[johhny]

(07-05-2015 07:12 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-05-2015 07:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

When I read that Yahweh enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh of sacrificed animals and commands his people to immolate and burn multitudes of living creatures on his blood-drenched altars, I believe what I am reading. I draw my conclusions on the sickening immorality of the biblical god based on the clear and objective information that the Bible itself gives its readers. When the New Testament scriptures say that the Nazarene's brutal execution on the cross was an ultimate blood sacrifice for people's sins, a sacrifice to end all previous sacrifices, I simply hear what the doctrine is saying and conclude that by its own admission the most basic foundation of the Christian religion is a celebration of the sacrifice of a sentient being who had to shed his blood for the appeasement of the biblical god. I just ready what the Bible itself says about its god!

And how do you know those sacrifices weren't necessary or good?

Please clarify..

Where in the bible does it say that "living creatures" were burnt? As far as I know, all the animals were slaughtered first before being burnt.

Leviticus 1:5 You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

and later the animal is burnt

Leviticus 1:9 You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord.

What exactly is wrong with enjoying the aroma of the burnt flesh? Dont you enjoy the smell of grilled meat? How is that "sickening immorality" ?

You also mention human sacrifice in the bible, could you please tell me, where in the bible, did a human sacrifice occur because God commanded it? The pagan nations were the ones actually doing the human sacrifices and God condemned that.

Deuteronomy 18:10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft.

Deuteronomy 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

[Truth Teller]

(07-05-2015 05:58 PM)Lumbre Wrote:  

As I've already explained succintly, the Unmoved Mover of the ancient Pagan world is nothing like the highly interventionalist biblical god Yahweh in that he is merely an intelligent designer of nature who set everything into motion and doesn't involve himself in the affairs of the world. There is no election of a chosen people, no commandments for a certain group to invade or massacre foreign nations, no concept of a fall and no plan of salvation. Those are all purely abrahamic concepts and couldn't be any further from the classical concept of the Prime Move /First Cause. Just because some medieval Christian philosophers attempted to blend or conflate biblical theology with the classical European philosophical concept of the Unmoved Mover doesn't mean that the two concepts are the same thing. The truth is that they couldn't be anymore disimilar.

And you would be very, very wrong. The distinction between the Unmoved Mover and the Christian God does not exist. Aquinas is very convincing on this point.

Quote:

In fact, it is generally understood in biblical scholarship that Yahweh was once one god among many, the preferred deity of the Hebrew people, and that it was only much later that he was afforded the status of sole creator god. Early (pre-exilic) manuscripts of Deuteronomy such as the Song of Moses indicate that Yahweh, the Hebrew god, was originally one of 70 gods or Elohim (plural) and possibly a second-tier junior deity, one of the many deities who received an earthly inheritance from the then highest deity Elyon who was once a separate and distinct god. Later in the exilic period, the Hebrew priesthood adopted an ideology of strict monotheism, began to edit out the numerous pre-existing polytheistic references and rewrite history for their own ideological motives. In other words, the monotheistic Bible was actually a late Hebrew con-job/falsification whose motive was to raise their own tribal deity to the level of universal creator and justify their own fantasy of being the one-and-only "Chosen People" of that now promoted "king of the whole universe". So this created being El-Yahweh is lifted up to the status of Unmoved Mover on the whim of his priesthood.

You don't need to educate me in Biblical scholarship. I know more about it than 99.9% of people, and I'm considering a graduate degree in it. Elohim can be singular or plural, and knowing what we know about Deuteronomy, your claim is very questionable. There are no pre-exilic manuscripts in existence. Josiah's priests wrote Deuteronomy, as we have reason to believe. Josiah also had a monotheistic (or henotheistic) program. He would not have sanctioned the creation of a book that suggested YHWH as anything but the high god. The ancient Israelites were, as I suggested on page 3, henotheistic. They may have been polytheists, but that's questionable. We have some evidence suggesting henotheism, and not a lot suggesting polytheism.

The transfer from henotheism to strict monotheism has a lot to do with the exile, but that's beyond the scope of my reply.

Quote:

You accept that the Pagan religions are much older. Good. Now one may logically ask: If all those more ancient and primordial Pagan cultures had similar mythological narratives and said pretty much similar things, then why should anybody believe this one later anomalous and reactionary Hebrew version of theology and history to be true? Logically there is no reason to believe that the many diverse polytheistic/pantheistic Pagan cultures (Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Canaanites, Greeks, Hindus and earlier Indo-Europeans) were all wrong and that only the much later Hebrew religion was right. The only reason that Christians can give is simply because they want to believe it that way and it is evident that they already have a strong emotional investment in their own belief system. Any reasonable person would be curious and wish to look into all the earlier Pagan traditions and philosophies, but it is clear that most Christians only close their minds to one particular system and become hellbent on slandering and attacking all other religions.

Untrue. Logically, there are very good reasons to suppose that Thor/Zeus/Odin/Prometheus do not exist. All of them are crude, anthropomorphic deities who exist inside time, space, etc. They all have cosmogonies, or births. They all have very human emotions and desires (i.e. Zeus railing a variety of Greek women). These gods are also used to plug the holes in human and scientific ignorance. They are what is often called the "God of the Gaps." Once you figure out how lightning works, you don't need to invoke Thor or Zeus. On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian God creates in an orderly fashion and acts through the creation. There's no use of God (at least among philosophically and scientifically literate believers) as a stop gap for our scientific ignorance.

Quote:

Christianity had to resort to violence in order to establish itself. That is because in it there was no worthy truth. Christian churches and mobs took it upon themselves to slay rival religious groups such as the Gnostics and destroy Pagan libraries and manuscripts be fire. They had to destroy all that stood in their way to keep their falsehood alive.

The Gnostics may have risen as a reaction to Christianity or may have been a completely separate group that then ended up somehow co-opting Christianity. Scholars differ. The destruction of pagan libraries is a historically questionable point at best.

Quote:

I studied the Bible and the Apocrypha for years, first as a believing Christian and then as a deconverted non-Christian. I have beheld the subject from both sides. I do not look to debunk the biblical worldview for some secular agenda like New Age author Archarya S with whom you compare me for some strange reason (kneejerk defensive emotional reaction), I simply read the biblical stories as they are and call a spade a spade.

I've studied them as well, and I can read the original Hebrew. I'm learning the Greek now. I was not born a Christian, and I was an agnostic until about 18 or so months ago. You and Acharya seem to argue in a very similar way, with the notable exception that you haven't claimed that Jesus never existed. So you're about 1 billion steps ahead of her.

Quote:

When I read in Yahweh's people's own words that Yahweh ordered the Israelites to ransack a rival town and brutally slaughter defenseless women and children, I believe what it says. When I read that Yahweh incites horrific genocides against other nations, I accept the text at face value. When I read that Yahweh enjoys the aroma of the burning flesh of sacrificed animals and commands his people to immolate and burn multitudes of living creatures on his blood-drenched altars, I believe what I am reading. I draw my conclusions on the sickening immorality of the biblical god based on the clear and objective information that the Bible itself gives its readers. When the New Testament scriptures say that the Nazarene's brutal execution on the cross was an ultimate blood sacrifice for people's sins, a sacrifice to end all previous sacrifies, I simply hear what the doctrine is saying and conclude that by its own admission the most basic foundation of the Christian religion is a celebration of the sacrifice of a sentient being who had to shed his blood for the appeasement of the biblical god. I just ready what the Bible itself says about its god!

Because you read with wooden literalism. Your comments above make it obvious. The issue is that the Bible is not supposed to be read in such a literal way, and until Martin Luther, literalism was pretty much non-existent. You're committing the sin of presentism as well.

Quote:

So that is why I can only conclude that the biblical religion and its god are immoral and evil. As a moral and sensitive being, I cannot accept such obscene wickedness and perversion. I cannot follow such religion. It is really that simple. The Bible shows Yahweh to be cruel, evil, perverse, warlike, psychopathic, bloodthirsty and genocidal, so I accept that description as it is and realize that I must distance myself as far as possible from that psychotic and perverted belief system. I don't try to make every possible excuse for the evil actions of Yahweh as Christians do, I simply look at the objective reality and accept that Yahweh is evil as the Bible makes it abundantly clear. I have no hidden agenda or anything like that; I just let the Bible do the talking and just accept things as they are.

Wooden literalism and poor understanding of context.

Quote:

Most human beings know instinctively that killing and steeling are wrong from an early stage of their development. Such morality is innate. Only mentally sick people like psychopaths don't understand such basic ethical values and it seems that such psychopathic people were the ones who wrote the incredibly twisted and bloodcurdling Hebrew Bible.

Wooden literalism and tearing it out of context again.

Christianity is completely useless. It is a really shitty and pathetic way of viewing the world. It is a doctrine which teaches that the follower must submit to its sacrificed savior Jesus and accept his bloody sacrifice on the cross in order to be free of the sin of a supposed fallen world, a pathetic and miserable cult of bloodshed for exoneration. That is just so lowly and obscene.[/quote]

Submit? Hardly. Look at my signature. Again, you seem to see Christianity as a moralistic, therapeutic form of deism. That's what the huge majority of so-called "Christianity" teaches today, and they wonder why people find the message unappealing.

Quote:

When I speak of Yoguic practices and meditation, I mean full-blown occultism. I mean working with the Kundalini serpent energy within, I mean tantric practices, I mean raising that serpent up through the spine and up to the crown, I mean awakening the dormant occult faculties of the mind and unlocking psychic abilities (Siddhis in yoguic terms). I mean the very practices that people like you would call "satanic". If we were in medieval Italy, you and your people would want to burn me at the stake like your religion did to Giordiano Bruno.

I would certainly call those practices mystical. Others would likely call them Satanic, but I'm not qualified to decide on that either way. Bruno was burned for several reasons, some of which had to do with his really odd mysticism, and some of which had to do with his denial of certain doctrines.

Quote:

Upon researching the ancient mythologies, I noticed that there are two opposed mythological divine factions: One that wishes for the enlightenment of mankind (the Serpent Enki-Prometheus and his Pagan gods, the "angels" who revealed divine knowledge to mankind during the antediluvian Golden Age/Satya Yuga) and another that only wishes to impose upon humanity a policy of obscurantism and brutality (Yahweh and his "angels").

I find that to be a very rough dichotomy. Much of the so-called "obscurantism and brutality" inspired modern science. The idea that God had created in an orderly fashion was inspired some of the founders of modern science. As Merton (and C.S. Lewis) put it, men became scientific because they expected laws in nature. Why did they expect law? Because they believed in a law giver.

[Truth Teller]

(07-05-2015 08:31 PM)johhny Wrote:  

Regarding the slaughter that Lumbre is mentioning, this is a great explanation for anyone that actually wanna understand it.

Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has been called a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives.

Several factors must be kept in mind in viewing this situation.
(1) There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. Murder involves intentional and malicious hatred which leads to life-taking. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of permissible life-taking in capital punishment (Gen. 9: ), in self defense (Exod. 22:2), and in a justifiable war (Gen. 14).
(2) The Canaanites were by no means innocent. They were a people cursed of God from their very beginning (Gen. 9:25). They were a vile people who practiced the basest forms of immorality. God described their sin vividly in these words, “I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:25).
(3) Further, the innocent people of the land were not slaughtered. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed (cf. Heb. 11:31).
(4) God waited patiently for hundreds of years, giving the wicked inhabitants of Canaan time to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) before He finally decided to destroy them (Gen. 15:16). When their iniquity was “full,” divine judgment fell. God’s judgment was akin to surgery for cancer or amputation of a leg as the only way to save the rest of a sick body. Just as cancer or gangrene contaminates the physical body, those elements in a society—if their evil is left to fester—will completely contaminate the rest of society.
(5) Finally, the battle confronting Israel was not simply a religious war; it was a theocratic war. Israel was directly ruled by God and the extermination was God’s direct command (cf. Exod. 23:27-30; Deut. 7:3-6; Josh. 8:24-26). No other nation either before or after Israel has been a theocracy. Thus, those commands were unique. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God.

(Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 99-100.)

I'm not the biggest Geisler fan (at all), and I'm clearly not an inerrantist, but the issue with a lot of the so-called "unforgivable passages" is as follows:

1. Israel (at least in the OT) is entering into a covenant with YHWH. They're being explicitly told to not do anything that the people in the land they are about to enter are doing, lest they desecrate the land in the same way that the Canaanites did. The covenant is somewhat conditional on how well the Israelites obey YHWH's commands. You see this in Kings, Samuel, Chronicles, etc. When the Israelites turn away from YHWH and worship other gods, a number of calamities befall them. Finally, remember that the Israelites are in Egypt waiting for the sin of the Canaanites (et al.) to reach a certain level. The same is true with the Israelites when they enter the land. The Israelites spend 38 years at Kadesh because the sin of the generation that left Egypt needs to be washed away.

2. The descriptions of war in the OT are LARGELY consistent with Iron Age siege warfare. Of course you would go into the town and slay every male! That's HOW IT WAS DONE. The extermination of the Amalkites, Jebusites, Canaanites, Pezerrites, etc. was a function of #1.

[scorpion]

Lumbre Wrote:

You keep your Christianity and your "god" of cruelty, genocide, evil and fanaticism ... and I'll keep my Pagan philosophy, my Pagan ethics and my humanistic Pagan values.

You keep your submission to the so-called Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum and your belief in his self-sacrifice for your imaginary sins ... and I'll keep my Prometheus and his great Divine Fire of knowledge, wisdom, human ingenuity and love for human greatness.

Lumbre Wrote:

As a Red Pill man, I don't see any true value of any of the Abrahamic religions be it OT Judaism, NT Christianity or Islam. I just don't care much for dogma, faith in doctrines, Bronze Age moral systems, the concept of religious sin, guilt, authoritarianism or the like.

Lumbre Wrote:

Christianity is completely useless. It is a really shitty and pathetic way of viewing the world. It is a doctrine which teaches that the follower must submit to its sacrificed savior Jesus and accept his bloody sacrifice on the cross in order to be free of the sin of a supposed fallen world, a pathetic and miserable cult of bloodshed for exoneration. That is just so lowly and obscene.

When I speak of Yoguic practices and meditation, I mean full-blown occultism. I mean working with the Kundalini serpent energy within, I mean tantric practices, I mean raising that serpent up through the spine and up to the crown, I mean awakening the dormant occult faculties of the mind and unlocking psychic abilities (Siddhis in yoguic terms). I mean the very practices that people like you would call "satanic". If we were in medieval Italy, you and your people would want to burn me at the stake like your religion did to Giordiano Bruno.

Lumbre is quite obviously a Luciferian occultist. I doubt he explicitly worships Satan outright, but he is obviously quite enchanted by the Satanic ideas of being free from any kind of authority, of the rejection of the concept of sin, of elevating mankind's wisdom and intellect above God, and of seeking spiritual enlightenment through occult practices.

His incredible animosity toward Christianity (and familiarity with it, which he exploits for the purpose of distortion) goes far beyond that of even most the hardcore atheists. He is not anti-religion. He is explicitly anti-Christ.

Have you ever wondered what demon possession looks like? It's not necessarily some schizophrenic-looking guy muttering to himself on the subway. It's usually much more mundane, as it is in this case. And no, I'm not joking. I literally believe this guy is possessed by a demon - that's sort of the thing that tends to happen when you explicitly and repeatedly reject Christ, engage in occult rituals and willingly "raise the serpent (aka Satan) up through the spine into the crown". That's literally textbook occultist practice for engaging with demons, and it's been going on for millennia dating back to the mystery religions.

You can recognize demonic influence easily in two ways:

1) Incredible hostility to Christianity and particularly to Jesus Christ.
2) A tendency to abuse and destroy the flesh (usually through drugs, sex or violence directed at themselves or others).

Occultist practice that leads to demonic possession is a siren's song that leads not to enlightenment, but to death. It is flattering to believe that one can unlock hidden secrets of the universe through the power within their own mind, but this is simply deception. Satan flatters your ego in order that he might obtain your soul. It's a trap that has ensnared highly intelligent and ambitious men for thousands of years.

Lumbre, it isn't too late. He can forgive you, in spite of all that you've said and done. Leave all of that behind. Come home.

"What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance." - Luke 15:3-7

[Socrates]

(07-03-2015 06:07 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I'm on Deuteronomy right now, I took a long pause when reading 23:20:

Quote:

Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

So God wanted Jews to be central bankers and control the financial system of many nations?

Before that, there are many references to allowing the Jews to wipe out their enemies by killing children and taking wives and spoils for themselves.

I am to believe Moses, a Jew, when he said that God wanted the Jews to dominate other peoples because they were held in favor? Isn't that a bit self serving? And both Christianity and Islam accepts the God of Abraham as the one true God, meaning that the Old Testament is fact to them.

Here's what I found on your question:

Quote:

In ancient Israel, debts were incurred primarily because of financial reverses. For an Israelite to become a debtor was a misfortune; the borrower, in effect, became the lender’s servant. (Pr 22:7) God’s people were therefore commanded to be generous and unselfish in lending to needy fellow Israelites, not seeking to profit from their adversity by charging them interest. (Ex 22:25; De 15:7, 8; Ps 37:26; 112:5) But foreigners could be required to pay interest. (De 23:20) Jewish commentators understand this provision to apply to business loans, not to cases of need. Ordinarily foreigners were in Israel only temporarily, often as merchants, and could reasonably be expected to pay interest, especially since they would also be lending to others on interest.
At times a third party would assume responsibility, or go surety, for a debtor. This practice is repeatedly warned against in the book of Proverbs (6:1-3; 11:15; 17:18; 22:26), since the one going surety would be the loser in case of the debtor’s default.
The first-century Christian view of debts is expressed at Romans 13:8: “Do not you people be owing anybody a single thing, except to love one another.”

Quote:

Already in the second millennium B.C.E., Babylon had a fully developed loan system. The Code of Hammurabi indicates a 20-percent interest rate on money and grain, and it stipulates that a merchant charging a higher rate would forfeit the amount lent. By contrast God’s law to Israel prohibited making loans on interest to needy fellow Israelites. No one was to profit from another’s financial reverses. (Ex 22:25; Le 25:36, 37; De 23:19) And Proverbs 28:8 indicates that fortunes acquired from interest wrongfully collected would eventually become the possession of “the one showing favor to the lowly ones.”
Foreigners, however, could be charged interest by the Israelites. (De 23:20) Jewish commentators understand this to apply, not to cases of need, but to business loans. (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by J. H. Hertz, London, 1972, p. 849) Usually foreigners were in Israel only temporarily, often as merchants, and could reasonably be expected to pay interest, particularly since they would also be lending to others on interest.
Whereas upright Israelites obeyed God’s law about making interest-free loans (Ps 15:5; Eze 18:5, 8, 17), lending on interest apparently became common and brought hardships on needy debtors. (Ne 5:1-11; Isa 24:2; Eze 18:13; 22:12) Jesus Christ, though, upheld God’s law in this regard and gave it an even broader application, saying: “Continue . . . to lend without interest, not hoping for anything back.” (Lu 6:34, 35) It would therefore be improper to withhold assistance from a person who because of continued adversity and through no fault of his own might be unable to repay a debt. But when the loan is not needed to relieve poverty, there would be no objection to a person’s charging interest on a loan. Jesus himself, by having the wicked slave in one of his illustrations censured for failing to deposit his master’s money with the bankers so as to draw interest, implied that receiving interest from invested capital is proper.—Mt 25:26, 27; Lu 19:22, 23.

Quote:

Often very high interest was charged in nations of antiquity, and people unable to repay loans were treated harshly. Interest rates requiring one half of a man’s crop for use of a field are known from ancient records, and the requiring that a merchant repay double what he borrowed was not viewed as unlawful. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 168, 170) At times the treatment of a debtor was very harsh.—Livy, II, XXIII, 2-7; compare Mt 18:28-30.

In ancient Israel, however, the situation was quite different. Ordinarily loans of money or foodstuffs were made to poor fellow Israelites who were the victims of financial reverses, and the Law prohibited exacting interest from them. For an Israelite to have accepted interest from a needy fellow Israelite would have meant profiting from that one’s adversity. (Ex 22:25; Le 25:35-37; De 15:7, 8; 23:19) Foreigners, though, could be required to pay interest. But even this provision of the Law may have applied to business loans only and not to cases of actual need. Often foreigners were in Israel as transient merchants and could reasonably be expected to pay interest, as they would also be lending to others on interest.—De 23:20.

[Truth Teller]

I'm not so sure about demonic possession (I'm not an exorcist, nor do I pretend to know anything about it). However, I do know a lot of fundamentalist Christians who leave end up as fundamentalists in other things (including atheism).

The issue is, and I don't think a lot of people understand this, the truth or falsity of the Christian message isn't based on Biblical inerrancy, Biblical literalism, etc. It also isn't based on how Judaism developed. Christianity has one central claim: Jesus rose from the dead. That's a question of both history (what happened on the first Easter?) and philosophy (can miracles happen?). I am not a philosopher. I am a historian. I can tell you what probably happened on the first Easter. I can also tell you how it affected the disciples and how they reacted. I can't tell you whether or not Jesus actually rose, or what the resurrection appearances really were without discussing philosophy.

[Roosh]

Found a copy of the "feminist" version of the bible (NIV) in a cafe book shelf. The introduction proclaimed how it was using gender neutral language. The cover is hot pink:

[philosophical_recovery]

(07-14-2015 01:18 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Found a copy of the "feminist" version of the bible (NIV) in a cafe book shelf. The introduction proclaimed how it was using gender neutral language. The cover is hot pink:

That's appalling. It's as if 1984 was never written and Orwell never mentioned Minitrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries...y_of_Truth

Quote:

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the "how" of the Ministry of Truth's existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Minitrue plays a role as the news media by changing history, and changing the words in articles about events current and past, so that Big Brother and his government are always seen in a good light and can never do any wrong. The content is more propaganda than actual news.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(07-06-2015 03:43 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Lumbre is quite obviously a Luciferian occultist. I doubt he explicitly worships Satan outright, but he is obviously quite enchanted by the Satanic ideas of being free from any kind of authority, of the rejection of the concept of sin, of elevating mankind's wisdom and intellect above God, and of seeking spiritual enlightenment through occult practices.
..

Occultist practice that leads to demonic possession is a siren's song that leads not to enlightenment, but to death. .

Frankly mysticism that is essential to attain a higher state of consciousness looks to the unexperienced like occultism.

Basically 100% of all higher saints in all faiths have spent countless hours in contemplation, mediation or introspection. Some have done spiritual exercises in the form of singing (Gregorian chants) or even dancing (whirling Dervishes of the Sufis). You will find this kind of introspective/meditative behavior among many saints from St. Francis in Italy to Niklaus von der Flue in Switzerland.

The difference of course is that the saints left their years of meditation with greater love and understanding and even understood the weaknesses of their specific faiths as the leaders of the church were mainly learned men who had 100% of their wisdom out of books which could be sometimes interpreted in many ways. Saints themselves confirmed truth within and reached beyond.

And strangely enough the high saints of Christianity (St. Francis), Buddhism (Milarepa), Taoism (Lai Tsi/Lao Tse) and even Islam (Rumi, Khalil Gibran) - they had a strikingly similar outlook on life. It seems as if the core of their wisdom and love for all of life was the same as they used their respective religions mainly as a springboard.

We also should be quite cautious of the warnings of church authorities, who admonish their congregation to never try to go the "mystic" path, because it can lead to bad things. The reason is less because they are afraid that they would meet demons, but that they would reach a higher state than themselves. Thus the common statement on saints of the church is that God simply bestowed upon those saints a sudden light. Never mind that those saints spent years - sometimes every night in contemplation to attain those states. Of course those techniques are necessary to attain it, but you cannot really argue with orthodoxy of the mind. If everyone could find a portion of truth within himself, then their control on the dogma of a path would begin to loosen or the church elders would have to be chosen among the most spiritual of the crowd. And we know that this simply does not happen and was even less so in the past where church leaders like bishops and popes were embedded in the worldly power structure. A sign of the fear of the church of those mystics is for example the fact that they only declare someone a saint AFTER his or her death. In the other case they would have someone on their hands with a higher spiritual morality and clout than their own church leaders.

[Paracelsus]

(07-14-2015 01:46 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The difference of course is that the saints left their years of meditation with greater love and understanding and even understood the weaknesses of their specific faiths as the leaders of the church were mainly learned men who had 100% of their wisdom out of books which could be sometimes interpreted in many ways. Saints themselves confirmed truth within and reached beyond.

And strangely enough the high saints of Christianity (St. Francis), Buddhism (Milarepa), Taoism (Lai Tsi/Lao Tse) and even Islam (Rumi, Khalil Gibran) - they had a strikingly similar outlook on life. It seems as if the core of their wisdom and love for all of life was the same as they used their respective religions mainly as a springboard.

Along these lines, try a book called Three Pillars of Zen which is a pretty solid introduction to the "religion". (I use quotation marks because Zen is more of an outgrowth from Buddhism than a religion in itself, more of a method of seeing the world than adherence to a set of principles.)

Most of the mystical traditions in religions I think are pointing at or on journeys to the same experience or the same source.

[Wutang]

I've been reading the Old Testament myself. As a kid I actually read The Picture Bible so I was already aware a lot of the stories and I've gone in and read bits and pieces of the actual text myself as a teen and adult but this is the first time I've made an effort to read it the same way I would read any book from beginning to end. I have to admit that I am perplexed on what exactly the lessons that is trying to be conveyed. It seems a lot like instructions given to a people for their needs at that time. I really have no idea what is the point of the obsessive descriptions on how exactly a tent is to be built and how sacrifices are to be exactly performed and for what reason.

Ecclesiastes as well as the Psalms and Proverbs are beautiful literature but the Pentateuch is leaving me pretty cold with the exception of stories like the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel which I think do contain a lot of wisdom though it does seem to be given in sort of an occult way. I am struggling to figure what exactly sort of wisdom is being imparted by stories of the Israelites traveling around the wilderness and their conquests.

Roosh are you still working your way through the Bible or is it a reading project you've scrapped?

[Truth Teller]

(10-29-2015 10:26 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I've been reading the Old Testament myself. As a kid I actually read The Picture Bible so I was already aware a lot of the stories and I've gone in and read bits and pieces of the actual text myself as a teen and adult but this is the first time I've made an effort to read it the same way I would read any book from beginning to end. I have to admit that I am perplexed on what exactly the lessons that is trying to be conveyed. It seems a lot like instructions given to a people for their needs at that time. I really have no idea what is the point of the obsessive descriptions on how exactly a tent is to be built and how sacrifices are to be exactly performed and for what reason.

Ecclesiastes as well as the Psalms and Proverbs are beautiful literature but the Pentateuch is leaving me pretty cold with the exception of stories like the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel which I think do contain a lot of wisdom though it does seem to be given in sort of an occult way. I am struggling to figure what exactly sort of wisdom is being imparted by stories of the Israelites traveling around the wilderness and their conquests.

You're raising two good points.

First is a historical one. The sojourn in the wilderness (and the Exodus, more generally) are the creation myth of Israel. Israel is being taken out of the land by its god, YHWH, who then differentiates them from the nations and tells them to follow His commandments. The source you're referring to, largely the P source, is concerned with ritual practice in order to keep the faith (as it were) alive during the Babylonian Exile.

Second one is a theological one. The Israelites are distinguishing themselves from among the nations. How? Because they alone have a tabernacle in which they can communicate with YHWH, and nobody else does.

[Wutang]

Is there a specific reason for the super anal retentiveness of a lot of rituals and festivals and such? I'm assuming it's done much more the benefits of the Israelites then it is for God since God doesn't "need" anything himself (except in the analogous sense which I'm guessing St. Aquinas would say) in the same mortal humans being do, sort of kinda like their version of Catholic confession and if you want to be secular talking to a shrink or good friend about problems you are having in life. In a word it's sort of like a penance that gives the offender a chance to redeem himself and derive the psychological benefits from it.

I am still puzzled on what the relevance of all of this as well as the other parts of the Pentateuch is to Christians however. Is it more of a historical thing just to show where the roots of their religion came from even if a lot of the teachings and laws no longer apply?

[Truth Teller]

(10-30-2015 01:27 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Is there a specific reason for the super anal retentiveness of a lot of rituals and festivals and such? I'm assuming it's done much more the benefits of the Israelites then it is for God since God doesn't "need" anything himself (except in the analogous sense which I'm guessing St. Aquinas would say) in the same mortal humans being do, sort of kinda like their version of Catholic confession and if you want to be secular talking to a shrink or good friend about problems you are having in life. In a word it's sort of like a penance that gives the offender a chance to redeem himself and derive the psychological benefits from it.

I am still puzzled on what the relevance of all of this as well as the other parts of the Pentateuch is to Christians however. Is it more of a historical thing just to show where the roots of their religion came from even if a lot of the teachings and laws no longer apply?

The "super anal retentiveness," as you put it, comes from an Exilic (or very close to exilic) attempt to create a unified state religion with YHWH as the high god. The way the priestly class did that (almost everything you're talking about comes from the P source and D source) is by rooting them in the national hero, Moses, and saying that he himself had informed these festivals.

It's more of a historical thing to show where Christianity came from. The technical term is soteriology, or salvation history.

[Ambicatus]

(10-30-2015 02:46 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 01:27 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

Is there a specific reason for the super anal retentiveness of a lot of rituals and festivals and such? I'm assuming it's done much more the benefits of the Israelites then it is for God since God doesn't "need" anything himself (except in the analogous sense which I'm guessing St. Aquinas would say) in the same mortal humans being do, sort of kinda like their version of Catholic confession and if you want to be secular talking to a shrink or good friend about problems you are having in life. In a word it's sort of like a penance that gives the offender a chance to redeem himself and derive the psychological benefits from it.

I am still puzzled on what the relevance of all of this as well as the other parts of the Pentateuch is to Christians however. Is it more of a historical thing just to show where the roots of their religion came from even if a lot of the teachings and laws no longer apply?

The "super anal retentiveness," as you put it, comes from an Exilic (or very close to exilic) attempt to create a unified state religion with YHWH as the high god. The way the priestly class did that (almost everything you're talking about comes from the P source and D source) is by rooting them in the national hero, Moses, and saying that he himself had informed these festivals.

It's more of a historical thing to show where Christianity came from. The technical term is soteriology, or salvation history.

Absolutely; Wutang have you read Hebrews? If not I strongly recommend it, the author contrasts the religion of the Old Covenant with the superior New Covenant, showing how the Old Covenant is really a foreshadowing of the New Covenant.

[Wutang]

I've read bits and pieces of it but haven't read the whole book from front to back. I'm going through the books in the New Testament after the Gospels and Acts also so I'll get to it eventually. Romans dealt with the issue of the law and how it applies so I'm guessing Hebrews will provide another view of it.

[Roosh]

Took me 11 months but I finally finished the Old Testament, front to back. I'm going to write up a review of sorts for the blog.

[debeguiled]

(04-19-2016 04:31 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Took me 11 months but I finally finished the Old Testament, front to back. I'm going to write up a review of sorts for the blog.

Marry. Fuck. Kill.

[Clockwerk]

Pardon me if this is a little off-topic but has anyone heard of/read The Cave of Treasures? It is New Testament apocrypha. It's not canonical as far as I can tell but it acts almost like an Old Testament backstory of the antediluvian Patriarchs. Fascinating reading:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct04.htm

I also discovered this youtube video where this guy reads the whole thing, while researching about Flat Earth(!). His theory is that the Cave of Treasures exists on the side of a mountain that is situated at the North Pole. Pretty wacky-sounding I know..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDHZnhJZKFo

[Helaman]

I have been been meaning to submit an article to ROK about Abraham. I find several lessons on masculinity here. Abraham's use of his wife in Egypt was good and bold, and I will explain why.

First, consider how Abraham discovered the "one true" God. Jewish, Islamic, and LDS sources tell us how Abraham used reason to search for God. Abraham broke his father's idols, because he personally defined God as the supreme power in the universe, and obviously a device fashioned by human hands couldn't be it. He was relentless in his search, even risking being a human sacrifice. Abraham was brought up as a scientist. He learned astronomy in the royal court and deduced that the supreme force in the universe was either death or a grand Creator, and he was taking his chance with a Creator. At the moment he was about to die, God intervened. God promised that as long as Abraham was willing to sacrifice everything for truth and God's will, he would preserve his posterity.

In an apostate age, Abraham discovered what faith was and used it as a tool of power. He tested and tried God, in much the same way God tested and tried him. His use of his wife in Egypt was an example of this. He remembered God's covenant to protect his posterity, and he used this as an opportunity to experiment with faith and put God to the test. Without Sarah, Abraham would not achieve posterity, so he employed faith that God would keep her with him, as he had promised, and he used that to get out of his predicament. God is bound to His promise when you uphold your part of the bargain.

Is it okay to use deceit like this to preserve your life? Apparently yes. Some theologins say Sarah was his half-sister or cousin. Whether or not that is true, I think it is safe to say Abraham used deceit with Pharaoh. And this is not the only instance of someone using this kind of trickery in the bible, either. Abraham didn't really do anything that would have annulled his covenant. God tested Abraham's covenant to Him as well. He even had him about to plunge a knife into his son's chest. But Abraham did not break his promise.

-Rick Moser

[Barry Scrotada]

I know it is New Testament, but I recently read a passage that made me laugh out loud.

King James Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9 Wrote:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Don't be a manlet, God decrees it so.

[Samseau]

(04-20-2016 03:56 PM)Barry Scrotada Wrote:  

I know it is New Testament, but I recently read a passage that made me laugh out loud.

King James Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9 Wrote:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.

Don't be a manlet, God decrees it so.

Yes. Jesus was bad ass:

Quote:

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

John 15:13

[doodlebug786]

(07-03-2015 06:07 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

I'm on Deuteronomy right now, I took a long pause when reading 23:20:

Quote:

Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

So God wanted Jews to be central bankers and control the financial system of many nations?

Before that, there are many references to allowing the Jews to wipe out their enemies by killing children and taking wives and spoils for themselves.

I am to believe Moses, a Jew, when he said that God wanted the Jews to dominate other peoples because they were held in favor? Isn't that a bit self serving? And both Christianity and Islam accepts the God of Abraham as the one true God, meaning that the Old Testament is fact to them.

Islam does not accept usury in any shape or form. We may not give it or accept it, and no one is allowed to do this. We do not accept the old testament as fact if it contradicts the quran. With usury there is a clear contradiction, believers are not allowed to do usury like the jews think. Therefore we say these verses in the old testament is corrupt....we believe they have been changed.
In the quran it talks about the story of moses (musa), talks about how the jews were treated with favour by god and despite this the jews were still unhappy with moses and god. From this arrogance god then cursed them that they will not have a land till the end of time...and so far that has held true. This is why most jews rarely talk nice about moses - because they more or less reject him and say they only listen to god. Because they rejected moses after he free'd them they were cursed and this rejection of moses naturally transcended to rejecting Jesus when he was born.

[syrianguy]

Who needs usury when you have jizzyah

[scorpion]

(04-21-2016 11:28 PM)doodlebug786 Wrote:  

From this arrogance god then cursed them that they will not have a land till the end of time...and so far that has held true.