PDA

View Full Version : Old vs. New Testament



Awani
01-17-2019, 09:23 PM
I've been looking into the Old Testament of late, especially non-KJV translations... more "source" material and it makes me wonder...

Christianity has the Old and New Testament as two parts of the same book called The Bible... but maybe it is actually two distinctly different religions altogether. Allegorically imagine a book where part one is The Lord of the Rings and part two is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone...

Perhaps these two NEVER were meant to be part of the same "thing".

Thoughts?

:p

elixirmixer
01-18-2019, 12:50 AM
Its an interesting theory and I believe it does have some merit.

If we look into Gnosticism and Luciferianism, we can see some interesting truths that the Christians would love to deny. I shall explore these with you a little later.

We should all try to remember that Jesus did not 'swing' the the Pharasee's and Scribes. He was an Essene; whoms people believed in more hermetic like traditions and faiths, strived to actually live the ways of God as upposed to the hypocritical ways of the other Jews, and who shared interesting and (hidden from us) ideas about the creation that are missing from the typical Canon.

There is always the fact that Rome constructed the Bible, not the Jews or early Christians, so there was a bit of a bias hand in compling the canon(bible).

Seraphim
01-18-2019, 01:36 AM
Thought provoking indeed. I don't know the answer but if these "two parts" (1 being the Old Testament and 2 being the New Testament) were "not" meant to be part of the same thing, this book The Bible, then why the prophecy?

"The Lord himself will give you a sign: The Virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and will call him Immanuel.’ (which means ‘God with us’)." - ISIAH 7:14

"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The Virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”)." - MATTHEW 1:22-23

Awani
01-18-2019, 01:43 AM
That prophecy is not only in the Bible... also Jesus is not called Immanuel?

Another theory could be retroactive editing.

:p

Seraphim
01-18-2019, 02:20 AM
:) About Jesus Christ,


His whole title in Aramaic is actually " ישוע משחא בר אלהא אחדאיא ", or "Jesus the Messiah, the only Begotten Son of God", according to the Nicene creed written in Aramaic. It shows how God is with us in that respect.

Not only that, but the prophecies in Isaiah can be taken to mean qualities of the Messiah, literally being called (qarat shemo וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ, or in Aramaic taqarai shemieh תקרי שמיה ), as in He will be called Immanuel, otherwise, it would have been "at shimo את שמו".

Also in this verse, the literal Hebrew and Aramaic both state that his name will be called, not that his name will be.

Isaiah 7:10
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

לָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל
It's not directly "at shimo Immanual" it's "qarat shimo", or "called the name Emmanuel".

The Aramaic Targum and Hebrew text out the prophecy, showing it's what earlier Jews believed. It is as much a name as it is a title of Christ.


Yesh'ua (Heb.) is rendered "Jesus" or "Joshua" today. It is his given name. It means "Jehovah Saves."

Christos (Greek) is a title translating the Hebrew "Messiah" or "Annointed One." It highlights his annointed and special status.

Immanuel (Heb.) is a simple Hebrew construction that says "God is with us." It is as much sign as name. It signifies that in coming to Earth, God has chosen to dwell among us.

Full Link (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17681/if-jesus-was-emmanuel-why-was-he-named-yeshua)

zoas23
01-18-2019, 06:56 AM
I've been looking into the Old Testament of late, especially non-KJV translations... more "source" material and it makes me wonder...

Christianity has the Old and New Testament as two parts of the same book called The Bible... but maybe it is actually two distinctly different religions altogether. Allegorically imagine a book where part one is The Lord of the Rings and part two is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone...

Perhaps these two NEVER were meant to be part of the same "thing".

Thoughts?

:p

The New Testament books were written quite late and they became a "single book" even later (which was, in my opinion, a political decision -i.e, which books were going to be "the New Testament" and which ones were not going to get into the canon).

They are certainly two different religions... obviously one of them is based on the idea of "the messiah was born, lived, died, resurrected, etc"... the other one is based on "We are still waiting".

The New Testament books make an obvious effort to fulfill several prophecies of the Old testament... but then again, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament were written as to become ONE book (i.e, both of them are compilations), but some things of the New Testament would never make sense without the Old one... So there was a clear intention of making the books of that LATER became the New Testament become somehow a "part II" (having in mind that it's quite obvious that none of the authors of the Old and new Testament ever imagined that they were going to participate in a compilation book)... but the "two books in one" makes sense... in the same way that the Tao Te Ching followed by the New Testament as ONE book would not make any sense.

Then again, of course they are two different religions, though the two of them influenced each other (i.e, the ideas of Philo of Alexandria were certainly taken on loan by John... but it is also true that the early Christian writings had a very deep influence on Kabbalah, which became a central part of the Jewish religion for many practitioners).

Florius Frammel
01-18-2019, 08:36 AM
What zoas said. There was quite some time between the old and the new one. Of course it was possible to "adjust" the new to the old afterwards.

Independently there are very interesting similarities between the story of Jesus and the alchemical practice imo.

Of course that counts for many passages of the OT as well. Studying both can lead to many insights about the symbols of the great work imo.

Awani
01-19-2019, 12:55 PM
I guess the "seed" of my query is not really OT vs. NT, more the Torah vs. NT as well as the Neo-Torah parts of OT. However the Torah chapters of the Bible are the "famous" ones...

My impression is that the OT is a Jewish religion and the NT is an "anyone" religion. So when the NT was written, and in order to get any traction you need some "street rep"... in comes the OT. The fact that there are some hints in the OT about the NT is an easy trick, since the NT was written at a later date. Also the opposite, everyone knew the OT so it would not be hard to compose parts that paid tribute to the OT.

OT is clearly a "Jew Only" religion, below one example from OT and one from NT:


Deuteronomy 14:2: For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth.


Philippians 2:3: Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves...

Having studied these two books it does give me the impression that the OT is a Jews Up their Own Ass religion... and the NT is a general "thing" for anyone... However it may very well be that originally this is not what YHWH meant regarding "chosen"... regardless according to statistics 66 % of Israeli Jews believe they are the chosen people, which I think is directly and indirectly a BIG part of the drama that has been going around for hundreds of years.

I think Christianity would do "better" if it simply "chopped off" the Torah completely.

:p

elixirmixer
01-19-2019, 01:33 PM
OT is clearly a "Jew Only" religion, below one example from OT and one from NT:


Awani, this is, aswell as many other things you've said, so true.... except for 0.001440000 percent of the time...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note, I've been casually studying your signature, and have found much joy in the many layers of comedy and earnt-experience it conveys.

:)

Andro
01-19-2019, 01:50 PM
I think Christianity would do "better" if it simply "chopped off" the Torah completely.
Why stop at the torah? Because the NT/christianity is so much better? Has it helped with decreasing small-mindedness, misogyny, homophobia, religious bigotry and religious wars? NO, it hasn't.

"Chop off" the whole thing. ALL organized religions are POISON. "Scientism" included. And so are many of the "non-organized" ones.

Fuck them ALL.

Amen.

elixirmixer
01-19-2019, 01:59 PM
99.9% of the time.

Believe it of not, some of us Christians are just as 'privy' to whats going on as the rest of you.

:)

elixirmixer
01-19-2019, 02:00 PM
and STILL believe.

Andro
01-19-2019, 02:04 PM
Believe it of not, some of us Christians are just as 'privy' to whats going on as the rest of you.
And what exactly are "some of you christians" privy to?

Florius Frammel
01-19-2019, 02:49 PM
Why stop at the torah? Because the NT/christianity is so much better? Has it helped with decreasing small-mindedness, misogyny, homophobia, religious bigotry and religious wars? NO, it hasn't.

"Chop off" the whole thing. ALL organized religions are POISON. "Scientism" included. And so are many of the "non-organized" ones.

Fuck them ALL.

Amen.

There is always the danger to interchange the message with the messenger. See for example

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

Andro
01-19-2019, 03:11 PM
There is always the danger to interchange the message with the messenger.

How is it anyone's fucking business who fucks how! Not any "god's" business to slay/punish and not any "scholar's" business to interpret. What a bunch of voyeuristic assholes :)

What's the "message" and who's the "messenger", anyway?

As I see it, they both suck, generally speaking. No "danger of interchanging" at all in this case. Consider me unimpressed :)

I stand by what I wrote about organized religions, including theism, a-theism, scientism, statism, nationalism, celebritism and what have you: Fuck them ALL.

At the core/foundation of ALL of them, you will find psychopathic entities (such as gods/politicians/CEOs/banksters/academics/etc), whether "real" or "imagined".

Awani
01-19-2019, 03:29 PM
Why stop at the torah? Because the NT/christianity is so much better?

In studying these texts I think it is easier to look at them as separate entities. You don't study Islam by reading the Phone Book.


At the core/foundation of ALL of them, you will find psychopathic entities...

Not at the core of these "religions", I disagree with that... more at the core of their PR department.

:p

Florius Frammel
01-19-2019, 03:43 PM
How is it anyone's fucking business who fucks how! Not any "god's" business to slay/punish and not any "scholar's" business to interpret. What a bunch of voyeuristic assholes :)

What's the "message" and who's the "messenger", anyway?

As I see it, they both suck, generally speaking. No "danger of interchanging" at all in this case. Consider me unimpressed :)

I stand by what I wrote about organized religions, including theism, a-theism, scientism, statism, nationalism, celebritism and what have you: Fuck them ALL.

At the core/foundation of ALL of them, you will find psychopathic entities (such as gods/politicians/CEOs/banksters/academics/etc), whether "real" or "imagined".

First of all it was not my intention to impress you. It is just the way all this works. There is an event (be it in a realm/plane/level of your favourite choice) and an observer who is also the messenger.

How often have you reported things you experienced (and colored it your own unique way)? What's the difference?

Andro
01-19-2019, 03:48 PM
In studying these texts I think it is easier to look at them as separate entities. You don't study Islam by reading the Phone Book.
Islam is not based on the phone book, but it IS based on the abrahamic platform, as is christianity. The study will have to be approached in context. That's the problem with "scientific" studies. They "study" isolated components, preferably in "controlled environments"... But there are NO "isolated cases" or "controlled environments" in nature and society. Everything has a history and a context.



Not at the core of these "religions", I disagree with that... more at the core of their PR department.
Same difference. You can't isolate PR from HQ. It's like the farce of separate branches of government. Different heads of the same beast.

Andro
01-19-2019, 03:51 PM
First of all it was not my intention to impress you.
It's a figure of speech.


How often have you reported things you experienced (and colored it your own unique way)? What's the difference?
The difference is I'm not making a fucking religion out of it and tell people how to live their lives.

Awani
01-19-2019, 04:46 PM
The idea of government is not the same as the government, no more than the idea of a child will match what the child is.


Islam is not based on the phone book, but it IS based on the abrahamic platform, as is christianity. The study will have to be approached in context. That's the problem with "scientific" studies. They "study" isolated components, preferably in "controlled environments"... But there are NO "isolated cases" or "controlled environments" in nature and society.

Depends on the specific topic and approach. Neither had been revealed. Relative.

And yes that is my point... what happens when the abrahamic rug is pulled away.

:p

Andro
01-19-2019, 05:02 PM
what happens when the abrahamic rug is pulled away.
What happens is one gets the fragmented understanding that's so typical to scientism. Instead of subtracting the abrahamic, it would be wiser to also include "older" origins - Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc... The Egyptian attempts at monotheism are particularly interesting... Do that and you get the classical marketing strategy of corporate re-structuring, re-branding and consumer-group targeting. Just like the "old empires" never really went away... They just got restructured, rebranded and periodically re-adapted.



The idea of government is not the same as the government, no more than the idea of a child will match what the child is. It may not be the same in theory, which is the preferred area of academics. But what unfolds in the actual marketplace-drama is what ultimately matters. Ideas are useless to study when separated from their manifestation/application. The test is in the pudding, so to speak. The essence of an idea is only truly/fully embodied in the "Earth", where it can be studied as a whole, in its applied habitat - and not as mere academic musings.

Awani
01-19-2019, 05:11 PM
NT is basically a New Age handbook (don’t mean that in a derogatory way). Any origin religion of interest has to be an offspring of shamanism or pagan traditions... any other religion or tradition that grew out of the paternal-styled cultures is not interesting although worth keeping track of... at least if a specific study is done.

:p

Florius Frammel
01-19-2019, 05:15 PM
The difference is I'm not making a fucking religion out of it and tell people how to live their lives.

As we are living in the same country, I thought you would know that none of the two major churches are telling people how to live their lives anymore here. Their advices are of course biased. So are the advices of anyone you ask on any topic.

The christian religion is still very present in western society. Even with those who deny it with their hands and feet. This unconciously and inevitabely concerns matters of behaviour and speech/language.

Christianity-bashing is boring and outdated imo.
It's as useless as any easy answer. Instead of fighting it, how about harmonizing yourself with your own christian opposite like you suggested to do in another thread? Could be worth a try.

Andro
01-19-2019, 06:35 PM
none of the two major churches are telling people how to live their lives anymore here.
They don't have to. After so many generations of programming, it's pretty much hardwired already. See your own quote below, in which you're only further strengthening my point:


The christian religion is still very present in western society. Even with those who deny it with their hands and feet. This unconsciously and inevitably concerns matters of behaviour and speech/language.
_________________


Christianity-bashing is boring and outdated imo.Gay bashing (physical or verbal) is even older. And even more outdated. And it's only "boring" if it doesn't happen to you directly. If you had to deal with it personally, I assure you, it's not boring at all. Know what? I'll make you a deal: When ALL gay-condemning religions make a public statement that homosexuality is perfectly normal and a natural occurrence in humans, I may consider giving them a break. NOT before.



how about harmonizing yourself with your own christian opposite Maybe I would, if I had one. Opposites can be merged, but superfluities need to be removed.

Also, my posts are not exclusively about christianity, but about ALL organized religions (I have mentioned some of them in previous posts).

Andro
01-19-2019, 06:46 PM
NT is basically a New Age handbook (don’t mean that in a derogatory way). Any origin religion of interest has to be an offspring of shamanism or pagan traditions... any other religion or tradition that grew out of the paternal-styled cultures is not interesting although worth keeping track of... at least if a specific study is done.
Many Neo-Pagans are very nationalistic/xenophobic and homophobic. Same with many Neo-Wiccans (however, there are quite a lot of lesbian covens). Tibetan Buddhists (I met a few) also have their share of silly prejudices. About traditional native/indigenous Shamanic lineages (the few that I know of), I have not yet encountered such dogmatic prejudice, but the night is still young :)

Awani
01-19-2019, 07:19 PM
If any homophobia exist amongst the contemporary indigenous of Central Africa and Latin America it is most probable a heritage of the Catholic Church (they forced their religion on them using death threats). The advantage indigenous cultures have on most other cultures is that it is ORAL... meaning that dogmatic laws are not set in stone... they experience, worship and follow their relationship with the natural world instead of the words of some person long ago. I am sure there are cases of homophobia, but based on what I have see, and read so far, it is really not done in a systematic manner (which makes it totally different, since individuals can feel what they like... I mean people can be homophobes in the privacy of their own homes...) and if we look at the ancient world homosexuality was pretty much accepted. Even in Biblical times. Jesus was, if not a homosexual, at least bi... from my perspective he was practically preaching pan-sexuality.

I honestly do not think that any of the major religions are homophobic when it concerns their origin text or core message (speculative feeling on my part and not fact).

For instance the famous Leviticus 18:22:


You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

If you study and understand the linguistics and history of the Hebrew language (which I do not) the phrase can actually be translated into the following:


Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives. - source (https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/)


In other words it is actually pro-gay, because they take the time to point out that "no, it is still incest even if it is a man"... as if having sex with men was not even considered incest, as they were doing it so much... LOL

You might enjoy this: Queer Bible Hermeneutics (https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/)

:p

Andro
01-19-2019, 09:23 PM
the phrase can actually be translated into the following:

Sexual intercourse with a close male relative should be just as abominable to you as incestuous relationships with female relatives. - source (https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/)

Actually... no.

The Hebrew text mentions NOTHING about "relatives". It's very explicit: "you shall not "lie" with a male as you lie with woman". It's apparently addressed to males only.

Finally, as it's said, "a tree is known by its fruit". Look at the "fruits" of all three abrahamic religions if you want to "know" them.

Yes, please know those religions. BIBLICALLY :)


--------------------------------------------------

Awani
01-19-2019, 10:42 PM
Look at the "fruits" of all three abrahamic religions if you want to "know" them.

By fruit are you talking about later societies and/or the people that read/spread those texts?

My only interest in sacred texts lies in the parts where humans touch the Mystery. I am not concerned with the politics, nor with the messenger. Both are irrelevant from my perspective. From this outlook the only "fruit" the Bible gives birth to is whatever I gain from it. That's it.

:p

Andro
01-19-2019, 10:54 PM
the only "fruit" the Bible gives birth to is whatever I gain from it.

Same here.

Isn't this ironic... Don't you think?

elixirmixer
01-20-2019, 12:16 AM
And what exactly are "some of you christians" privy to?

That Christianity is a lie.

When contemplating these abrahamic religions we must consider, that the way that it has been presented to the masses is in fact, nonfactual, has many parts of these traditions missing, is out of context without any real effort to bride that gap, and all in all very deceptive.

However, if we were to go back all those years and hang out with say, Jesus, I think you would find that there was a lot more going on in their traditions than what the bible shares with us.

Such as kabballah and other self-empowering energetic techniques that are so conveniently removed from the 66 book canon that we call the bible.

A read of the book Pistis Sophia is a great way to open the eyes to some of the less known (and understood) beliefs of Christ and His buddies #THUGLIFE

elixirmixer
01-20-2019, 12:18 AM
And yeah, the bible never seemed to mind some girl on girl action.

elixirmixer
01-20-2019, 12:25 AM
Also, I disagree that Jesus was bi. I believe he was in fact a very adamant homophobe. Even outside of the bible, in the accounts we have of his opinion on the topic, he was very anti-gay.

Even to the point were talking about the subject would seem to get him a bit fired up and angry.

Also, I do not believe that the abrahamic religions were a development of paganism. They hated paganism and their religion(s) all stem from the Egyptian practises, which im not sure could be classed as shamanic (although im sure there would be arguments against that notion)

Edit: actually we've started so we'll go the whole hog here. (Now i would just like to make clear that im not conveying my own views here, just giving what i believe to be the viewpoint of those people way back when that we are talking about)

Homosexuallity, while to some people was hated and considered dirty, to the vast general population I believe was just considered unhealthy. They believed that it could lead to a type of 'moral blindness' and that, if left unchecked, would spread through their cultures. MOST of the rules and regulations in the Jewish faith were as such in order to try and keep things 'clean' including their culture.

Also, I can see why someone like Andro, who is a successful, fully functioning human being, can see no problem in homosexuality, however, if the case was different, and the homosexual is a young lad getting manipulated, fucked in the arse and given aids by older men, you could start to sympathise more with the father of that son and his hatred, who's son's life has taken a heavy toll due to these particular acts.

The homosexuality argument I think will continue to exist for another 100 years or so, and then it will be pretty much wiped from the history books and become just about as ancient as the concept of not having sex outside of marriage. In the bible, homosexuality was basically put at a similar level to adultery, and you should also consider that this tradition had a lot of rules revolving around sex, so you fags shouldnt feel so special, you wern't the only ones under the eye of Judgment, I mean, I wouldnt even be allowed to fuck my own sister? Whats up with that? Where's my, "I wanna be able to fuck my own sister" Parade? ;) (im just joking btw)

I mean, this is a culture whos laws stated that if a child did not honor its parents, it should be put to death. Its not that they dont tolerate homosexuality, its that they didn't tolerate ANYTHING.

Awani
01-20-2019, 12:34 AM
...all stem from the Egyptian practises, which im not sure could be classed as shamanic...

Before, way before... shamanism = origin

As for Jesus... we'll see if you change your tune when in the afterlife, when Jesus is on top (doesn't seem to be the bottom type).

:p

elixirmixer
01-20-2019, 01:06 AM
If Jesus wanted to fuck me... I'd bend right over. Just sayin'

Awani
01-20-2019, 01:12 AM
I've been looking into the Old Testament of late...

Two days later...


If Jesus wanted to fuck me... I'd bend right over. Just sayin'

LOL.

:p

elixirmixer
01-20-2019, 01:30 AM
Hahahaha

Kibric
01-20-2019, 02:12 AM
Bibles full of contradiction. Lot ? had sex with his daughters, their " God " didn't mind.
Marrying stepsisters sisters daughters has been common practice throughout history.
You could legally marry your daughter if your wife died, under the church a few hundred years ago.


I do not believe that the abrahamic religions were a development of paganism

The stories in the bible are mainly pagan in origin. The original translation is " We will make man in our image ".
Monotheism takes a dive when the " God " of the bible is infact a collection of Canaanite deities.
What the church did is reshape paganism and adopt it into Christianity, built their churches over pagan sites, adopted pagan holidays
changed famous pagans into catholic saints centuries after they're death.
As far as i know the abrahamic religions were developed from the worship of a collection of Canaanite deities. " El " being the leader.

Seraphim
01-20-2019, 02:25 AM
That's some thug shit right there. For anyone interested Pistis Sophia (https://archive.org/details/pistissophia00mead).

Florius Frammel
01-20-2019, 06:40 AM
Gay bashing (physical or verbal) is even older. And even more outdated. And it's only "boring" if it doesn't happen to you directly. If you had to deal with it personally, I assure you, it's not boring at all. Know what? I'll make you a deal: When ALL gay-condemning religions make a public statement that homosexuality is perfectly normal and a natural occurrence in humans, I may consider giving them a break. NOT before.


"Them" are different people (with different opinions) too. Here a protestant view on an official site about your topic:

https://www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/91368/02-02-2011/bibelauslegung-homosexualitaet-ein-graeuel

And here a catholic (the pope's) one:

https://www.katholisch.de/aktuelles/aktuelle-artikel/franziskus-die-homosexualitat-und-ein-problem

Sorry, others may need to use google translate.




superfluities

The pope uses the same expression ("superfluities need to be removed") like you. Sounds to me like psychosemantics, to not have to label it "feces", for example (that would be quite harsh but possibly can be dealt with in a useful way imo). Unfortunately he doesn't seem to want to think his first expression about homosexuality ( "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" ) all the way to the end.

Nevertheless you are right and I'm not in your shoes. I'm sorry if you have made and still encounter bad experiences just because of your sexual orientation!

All I (and I guess Awani too) wanted to say is, that there is a difference between the message and the messenger and that even the messengers (members of an organization like the churches) can have different views. Don't judge the letter because of it's envelope.



Also, my posts are not exclusively about christianity, but about ALL organized religions (I have mentioned some of them in previous posts).

Neither are mine. But as (for cultural and geographical reasons) I know christianity/abrahamic best (no matter how much I read or think I practice others) this is my example here. And I'm not really an expert on this either.

Andro
01-20-2019, 09:19 AM
https://www.evangelisch.de/inhalte/91368/02-02-2011/bibelauslegung-homosexualitaet-ein-graeuel


Let's look at the text you linked to:



Weder im Alten noch im Neuen Testament ist in den negativen Aussagen über homosexuelle Praktiken eine auf Dauer angelegte Liebesbeziehung zwischen Menschen gleichen Geschlechts im Blick. Die beiden Stellen im 3. Mosebuch (18,22 (http://www.bibleserver.com/text/LUT/3.Mose18); 20,13 (http://www.bibleserver.com/text/LUT/3.Mose20)), die es als Gräuel bezeichnen, wenn ein Mann bei einem Mann wie bei einer Frau liegt, haben keine homosexuelle Partnerschaft vor Augen, sondern einen bestimmten Sexualakt, der als für Männer entwürdigend gilt.


OK, now I am deeply comforted... It's OK to have a same-gender relationship BUT... you can't fuck. Awesome. Where do I sign up? LOL :)


Florius, I assume you mean well. But like you said, you're not in my shoes, and the best we can do when properly discussing religions (or anything else for that matter) is via the impact they have on our personal lives. Purely academic debates, disconnected from every-day life, are useless IMO. So my view of those religions remains as it is: Fuck them all. So yes, it IS personal :) And yes, I WILL "judge" the letter (also) by the envelope. The envelope is after all an integral part of the delivery mechanism, and if the delivery mechanism is toxic, the letter is anywhere from secondary to irrelevant. Have you seen the movie "The Name Of The Rose"? If the paper is poisoned, reading the book is lethal, regardless of the content. And with religions, there is no lack of toxic content in toxic envelopes... Best of both worlds!

Andro
01-20-2019, 09:35 AM
And even if we zoom out from the sexuality-centered topics, those religions are still extremely intolerant. Basically, "everyone is a sinner". And when some pope says "who am I to judge", we might as well listen to what he doesn't say. It's just a more diplomatic way to indirectly imply that something is still a "sin", but it's not our place to judge, because god will do all the judging... The very concept of sin, combined to the necessity to "repent", is a mechanism that perpetually feeds sentiments of guilt - and religions THRIVE on this.

Florius Frammel
01-20-2019, 11:13 AM
Let's look at the text you linked to:





OK, now I am deeply comforted... It's OK to have a same-gender relationship BUT... you can't fuck. Awesome. Where do I sign up? LOL :)

It actually says it's about a certain act of sexuality that is humiliating for men. As it is not further specified which act that should be I'd say it is your own definition what act you consider humiliating. And if you are not sure if that's really the biblic god's wish then "Be still, and know that I am God (Psalm 46:10)". Or you are, or he his, or anyone who is reading that book from a gnostic perspective.



Florius, I assume you mean well.

I really do.




But like you said, you're not in my shoes, and the best we can do when properly discussing religions (or anything else for that matter) is via the impact they have on our personal lives. Purely academic debates, disconnected from every-day life, are useless IMO. So my view of those religions remains as it is: Fuck them all. So yes, it IS personal :) And yes, I WILL "judge" the letter (also) by the envelope. The envelope is after all an integral part of the delivery mechanism, and if the delivery mechanism is toxic, the letter is anywhere from secondary to irrelevant. Have you seen the movie "The Name Of The Rose"? If the paper is poisoned, reading the book is lethal, regardless of the content. And with religions, there is no lack of toxic content in toxic envelopes... Best of both worlds!

Sorry for giving the impression being to academic. I am also describing personal experiences. And I oftentimes experienced that people who cry out for equality and tolerance (which is not the same like acceptance, BTW) the loudest, often can't provide the very same things to others and their opinions too.

Your analogy with that book in "name of the rose" is interesting and I see it differently. The poison is actually and literally on the pages. Similar things count for our favourite alchemy books. If taken literally and you use "vulgar" mercury like the followers of the cinnabar path, they are toxic too.

Still, I am not in your shoes and I am only trying to describe my view -which is somehow rather from an outside perspective and more alchemically expressed like this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iBuNz7Kv1jk/TK5rzBxnSiI/AAAAAAAAA7k/33RlxAB0ZpI/s1600/LastBattlefield1.jpg

Left guy: "I hate gay people!"
Right guy: "I hate people who hate gay people!"

https://www.alchemywebsite.com/images/Baruch_1735_02.jpg

No offence!

Andro
01-20-2019, 11:31 AM
It actually says it's about a certain act of sexuality that is humiliating for men.That's a really tough one to guess... Hmm... I really have to deeply ponder on what is referred to here :)


The poison is actually and literally on the pages. Just like the poison on the tongues of the "envelopes". Not chemical poison, but poison nevertheless.


Left guy: "I hate gay people!"
Right guy: "I hate people who hate gay people!"
I don't hate anyone. Never have in my whole life so far. Really. But the night is still young :)

All I'm saying is that those religions are toxic and I'm like the canary in the coal mine. Personally, I'm not "crying for tolerance" or for "acceptance". People are what they are. If anything, being "different" should teach one to be more accepting of diversity. I can stand my own ground in the face of adversity. I don't do politics, events, marches, parades, etc... But I WILL voice my views when/if the topic comes up (even tangentially) and also, like the recent words of Madonna, I am "Desperately Seeking No One's Approval".


I really do.
I believe you.


No offence!
Noah Fence (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3896-NBA-ideas-thoughts-comments-etc.&p=59949#post59949) indeed :)


-------------------------------------------------

Florius Frammel
01-20-2019, 11:42 AM
I don't hate anyone. Never had in my whole life so far. But the night is still young :)


So you meant these quotes:



Fuck them ALL.



Yes, please know those religions. BIBLICALLY

in a not-hating way? Like followers of those religions should literally fuck themselves with love? ;)

Awani
01-20-2019, 11:50 AM
I think all this removes the light from the important parts of all sacred text. The message has got nothing to do with the messenger. Wisdom is the same no matter who says it. In fact one could learn more, learning from those that disagree than agree. Personally I am interested in the parts where the Mystery shines through.

Imagine a human telling a monkey about the theory of relativity, and then you read that monkey’s account of this a few thousand years later.

The Bible is a prophetic (not only divination but an experience of a transformative and divine nature) work of art... like a dream diary... many of my dreams have not been PC... doesn’t make my dreams be law nor imply that I agree with them. I’ve raped and killed people in my dreams... sometimes I was not even me when this happened. I have been an animal, a man, a woman... anything...

:p

Andro
01-20-2019, 11:56 AM
So you meant these quotes in a not-hating way? Like followers of those religions should literally fuck themselves with love? ;)I never mentioned the followers in this context. "Fuck them" refers to those religions. And yes, in a non-hating way :)

Andro
01-20-2019, 12:05 PM
I think all this removes the light from the important parts of all sacred text.
Then the writers shouldn't have placed all the darkness in there in the first place. Also, I don't hold any text as "sacred". There is some cool stuff in the bible, sure. But in the end, it's just another book - one that happened to gave a gigantic PR machine behind it.


Wisdom is the same no matter who says it.Wisdom can't be written/spoken. And the messenger always alters/colors the message. Maybe wisdom can be triggered/inspired, but ultimately it has to emerge internally. And if we're talking inspiration, religious texts are ranking quite low with me (but still, not zero).


PS: I've had enough computer time for now :)

Florius Frammel
01-20-2019, 12:07 PM
I never mentioned the followers in this context. "Fuck them" refers to those religions. And yes, in a non-hating way :)

Then sorry for being such a jobsworth, but now you finally seem to actually differentiate the message and the messenger ;)

Awani
01-20-2019, 12:08 PM
Then the writers shouldn't have placed all the darkness in there in the first place. Also, I don't hold any text as "sacred". There is some cool stuff in the bible, sure. But in the end, it's just another book - one that happened to gave a gigantic PR machine behind it.

Wisdom can't be written/spoken. And the messenger always alters/colors the message. Maybe wisdom can be triggered/inspired, but ultimately it has to emerge internally. And if we're talking inspiration, religious texts are ranking quite low with me...

You cannot see the light unless it is dark. True that wisdom cannot be read, but you can ”see” it by reading.

Also to study religious texts is fun... for me... I enjoy it... I’ve read sacred texts since I was a child... always fascinated me.

:p

Andro
01-20-2019, 05:26 PM
Then sorry for being such a jobsworth, but now you finally seem to actually differentiate the message and the messenger ;)
You're right. I'm guilty of discrimination. They should be included as well :)

So, if someone tells you that you are somehow less worth/worthy or generally judges you based on some "ism" on some book/dogma/belief system or whatever -> fuck them, too - but don't hate them.
There IS a difference. When I say "fuck them", it's basically a stronger and more colorful way to say "ignore them" or "release/let go/remove from your life", etc...

Andro
01-20-2019, 05:54 PM
Regarding the main topic of this thread:

Personally, I don't think the three abrahamic religions can be fully divorced from each other or studied separately. To the best of my knowledge, most christians and muslims still follow some variations of mosaic law, which in itself is precluded by the abrahamic "covenant", the one that gets sealed with male genital mutilation. Muslims do it as well. Europeans (for example) don't practice this shit, but for some strange reason, it is still widely practiced in the US, albeit (allegedly) not for religions reasons.

Interesting question to ponder: When christians say "in god we trust" or "praise god" - which god are they referring to? Is it not the same god as the jewish and the muslim one?

Another interesting aspect: Judaism has this whole "chosen people" crap going on. We meet this concept again in national-socialist Germany. But it doesn't finish here. It's a powerful tool to fuel strong nationalistic sentiments. Last time I was in Bulgaria, I found out there are "scholars" there who claim to have discovered (via rigorous research, of course) that Bulgaria is actually the true cradle of humanity. Similar narratives are being used in other Eastern European countries as well. Nordic cults have their "Hyperborean" super race. So the jewish chosen/master race concept is by no means exclusive to judaism, at least when looking at our current times.

We also find a variation of "chosen" within so-called "royal" bloodlines. Apparently, they are justified to rule "by god's grace". Quite a few European countries still have royal "Heads of State". Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Spain, Belgium, Andorra, Luxembourg and of course the UK. The Vatican is in a league of its own. The Canadian prime minister has to swear allegiance to the Queen. One may say they only rule "on paper", but guess what happens when you don't pay, say, property tax in Canada? You get a letter from the British Crown. All this is a microcosmic version of "chosen ones", also based on the abrahamic foundations and possibly even earlier foundations (Babylonian, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc...)

Another possibly interesting connecting thread: If we go by the 'Electric Universe' cosmology, Saturn was the original Proto-Sun around here. This could be symbolically signified by Judaism having the Sabbath as their "holy" day. According to the same model, our current sun entered the playground later on, and this could signify the transition to changing the holy day to Sunday (in christianity). Venus is also claimed to have emerged in our neighborhood after the new sun came along, so this could be tied to why the muslim holy day is Friday. Or maybe it's all just a big mindfuck :)