Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Christianity Is Based On Astrology


SWIM

Recommended Posts

if there is a right way and a wrong way to read the bible, why can't Christians agree on what the meaning of the scriptures is? ANSWER THE QUESTION. It's kind of hard to know what the difference between thinking "spiritually" and thinking "carnally" is when even you Christians can't agree on what is "spiritual" and what is "carnal."

 

Because we are all a combination of the carnal mind and the mind of the spirit. No man or church or denomination has it all right and this is why it is a journey and not a destination. We see through a glass darkly and only can hope to have more light today than we had yesterday.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    37

  • Kratos

    23

  • The-Captain

    19

  • Neon Genesis

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

if there is a right way and a wrong way to read the bible, why can't Christians agree on what the meaning of the scriptures is? ANSWER THE QUESTION. It's kind of hard to know what the difference between thinking "spiritually" and thinking "carnally" is when even you Christians can't agree on what is "spiritual" and what is "carnal."

 

Because we are all a combination of the carnal mind and the mind of the spirit. No man or church or denomination has it all right and this is why it is a journey and not a destination. We see through a glass darkly and only can hope to have more light today than we had yesterday.

 

John

 

And if the men like Paul who developed the idea of a separate facet of the human being were seeing "darkly"? You are basing a large part of your world view on this idea, what is your basis for believing this?

 

We are on a journey, what keeps us moving is examination of our thoughts and beliefs in light of what is revealed around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we are all a combination of the carnal mind and the mind of the spirit. No man or church or denomination has it all right and this is why it is a journey and not a destination. We see through a glass darkly and only can hope to have more light today than we had yesterday.

 

John

So, if no man has it all right, then why do you insist your views about homosexuality and the way women should have relationships with men are the only right way and continue to insist that we must conform to your ways since you don't know what's right or wrong anymore than anyone else does? Aren't you just contradicting your previous posts when you were preaching to us what "God's ways" were with regards to women and gays? Doesn't the bible warn against listening to false preachers? Since you admit that you don't have it all right anymore than anyone else does, how do we know you're not a false preacher? Why should we listen to what you say about God when you could be just as much of a false preacher as anyone else could possibly be? Or do you think you are above humans now? You're making the same mistake as every other xian who tries to convert us makes in that you have no proof that the bible is real and unless you have actual psychical proof that your God is real and your version of the bible is true, then your arguments are nothing more than word games to us and have no meaning whatsoever. Once again, you are flip-flopping in your arguments. Stop it please, it's dishonest and very annoying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I am going to choose to ignore your posts and I suggest you do the same with mine. I have been ignoring you for a while now, but foolishly tried one more time to get you to hear me. Your problem is not with me, but with God and I will not be your whipping boy. I have continued to say that this is what I believe today and that God changes my understanding every day. I have also said continually that I am not trying to convert anyone here and that I do not think I have it all right. You hear what you want to hear and just want to be contrary with me. I am sorry that you are not happy with your life and your life choices. I am sorry that you feel that God and Christians have abused you for these choices. But, I can't help you so please look elsewhere.

 

You do not listen, but just argue for the sake of arguing. You are the only one here like that so I agree to disagree with you. Sometimes communication is impossible between some people. Have a good life.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

I am going to choose to ignore your posts and I suggest you do the same with mine. I have been ignoring you for a while now, but foolishly tried one more time to get you to hear me. Your problem is not with me, but with God and I will not be your whipping boy.

How can I have a problem with God WHEN I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR GOD? There you go again, making arrogant assumptions about people that you do not know, and you wonder why you piss people off. And I already stated millions of times before, that my problem is not with your God, that I don't give a shit about your beliefs, and that my problem is YOU ARE ARROGANT AND HYPOCRITICAL.

 

I have continued to say that this is what I believe today and that God changes my understanding every day. I have also said continually that I am not trying to convert anyone here and that I do not think I have it all right.
And I already posted instances where you lied and have revealed your true intentions here is clearly to convert us. If you missed it the first time, here it is again, as well as some others.

 

I have well over 20 years of a happy marriage as proof that this system does work. I wonder how many years of peaceful marriage any here can submit as proof that their way is better?

 

You cannot do it half God's way and half man's way and expect good results.

 

God has ordained as the one who sets the ordinances that a husband is over the wife in the Lord within a godly marriage.

 

I really believe that if God arbitrarily ordained that a wife is the head of her husband and a husband must submit to his wife, the wives would not want to be in authority and the husbands would not want to submit. It is about the rebellion in the heart of mankind to do the opposite of what God wants and has ordained

 

Or how about this one?

I think it is inherent in life that since we believe what we are doing is best for us that we believe others would benefit from the same.
Here you clearly say that you think your beliefs are what's best for us, but later on you contradict yourself and say you don't have it all right anymore than anybody else does. If you're not here to convert us, then why make such absurd claims that you know what's best for us as if you know us better than we know ourselves?

 

You hear what you want to hear and just want to be contrary with me. I am sorry that you are not happy with your life and your life choices. I am sorry that you feel that God and Christians have abused you for these choices. But, I can't help you so please look elsewhere.
There you go again, making assumptions about people. How can I be "abused" by a God that I don't believe in? That's like saying you stopped believing in a fictional Santa Claus because a fictional Santa Claus abused you when the actual reason you stopped believing in Santa Claus is because you realized he wasn't real and that it was just mommy and daddy hiding presents under the tree all along. Even if I had bad experiences with church, I fail to see what the hell it has to do with sexism.

 

 

You do not listen, but just argue for the sake of arguing. You are the only one here like that so I agree to disagree with you.
Um, no, I am debating with you because I'm trying to change that arrogant attitude of yours, and as I said before, I don't really care about your beliefs. There you go again, making your arrogant assumptions about what people think. And last I checked, you were the only one who does not listen to other people when you continue to dodge people's questions, flip-flop in your arguments, and make arrogant assumptions about the beliefs of people you don't even know, then turn around and play the innocent Christian persecution card whenever someone points out to you that you're full of shit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
It's like Eel wrestling in ky jelly, isn't it?

 

LOL that paints an interesting picture!

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Acorn
There were many pre-bible "gods" in the world at one time. They were centered around the "sun", as there was no science to tell the world "what" the sun is, so it, like "thunder" or "the stars" were all misunderstood, so they were considered "holy" or "gods".

 

This is the third part in a series of threads I started, inspired by the zeitgeist movie. I didn't *just* watch the movie and begin posting. I took the time to do some research on this. I am now going to talk about the astrology part, it holds the key to WHY the "sun god" myths are copies of one another.

 

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

 

There is the movie link fyi.

 

Now, the web is full of good xtians doing their thing with long-winded dribble debunking of these concepts, but none that I have seen logically *explain it away*.

 

 

Why does the story of Horus seem so similar to the jesus myth? And WHY do other *sun god* stories seem startlingly similar as well? Is it *just* a coincidence? You decide.

 

Sojorner, these are not pastes fyi (you asked if I wrote or pasted the articles in another thread). I pasted just the raw data, and added my commentaries. This one is pure no-paste.

 

Where to begin... OK let's start with the zodiac wheel:

 

The zodiac wheel, or "the Cross of Zodiac", shows the 12 constellations, 12 months of the year, 4 seasons, solstices and equinoxes. The calender was more important back then because there was no weather men, no way to predict nature, so it was thought to be the product of god's whims, and it was *very* important to them that GOD was worshiped "correctly", just like it seems, christians feel today that it is important for god to be worshiped correctly. (less you feel his wrath). The SUN was considered to be either GOD or a direct product of (son) god.

 

 

post-3528-1203253775_thumb.png

 

The "virgin Mary" is symbolic of the constellation virgo (the virgin). The ancient symbol for Virgo is the altered *M*. This is why Mary and other virgin mothers of "mythras",Horus's mother Isis-Mery, Adonis's mother Myra, and Budha's mother Maya begin with the letter M!

 

Virgo is also referred to as the House of Bread. Bethlehem literally translated means "House of Bread". Bethlehem is thus a reference to the constellation Virgo "A place in the Sky. Not On earth".

 

The 12 disciples are symbolic of the 12 signs on the zodiac. The bible is FULL of 12s:

 

12 tribes of israel

12 Brothers of Jospeh

12 Judges of Israel

12 Great Patriacrhs

 

12 Old Testament Prophets

12 Kings of Israel

12 Princess of Israel

Jesus in Temple at 12

 

Jesus ALSO was in born in the age (aeon) of "Pisces" (the fishes), and he references the coming age (aeon) all indicate the NEXT age, aquarius.

 

There is MUCH more, this should be enough to kick off the similarities. This also explains WHY anyone would want to copy a pagen myth and adopt it as a religion, it FIT the mindset at the time *very* well, and altering the story to match pagen beliefs was a GREAT way to convert "sun worshipers" to christ.

 

So now we know WHY the bible texts were written and/or altered back then.

 

They either totally fabricated the entire jesus story, or grossly altered it to satisfy the sun worshipers of the day. There is no WAY at all to "cherry pick" or, like Kratos says, "filter" the contents.

 

In conclusion to this OP, the bible CANNOT be considered either inspired by god, or authored by him, since it is clearly an adaptation of earlier works, and grounded SOLIDLY in astrology. If the book cannot be cherry picked or filtered due to too much crapola injected into it, it therefore must be discarded as a myth.

 

In the Nt, when discussing what to do about this following of Christ, they said maybe it will come to nothing, as the rest before did. The followers, and "christ" of the other groups soon fading in time. Its been 2000yrs. Maybe, Christ was really ordained from the Most high God, if multiple entities exist; or the others possibly where acting in their own thoughts, will and they werent ordained for the position of The Son. Did any of these other figures claim to be Gods Son, or say they had been around since the beginning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great more noise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear I thought we put this thread to death a long time ago. Who pulled the frigging stake out!

 

Acorn that is such a weak idea. Can you name some other institutions, groups, religions, or philosophies that have lasted as long if not longer?

 

Gamaliel really screwed up with that assessment, if indeed he ever said that to begin with.

 

Edit: And no Christ is not the first and only to follow the son of god archetype.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the Nt, when discussing what to do about this following of Christ, they said maybe it will come to nothing, as the rest before did. The followers, and "christ" of the other groups soon fading in time. Its been 2000yrs. Maybe, Christ was really ordained from the Most high God, if multiple entities exist; or the others possibly where acting in their own thoughts, will and they werent ordained for the position of The Son. Did any of these other figures claim to be Gods Son, or say they had been around since the beginning?

If the old pagan and other religious figures were claimed to be the son of God? They sure did. Many of them. Beginning of what? Jesus was supposedly God first begotten son. You can only "beget" if there's a time when you're not "begetted", so Jesus isn't eternal, or he's not the "first begotten". The other "God sons" were also begotten in many different ways. Mostly in some supernatural fashion. Anyhow, the whole Mary+Jesus is a copy of older beliefs. Besides that, Christianity got a lot of influence also from the Stoics, those old Greek philosophers. I'd say Christianity is the Judeo-Pagan-Hellenistic religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Acorn
In the Nt, when discussing what to do about this following of Christ, they said maybe it will come to nothing, as the rest before did. The followers, and "christ" of the other groups soon fading in time. Its been 2000yrs. Maybe, Christ was really ordained from the Most high God, if multiple entities exist; or the others possibly where acting in their own thoughts, will and they werent ordained for the position of The Son. Did any of these other figures claim to be Gods Son, or say they had been around since the beginning?

If the old pagan and other religious figures were claimed to be the son of God? They sure did. Many of them. Beginning of what? Jesus was supposedly God first begotten son. You can only "beget" if there's a time when you're not "begetted", so Jesus isn't eternal, or he's not the "first begotten". The other "God sons" were also begotten in many different ways. Mostly in some supernatural fashion. Anyhow, the whole Mary+Jesus is a copy of older beliefs. Besides that, Christianity got a lot of influence also from the Stoics, those old Greek philosophers. I'd say Christianity is the Judeo-Pagan-Hellenistic religion.

 

Well. I would say that the comparison of writtings of Christ, and these other Gods are a 100-1, but alot of folks take the notion that the Christians were the ones that destroyed all those writtings. So. Moot point I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. I would say that the comparison of writtings of Christ, and these other Gods are a 100-1, but alot of folks take the notion that the Christians were the ones that destroyed all those writtings. So. Moot point I guess

You mean like the hieroglyphs, sanskrit tablets and such that predates Christianity? I guess they didn't have time or interest to make copies of the pyramids to convince you of what they believed. I think there are Book of the Dead fragments on papyrus long time before the Gospels. I guess we have another one who thinks rank-xerox is the proof of validity?

 

Regarding the Stoics, it was the Christians themselves who maintained those scriptures, beginning with the strong influence of the Jewish philosophers and theologian Philo from Alexandria. It was the Christians that started focus and bring out the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. ... Oh, wait, it wasn't the Christians, it was the Catholics, and they got the manuscripts from the Moslems (as they called them)... In a sense the "True" Christians really didn't start to exist until Martin Luther and the big reform that brought about Protestantism. The Christians before that (like >1000 years) were not True Christians™. Don't you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Acorn
Well. I would say that the comparison of writtings of Christ, and these other Gods are a 100-1, but alot of folks take the notion that the Christians were the ones that destroyed all those writtings. So. Moot point I guess

You mean like the hieroglyphs, sanskrit tablets and such that predates Christianity? I guess they didn't have time or interest to make copies of the pyramids to convince you of what they believed. I think there are Book of the Dead fragments on papyrus long time before the Gospels. I guess we have another one who thinks rank-xerox is the proof of validity?

 

Regarding the Stoics, it was the Christians themselves who maintained those scriptures, beginning with the strong influence of the Jewish philosophers and theologian Philo from Alexandria. It was the Christians that started focus and bring out the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. ... Oh, wait, it wasn't the Christians, it was the Catholics, and they got the manuscripts from the Moslems (as they called them)... In a sense the "True" Christians really didn't start to exist until Martin Luther and the big reform that brought about Protestantism. The Christians before that (like >1000 years) were not True Christians. Don't you agree?

 

Yes sir. I do :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes sir. I do :grin:

Well then you do have a problem of defining what Christianity is, since the burden of carrying its name was done by non-Christians for more than 1000 years. But on the other hand, I assume you're in a joking mode and not consider the ramifications of such a proposition properly. (Psst, just a hint: the same guys were the ones that put together what you call your Bible...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Acorn
Yes sir. I do :grin:

Well then you do have a problem of defining what Christianity is, since the burden of carrying its name was done by non-Christians for more than 1000 years. But on the other hand, I assume you're in a joking mode and not consider the ramifications of such a proposition properly. (Psst, just a hint: the same guys were the ones that put together what you call your Bible...)

 

Yeah, I know. The Catholics hold other books that arent in the Bible. I dont think the Catholics are doomed to hell or anything, though my ex did. I asked her if that meant my grandma was going to hell even though she walked 2mile to church every morning mass. I used to be Catholic, grew up a rebelling, not wanting to go Catholic.

 

Anyway, point taken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know. The Catholics hold other books that arent in the Bible. I dont think the Catholics are doomed to hell or anything, though my ex did. I asked her if that meant my grandma was going to hell even though she walked 2mile to church every morning mass. I used to be Catholic, grew up a rebelling, not wanting to go Catholic.

Here's an interesting thought. The founders of the Catholic church knew that the "Truth" couldn't be established on the Bible and revelation alone, but had to be anchored in tradition, dogma and liturgy. Where they really wrong? Or is it just that the whole view of being able, as a human, to "know the truth" is a bit skewed? I think you probably agree with me, that truth is elusive, so absolute universal claims can't be made about things we can't test and re-test again. Hence even history is just approximations of truth. History is the art of interpreting the minds of distant people, through the words of others. So how can we know for sure that this guy, so-and-so, really thought this-or-that? We can assume, but that is as much as we can do. Some Roman emperors were said to have been miracle workers, and people got healed when they got touched by them. Is those stories true? Consider that they weren't Christian on top of that, or that several generations of Caesars had the label: "Savior, Son of God", even before and after Jesus. Isn't that odd, that they aren't the ones we should believe in to get "saved" from this made up idea of "sin"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, Christ was really ordained from the Most high God, if multiple entities exist; or the others possibly where acting in their own thoughts, will and they werent ordained for the position of The Son. Did any of these other figures claim to be Gods Son, or say they had been around since the beginning?

 

Maybe its all a bogus mindwashing fairy tale invented and altered to help enslave and rule people too, a bit more logical the the flying magical undead man...

 

DOH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which 'other books that aren't in the bible' it's the proddies who REMOVED books from their bible... not the other way around... (Post synod of Trent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.