Topic of "angels having sex with human females".

Davelaw wrote:its the perceived tone or the undertone

that Sak and I find somewhat offensive

-now, now dear little deluded Christian
you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real tm

Well, I can't be responsible for either of you choosing to take offense. You could just as easily choose to dismiss the opposing views expressed here as having no impact upon you and your beliefs.

While I often wish that people holding viewpoints dramatically opposed to mine would simply have the good sense to agree with me, I know that's unlikely to happen.

I heartily agree with All about the attitude either overt or unexpressed that Christians tend to have toward the myths of other faiths. That's a pretty ugly double standard when you think about it, and I've encountered too many Christians who were quite baffled that I would think so or would feel justified in so thinking.

I do, however, find it somewhat revelatory that Dave characterized our attitude toward Christians as, "...you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real." Interestingly, that's precisely the point! Myths aren't to be taken as accounts of actual events. They deliberately involve actions beyond the capabilities of human beings so as to create larger-than-life figures that may inspire the rest of us to behave bravely, gallantly and nobly when we otherwise might yield to weakness. Myths express subjective but not literal truths; in short, myths aren't real.

DeavonReye wrote:As a quick side track, . . . what IS the oldest manuscript, regardless of religious affiliation? In other words, other religions, . . . .or even non-religious writings that were original, or as close as possible?

As to whether or not they're original manuscripts, I can't say and probably no one else knows either, but I think there are Hindu manuscripts older than any of the DSS.

Older still, of course, would be the Egyptian ritual texts commonly referred to as Books of the Dead which date back to somewhere around 1500-1000 years before the oldest of the DSS. These are a bit different in nature as they were written as individual guides for the deceased so that the person would know what kinds of tests would be imposed upon them in the afterlife. While they do contain Egyptian myths, they aren't strictly treatises upon religion in the sense that we commonly understand scriptures.

These Egyptian texts are probably the oldest known religious manuscripts in existence unless you include things like cave drawings.

I'm not sure if there are Egyptian texts that would be more akin to Christian or Jewish scriptures.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Davelaw wrote:its the perceived tone or the undertone

that Sak and I find somewhat offensive

-now, now dear little deluded Christian
you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real tm

Dave, there is always something that we all can take offense from. Really, you don't think my myths are real either. The Christian community is actually very dismissive of my beliefs. They don't even bother to try to refute them, they just dismiss their actual existence. All the while demanding air time for theirs.

I don't lump all individual Christians in the same basket. It is more of a specific type of person, whether they be Christian, or Buddhist (we ran into one of those recently on bnet) or whatever. It is the person who thinks that they need to spread what they consider to be the truth.

all

All just made a point that I think is very important. Look at how many non-Christians are willing (even if some think the tone is wrong) to discuss the Christian myths. How many Christians are willing to discuss anything about or ask about or even argue over other people's religious myths? I'm sure this in not a 100% accurate but I feel that some Christians feel that even talking about myths outside their religion somehow gives that religion, gods and myths, legitimacy. If they ignore it, it diminishes it, or at least that is what I feel they think. It isn't worth talking about. Or perhaps they feel that if they denigrate other people's myths that the person might say "And yours are any more believable?"

And it might well be the type of person as All suggests.

Davelaw wrote:its the perceived tone or the undertone

that Sak and I find somewhat offensive

-now, now dear little deluded Christian
you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real tm

Ah! I think you need to word that a little differently. I'm sure that the lessons are quite real, the paper they are written on is real, but there is a question about if the event happened as reported, the beings involved existed as reported and so on - Journalism 101.

There is a bit of a discrepancy if critical reading and evaluating skills are applied everywhere but to your (the general you) particular myths, be it family, cultural or religious. At that point, a person needs to ask themselves "Why is that?"

If on the other hand, you have questions, in my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to ask the gods involved directly for your answers.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote:

Davelaw wrote:its the perceived tone or the undertone

that Sak and I find somewhat offensive

-now, now dear little deluded Christian
you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real tm

Dave, there is always something that we all can take offense from. Really, you don't think my myths are real either. The Christian community is actually very dismissive of my beliefs. They don't even bother to try to refute them, they just dismiss their actual existence. All the while demanding air time for theirs.

I don't lump all individual Christians in the same basket. It is more of a specific type of person, whether they be Christian, or Buddhist (we ran into one of those recently on bnet) or whatever. It is the person who thinks that they need to spread what they consider to be the truth.

all

You haven't spoken to me much if you think I'm that dismissive of your beliefs. I'm commanded not to worship your gods; does not mean they didn't/don't exist. I'm convinced there was/is a one-eyed wanderer mucking about with the Nordic peoples for his own amusement.

gillyflower wrote:

Davelaw wrote:its the perceived tone or the undertone

that Sak and I find somewhat offensive

-now, now dear little deluded Christian
you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real tm

Ah! I think you need to word that a little differently. I'm sure that the lessons are quite real, the paper they are written on is real, but there is a question about if the event happened as reported, the beings involved existed as reported and so on - Journalism 101.

There is a bit of a discrepancy if critical reading and evaluating skills are applied everywhere but to your (the general you) particular myths, be it family, cultural or religious. At that point, a person needs to ask themselves "Why is that?"

If on the other hand, you have questions, in my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to ask the gods involved directly for your answers.

The official Christian doctrine is that all Myths contain truth; but our Myths are Truth.

... and really happened.

Now that is really nice to hear! A number of Christians believe that other people's gods do not exist because it says so in the bible. I've argued that it says no such thing to no avail.

You are correct on that point. No other gods before me-is Henotheism; not monotheism.

Davelaw wrote:

gillyflower wrote:

Davelaw wrote:its the perceived tone or the undertone

that Sak and I find somewhat offensive

-now, now dear little deluded Christian
you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real tm

Ah! I think you need to word that a little differently. I'm sure that the lessons are quite real, the paper they are written on is real, but there is a question about if the event happened as reported, the beings involved existed as reported and so on - Journalism 101.

There is a bit of a discrepancy if critical reading and evaluating skills are applied everywhere but to your (the general you) particular myths, be it family, cultural or religious. At that point, a person needs to ask themselves "Why is that?"

If on the other hand, you have questions, in my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to ask the gods involved directly for your answers.

The official Christian doctrine is that all Myths contain truth; but our Myths are Truth.

... and really happened.

In the Presbyterian church there are those who don't think that the universe was created in six days or that Yahweh flooded the whole world. It may be that there is a disconnect between what is official Christian doctrine and what the people actually believe.

DotNotInOz wrote:

DeavonReye wrote:As a quick side track, . . . what IS the oldest manuscript, regardless of religious affiliation? In other words, other religions, . . . .or even non-religious writings that were original, or as close as possible?

As to whether or not they're original manuscripts, I can't say and probably no one else knows either, but I think there are Hindu manuscripts older than any of the DSS.

Older still, of course, would be the Egyptian ritual texts commonly referred to as Books of the Dead which date back to somewhere around 1500-1000 years before the oldest of the DSS. These are a bit different in nature as they were written as individual guides for the deceased so that the person would know what kinds of tests would be imposed upon them in the afterlife. While they do contain Egyptian myths, they aren't strictly treatises upon religion in the sense that we commonly understand scriptures.

These Egyptian texts are probably the oldest known religious manuscripts in existence unless you include things like cave drawings.

I'm not sure if there are Egyptian texts that would be more akin to Christian or Jewish scriptures.

I doubt there are any original texts any belief system or even philosophy. However, the Zoasterian Gathas (the oldest part of the Avesta) is written in language old enough to be indistiguishable from the Sanscrit in the oldest of the aforementioned Hindu texts.

gillyflower wrote:

Davelaw wrote:

gillyflower wrote:

Davelaw wrote:its the perceived tone or the undertone

that Sak and I find somewhat offensive

-now, now dear little deluded Christian
you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real tm

Ah! I think you need to word that a little differently. I'm sure that the lessons are quite real, the paper they are written on is real, but there is a question about if the event happened as reported, the beings involved existed as reported and so on - Journalism 101.

There is a bit of a discrepancy if critical reading and evaluating skills are applied everywhere but to your (the general you) particular myths, be it family, cultural or religious. At that point, a person needs to ask themselves "Why is that?"

If on the other hand, you have questions, in my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to ask the gods involved directly for your answers.

The official Christian doctrine is that all Myths contain truth; but our Myths are Truth.

... and really happened.

In the Presbyterian church there are those who don't think that the universe was created in six days or that Yahweh flooded the whole world. It may be that there is a disconnect between what is official Christian doctrine and what the people actually believe.

there are Baptists that think the Creation story and the Flood are mere metaphors as well. Individual responsibilty means that each individual is ultimately responsible for what they believe.

DeavonReye wrote:An incredible word you gave, John.

It can go along with my thoughts on "why there isn't only ONE denomination in the world", if the bible was divinely inspired.

One body/ Many members
I can't stand ritual-I would not do well in a High church setting
There also people that would be very uncomfortable reading outloud from Scripture and giving their personal interpretation. Some people like to be told what to believe others need to work it out for themselves. People are different/ hence different kinds of churches. Even as the NT was being written, we had Jewish Churches, Gentile Churches, blended Churches, Churches with women leaders and Churches (that because of their cultural background) where the women stayed in the background.

allthegoodnamesweretaken wrote: It is the person who thinks that they need to spread what they consider to be the truth.

all

Christians are commanded to do so; but can do so without ever speaking.

DotNotInOz wrote:I do, however, find it somewhat revelatory that Dave characterized our attitude toward Christians as, "...you can find real meaning in your myths-just don't think they are real." Interestingly, that's precisely the point! Myths aren't to be taken as accounts of actual events. They deliberately involve actions beyond the capabilities of human beings so as to create larger-than-life figures that may inspire the rest of us to behave bravely, gallantly and nobly when we otherwise might yield to weakness. Myths express subjective but not literal truths; in short, myths aren't real.

Even Campbell says a Myth can also be real.

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

I know you will correct me if I am wrong but is this the only place Christians are commanded by Jesus to go out and teach?

Ach, I knew there was another!

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20).

gillyflower wrote:And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

I know you will correct me if I am wrong but is this the only place Christians are commanded by Jesus to go out and teach?

depends-
Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Mr 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

In the passage you just quoted there two different words that are translated teach-
19 matheteuo to make disciples of
20 didasko prolonged form of the word meaning to learn

And did not his disciples give up everything to follow Jesus?

Luke 14:26 Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

So wonder how many are true disciples of Jesus? Maybe the rest ought to shut up.

gillyflower wrote:And did not his disciples give up everything to follow Jesus?

Luke 14:26 Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

So wonder how many are true disciples of Jesus? Maybe the rest ought to shut up.

Jesus also said whoever is not against Him is for Him.

Read this article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101210/sc_livescience/lostcivilizationmayhaveexistedbeneaththepersiangulf

And it would have been an ideal refuge from the harsh deserts surrounding it, with fresh water supplied by the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun and Wadi Baton Rivers, as well as by upwelling springs, Rose said. And during the last ice age when conditions were at their driest, this basin would've been at its largest.
a literalist will read it and think of the pre-flood Eden

Ge 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

Davelaw wrote:

gillyflower wrote:And did not his disciples give up everything to follow Jesus?

Luke 14:26 Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:33 So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.

So wonder how many are true disciples of Jesus? Maybe the rest ought to shut up.

Jesus also said whoever is not against Him is for Him.

Sounds like a politician to me.

gillyflower wrote:

Davelaw wrote: Jesus also said whoever is not against Him is for Him.

Sounds like a politician to me.

A pol would reverse it; if you are not for me; you are against me.

Davelaw wrote:Read this article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101210/sc_livescience/lostcivilizationmayhaveexistedbeneaththepersiangulf

And it would have been an ideal refuge from the harsh deserts surrounding it, with fresh water supplied by the Tigris, Euphrates, Karun and Wadi Baton Rivers, as well as by upwelling springs, Rose said. And during the last ice age when conditions were at their driest, this basin would've been at its largest.
a literalist will read it and think of the pre-flood Eden

Ge 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

Certainly, they are allowed to do so. That doesn't mean that it was or that it wasn't. It could also be two myths mashed into one for political reasons, or the myth might have come from a different group of people entirely and with the names changed because it was so well liked.

A literalist will also think that it was possible that all the insects, birds, reptiles and animals came 2 by 2 and got on a boat for the duration of the the flood Yahweh sent. That doesn't mean that it happened that way. It doesn't mean that there isn't a fragment of truth in there somewhere either. Maybe there was a very big flood that was a huge calamity for those people at one time.

Davelaw wrote:

gillyflower wrote:

Davelaw wrote: Jesus also said whoever is not against Him is for Him.

Sounds like a politician to me.

A pol would reverse it; if you are not for me; you are against me.

LOL I was thinking of voting. If you don't bother to vote against something, then you are for it.