Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Religious Catch-All Thread Of Stray Posts
Palladin Wrote:That's because the Jews, unlike all their neighbors, saw the giants as satanic evil, they wouldn't have been in favor of anything but demonstrating how YHWH saw them.
Because they didn't have tall poeple among them. And jews are usualy not tall, even 7000 years after the facts.

JL Wrote:This is Robert Wadlow, officially the tallest human on record...
John, I think there is a difference between normaly big and medical anomaly.

I have fought karate twice against oponents who were both 7' (2m) or higher. One was definetly higher. I'm almost 6'. Despite that they were beginners and that I was semi-advanced, there were nothing that I could do against them. I can tell you that they were far from being handicaped!
Form this experience, I know that tall men could have been terrible warriors at that time. Nothwithstanding the fact that they could die later from hearth attack or other complications due to their exceptional size...

IMO up to 7' and something, they don't have to worry. From 7'4" (2.20m) they may develop complications.
Fred, there is a difference between "normally big"(actually abnormal), and gigantism. I'm sure there is a relationship though, because it all involves HGH and the pituitary gland. Most unusually tall individuals have pituitary glands that receive a signal to stop with the growth hormone, and they do stop. But with gigantism, it just keeps production of HGH. That fellow above was still growing when he died at 22.

I used to be 5' 11", and am glad to have come to a stop at that point. Unfortunately I have shrunk about two inches over time, and will probably lose at least one more inch before it is all done. S5

I really do feel a lot of compassion for all those huge football players, especially pros, who subjected their bodies to such physical effort and hard contact on a regular basis. The human body is just not made for such punishment over time. Duckbutts have a decided advantage long term, concerning their physical health, due to less continued mass-to-gravity percentages.

The relationship between abnormally-sized people and religion resonates to a degree because Christianity is the primary religion that acknowledges God set up a system in which physical laws of the Universe are constant, and He is not One to order the universe based on whatever whim of the day he espouses. Most all other religions were scientifically retarded because they all believed what they experienced and saw happening were random events with no connection. So what if a Giant dies young? Maybe a different Giant would live longer. A Greek or Roman god might do one thing one day - and the opposite the next. Being a god meant that there were no rules that to the people of the world had no certainty.

Imagine encountering a 7+ foot-tall man in the time when Zoroastrianism was in vogue. Being different meant being god-like. In such a time and culture, it is easy to assign god-like attributes to virtually anything done. Consider the hype and exaggeration that would occur - and the evolution of it all with oral history.
I disagree with this:

"Being a god meant that there were no rules that to the people of the world had no certainty".

The core operational law of all ancient pagan religions is called "continuity". It's why paganism is so attractive to humanity to this day.

Unlike the transcendent God of the Jews, the ancient gods were seen as flawed like the people were. They didn't have higher standards like the bible gives the Jews, they only needed appeasing with various sacrifices for every thing human life had occur(that's why they needs tons of gods).

If there was murderous violence perped by the people, the gods must do some violence or things got out of balance. It's all about continuity. That's why they did human sacrifices to gods all over this earth. All creation is continuous with everything, including the gods.
That's why the Greeks saw Zeus as a horndog, cause the Greeks were horndogs.
Palladin, Judaism and Islamism are pagan religions to a great extent. I mean they took many supertitions from the other cultures of that time, just that there was only one God left. And this god was not represented graphicaly, scultped or painted.

Jews moved very gradualy and very slowly from Golden Calf worshipers to Protochristians.

The difference with other cults was that God was Perfection and the Creator of All Things.

~~~~ At first, there was The Verb ~~~~

Sort of mythological Big Bang. And God came into existance immediately after (think 3 milliseconds after the Big Bang) and because there was a verb. The Verb is sometimes interpretated as being an initial intent of creating which came miraculousely before any God or any person able of intent. Sort of to answer the "who has created God" question. Like "what was before the Big Bang".

This a necessary exception to the uniqueness of God because it's very difficult for the human mind to imagine that God and/or the Universe have always existed for as far as we can get back in time. That you imagine being an infinity of billion years in the past something or somebody was already there. The impossibility to concieve infinity.

That's very important because in all other Greeco-Roman-Persian traditions, any god, even the main one, was always born off someone else and had only limited role in the creation.

For the Jews God was Perfection because He empowered the Tribes of Israel. For the Muslims God is Perfection because He dictates the Laws upon the humans and because He is Most Allmighty.

For Jews and Muslims God is Perfect so he can't do mistakes already. But he can do or order to do harmful things to humans, and that won't be mistakes because these things are necessary for the divine purpose. Whatever this purpose is.

What The Christ changed was that God is Love and that the only concept of perfection can only defined by love for every human in existance, not by the power to flood entire regions, to burn entire cities, to drown entire armies. The worse that the God of the Christians has done was to shred a curtain in a temple.

WmL Wrote:Christianity is the primary religion that acknowledges God set up a system in which physical laws of the Universe are constant, and He is not One to order the universe based on whatever whim of the day he espouses.
True. But it's also why it consider previous scientific theories as unmodifiable.
If the laws of the Universe can't be changed, then the knowledge of these laws also cannot be changed.
New theories are forcibly wrong because there was (until a certain time) no difference between the real laws of the Universe and what laws we think are.
It took a while for the men to understand that making new theories about the Order of the Universe doesn't affect the Order of the Universe itself.
Fred, I disagree with your suggestion that God came after the "Big Bang." Even three milliseconds. That idea suggests that the universe created God. God came first, before anything else existed. That is the only way that an ordered universe could come into existence. There had to already exist an ordered Mind. Where did God come from, or how did He originate, you ask? We cannot know, but at least it is easier to accept than the idea that an unordered cosmos suddenly burst into existence, and not only exhibited orderly and consistent physical laws, but even somehow created the Creator. Really, that is just making a god out of the physical universe, and philosophically it gets you no where. At least we postulate a priori that an intelligent mind possesses the qualities of order and the ability to create order. The physical universe could only posses a priori an essential chaos. But even then, how could the universe exist, were not protons and neutrons and electrons, and all the forces of nature, defined? How could chaos define order for itself? No, God had to come first. That is the only thing that makes sense. And in fact, that is how the Bible begins in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God...."
If you check out the OT text, you'll notice some weird stuff. For example, Moses is tasked by YHWH to go back to Egypt to lead the Jews out of Egypt. Moses then asks YHWH, "who will I tell them you are"?

Moses wasn't positive who he was dealing with immediately. God's answer, "I AM".

I think after the Jews were in slavery for 4 centuries among the Egyptians and other pagans, it was natural for them to need an adjustment era to unlearn all their pagan propaganda and learn about the transcendent God.
God's statement of His identity as "I AM" has long been regarded by scholars and theologians as a profound claim to self-existence. All creatures derrive and borrow their lives from the Creator. The Creator alone IS existence itself. This is why the boldest declaration of His divinity made by Jesus was when He declared, "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58)
Agree. Only someone not versed at all in OT "messaging" would not see the various ways Jesus claimed equality with YHWH of the OT.

Ego Emi is what the Greek has there in John and in Septuagint Exodus quotations. "I AM". Promise if you're discussing this with a JW, they'll have some explanation why Jesus didn't mean, "I AM".
JWs have a lot of trouble with many things John wrote, in his gospel and in his epistles.
Anything hinting at Jesus' divinity is verboten. He's a created lower god to them.

Just for fun, a bunch visited me once and we had the usual discussion. When they were all packing up in their cars to leave, I ran to the road and reminded them, "don't forget to read Ezekiel chapter 1, it's got some weird stuff in it".

Next visit I get( we get visits about 4 X annually) I am going to ask them what was John the Baptists's role( cause John quoted an OT passage that has YHWH as the reason he is "clearing a path") and when did YHWH return to His temple after the exile cause because IF Jesus is not YHWH, YHWH failed to keep that promise to return to the temple if the Jews built it for Him.

The OT prophets kept asking "where is YHWH", the intertestimental and 1st century rabbinical Jewish writings all wonder, "where is YHWH". IF Jesus is not YHWH, then YHWH never entered the 2cd temple.

Lucky for us, we know He did.
Trouble for JWs begins with John 1:1-3, 11:

Quote:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I once asked some JWs who were visiting us how Jesus could be a created being, if everything that was created was created by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. They had no answer.

As some people may be aware, the JW's have produced their own translation of the Bible (The "New World" translation), inwhich they try to downplay some things that are embarassing for their doctrinal positions. Here is how they render John 1:1-3 (in the 2013 edition):

Quote:In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Notice they call the Word "a god." The original Greek literally reads (translated word-for-word) "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and God was the Word." The Greek New Testament commonly uses the definite article "the" (ton in the Greek) to distinguish the true God from false pagan gods. Just because ton is not repeated two words later, the translators of the JW translation thought they could claim the second was just "a god." This is playing fast and loose with the text--ignoring the grammatical context. Greek often assumes that an article or pronoun already specified does not need to be specified again, especially not when only two words apart, and most especially when linked by the conjuncton "and" (kai) in the Greek. Literally the Greek says: "with the God and God was the Word...."

JWs have also been sharply criticized for this because they claim that Jesus is another god, contrary to the Biblical declarations that there is only one God. JWs counter that before the Incarnation, Christ was an angel (Michael) whom they count as a "lesser god." So they are saying that the Word who became Jesus was a lesser god, but not truly divine.

All this, of course, misses the point that the Word is said to be the Creator of all things, and that nothing that was created was created without Him. So how could this Word have been a created being Himself? That is the only alternative to being the divine Creator of all things. But if everything that was created was created by Him, then how could He have created Himself?

Of course, that is only the beginning of JWs' problems with the gospel and epistles of John. Historically, there were some groups in the early centuries who also tried to deny the divinity of Jesus, and to maintain their credibility, they had to claim that John's gospel and epistles were not authentic. JWs do not appear to have gone that route. But it leaves their doctrinal position completely indefensible.
Oh, they have answers down here for that one. Pretty much, the Word is created and was YHWH's conduit through which YHWH created everything.

They just refuse to consider the Word is eternal and logically, He has to be. You cannot have an eternal creator that "never had a thought or word".

Muslims also need to think this through, Quran says Jesus is the word( and spirit) of God also. Most Muslims are not aware of this, like Christians, they pretty much operate on traditions from childhood w/o critical thinking.
I do not have enough evidence presently to prove it, but I suspect Islam originated as a Christian heresy that was based on a denial of Christ's divinity. There were other groups that taught this as well. Moslems are just the ones who grew the largest, because of their willingness to evangelize at gunpoint.
You mean "at the point of a sword"? They didn't have guns back then. S5

They started out with swords, but they made great inroads in their invasion of Europe because they had guns and the Europeans did not. I am not sure exactly when they started using gunpowder, but it was likely before they invaded Europe, and may have been the key factor enabling Islam to consolidate its gains in the Middle East, where it began.

I have a book titled, "What every Christian should know about the Quran".

There is a story in Quran that appears to be identical to a Gnostic Gospel account of baby Jesus taking a lump of clay and creating a bird from it. The author of the book thinks the evidence is that Mohammad probably was not aware of a canonical Gospel and his "Jesus info" came from a Gnostic version.

There are other Gnostic commonalities, such as the idea that Jesus was not crucified, but, that God placed a look a like in His place and that guy was crucified, that also comes from a Gnostic text.

I think he's right. Islam didn't start out as a Christian sect, it started out and remains a combination of ancient Judaism transitioned into Arabism( much Islamic stuff comes out of Deuteronomy and Leviticus) combined with elements of Gnosticism.

Like the Gnostics, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet, unlike the Gnostics, they see Jesus as a real human where the Gnostics saw Jesus as a ghost.

From reading Quran, it is clear Mohammad never understood the historic Jesus of Nazareth.
No, Ron, Europeans were the first to use gunpowder for artillery. Had not France shred herself in the 100 Years War and made the Crusades after this invention, the M-E would be christian as we speak.

The Gregoian Fire, a mix of powder and bitumen was used like a flame thrower was used against the Crusaders
by the Byzantines and/or the Muslims. But this weapon was very short range and didn't throw any projectile. It has never been a decisive weapon in the conflicts.

I agre with palladin: Islam is more like Judaism 2.0 than a christian sect. Muslims never venerated The Christ, which is the definition of Christianism.

It was even anti-chriostian in the sens that it undid the progress of Christianism (see my previous comments).
For exepmple the statu of the women was moved back to the time when Abrham made pregnant the slave of his whife. Abrham was the model of typical muslim in fact. And many prominent jews were polygames.

I think that Mahomad just restored a very ancient form of Judaism, already not in use at this time.
The Chinese invented gunpowder, but only used it in fireworks. The Moslem cavalries that invaded Europe used rifles like what we would call blunderbusses. The Moslems thus were the first to use gunpowder in war. Their advantage in range was offset by their great lack of accuracy, especially when fired from horseback, plus it took a long time to reload after each shot. Europeans were the first to use gunpowder in artillery as a power multiplier on the battlefield. Navies at various times in history invented and reinvented "Greek Fire," which was very effective against wooden ships.

I do not think it was possible for Islam to arise without being influenced by, or being a reaction to, Chriistianity, which had become dominant throughout the Roman world (including the Middle East, and Arab lands) by the fifth century A.D., while Islam did not rise to prominence until 200 years later.
Muslims constantly refer to the 'blade' as the final solution to practically everything. The enemy is almost always killed by having their throats slit, not by being shot shot.

What I have always found interesting is that China seems to always get the credit for practically everything, from acupuncture to underarm deodorant. And yet,.....the oldest example of acupuncture was found on Ötzi, the iceman, discovered in the Alps. Almost every refining development was created by someone other than Chinese. I wonder why, since it seems they invented everything throughout history. Perhaps the ancient Chinese were Ancient Astronauts, settling on the planet?

My point is that China has, for some reason, always been quick to come up with all sorts of things, but never have the wherewithall to fully develop practically any of them. And my thinking is that the reason being that they have always been a top-down, centralized, and bureaucratic State organization. In other words, no individualism, or Free Enterprise, that encourages its citizens to profit from their achievements. And they are still that way. Like the Russians, they have to steal practically every innovation that comes out.

Personally, I don't care how many things they invented. Their outlook on the universe literally sucks. They can keep it as far as I am concerned. Perhaps their ever growing Christianity, which they didn't invent BTW, will lead to a major change in their psyche. Who knows. All these 'so called' intellectuals, who constantly "wax poetic" over China's superiority, lack the ability to use any reason/commonsense when comparing them to Western Civilization. What they are Really good at doing, if producing huge numbers of children, even when they produce bureaucratic laws restricting their numbers. That should tell one a good deal about China.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)