symbolic journey back to the summer and the peak of its power.

The ancients, therefore, said that the Sun was ‘born’ on December 25th. The Christian Christmas is merely a renamed Pagan festival, as indeed are all Christian festivals.

Easter is another. About March 25th, the old fixed date for Easter, the Sun enters the astrological sign of Aries the ram or the lamb.

The Blood of the Lamb

At this time the ancients used to sacrifice lambs because they believed this would appease the gods, most notably the Sun god, and ensure abundant harvests. In other words they believed that the blood of the lamb would mean that their sins would be forgiven."

JB

got it!! but i dont concider that secret knowledge baby just ancient history, but - its 2 am here gotta sleep goodnite goddess, dont let the naga's bite.

My My Tribo you are sure quick to jump to conclusions. tsk tsk. You are so impatient.

This information is a historical look at the old religion of sun worship which is what this thread is about.

The "secret wisdom" is basically astrology which was an ancient "science" (or even part of the religion) that was covered up and hidden and forbidden by Christianity.

THAT IS WHY IT WAS CONSIDERED SECRET KNOWLEDGE.

NOTE:
Astrology is still forbidden by the church to this day!

It is touted as the work of Lucifer!

The old methods of astrology are hidden in the writings of the Bible according to this source. It is not my source. I am just posting this information for discussion.

JB

So why do you suppose the ancient Church Fathers hid and forbade astrology? Hummmmm... Why was this such forbidden and secret knowledge?

Well, for one thing, astrology is based on the planets moving around the sun, and the earths movements etc. all during a time when the Church was teaching that the world was FLAT!!!

This was advanced knowledge that went way beyond the knowledge of that time!

Where do you suppose this knowledge came from? Humans did not even know about the movement of the planets living on a flat earth.

The answer that comes to my mind is that this was the teaching of an advanced race of beings who did know about the solar system. (The Galaxy aliens maybe or just the remnants of an advanced civilization...)

What else could it be?

Well, Christians might say it was secret knowledge of the Devil, akin to witchcraft.

But it involved the knowledge that the earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. It involved knowledge that was contrary to what the Church taught. It was knowledge that could destroy the Christianity.

So this is the big secret knowledge of the ages. Astrology.

No big deal. But it is STILL FORBIDDEN BY THE CHURCH TODAY even though everyone knows that the earth is not flat.

Why do you suppose that is?

Maybe because if the church suddenly said that astrology was okay, then people would realize where Christianity came from in the first place (Pagan Sun Worshipers) ~ and that the Church had been lying to them all along about the earth being flat ~(WHEN THEY KNEW DIFFERENTLY)~ and many other things.

JB

Unquestionably Proven?

If you're only willing to accept things that are unquestionably proven why do you even bother with religion at all? Theirs is utterly no evidence whatsoever to even suggesting that divine intervention or divine inspiration ever happened. None, zip, zilch.

So for someone who is interested in studying religion they idea of demanding "unquestionable proof" from science is nothing short of a hysterical joke.

Also, what do you consider to be 'unquestionable proof'? Do we have unquestionable proof that the sun is at the center of the Solar system? If you agree that we have unquestionable proof for that, then you'd probably have to agree that we have unquestionable proof for evolution too because we have even more evidenced for evolution.

The evidence that life evolved from simple life forms to more complex species is overwhelming.

The evidence against it is non-existent. None, zip, zilch.

All areas of science point to the same conclusion, even on the same time scales, physics, geology, chemistry, biology, and even astrophysics. They are all in complete agreement with the notion and time scales required for evolution to have taken place. The fossil records are indisputable. Even those who are still feebly trying to use carbon dating as being 'flawed' have no clue what they are talking about. Even if carbon dating is completely wrong in absolute terms it would still be correct in relative terms. Meaning that there are no human bones found to be anywhere near as old as dinosaur bones. They simple didn't coexist. The time scales given by carbon dating techniques have been verified by completely independent astrophysics observations anyway. So it's hopeless to argue against the time scales.

The bottom line is that the evidence for evolution isoverwhelming. The evidence against it is non-existent. There is no credible evidence against it. The only so-called "evidence" against it are feeble attempts by creationists to disprove it, but thus far every method they have claimed to use has not held up to scientific scrutiny by the real scientific community. And by "real" I'm simply talking about the scientists who aren't out to twist the truth to try to make it match up with mythologies. Unbiased scientists who aren't out to fool themselves all agree with the standard conclusions of evolution. They have no agenda. They couldn't care less what the results are. They are only interested in truth. They aren't anti-Christian. In fact many of them actually are Christians, they're just honest Christians. The hard-to-come-by Christians.

To say that evolution hasn't been 'proven' is to totally reject reason in favor of pretending that some ancient mythology might actually be more correct. But in fact, that ancient mythology has overwhelming evidence against it. It is extremely similar to all the other manmade mythologies at the time, especially with regard to the God wanting blood sacrifices to appease it. That simple fact alone just about proves that it's highly unlikely to be true. Why would the real creator of this universe want blood sacrifices just like all the manmade mythologies? Is our creator that lame that he can't even come up with something original?

If we are sincere about trying to seeking a religion that might be from a real creator we ought to at least rule out all religions that have gods that want blood sacrifices since we already know that's a manmade superstition in just about every mythology mankind ever came up with. If there is a real creator it isn't likely going to want the same things that men fabricate in their fairytales.

So if you're going to claim that evolution isn't "proven" then you'd have to concede that religions aren't even close to being reasonable. At least you would need to do this if you want to be consistent in your demands for actual evidence. To say that evolution isn't 'proven' is the same as saying that we have yet to discover any religion that has even one iota of credibility.

At least if you want to be consistent in your criteria for what's worthy of consideration this would be a must.

No. Nowhere does it say "God was exhausted" - you've assumed this. Also - God, having created time, naturally would work within it, but is not constrained by it. God having an "after-thought" contradicts the concept of omniscient. So to state the premise that God had an afterthought, therefore is not omiscient is a false proof. The fact is - having an afterthought contradicts the definition of God.



ahh it's refreshing to finally read that it's atleast one christian that understand the concept of there being no "Free Will" either that or admit that they are under the control of "God's Divine Plan" ...

but you seem to believe that there is 'Free Choice" ..ok so let's test that theory ...so let's say there is a baby that is starving because there is no one to feed the baby then do the baby have the "Free Choice" not to starve ..


Not "under control of it" (per se) but certainly an intergral part of it. As to the question about the baby - I often am hesitant to get involved in hypothesis about children concerning the bible - because children are not the intended audience of scripture. Therefore - to attempt to force the scriptures to accomidate that audience to which it is not intended is grounds for discussions that will likely not give clear answers. It's like asking if an elephant would be better at taking a hook shot, than a free throw - if you get the analogy. Who makes a better wide reciever - a giraffe, or a cougar?

I would say this - if there's plenty of food around, and a baby isn't hungry - are you going to get it to eat?

double post - sorry

JB;

I have no problem with any of the biblical concepts because I do not reduce the power of God to that of man. The God is all - all is God concept so limits my understanding of God, that it can no longer adhere to a definition for me. I can't draw the line between what is the God part of man, or the man part of God. I don't see a problem with God having human traits (tha ability to feel emotion) but I do have a problem with man assuming he can think like God. He can't. He bearly comprehends the world around him, and isn't capable of discerning all of the facts to make any claims about absolute truth - whereas to God - all there is is absolute truth. To me - that is the core to my rejection of Pantheism.

In addition to my being able to accept the abilities (for lack of a better word) or attributes of God in the scriptures, I also don't have a problem with accepting the events of the bible. One being the flood. I don't need to accept that man "killed" off all the dinasaurs, just that they did not live long after the flood. Not too difficult to accept that in light of the events of scripture.

As to evaluating my beliefs - why? Since your scenario about the extinction of dinasaurs is not the only one available, I don't feel the need to have to expand my beliefs as much as I wonder about the limits of yours.

Actually JB, I don't think your believing in alien life form is anything to be scoffed at. Personally, I haven't been able to justify for myself, their existance, but I have not given it as much thouht as you, and I don't proport to think I know more about it - so wouldn't scoff.

But let me ask this - how is the problem of "time travel" (as it were) for aliens resolved for you.
I know that for over 30 years that Harvard university has sunk millions of dollars into investigating the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, and have some of the most sophisticated sound equipment on the planet devoted to this very thing. So far they have no results as to the possibility that there is anything within a light year of earth. So this begs the question - in order for aliens, who live light years away (even if only a few) to get here, they would have to have known that man was "going to exist" before they departed for earth. And if they are the ones who brought us here, within the time that man has been here, how is it that Harvard has not located them on their return - for they would still be en-route. Unless they can attain a speed faster than that of light - this causes the dillema for me. How do you reconcile this?

JB;

I studied numerology and astrology for over 20 years and am well aware of the symbolism - however, assuming that these concepts preceeded scripture is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. And yes I've seen Zietgeist too, so don't go there. Believers do not take the biblical text literally. That is a misnomer assumed by those who are not believers. Many look to the fundamentalist sects and Pseudo-christian cults and their hard line stance on specific biblical ideals, and broadly cast that parameter on all of Christiandom. However, it might be a bit presumtuous of you to think that just because someone is a believer that they are not fully aware of numerological or astrological concepts.

The problem with this - is that believers are well aware that December 25th is NOT the date of the birth of Jesus. Only when it is celebrated, and it is celebrated then precisely because it is a pagan holiday. Not the other way around. The same holds true for the Easter celebration. It also might be worth mentioning that these dates - in the scriptures - pertain to the Jewish calander, so that even distances itself furthert from the "Zeitgiest" assumptions.

It might be worth mentioning here - that although Zeitgiest is interesting and informative - it has a tendancy to state it's theory, then goes in search of biblical references to support it. This is "backwards exegesis" - which is the fullfillment of every one of Lifton's 10 standards of mind control. It is what every Cult in the country uses to establish it's truth by using this form of exegesis as their foundation.

So - while Zietgeist may introduce some facts, and some truths - it is a stretch to accept the connecting bridge they attempt to build towards Christianity, (as THE representative truth of it) because you trip over all of the bricks they've omitted when you try and cross it.

Well - you are branding denominations as "the church". I assume by "the church" you mean Catholicism. As a "believer" I will state emphatically that there is an uncanny truth within the realm of astrology - numerology as well. However - these "truths" are not infallable, nor absolute. I simply consider themm "for entertainment purposes only" and do not let either of them dictate or influence my perspective on reality or the future. But having been a numerologist for over 20 years, I would argue with anyone who says there's no "truth" in it. Just that it is not a representation of the truth. Only in it's broadest interpretations.

And you are making assumptions that Christianity came from Paganism - it sprung out of Judaism, and before that to a select group of individuals.
Just because there are similarities with Paganism does not mean one sprung from the other, any more than a cat came from a dog because they both have 4 legs, paws, and are covered with fur.