Which God?

[Ssel]

I suspected it was his spirit walking on the sea because of these verses:

Yes, in fact it WAS his spirit being referred to, but also you must identify the sea water being referred to. They didn't see a ghostly floating thing hovering over a sea. A spirit has a common sense identity. The Hollywood version of a semitransparent human shaped cloud is merely fun for entertainment.

 

I equate the "spirit" with "the inner energies and workings" of something. A dead body has lost its spirit and thus has no ability to function internally. A computer has a spirit of high speed electronic switching and routing. The word spirit generally refers to something unseen, but involved in its energy such as the spirit of alcohol.

 

Thus the "spirit" of Jesus would have been referring to what?

And the "Holy Spirit" would be referring to what?

 

I equate the word "holy" with being "totally considerate of all things" (whole)

[Ssel]

An additional thought to consider is the word “human”. The “hu” in human refers to “the lowest element of”, much like in “humus”. Thus a human is the lowest element of Man. The Bible refers to Ahdam (Adam) as the first Man, not the first hu-man.

 

Likewise, the word “woman” has the prefix “wo” meaning lower or lesser. The Bible refers to the first woman as Eve, not the first wo-human. Although I’m sure the intent was to refer to an organization of females, the word doesn’t really say that. Conceivably, Eve could have simply been a lesser organization of men. But I more strongly suspect it refers to an organization similar to the Eastern Star versus the Masons.

 

With this in mind, the creation of Adam becomes something much more sensible and answers many of the “but how did they get an offspring?” type questions. And even though the 7 days were not actually referring to 7 literal days, with this understanding of Adam, it isn’t impossible for an organization to be formed within merely 7 literal days.

[Cerise]

I can’t even imagine myself being a Messiah. But it seems that to you, if a man knows something that isn’t common knowledge, then he is a messiah. Which means there had to be at least 10,000 of them over the past 2500 years, so what difference would it make if there was one more?

 

What are you afraid of, Cerise? Why must everyone think only as you? (using the word “think” loosely), Why must Amanda and notblindedbytheblight never explore a thought outside your range of comfort? And when did they and you become an “us”?

 

Please. Your attempt at vitriol is pitiable. I truly don't care if you think you have the secert code to higher knowledge all wrapped up. I just happen to believe you are full of shit. Apparently, the thought that someone might not think you are the most wonderful thing to happen to biblical interpretation since the prophets just tears you in knots. Amanda and notblinded can do as they please, but I will also not withhold my doubts just because you want to put on an unhindered show.

 

They asked questions, I responded accordingly. Why does such frighten you SO much? Why must they be only another in your church of closed eyes and minds? I didn’t see any sign when I came in here that said “We are the alliance of the Non-thinkers”. So what is so terrifying about them wanting to explore their thoughts? You sound SO much like the churches a few hundred years ago, “DON’T THINK it will only lead you into a TRAP.”

 

I'm not frightened by poor wittle you, Ssel. But I don't see you prompting people to explore their thoughts as much to explore your thoughts. That would be typical, except you try to hide it so much. Which makes me smell a rat...

 

My advise has consistently been to BE VERY CAREFUL and don’t assume. How can you justly argue with that? Did they ask you for your input? Did they ask you for guidance in their endeavor? Where would you guide them or any one, to “we can't know anything, don’t try to think.”? Jealousy maybe?

 

1) I never said anything remotely like "we can't know anything, don't try to think" but thanks for showing me your grade two reading comprehension.

 

2) this is a public forum and you, Amanda, and notblinded posted on it. Which immediately implies that you all wish for the input of others. Otherwise you'd keep your thoughts safely to yourselves.

 

Give your ranting and spewing a break, let someone at least ATTEMPT to think. If it doesn’t lead them anywhere, then it doesn’t. What’s the problem?

 

I'll try not to feel nauseous anymore at your unceasing arrogance, but I admit it is difficult. Of course, by "thinking" you mean thinking the same as you and coming to the same conclusions, as evidenced by your "correction" of notblinded earlier in this thread.

[Antlerman]

First, let me say that your comments reflect a careful thinking person, I have an appreciation for such.

Thanks.

 

I am not attempting to prove “Intelligent Design” in this thread.

<snip>

I am NOT dictating that their results MUST be identical to Mine. Rather, that they be very certain of each and every small step. Realize how much you DON’T know before building a solid understanding of ANY thing.

 

1) Hypothesis – A metaphorical study can reveal a clearly assembled picture of what the Bible was talking about.

2) Theory – This metaphorical picture will yield a useful tool for understanding many social concerns.

3) Experiment – Let someone besides myself DO it and see where it leads.

 

Consider it all a scientific experiment.

 

I raised the issue of Intelligent Design simply as what I perceived as a point of comparison. ID sees design in something that does not necessitate it. The face in the cloud likewise sees a pattern that shows what appears to be intentional, but is not. Reading the bible through a particular lens of "metaphors" as the "special keys to knowledge" (like the mystery religions), likewise creates a pattern of apparent design. It seems to be "too coincidental" to be anything less than intentional. I consider that a logic fallacy.

 

I'm going to take a wild shot into the air, having not read more than a couple of your posts in this thread, and ask this question of you: Are you into Rosecrucianism, or some similar "scientific" religious group? I'm hearing some of the "science" talk they like to use in approaching their mystery-religion oriented beliefs here, particularly point #3 above.

 

Just curious if I'm right here.

[Antlerman]

Ok, I've done enough catching up. I'm fairly convinced this is, or is very similar to Rosicrucianism. In either case its premises are flawed. That quasi scientific, mystical methodology is not modern science in any fashion. It's a "scientific" method of the mystics in the 17th century. I find it untrustworthy.

 

It is like numerology, tea leaf readings, etc. Hidden knowledge is extracted by "special knowledge". "Don't take my word, test it yourself and see the results", is the classic tool of con artists, think snake-oil salesmen. Telling someone what results to expect in a subjective experience is poisoning the experiment, to say the least. Furthermore, the results are always subjective interpretations of faith, overlooking all the failures of the "test" and reading anything that looks like it as "confirmation".

 

I don't mind if someone calls this mysticism, because it is. But it most certainly does not bear the respect of what "modern science" has gained. It is "scientific" like Alchemy was in the 17th century. It cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the tools of modern science, and cowers behind the "secret" or "hidden knowledge" banner. "Only those who have had their eyes opened will see the mysteries", is the typical reply. Mystery religion. Not science.

[All Gods Fail]

'Secret knowledge' - feh! Whatever Ssel's trying to peddle makes less sense than regular xtianity.

 

Besides, I already have enlightenment on the perceptual nature of reality. It's astonishingly simple - it's under all of our noses, all the time, and you probably have thought it yourself quite frequently. You just never made the leap from idle daydreaming to realization.

 

No offense Ssel, but you're waaay off. Seriously.

 

I'll give you a hint, tho - poisoned arrows.

[Amanda]

I suspected it was his spirit walking on the sea because of these verses:

Yes, in fact it WAS his spirit being referred to, but also you must identify the sea water being referred to. They didn't see a ghostly floating thing hovering over a sea. A spirit has a common sense identity. The Hollywood version of a semitransparent human shaped cloud is merely fun for entertainment.

 

I equate the "spirit" with "the inner energies and workings" of something. A dead body has lost its spirit and thus has no ability to function internally. A computer has a spirit of high speed electronic switching and routing. The word spirit generally refers to something unseen, but involved in its energy such as the spirit of alcohol.

 

Thus the "spirit" of Jesus would have been referring to what?

And the "Holy Spirit" would be referring to what?

 

I equate the word "holy" with being "totally considerate of all things" (whole)

Hi Ssel!

 

I apologize for my delay in responding, as I was out of town.

 

Regarding your interpretations of the water meaning issues, are you saying these are the issues that give us life, energy that creates enthusiam? Because then, we may be close to the same interpretations... since I've found 'water' to be the life giving resources. Otherwise, how can we explain being baptised in 'water'?

 

Concerning your above post, the intitial spirit of Jesus scared them. I would like to know your understanding of what it is. I must confess, that I highly suspected an experience of his spirit leaving his body. Check the internet for Out of Body Experiences and you will see many people claiming to have this occurrence, and those in a high professional position having had this experience may be reluctant to express such. People have claimed this phenomena from the operating table, and have great detail of the physical procedure. I'm only speculating, and am open to your insights.

[NotBlinded]

Ok, I've done enough catching up. I'm fairly convinced this is, or is very similar to Rosicrucianism. In either case its premises are flawed. That quasi scientific, mystical methodology is not modern science in any fashion. It's a "scientific" method of the mystics in the 17th century. I find it untrustworthy.

 

It is like numerology, tea leaf readings, etc. Hidden knowledge is extracted by "special knowledge". "Don't take my word, test it yourself and see the results", is the classic tool of con artists, think snake-oil salesmen. Telling someone what results to expect in a subjective experience is poisoning the experiment, to say the least. Furthermore, the results are always subjective interpretations of faith, overlooking all the failures of the "test" and reading anything that looks like it as "confirmation".

 

I don't mind if someone calls this mysticism, because it is. But it most certainly does not bear the respect of what "modern science" has gained. It is "scientific" like Alchemy was in the 17th century. It cannot stand up to the scrutiny of the tools of modern science, and cowers behind the "secret" or "hidden knowledge" banner. "Only those who have had their eyes opened will see the mysteries", is the typical reply. Mystery religion. Not science.

I think it's more ancient than that. Look at the science involved in constructing the great pyramid:

 

The Great Pyramid embodies an advanced knowledge of geometry, geodesy (the science of earth measurement), and astronomy. It incorporates not only the value of pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, but also the golden section, phi, found in the growth patterns of living things. For example, the angle of slope of the Pyramid's outer casing was 51.85 degrees, the tangent of which is equal to 4/pi, and the cosine to the value of the golden section. The Pyramid squares the circle: the perimeter of its square base is the same length as the circumference of a circle with a radius equal to its height. The Pyramid stands at the centre of the earth's land mass: the lines of latitude and longitude on which it lies pass through more land and less water than any others. It represents the earth's northern hemisphere on a scale of 1:43,200: its perimeter equals a half minute of latitude at the equator; the perimeter of the corner sockets equals a half minute of equatorial longitude, or 1/43,200 of the earth's circumference; and its height, including the platform, is 1/43,200 of the earth's polar radius.[3] It is only since the carrying out of satellite surveys from space in the 1970s that scientists have obtained measurements of the earth as accurate as those contained in the Pyramid. The Pyramid also embodies various astronomical data [4]. To suggest -- as most Egyptologists do -- that all this is merely a matter of 'coincidence' and 'chance' is simply laughable.

 

And listed as a note:

 

Marsham Adams shows that there are allusions to the Pyramid's unique system of passages and chambers in the Egyptian Book of the Dead -- the title given to a collection of sacred writings dealing not only with the soul's journey after death but also with the stages of initiation (see The Book of the Master of the Hidden Places).

 

From The Great Pyramid

 

I think this knowledge is hidden in a mystery language. If it wasn't, I would think the world would have known the measurements of the earth prior to the 1970's by studying the pyramid. In this case, could one say that the measurements of the pyramid are now seen because they know the measurements of the earth? Are they only seeing confirmation of something that is not really there due to this understanding?

 

What I'm trying to say is that I think that science and religion don't have to conflict when one looks at the origins. Religion developed as a way to understand the universe and it's powers as it relates to the Divine (whatever that is). Since the Divine is everything, how can they conflict? (Of course, this is before other religions developed that didn't have all the keys to knowledge, therefore, corrupting the meanings)