More Than One "god", More Than One Path...

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1331149' date='Jul 16 2007, 05:37 PM']As I understand it, we are all gods. The only difference being that amount of moments that we existed, our location and our purpose.[/quote]


ok maybe your statement has some amount of truth to it. People that are in a position of power (i.e. president, king, etc.) can be considered gods. These people have more knowledge than pretty much everyone else in this world. Im sure in ancient cultures kings claimed to be gods so that people would obey them. You have the right to believe that the concept of "God" is a control mechanism used to manipulate people into conformity and order. Sometimes I wonder this stuff myself. I am not trying to jump to conclusions here by saying that this is what you believe...

However, if you are saying that people are Gods in they eyes of "lower" forms of life...then I believe you are wrong. As we have argued in past threads...I dont believe animals, plants, etc. have the ability to even percieve the concept of "GOD". Therefore, we are not their gods. They do not conform to our way of life; they live the way they so please.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1359470' date='Aug 15 2007, 06:28 PM']Truth is not something you think or believe to be True. Truth exists without one’s belief or thought.

As long as there is a possibility, the belief is valid. There are some beliefs that stand stronger to reason then other beliefs but that is no reason to discount the lesser known belief. I really believe but rarely do I truly believe.

If one is unsure of a belief one puts it on the shelf to be re-examined when more evidence becomes available. Beliefs are not like Hallmark cards to be discarded after one is done reading them. I have accumulated an extraordinary amount of beliefs that have you to be proven or concluded. I don’t have favorites and I do not put faith in any of them.

To believe in something is because one has the freedom and choice to believe. Faith does not provide this same freedom as belief does. With this freedom and interest of believing comes the responsibility from us to reason and compare this belief with what we know, understand and experience, faith will not do this for us. Since everyone's knowledge, experience and understanding will vary this is why I believe that one path is not better, quicker or more practical for an individual when we compare our lives to others. I also beleive that GOD is very understanding of this human variable.[/quote]


Carrdero,

I didnt know that you thought that there is a such thing as "truth". I would like to know what you think the standard is for this thing called "truth". I dont think using human beings is a reliable source since we all believe in different things.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1358986' date='Aug 14 2007, 11:07 PM']1) I know what you post, and it is anti-Christian nonsense.
2) My major is History, and having attended a solidly Catholic college, I know what I'm talking about better than you do.
3) The gruesome Aztec human mass-sacrifices in Mexico, the baby-sacrificing cult of Baal practiced in North Africa, the genocides committed by atheistic Communist regimes in the U.S.S.R., China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, various African genocides, to give just a few examples.
4) Dr. Warren H. Carroll, [i]The Glory of Christendom[/i], pp. 607-609, citing numerous scholarly sources - more than I have time to list (though I made a mistake - the number referred specifically to Ferdinand and Isabella's reign - though according to Wikipedia (hardly a Catholic source - the estimate was around 5000 from 1400s to the 1800s). Not to defend the inquisition, but the numbers are quite small when compared to total people executed by secular courts during this time. Most tried were released, and people would balspheme at hearings or pretend to be heretics to be tried by the inquisition rather than a secular court.
5) Not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic (though I'd say Islam has strongly pagan elements, but that's another topic). Kingdoms ruled by pagans, so defined.
6) Simple - refuting your claim that Christianity was responsible for the worst slaughters in history. Over 100 million were killed under Communism and Nazism, which were far from Christian.
7) I wrote a paper on the roots of the Crusades, and I've used Runciman as a source. I stand by my word.
8) I find the claim that the Jews simply made up one of the most important parts of their history patently absurd and unbeleivable. I've seen such "modernist" claims, and they're ludicrous, and bad history. We might as well reject eveything written in ancient times, then. Your myths of "Ma'at" cannot be proven.
And all serious historians, even the most secular, will tell you that ancient Egypt was ruled by "god-kings" with absolute power, and depended on massive slave-labor.

You can go ahead and deny and trash Christianity all you want - you've still given not one convincing reason for why "Ma'at" is truly Lord and God, while the Judaeo-Christian God is not. All you've given is emotional rants.
There can only be God - one Creator Almighty.
To say that conflicting and contradictory dieties can both be real is illogical nonsense.

And why should "Ma'at" be worshipped rather than Odin, Thor, Freyr, Pan, Venus, Saturn, Baal, Huitzilopochtli, or any other of the countless pagan gods?
To say they are all equally valid ("many paths") is nonsensical. That would in essence deny the reality of any god - "choose the imaginary buddy of your choice."[/quote]

LOL

[carrdero]

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: ok maybe your statement has some amount of truth to it. People that are in a position of power (i.e. president, king, etc.) can be considered gods.[/quote]
I wouldn’t rely on a person’s station, profession or status when determining gods, as much as entities in higher positions would like to believe that they are more superior, describing a god is not a matter of hierarchy it is just a matter of BEing. Many religions prefer to put a great deal of emphasis on this but just because we are adorning physical bodies at the moment does not mean we should discount or disregard our spiritual roots and origins.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: These people have more knowledge than pretty much everyone else in this world.[/quote]
This is a wise observation but intelligence and knowledge can be remembered and shared it is not something to be exploited or withheld. Everyone knows something that no one else does. We are all playing the part of student, teacher and Master at the same time.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: Im sure in ancient cultures kings claimed to be gods so that people would obey them.[/quote]

Take the example that is being discussed over in the thread “UFO’s, Demonology, And The Occult”. In that theory, intelligently advanced entities introduced themselves to Moses. These entities displayed extraordinary powers over the Isrealites in exchange that the Isrealites obey them. If Moses and the Isrealites were taught this power or had they learned that the entities they were traveling with were no different than they were they would have been on the same understanding as their liberators. It was important to these intelligently advanced entities to keep the fear, manipulation and separation evident because if Moses and the Isrealites had learned that they too were Gods, just like these entities claimed, than there would be no reason to praise or follow them.

Whenever somones comes to you claiming to be a god, tell them that is fine for you are a god too. If they start demonstrating extraordinary feats of power, don’t bow down to them, simply stick your hand in your armpit and proceed to make offensive noises and ask them, “Yes, but can you do this?” It is a great ice-breaker.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: You have the right to believe that the concept of "God" is a control mechanism used to manipulate people into conformity and order.
Sometimes I wonder this stuff myself. I am not trying to jump to conclusions here by saying that this is what you believe...[/quote]
This belief is not misplaced. In no way by implying this am I extinguishing the existence of GOD. In no way am I discrediting the Love, the wisdom and the power of GOD. I am just re-examining my REALationship with GOD. I do not see GOD as the father, the babysitter or Superman. I do not see GOD as holy, divine or sacred. I do not position GOD above or higher than me. GOD exists in the spiritual realm and for the moment, I exist in the physical. GOD has His own agenda and purpose and I have decided my own.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: However, if you are saying that people are Gods in they eyes of "lower" forms of life...then I believe you are wrong. As we have argued in past threads...I dont believe animals, plants, etc. have the ability to even percieve the concept of "GOD". Therefore, we are not their gods. They do not conform to our way of life; they live the way they so please.[/quote]

One of the motives of re-examining my REALationship with GOD is also reasoning my need and reliance on GOD. In the above paragraph you offered me the freedom and right not to believe in the concept of God as a control mechanism bent on manipulation, conformity and the agreement to obey Him. Well I have ran with that belief to discover that not one single entity’s existence in this physical realm needs to rely on the perception of GOD. Everything we need to be born, to live and to die, has been implemented for us. Animals cannot run for president but animals do not a reason to run for president. Humans do not have the ability to spin a beautiful web because humans do not need a reason to spin a web. There are religions that promote an Armageddon or a Judgment Day. We do not need God to initiate a Judgment Day, for this takes place everyday by humans. We do not need God to bring destruction or ruin to this earth, we are perfectly capable of doing this ourselves. I would even go as far as speculating the same thing for ever-lasting peace, if we want it, we have the means. The questions one must ask themselves is “what do I need GOD for?” “What can GOD possibly do for me that I cannot do or try as a human?” Now try these questions for animals and plants. I think one would be surprised by the answers.

[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: I didnt know that you thought that there is a such thing as "truth".[/quote]
Sure I do. There are many things that I have to accept and recognize as Truth.
[quote]Infinitelord1 writes:I would like to know what you think the standard is for this thing called "truth".[/quote]
I see Truths as Universal and Personal. I see some Truths as here today, gone tomorrow. I see some Truths as being discovered and expressed by other people and I see many of our own beliefs that we can pursue as Truth. I see Truth as the Highest form of Love. I see no one who is not deserving of the Truth whether they can handle it or not.


[quote]Infinitelord1 writes: I dont think using human beings is a reliable source since we all believe in different things.[/quote]
Well that is because faith, belief and Truth are all very different things. Humans can be a reliable source of Truth but for some Truths, some humans would prefer to experience their Truths first-hand.

[b]Example:[/b] For many years, many people thought the earth was flat. Now we have pictures from astronauts confirming that the planet earth looks round. Truth? Okay, but that doesn’t deter me from my desire to get above the planet and see it for myself. Not necessarily to confirm this Truth but to experience it for myself.

There are many Truths that we can observe from the actons of others that we may never want to experience.

[b]Example:[/b] I am a child. Mom explains to me and my sister that the stove is hot and we are not to touch it. My sister touches the stove and I have learned through my sister’s screams and hospital stay that Mom is right, the stove is hot and there is no reason for me to go throrugh that experience to perceive that Truth.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1359039' date='Aug 15 2007, 12:05 AM']Slight The thing I don't understand about the worship of Ma'at is that the [b]authentic [/b]religion of ancient Egypt was very much tied to geography. Like many old faith systems, it seems to have been developed to "explain" natural occurrences. My understanding is that the whole point of maintaining ma'at was to keep the Nile flooding at the proper times. A failure to to do would result in drought and famine. From what I have studied, that was the reason behind Egypt's complex social relationships - the Pharaoh, the priests, etc etc. The need to keep "right order" was deeply political, not merely interpersonal.

Modern, trendy iterations of ancient religions tend to take the more palatable aspects - the need for right relationships, etc - and drop the more primitive elements. Do modern worshipers of Ma'at still attribute the flow of the Nile to the proper maintaining of ma'at, or do they accept what modern science tells us about cycles and seasons? How do they get by without a pharaoh, which was a vital part of the cosmic order for the ancient Egyptians? It seems impossible for the ancient religion to exist in the modern world while still preserving its integrity. I hope this does not come off offensive...[/quote]
That's a REALLY good point. Seriously, I never thought of that...

[bmb144]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1358986' date='Aug 15 2007, 02:07 PM']1) I know what you post, and it is anti-Christian nonsense.
2) My major is History, and having attended a solidly Catholic college, I know what I'm talking about better than you do.
3) The gruesome Aztec human mass-sacrifices in Mexico, the baby-sacrificing cult of Baal practiced in North Africa, the genocides committed by atheistic Communist regimes in the U.S.S.R., China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, various African genocides, to give just a few examples.
4) Dr. Warren H. Carroll, [i]The Glory of Christendom[/i], pp. 607-609, citing numerous scholarly sources - more than I have time to list (though I made a mistake - the number referred specifically to Ferdinand and Isabella's reign - though according to Wikipedia (hardly a Catholic source - the estimate was around 5000 from 1400s to the 1800s). Not to defend the inquisition, but the numbers are quite small when compared to total people executed by secular courts during this time. Most tried were released, and people would balspheme at hearings or pretend to be heretics to be tried by the inquisition rather than a secular court.
5) Not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic (though I'd say Islam has strongly pagan elements, but that's another topic). Kingdoms ruled by pagans, so defined.
6) Simple - refuting your claim that Christianity was responsible for the worst slaughters in history. Over 100 million were killed under Communism and Nazism, which were far from Christian.
7) I wrote a paper on the roots of the Crusades, and I've used Runciman as a source. I stand by my word.
8) I find the claim that the Jews simply made up one of the most important parts of their history patently absurd and unbeleivable. I've seen such "modernist" claims, and they're ludicrous, and bad history. We might as well reject eveything written in ancient times, then. Your myths of "Ma'at" cannot be proven.
And all serious historians, even the most secular, will tell you that ancient Egypt was ruled by "god-kings" with absolute power, and depended on massive slave-labor.

You can go ahead and deny and trash Christianity all you want - you've still given not one convincing reason for why "Ma'at" is truly Lord and God, while the Judaeo-Christian God is not. All you've given is emotional rants.
There can only be God - one Creator Almighty.
To say that conflicting and contradictory dieties can both be real is illogical nonsense.

And why should "Ma'at" be worshipped rather than Odin, Thor, Freyr, Pan, Venus, Saturn, Baal, Huitzilopochtli, or any other of the countless pagan gods?
To say they are all equally valid ("many paths") is nonsensical. That would in essence deny the reality of any god - "choose the imaginary buddy of your choice."[/quote]

1) I'm not even going to touch this one as your lack of respect is evident!
2) Your bias is showing here.

You still have not defined pagan *shakes head* Sighting the Aztec as pagan is one of the most strange things I've seen yet

Any good Biblical scholar can quite bluntly say that the Exodus is doubtful. Again see my reference.

Who says I worship Ma'at? Kindly point out where I say that? Ma'at is a goddess and a concept. The central being in Kemetic faith as taught by the Temple I am a member of is neither male or female and Names such as Ma'at are part of that central being.

Why shouldn't a person who wishes to worship Odin worship Odin. What's wrong with it?

[bmb144]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1359039' date='Aug 15 2007, 03:05 PM']Slight The thing I don't understand about the worship of Ma'at is that the [b]authentic [/b]religion of ancient Egypt was very much tied to geography. Like many old faith systems, it seems to have been developed to "explain" natural occurrences. My understanding is that the whole point of maintaining ma'at was to keep the Nile flooding at the proper times. A failure to to do would result in drought and famine. From what I have studied, that was the reason behind Egypt's complex social relationships - the Pharaoh, the priests, etc etc. The need to keep "right order" was deeply political, not merely interpersonal.

Modern, trendy iterations of ancient religions tend to take the more palatable aspects - the need for right relationships, etc - and drop the more primitive elements. Do modern worshipers of Ma'at still attribute the flow of the Nile to the proper maintaining of ma'at, or do they accept what modern science tells us about cycles and seasons? How do they get by without a pharaoh, which was a vital part of the cosmic order for the ancient Egyptians? It seems impossible for the ancient religion to exist in the modern world while still preserving its integrity. I hope this does not come off offensive...[/quote]

Ma'at as I say in another answer is both a concept and a goddess, but Ma'at is only part of being Kemetic. Yes the land is still important also and many people from the Temple I am in, travel there yearly including our Pharoah [and yes I said Pharoah] to renew that connection. Our liturgical calendar is stilled tied to the land and the seasons of the land.

Yes, we have a Pharoah.

And no your not offensive at all. Feel free to ask any questions you wish.

[Socrates]

[quote name='In His Light' post='1368700' date='Aug 23 2007, 04:24 AM']1) I'm not even going to touch this one as your lack of respect is evident![/quote]
Well, I've got to hand it to you - you've certainly got stones to come in here and insult our Faith and blaspheme our God, then demand we respect your false "religion."

[quote]2) Your bias is showing here.

You still have not defined pagan *shakes head* Sighting the Aztec as pagan is one of the most strange things I've seen yet [/quote]
Well, I gave my definition earlier. Since you've ignored it, here's Merrian-Webster:
[quote]Main Entry: pa·gan
Pronunciation: 'pA-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix -- more at PACT
[b]1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion[/b] (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3 : NEO-PAGAN[/quote]
Definition 1 certainly describes the Aztec religion, which was indeed heathen and polytheistic. They worshipped a number of gods, some of which demanded mass human sacrifices. (And human sacrifice to some degree is common in pagan religions, though most did not practice it to the extent of the Aztecs.)
What is [i]your[/i] definition? Claiming the Aztecs were not pagan is one of the most strange things I've seen yet.
Or are you saying the Aztecs were obviously not pagan because [i]real[/i] pagans are nice and peaceful and would [i]never[/i] offer human sacrifices?

[quote]Any good Biblical scholar can quite bluntly say that the Exodus is doubtful. Again see my reference.[/quote]
Of course atheistic "modernist" "Bible scholars" will deny Exodus as they deny basically everything else in the Bible, as they refuse to accept as true anything involving God or the supernatural.
But there is no sound basis for denying at a truthful basis for Exodus.

And to claim the Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians, as you seem to imply, is just absurd.
Think about it; if the Jews just made up the events of Exodus as you claim, [i]why[/i] would they claim to be [i]enslaved[/i] by anybody?? That is simply not the stuff of tribal or national myth - if the Hebrews wanted to create a mythical history about themselves to show their greatness, they would never admit that they could be enslaved by anybody!

And my initial point in bringing up the events of Exodus was to show the absurd hypocrisy of you accusing the Christian God of being a "God of slavery" while you claim to be a follower of the religion of the Pharoahs.
You have still yet to refute the fact that the ancient Egyptians practiced slavery.

And any good theologian will bluntly say that belief in "Ma'at" is carp.

[quote]Who says I worship Ma'at? Kindly point out where I say that? Ma'at is a goddess and a concept. The central being in Kemetic faith as taught by the Temple I am a member of is neither male or female and Names such as Ma'at are part of that central being.[/quote]
Ok -[quote]I question those principles each day when I kneel to pray to my Divine Mum. I look at my life and how I live it to see if what I have done will bring light and life to this world and uphold Ma'at. I know when I fall short of Ma'at, but each day is a new day and a new chance to do better.[/quote]

[quote]Why shouldn't a person who wishes to worship Odin worship Odin. What's wrong with it?[/quote]
Well, for starters:[quote][b]I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt not have strange gods before me[/b].[/quote](Ex. 20:2-3)
Obviously, you reject this, but that's your choice, not mine.

I believe one should worship the One True God, who alone is Lord. Odin is a false God (much as, being 1/8 Norske, I do have a soft spot for the Vikings). Religion should reflect [b]truth[/b]. There cannot be many true gods, but One, who does not lie or contradict Himself.

And you might note that the pagan Norse would terrorize Christian Europe with their Viking raids, killing, pillaging, and raping (none of this was prohibited by the Norse religion). Christian churches and monastaries were popular targets for Viking plunder. A popular prayer of the time was "from the fury of the Norsemen, Lord deliver us!"
The conversion of the Norsemen to the Christian faith led to the Scandinavians becoming considerably more peaceful, though this was a slow process. The Christianization of northern Europe was probably the most important process in ending the constant violence and barbarism of the Dark Ages.
Once again, the p.c. idea of "peaceful pagans vs. nasty, warmongering Christians" is shown to be complete baloney.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Socrates

[eperez874]

LOL nice try socrates now what is those other gods? satan and his comarades i would consider them bad spirits now there is only one God but the rest gods are false how would you answer to this only one of those places is heaven one is hell and the other limbo