Hell
Frank T. De Angelis
steve wrote:
>
> Well, I guess it is up to you. If you believe that there is a
> lord then conventional wisdom would say that, there is
> an opposite of the Lord's almighty good and that is the
> devil's evilness. With that belief comes the belief in Hell.
>
>
> Elitefifty <elite...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199803180158...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > Hell o Is there such a place as HELL?
> >
>
> I personally believe that Hell is different to each person.
> It is built on your fears. If being trapped in a very small
> area is a phobia of yours, then my belief is that you will
> be stuck in that small area forever as the work of the devil
> in Hell.
>
> Steve Bogucki
========================================================================
In line with Steve's notion, I really like the existentialist notion of
*hell,* that is, where hell is a living, experienced concept - relevant
and valid to the extent that it is a hell right here on earth (like the
increasing hell and misery of the attempt at implementing the
libertarian laissez-faire capitalist practices). But seriously, the only
value and relevance I give to the Bible -- aside from some embellished
upon historical aspects of great value -- is the etymological and
historical *baton-passing* of key socio-ethical concepts - as fertile
(not futile) ground for serious philosophical discussion.
In the original consonantal (and non-voweled/non-pron. marked) biblical
Hebrew, the word most often used for *hell* is *sheol.* It was a very
nebulous and inconsistent usage, and actually, in exact transliteration,
stood for the biblical name, *Saul,* letter-for-letter - believe it or
not. (This is difficult to show here, in an e-mail-like format, since I
cannot transmit the Hebrew letters, but they [that is, both the place
and the personal name] would equal sh-v-l.) The term obscured the many
differences, for example, between the unknown, the dead, the grave, etc.
- besides having the lack of clarity between the netherworld,
underworld, etc. Traditionally, the *netherworld* was simply considered
to be the dark sides of astral deities - complementary [and literally]
to the dark, and hence *lost* sides of the *visible stars* [the moon and
the non-jovial planets of Mercury and Venus - commensurate to gods and
goddesses].
Interestingly enough (I think - as a social-political philosopher,
primarily) it was the HUMAN FEAR of hell which required
institutionalized help from the highly political priestly castes, giving
them their raison d' etre. The first translation of the Bible, in Greek,
used the Greek mythological term *Hades* - for the god of the
underworld, and although this type of usage was common, it was neither
necessary nor consistently so.*
It wasn't until long after institutionalized Christianity that *hell*
really took on the spatial dimensions -- so to speak -- as it does today
in the mainstream religions. So, the term, which must include its
etymological history, is at best... fuzzy. Once again, I believe that
the famous existentialist play, *No Exit,* by the *atheist-turned
Marxist,* Jean-Paul Sartre, is symbolic of real everyday existence re:
the objectification and reification of humans as estrangement.
____________
* I discuss this at length in my book, The Polytheism of the Bible and
The Mystery of Lucifer, ISBN # 0965783464 - cf. my website, below.
Sincerely,
Prof./author F. T. De Angelis http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Maranatha wrote:
>
> Elitefifty <elite...@aol.com> wrote in article
> 199803180158...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Hell o Is there such a place as HELL?
>
>
> Yes Virginia, there is such a place.
> It's called EARTH.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Either that or Australia.
(Of course, one man's toys is another man's w_____...h___eaven.)
frankly,
Frankie goes to H______.
P.S. Maranatha, ever look into these connections? Cf.
(Marantha/Anathema-anaesthetize-crucify/Mastema-Mastemoth/Mastos-
breast-hill)
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
anathema, pp. 145 and (151) 158.
Marantha, p. 58.
Mastema, Mastemoth (also, mastos- breast- Gr., p. 141), pp. 26, 141, 148
(angels of ___) and 155-6.
Kenneth Morrison
Hello
> It wasn't until long after institutionalized Christianity that *hell*
> really took on the spatial dimensions -- so to speak -- as it does today
> in the mainstream religions. So, the term, which must include its
> etymological history, is at best... fuzzy. Once again, I believe that
> the famous existentialist play, *No Exit,* by the *atheist-turned
> Marxist,* Jean-Paul Sartre, is symbolic of real everyday existence re:
> the objectification and reification of humans as estrangement.
>
>
The last idea here is interesting. It sounds much like the Buddhist
belief of reincarnation. Endless rebirth in these lower realms, that's Hell
for ya.
My thoughts run in a similar vein Prof. Your ability to specify this
"objectification" makes it clearer to me. Buddhists call this samsara.
Be well
Ken
Hyperion
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Frank T. De Angelis wrote:
> Maranatha wrote:
> >
> > Elitefifty <elite...@aol.com> wrote in article
> > 199803180158...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > Hell o Is there such a place as HELL?
> >
> > ===============
> >
> > Yes Virginia, there is such a place.
> > It's called EARTH.
> >
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Either that or Australia.
>
More likely America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wherever on earth the religious neurosis has appeared we find it tied
to three dangerous dietary demands: solitude, fasting, and sexual
abstinence." - Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil
Frank T. De Angelis
Objectification, from Hegel's lead to that of the existentialists, is
probably similar - without getting too sloppy and presumptuous. To
externalize is to objectify (Hegel), but, in Sartre's words, it is an
alienating process of turning others into objects - reification.
I think that you will find the existentialist analysis of hell very
close to the Buddhist (cf. the following exerpted passages from my *The
Polytheism of the Bible and the Mystery of Lucifer*):
Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist and Marxian existentialist, writes the
classic play, No Exit, where łhell is other people.˛ What people do to
each other, through the process of turning them into objects, is
reflected in the Hegelian-Marxist master-slave dialectic. It is here,
with Marx and the existentialists, that we have a combined critique of
the emerging bourgeois society, with its inseparable connection between
all institutions and the political and economic power structure, and,
hence, the inevitable corruption and decadence that follows. Perhaps
the Śhell on earthą theme has come a long way (from the existentialist
Kierkegaard to the Marxian existentialist, Sartre) but what is of
biblical import here is the same; i.e., the same message of real life
human existence is echoed...
If we can learn from the existentialist tradition (from Sören
Kierkega-ard and Friedrich Nietzsche to Jean-Paul Sartre), as well as
from the Marxist tradition (up to and including Marcuse, Fromm, and
Rose), we must conclude that human problems and solutions are really the
only legitimate ones we have; rendering institutions Ślooking beyond
the present human realmą as inefficient and obsolete. The demons, if
they exist, are, to be sure, personifications Š but of Śhuman devils.ą
There are devils existing in all of us, and perhaps the Tibetan Buddhist
mystics are not far off the mark (nor that far from much of western
philosophy and psychology), when demons are understood as Śconcretized
thought formsą (to use a phrase used by Berkeley Professor, Jeffrey
Mishlove, Ph.D., who is also the moderator for the łThinking Allowed˛
ITV series). This theme is not exclusively Asian or existentialist, but
is actually evident in bits and pieces of the most traditional of
religions; e.g., remember the following admonition found in the
Catholic inspired cottage industry of angels: łSearch your soul for
an angelŠ˛? ...
Hasidism: Continuity or Innovation?, an esoteric work, represented by
The Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, gives us many
profound insights into Judaic scriptural interpretations.8 The
following phrases and concepts reveal the underlying human message of
scriptural passages and commentaries: łmah,˛ as three evil traits
permeating Good (p. 62); łyezer ha-ra,˛ łevil inclinations˛ (p.63); and
finally, łmoving from evil to good is a dialectical process˛ (p.71).
The etymological and dialectical evolution of katav-kalon, in Hebrew and
Greek, forces us to notice the transitional meaning from good to bad -
and evil, complete with subtle ambiguities. Also, numerous oversights
may cause us to not notice the extremes, from ervah to eros, as łevil
inclinations˛(yezer ha-ra). Once again, this truly humanizes the
biblical message, telling us that there is a fine line between the
potential good and evil within all of us. ...
If it is true that ŚHell is right here on earth,ą in the true spirit of
Sören Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre, then so is the Devil. Good and
Bad (or evil) is potentially hidden within all of us. We all contain
the internal power to unleash our own demons (personified in the form of
devils and angels), as Christians and the Tibetan Buddhists have implied
with, łSearch your soul for an angel,˛ being somewhat similar to the
concept of łconcretized thought forms.˛ Perhaps the personifications
of angels and devils, e.g., the Devil, Satan, and Lucifer, are nothing
more than manufactured inventions of priestly castes in order to ensure
their presence and raison dą etre.
( Compliments of Prof./author F.T. De Angelis CF.
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus )
Richard M Williams
Hyperion eloquently implored:
<snip>
> > > Is there such a place as HELL?
<snip>
> > Yes Virginia, there is such a place.
> > It's called EARTH.
<snip>
> > Either that or Australia.
<snip>
> More likely America.
New Jersey?
marty
I note that:
>steve wrote:
>>
>> Well, I guess it is up to you. If you believe that there is a
>> lord then conventional wisdom would say that, there is
>> an opposite of the Lord's almighty good
Before we take this path into dualism, is it not more rational
to say that since the Bible speaks of Hell as a reality, we may
(if we choose) accept it on that basis, without needing to put
Satan on an equal footing with God (which is not a biblical
concept).
>>and that is the
>> devil's evilness. With that belief comes the belief in Hell.
Perhaps you realize that biblically the devil is not the anti-
God, but merely another part of the fallen creation. It is
the inability of fallen angels to be redeemed that makes them
seem so much more evil than ourselves, but frankly, I do not
think you can make a case for unregenerate man being morally
superior to fallen angels. Regenerate man (one saved by grace)
can make such a claim, but only vicariously via the righteous-
ness of Christ. Simply put, before my justification by faith
I had no righteousness to speak of and in fact was totally
depraved and would have behaved so except for the common
grace imputed to all men by God. Since total depravity is the
one common trait of all unregenerate souls, and since fallen
angels (i.e., Satan et al) cannot be more than totally depraved,
they are then no worse than we are in our true unconstrained
state. Though they did not have the advantage of common grace,
which we did not provide for ourselves, they were still
constrained from some actions by an omnipotent God. Satan is
not omnipotent (by definition, only One can be) and though he
is a nasty bugger, if sin existed, and Satan did not, Hell
would still be a necessity in the Decree of God. Hell does not
hinge on Satan, but on sin, and a just God.
>> Elitefifty <elite...@aol.com> wrote in article
>> <199803180158...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>> > Hell o Is there such a place as HELL?
>> >
>>
>> I personally believe that Hell is different to each person.
>> It is built on your fears. If being trapped in a very small
>> area is a phobia of yours, then my belief is that you will
>> be stuck in that small area forever as the work of the devil
>> in Hell.
>> Steve Bogucki
Interesting concept, but out of line biblically. A good rule
of thumb was once offered by Vernon McGee: "If you are going to
remake God to fit what you think He should be, you'd better
build your own heaven and hell to go with Him." I would guess
that an extra-biblical hell would demand an extra-biblical God.
Of course since you don't accept that there is a Lord, it is natural
that you would reject this position. What I cannot fathom, though is
why non-Christians would take a Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept like
hell and then redefine it in order to discuss it. It seems to me to
be intellectually dishonest because how do you logically discuss what
is in essence an equivocation, a fallacy.
Yours in Christ,
marty
avrej
marty wrote:
I speak for no-one but myself. This is a beautiful spring day, and I
consider it a gift...
because I know no better. I don't have me to thank for this day other
than I'm alive enough
to enjoy it. I am not asking anyone if I deserve this day...what would
be the point? Someone, somewhere, would always disagree for their own
(perhaps selfish) reasons.
So the day does not go to good or evil...it goes to those free enough to
know that tomorrow could be as good as today, or better...and even
though bad things are happening to good people today, I have the heart
and compassion to understand
that the day is still a gift.
I have no more control over how I came into this world than I will have
control leaving this world...it will only seem I have control in the
in-between. I have the capacity to do
good things today or evil. It is my responsibility to try and control
this outcome,...my responsibility to the gift or me. If I am caught-up
in pure evil, today, or pure good, today
I do not know...I only believe I am doing good. Or should I say, I
choose to believe. I can ask other people how I'm doing to that
belief...but once again, what is the point...Do I not trust myself
enough to believe the simplest of feelings? And was it real evil when I
was a child and I explored those feelings...they were unknown back
then? And today I feel older and a little more tired than
yesterday...is this how I know that and end of me will come someday?
But I feel good and I feel alive today...kind-of at peace. So, I chose
to believe that God is anything larger than me and the Devil is not
larger than me today...and that does not mean God expects me soon...I
probably, still have some good left in me, and need to give it away or
use it up, before he'll show me his face. The sentence is death...and
life is only a reprieve to do good or evil?...I'll have to think on this
a little more. It is just so Hedonistic to say good feels better.
Larry Caldwell
In article <35236143....@news.uncc.edu>,
jmfa...@unccvms.uncc.edu (marty) wrote:
> ... Simply put, before my justification by faith
> I had no righteousness to speak of and in fact was totally
> depraved and would have behaved so except for the common
> grace imputed to all men by God. Since total depravity is the
> one common trait of all unregenerate souls, and since fallen
> angels (i.e., Satan et al) cannot be more than totally depraved,
> they are then no worse than we are in our true unconstrained
> state.
Thank you for a marvellous summary of Christian theology. Many people
do not understand the rigid adherence to creationism among Christians,
but without the premise that all souls are created in damnation there
would be no necessity for salvation. The premise that humans may be
inherently good, or at least neutral, is a direct attack at the
roots of the Christian faith.
It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
-- Larry
kate brown
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 07:04:14 GMT, lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell)
wrote:
>In article <35236143....@news.uncc.edu>,
>jmfa...@unccvms.uncc.edu (marty) wrote:
>
>> ... Simply put, before my justification by faith
>> I had no righteousness to speak of and in fact was totally
>> depraved and would have behaved so except for the common
>> grace imputed to all men by God. Since total depravity is the
>> one common trait of all unregenerate souls, and since fallen
>> angels (i.e., Satan et al) cannot be more than totally depraved,
>> they are then no worse than we are in our true unconstrained
>> state.
>
>Thank you for a marvellous summary of Christian theology. Many people
>do not understand the rigid adherence to creationism among Christians,
>but without the premise that all souls are created in damnation there
>would be no necessity for salvation. The premise that humans may be
>inherently good, or at least neutral, is a direct attack at the
>roots of the Christian faith.
This is simply not true.
I will not deny that there has always been a strand of Christian
thinking that holds the body to be essentially damned - it appears
quite early on, and seems to be an Essene trait (I don't know a huge
amount about this, so please correct me if I'm wrong), and turns up
again and again - in Catharism, in Calvinism, in various so-called
'fundamentalist' sects.
However, the idea of the essential sanctity of the body is equally
represented in Christian thinking. The Creation is God's work, and it
is good. The Fall spoilt the Creation, and upset its equilibrium, and
because of this, God redeemed the Creation by becoming part of it.
The Incarnation restores the divinity of humanity.
This is absolute mainstream Christian thinking, from Augustine to
C.S.Lewis. Indeed, to hold that the body is essentially damned is
heretical - the Cathar heresy, to be precise.
Kate B
take time out to reply
Gene
Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<+vBK10O5I...@teleport.com>...
> In article <35236143....@news.uncc.edu>,
> jmfa...@unccvms.uncc.edu (marty) wrote:
>
> > ... Simply put, before my justification by faith
> > I had no righteousness to speak of and in fact was totally
> > depraved and would have behaved so except for the common
> > grace imputed to all men by God. Since total depravity is the
> > one common trait of all unregenerate souls, and since fallen
> > angels (i.e., Satan et al) cannot be more than totally depraved,
> > they are then no worse than we are in our true unconstrained
> > state.
>
> Thank you for a marvellous summary of Christian theology. Many people
> do not understand the rigid adherence to creationism among Christians,
> but without the premise that all souls are created in damnation there
> would be no necessity for salvation. The premise that humans may be
> inherently good, or at least neutral, is a direct attack at the
> roots of the Christian faith.
>
> It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
>
> -- Larry
zoroasterian taught that the world is good but infested with evil
which was the work of the evil one ahriman (translated into the devil
by christians) and so a constant struggle between good and evil
(which seems to be the case) exists...zoroaster was born of a virgin
as was christ and in the "end-time" the wicked will perish, the dead
would be restored, the earth a paradise where the just would live
on forever with joy and gladness....
much of these teachings worked their way into judism, christianity, islam
and
buddhism....but whether they represents the *original* roots is impossible
to say....i have read some similar ideas in egyptian writings which predate
zoroasterian but it is zoroasterian that contributed a large part to
christian
teachings and rituals...heaven and hell, the revelations etc.
g.
Frank A.S.
Larry Caldwell wrote in message <+vBK10O5I...@teleport.com>...
>
>It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
>world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
>most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
>
For this model: world = mankind, evil = actions inimical to sustainable life
1 Man assumes God's role as judge. He cannot judge from a global viewpoint but only from limited human
perspective. Being thus judgmental and prejudiced, man's judgment is necessarily flawed.
2. As man realizes he is producing a string of flawed judgments with no hope of rectification without losing
credibility, he begins the process of self-justification. He may begin to lie to himself and believe his lies.
When logic does not reach him anymore, many like him eventually become thoroughly evil. Thus on balance mankind
/ the world is evil.
Frank
A friend of Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty, There arises the recognition of ugliness.
When they all know the good as good, There arises the recognition of evil.
- Lao-Tzu, fl. B.C. 600
Gisele
Gene wrote:
> Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<snip>
> > It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> > world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> > most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
> >
> > -- Larry
>
> zoroasterian taught that the world is good but infested with evil
> which was the work of the evil one ahriman (translated into the devil
> by christians) and so a constant struggle between good and evil
> (which seems to be the case) exists...zoroaster was born of a virgin
> as was christ and in the "end-time" the wicked will perish, the dead
> would be restored, the earth a paradise where the just would live
> on forever with joy and gladness....
>
> much of these teachings worked their way into judism, christianity, islam
> and buddhism....but whether they represents the *original* roots is
> impossible
> to say....i have read some similar ideas in egyptian writings which predate
> zoroasterian but it is zoroasterian that contributed a large part to
> christian teachings and rituals...heaven and hell, the revelations etc.
>
> g.
I've been looking at one particular passage in the Egyptian Book of the Dead
which, to me, suggests a right-brain/left-brain righteousness/evil concept.
Budge's translation: "Apep it is [when] he riseth up with one head having
[upon it] maat; otherwise said Horus is it [when] he riseth up with 2 heads,
one having maat, the other having wickedness (asft). He giveth wickedness to
the worker thereof, maat to him that followeth after it."
Faulkner's translation: "He is Apep, he has only one head which bears
righteousness. Otherwise said: He is Horus, he has 2 heads, one bearing right
and one bearing wrong; he gives wrong to whoever does it and right to whoever
comes with it."
My literal translation: Apep it is. He exists in head of one concerning
righteousness; otherwise said Horus it is. He exists in 2 heads - one
concerning righteousness; other concerning wickedness. He gives wickedness of
its deed righteousness of following? concerning itself.
(This is in Chapter 17 said to be one of the oldest chapters. Page 45 in
Budge's Book of the Dead, page 48 in Faulkner's)
It kind of reminds me of the imp on one shoulder and the angel on the other.
:-) A similar notion is beginning to become recognized, scientifically, isn't
it?
Gisele
Alice Turner
kate brown wrote in message <35289f06...@news.almac.co.uk>...
>However, the idea of the essential sanctity of the body is equally
>represented in Christian thinking. The Creation is God's work, and it
>is good. The Fall spoilt the Creation, and upset its equilibrium, and
>because of this, God redeemed the Creation by becoming part of it.
>The Incarnation restores the divinity of humanity.
>
>This is absolute mainstream Christian thinking, from Augustine to
>C.S.Lewis. Indeed, to hold that the body is essentially damned is
>heretical - the Cathar heresy, to be precise.
This is essentially correct. Gnostic thinking, which was firmly rejected by
the Church in the early centuries, did hold that the earth was a terrible
mistake created as a sort of abortion by a misshapen Demiurge, and that only
those with gnosis--secret knowledge--would escape it.
>>It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
>>world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
>>most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
This is not correct. Mazdaism, or Zoroastrianism, is dualist (as is, often,
popular Christianity), but it is a given that good will win in the end. I
don't think that many people would characterize Buddhists as believing that
the World is evil.
Alice Turner
Gene
Gisele <horv...@oanet.com> wrote in article
<352936D4...@oanet.com>...
this is not unknown among quite a few minor religions...and in mythology
as well....as for science, its study on the human brain has made great
strides but not enough to answer the philosophical question that seems to
be posed here..
i have a copy of budge's but am not clever enough to wring all that out of
it....
i do see the similarities in the old testament however....but one must be
careful
in overly interpreting such a book i would think....however it appears that
all
religions do borrow and restructure to best suit their needs...imo
certainly
acceptable.
g.
Jerry Grushow
Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
> In article <35236143....@news.uncc.edu>,
> jmfa...@unccvms.uncc.edu (marty) wrote:
>
> > ... Simply put, before my justification by faith
> > I had no righteousness to speak of and in fact was totally
> > depraved and would have behaved so except for the common
> > grace imputed to all men by God. Since total depravity is the
> > one common trait of all unregenerate souls, and since fallen
> > angels (i.e., Satan et al) cannot be more than totally depraved,
> > they are then no worse than we are in our true unconstrained
> > state.
>
> Thank you for a marvellous summary of Christian theology. Many people
> do not understand the rigid adherence to creationism among Christians,
> but without the premise that all souls are created in damnation there
> would be no necessity for salvation.
Comments from Jerry G:
The big problem man has is man comes from hell and unfortunately
will return to hell. It is a sad situation due to the total structure of
the universe. We come from the flames of the big bang. We come from the
will to exist within a fiery sun. The end result of the process is the
next big bang and the next fiery sun. Thus we come from hellfire and to
hellfire we are confined.
We hope to escape our origin. We hope to move upward toward God.
God exists at the highest light speed universe. It is a universe of
energy alone. Matter is not produced in the universe of God. Thus we
strive to move upward while the forces of the universe in which we live
tend to hold us back.
There is no torture in death as such. It is collective pain and the
desire to be. The intelligence is reduced to that of a single worm. Thus
the worm suffers for our weaknesses.
The premise that humans may be
> inherently good, or at least neutral, is a direct attack at the
> roots of the Christian faith.
>
We are balanced creatures, however we come from a low beginning. We have
a long way to go but most will not make it.
> It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> world is evil.
It is not that it is evil as such. This lower universe exists as a
necessity for the higher universes and the universe of God. We are an
unnecessary byproduct of the total process. Higher man and higher\
existence has the price of lower man and lower existence.
The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
>
> -- Larry
ric carter
"Frank A.S." <NOSPA...@netrover.com> wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote in message <+vBK10O5I...@teleport.com>...
> >
> >It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> >world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> >most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
> >
> The original idea is rooted in simple logic and psychology and as such certainly predates most religions.
> For this model: world = mankind, evil = actions inimical to sustainable life
> 1 Man assumes God's role as judge. He cannot judge from a global viewpoint but only from limited human
> perspective. Being thus judgmental and prejudiced, man's judgment is necessarily flawed.
> 2. As man realizes he is producing a string of flawed judgments with no hope of rectification without losing
> credibility, he begins the process of self-justification. He may begin to lie to himself and believe his lies.
> When logic does not reach him anymore, many like him eventually become thoroughly evil. Thus on balance mankind
> / the world is evil.
This model may work with monotheisms, but is irrelevant to a- and
poly- and pan-theisms - and the vast majority of cultures on this
planet, and their religious / supernatural belief systems, have
embraced something other than a single deity. Like all supernatural
systems, monotheism is a function of a culture's social structure -
specifically, with heirarchies. And not all monotheistic deities
concern themselves with human morality or behaviour - these appear in
societies that are stratified according to wealth. See THE BIRTH OF
THE GODS by GE Swanson [U.Michigan, 1960] for more on the correlation
of spcial structures with specific supernatural beliefs.
My point is: humans and their social and belief systems are quite
variable, and you should be very hesitant about stating *any* gener-
alizations regarding such. What's 'so' here, ain't 'so' there.
** Download a free Voice Stress Analysis lie detector. They hate
** it when you do that! >>> http://4bypass.com/truthvsa.html <<<
ric carter
"Alice Turner" <a...@interport.net> wrote:
> kate brown wrote in message <35289f06...@news.almac.co.uk>...
>
> >However, the idea of the essential sanctity of the body is equally
> >represented in Christian thinking. The Creation is God's work, and it
> >is good. The Fall spoilt the Creation, and upset its equilibrium, and
> >because of this, God redeemed the Creation by becoming part of it.
> >The Incarnation restores the divinity of humanity.
> >
> >This is absolute mainstream Christian thinking, from Augustine to
> >C.S.Lewis. Indeed, to hold that the body is essentially damned is
> >heretical - the Cathar heresy, to be precise.
But such thinking is quite meaningless in the old belief-systems of
the Original Peoples of the US west and southwest. I doubt that very
many of the multitudes of belief-systems humans have generated in the
course of our existence on earth have included Cathar-like notions -
such are not conducive to survival.
> This is essentially correct. Gnostic thinking, which was firmly rejected by
> the Church in the early centuries, did hold that the earth was a terrible
> mistake created as a sort of abortion by a misshapen Demiurge, and that only
> those with gnosis--secret knowledge--would escape it.
>
> >>It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> >>world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> >>most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
>
> This is not correct. Mazdaism, or Zoroastrianism, is dualist (as is, often,
> popular Christianity), but it is a given that good will win in the end. I
> don't think that many people would characterize Buddhists as believing that
> the World is evil.
Of course there are many different schools of Buddhism too, from
intellectual to animist, and some neo-Xian-Buddhist sects have been
informed by Xian dogmas, just as those dogmas have spawned numerous
groups expecting salvation from ETs or whatever. We don't usually see
'salvation' doctrines except in belief-systems that hold observable
reality ["the world"] to be evil or degenerate or otherwise faulty.
cmiller
ric carter wrote:
> This model may work with monotheisms, but is irrelevant to a- and
> poly- and pan-theisms - and the vast majority of cultures on this
> planet, and their religious / supernatural belief systems, have
> embraced something other than a single deity. Like all supernatural
> systems, monotheism is a function of a culture's social structure -
> specifically, with heirarchies.
So polytheistic cultures aren't hierarchical? What about India's caste system?
Jerry Grushow
Alice Turner wrote:
> >>It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> >>world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> >>most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
>
of the universe of God. God's univerese is at the highest light speeds,
we are the lowest.
We come from hellfire and eventually return to hellfire. This is
forever. There is no escape. Man will appear over and over again for all
eternity. We come from hell and we will return to hell forever.
Some will move up to the higher universes. Some will move close
to the universe of God. It is a long journey. Yet always man will come
again to this level. It is a sad story without much hope.
Augustus
> It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
I am a devout Christian. But personally, I believe in a Grace-Created
Evolution: that is: God oversaw and permitted evolution to take place.
Newton had a theory that God was a clock-maker and the Universe a clock. He
said that one God created this clock, he sat back and took a nap. However,
Newton didn't recognize that the clock occaisionally needs a tune up, an
oiling, et al. So God is also like a repairman that steps in when man mucks
up the works. A more modern analogy would be God as a computer manufacturer
and a Guru. But I digress.
During the late MidAges, a cult called the Gnostics appeared in France.
They believe that all physical nature was created by Satan, and thus evil.
Only the human spirit was made by Grace. Of course, they also refuted
Christ as the Son of God. But the Pope of the day called a Crusade against
them, and wiped 'em out.
--
In Amicitia
Augustus
Jerry Grushow
Augustus wrote:
>
> During the late MidAges, a cult called the Gnostics appeared in France.
> They believe that all physical nature was created by Satan, and thus evil.
> Only the human spirit was made by Grace. Of course, they also refuted
> Christ as the Son of God. But the Pope of the day called a Crusade against
> them, and wiped 'em out.
Well the evil actions of the Pope tended to prove them correct. The
evolutionary process turns hellfire into life itself. We are the product
of a big bang, and a fiery sun which exploded to become our solar system.
Thus we come from hellfire.
The believer can say that our soul comes from God. Our body
certainly comes from the material world which can be thought of as the
devil. Yet it is the real basis of our existence. Thus the Gnostics have
a valid scientific point.
Larry Caldwell
> So polytheistic cultures aren't hierarchical? What about India's caste system?
I think the point was a good one. Middle eastern Jewish henotheism grew
directly out of the social structure of Chaldaean city states, and
the Christian church grew out of the central authority of the Roman
Empire. Central control of the religious establishment by the emperor
was easier to establish under a monotheism. There's no way to disentangle
Jesus from the Imperial Christ.
India was never a unified culture, and didn't have a unified government
until the British Empire imposed one. However, there is a very similar
structure to the Imperial Church, in that the rulers are also in control
of the religion. If you want to subjugate a group of people for a long
time, you have to have some way of controlling what they think.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
In article <6gbvnd$kul$1...@broadway.interport.net>,
"Alice Turner" <a...@interport.net> wrote:
> This is essentially correct. Gnostic thinking, which was firmly rejected by
> the Church in the early centuries, did hold that the earth was a terrible
> mistake created as a sort of abortion by a misshapen Demiurge, and that only
> those with gnosis--secret knowledge--would escape it.
Gnosis was rejected by the Imperial Church, not by early Christianity.
Everything from John the Baptist living on bugs to the railery of
Paul against all things physical to the incredible austerities of the
Anchorites points to a common belief among early Christians that
the world was an evil place, and something to be avoided.
After the Roman empire took control of the church, they rounded up the
Anchorites and gave them useful work to do. It's understandable. If
we found one of them running around loose today, we would ship them off
to a work farm too. We find people torturing themselves to death to
be the sign of an unbalanced mind. Early Christians saw it as a sign
of the highest holiness.
The monastic movement has persisted since the 4th century, and you will
still find a strong undercurrent of aesceticism there.
> This is not correct. Mazdaism, or Zoroastrianism, is dualist (as is, often,
> popular Christianity), but it is a given that good will win in the end. I
> don't think that many people would characterize Buddhists as believing that
> the World is evil.
Chuckle. I wonder how long a religion would persist if it started telling
its followers that it would lose in the end. If your side is not going to
win, most people take the obvious course of action and change sides.
You are sort of right about the Buddhists. They view good and evil as
illusions which bind you to the wheel. They don't define the world as
anything, since the whole point of the religion is to get off the wheel.
However, they don't see anything desirable about it, and many of the
pre-buddhist Hindu aescetics were just as extreme as the Anchorites,
albeit centuries earlier.
-- Larry
jimmy adams
In article <6gr861$btf$7...@gte2.gte.net>, Augustus <bobb...@gte.net>
writes
>> It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
>> world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
>> most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism
Is that Zoroastrianism or Mazdakism? Neither predates Judaism, although
both acknowledge the existence of evil forces.
> and Buddhism.
Buddhism neither predates Judaism nor thinks the world is evil.
Actually, we know of few religions which do predate Judaism. Those of
the Sumerian and Egyptian civilisations were polytheistic.
>
The phrase "the world is evil" is, in any case, itself questionable.
That there is evil in the world is apparent to most people, if it is
defined as people doing things to other people of which we seriously
disapprove. (But not the Hindus; apparently they think that evil is an
illusion.)
The principle of original sin comes closest to the idea of an evil
world, and that, really, is down to Paul of Tarsus. It is a wholly
misanthropic idea, fitting with his character.
One should note in passing that a literal reading of Genesis suggests
that God intended that man should not be able to distinguish good from
evil (because he was forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree of
knowledge). The logical consequence of this would have been a world
containing evil, of which we would have been unaware.
>I am a devout Christian. But personally, I believe in a Grace-Created
>Evolution: that is: God oversaw and permitted evolution to take place.
>Newton had a theory that God was a clock-maker and the Universe a clock. He
>said that one God created this clock, he sat back and took a nap. However,
>Newton didn't recognize that the clock occaisionally needs a tune up, an
>oiling, et al. So God is also like a repairman that steps in when man mucks
>up the works. A more modern analogy would be God as a computer manufacturer
>and a Guru.
A chacun ses gouts.
> But I digress.
>
>During the late MidAges, a cult called the Gnostics appeared in France.
Some confusion here, surely? Gnostics were active in Rome and Syria in
the second century. They thought that the word was evil because Yahweh
was evil, and was not the God of Christ (and many other strange things).
>They believe that all physical nature was created by Satan, and thus evil.
>Only the human spirit was made by Grace. Of course, they also refuted
>Christ as the Son of God.
The Cathars, or Albigensians, were Manichaeans in belief, again with a
God of Evil (Yahweh) and a God of Good (Jesus Christ).
> But the Pope of the day called a Crusade against
>them, and wiped 'em out.
That he did. And the baleful influence of Paul continued, keeping much
of the western world feeling guilty about its sexuality (and generally
being alive), and keeping women in submission.
It's high time we acknowledged that we have a free choice of whether to
do good or evil, and that it is better for everyone (including us) if we
choose to do good. Also that this choice will not earn us a better or
worse eternity, but will earn us a better or worse life here and now.
--
jimmy adams
pythia
There is a new and exciting addition to The Pythia's Page,
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/signoftheharp.
"THE INTERVIEW" a monthly dialogue with contemporary Hellenic
Polytheists in Greece and around the world.Come have a look and add your
comments.
ric carter
Jerry Grushow <sta...@pilot.infi.net> wrote:
> Augustus wrote:
> >
> > During the late MidAges, a cult called the Gnostics appeared in France.
> > They believe that all physical nature was created by Satan, and thus evil.
> > Only the human spirit was made by Grace. Of course, they also refuted
> > Christ as the Son of God. But the Pope of the day called a Crusade against
> > them, and wiped 'em out.
> >
> Well the evil actions of the Pope tended to prove them correct. The
> evolutionary process turns hellfire into life itself. We are the product
> of a big bang, and a fiery sun which exploded to become our solar system.
> Thus we come from hellfire.
> The believer can say that our soul comes from God. Our body
> certainly comes from the material world which can be thought of as the
> devil. Yet it is the real basis of our existence. Thus the Gnostics have
> a valid scientific point.
Notions regarding the existence, number and attributes of deities,
demons, devils, etc. are untestable and thus worthless to rational
inquiry. They may, however, be rather entertaining. Have fun.
ric carter
jimmy adams <ji...@jradams.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Buddhism neither predates Judaism nor thinks the world is evil.
> Actually, we know of few religions which do predate Judaism. Those
> of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilisations were polytheistic.
Multitudes of human cultures around the world have developed belief
systems, many of which are far older than Judaism - but most of these
were not documented by their members, and thus are "off the radar" of
most contemporary students of myth and religion. I doubt that many of
these belief systems considered "the world" to be evil - I've seen no
indication of this in the myths I've read of the Original Peoples of
the US west and southwest. I guess xians *deserve* hell, eh?
Father of Sagacious
cmiller <cmi...@pil.net> wrote in article <352E4086...@pil.net>...
> ric carter wrote:
>
> > This model may work with monotheisms, but is irrelevant to a- and
> > poly- and pan-theisms - and the vast majority of cultures on this
> > planet, and their religious / supernatural belief systems, have
> > embraced something other than a single deity. Like all supernatural
> > systems, monotheism is a function of a culture's social structure -
> > specifically, with heirarchies.
>
> So polytheistic cultures aren't hierarchical? What about India's caste
system?
>
Actually the religion Hinduism has a belief in a single diety the many gods
percieved are merely descriptions of various attributes attributed to the
diety.
The caste system is a direct correlation to the amount of spiritual ability
you have been born with. However, vishnu b.14XX the incarnation of krishna
was to have condemnd the caste system way back then however, old habits die
hard.
Frank A.S.
jimmy adams wrote in message <7naneBAa...@jradams.demon.co.uk>...
>The phrase "the world is evil" is, in any case, itself questionable.
>That there is evil in the world is apparent to most people, if it is
>defined as people doing things to other people of which we seriously
>disapprove. (But not the Hindus; apparently they think that evil is an
>illusion.)
>
Hindus don't just think "evil" is an illusion but, that everything is illusion. In fact according to their
Maya principle, existence is the product of a dream, possibly dream within dream, in one direction increasingly
delusional, in the other direction less delusional, much depending on the record of one's actions (Karma).
Frank
A friend of Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly,
or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man.
- Chuang-tzu, c.369-c.286 BC
Frank A.S.
"Alice Turner" <a...@interport.net> wrote:
> I don't think that many people would characterize Buddhists as believing that
> the World is evil.
>
In Buddhism, the whole teaching of Buddha rests on the premise that existence means suffering, and that
following the noble eightfold path ends suffering, if not immediately, then in some future life.
Can one equate suffering with evil?
Frank
A friend of Jesus, Buddha, LaoTse and all who love
To live a single day and hear a good teaching is better than to live a hundred years without
knowing such teaching. The point of the teachings is to control your own mind. Restrain your mind
from greed, and you will keep your body right, your mind pure and your words faithful.
Always thinking of the transiency of your life, you will be able to desist from greed and anger
and will be able to avoid all evils.
- Buddha (B.C. 568-488)
Gene
ric carter <r...@sonic.net> wrote in article
<3532a997....@news.sonic.net>...
> jimmy adams <ji...@jradams.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Buddhism neither predates Judaism nor thinks the world is evil.
> > Actually, we know of few religions which do predate Judaism. Those
> > of the Sumerian and Egyptian civilisations were polytheistic.
>
> Multitudes of human cultures around the world have developed belief
> systems, many of which are far older than Judaism - but most of these
> were not documented by their members, and thus are "off the radar" of
> most contemporary students of myth and religion. I doubt that many of
> these belief systems considered "the world" to be evil - I've seen no
> indication of this in the myths I've read of the Original Peoples of
> the US west and southwest. I guess xians *deserve* hell, eh?
i doubt there are many religions indian or otherwise that do not teach a
hell concept or a reward for doing what is good for the tribe
zoroastrianism which came into being 660 bc taught that life was a struggle
between good and evil...a heaven and hell existed...zoroaster was born of
a virgin...and so on...this belief has left its mark on judaism, islam and
of course christianity....egyptian religion 2,000 to 5,000 years old can be
seen in judaism...see below:
"god is one and only, and none other existeth with him, god is a spirit,
he hath been from the beginning when nothing else existed...the
eternal one....and no man knoweth his form...he breatheth the breath of
live into man...the creator of heaven and earth...he fashioneth man
and formeth him and heareth him that calleth upon him and rewardeth
him that serveth him......"
"the book of the dead"....egyptian.
g.
RJO
On Mon, 13 Apr 1998 22:49:36 +0000, pythia <kin...@erols.com> edified
readers everywhere by writing:
[snip]
>"THE INTERVIEW" a monthly dialogue with contemporary Hellenic
>Polytheists in Greece and around the world.Come have a look and add your
>comments.
Just because a few Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses think we Catholics
are polytheists don't make it so. Truth is we ain't. Or perhaps you
knew this already. Either way, I'm wondering why you're touting
"Hellenic Polytheism" on a Catholic newsgroup. What's your point?
Cheers, RJO
Radio Free Topeka:
http://members.tripod.com/~rafto/
Spamguard:
E-mail to drop.pro...@hotmail.com (remove "drop.")
John Dull
nos...@no.such.net (RJO) writes: >
> Just because a few Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses think we Catholics
> are polytheists don't make it so. Truth is we ain't. Or perhaps you
> knew this already. Either way, I'm wondering why you're touting
> "Hellenic Polytheism" on a Catholic newsgroup. What's your point?
>
> Cheers, RJO
But we Catholics are basically polytheists. The Trinity is basically
the worship of Three Gods. In fact, it *is* the worship of Three Gods.
Then their is Mary, the Catholic equivelant of Many supreme-Goddesses.
And the Saints, with control over various facets of nature and life,
and prayers and Feast Days dedicated to them. Or what about the Pope,
who is basically a Catholic God-King?
Let's face, we are polytheists. We just don't like to admit it.
Josh
Charles Fiterman
John Dull wrote:
> But we Catholics are basically polytheists. The Trinity is basically
> the worship of Three Gods. In fact, it *is* the worship of Three Gods.
>
> Then their is Mary, the Catholic equivelant of Many supreme-Goddesses.
> And the Saints, with control over various facets of nature and life,
> and prayers and Feast Days dedicated to them. Or what about the Pope,
> who is basically a Catholic God-King?
>
> Let's face, we are polytheists. We just don't like to admit it.
As a child I was exposed to Reform Judaism, Roman Catholicism and
Traditional Native American Religion (Pima). So that's one truly
monotheistic religion and one truly polytheistic religion. I regard
the Catholic Church as a borderline case. There is a lot more room
for personal and tribal variation in those beliefs than most people
realize and there are Catholics who are as monotheistic as any Moslem
and Catholics who as polytheistic as Hindus. Sanataria is Catholic.
As an atheist I don't see why monotheism is a buzzword or should
be considered a plus. Don't systems need backup? If one god fails
you why not carry a spare? Arguments from creation are inherently
polytheistic.
RJO
On 14 Apr 1998 16:24:46 GMT, John Dull <d...@bright.net> edified
readers everywhere by writing:
>nos...@no.such.net (RJO) writes: >
>> Just because a few Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses think we Catholics
>> are polytheists don't make it so. Truth is we ain't. Or perhaps you
>> knew this already. Either way, I'm wondering why you're touting
>> "Hellenic Polytheism" on a Catholic newsgroup. What's your point?
>>
>> Cheers, RJO
>
>But we Catholics are basically polytheists. The Trinity is basically
>the worship of Three Gods. In fact, it *is* the worship of Three Gods.
>
>Then their is Mary, the Catholic equivelant of Many supreme-Goddesses.
>And the Saints, with control over various facets of nature and life,
>and prayers and Feast Days dedicated to them. Or what about the Pope,
>who is basically a Catholic God-King?
>
>Let's face, we are polytheists. We just don't like to admit it.
>
>Josh
RJO
>nos...@no.such.net (RJO) writes: >
>> Just because a few Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses think we Catholics
>> are polytheists don't make it so. Truth is we ain't. Or perhaps you
>> knew this already. Either way, I'm wondering why you're touting
>> "Hellenic Polytheism" on a Catholic newsgroup. What's your point?
>>
>> Cheers, RJO
>
>But we Catholics are basically polytheists. The Trinity is basically
>the worship of Three Gods. In fact, it *is* the worship of Three Gods.
>
>Then their is Mary, the Catholic equivelant of Many supreme-Goddesses.
>And the Saints, with control over various facets of nature and life,
>and prayers and Feast Days dedicated to them. Or what about the Pope,
>who is basically a Catholic God-King?
>
>Let's face, we are polytheists. We just don't like to admit it.
>
>Josh
Josh, the problem with your assertions is that none of them
corresponds to actual Catholic teaching.
Of course, having said this, we still get into the problem of the
difference between what the Catholic Church actually teaches and what
(some) Catholics actually believe and do. Maybe that was your point.
Seems just about every organized religion has to deal with the problem
of divergences between "orthodoxy" and "orthopraxy". For the Catholic
Church, this problem is compounded by the fact that there are so many
cultures represented within the Church. There is actual Catholic
doctrine, which is theologically nuanced and complex; and then there
is popular piety among Catholics, which usually has cultural roots and
does, in some cases, depart from Catholic doctrine.
Daniel A. Forbes
John Dull <d...@bright.net> wrote in article
<6h02ke$20j$1...@cletus.bright.net>...
>
> But we Catholics are basically polytheists. The Trinity is basically
> the worship of Three Gods. In fact, it *is* the worship of Three Gods.
*** Actually it isn't. The trinity is the worship of "One God - in three
persons." or personalities. I am a father to my son, but a son to my
father. Just as God was a Father to me when He created me. and a brother to
me when He died on the cross to save me. And He walks with me today and
dwells in me as the Spirit.
> Then their is Mary, the Catholic equivelant of Many supreme-Goddesses.
*** Not quite. Catholic teaching upholds her as extremely holy. Something
we all can attain. Someone we should all try to be like. Certainly not a
Goddess.
> And the Saints, with control over various facets of nature and life,
> and prayers and Feast Days dedicated to them. Or what about the Pope,
> who is basically a Catholic God-King?
*** Same as the Mary issue. Great Role models. nod Gods, nor do they
control Nature. I pray to St. Anthony to help me find something, because I
know he will pray for me. He doesn't find it. God as Spirit in me guides me
to it, many thanks for his prayers.
> Let's face, we are polytheists. We just don't like to admit it.
>
> Josh
I'm not sure where you were taught theology Josh, but if you learned it
from Catholics who speak Truth in what they teach, you did not get the
whole story.
If you wish to reply by e-mail. My personal address is
brave...@lycosemail.com
I welcome any replies.
Augustus
> Some confusion here, surely? Gnostics were active in Rome and Syria in
> the second century. They thought that the word was evil because Yahweh
> was evil, and was not the God of Christ (and many other strange things).
What I meant was that the sect appears to have originated in France.
> The Cathars, or Albigensians, were Manichaeans in belief, again with a
> God of Evil (Yahweh) and a God of Good (Jesus Christ).
And I refrain:
> > But the Pope of the day called a Crusade against
> >them, and wiped 'em out.
--
In Amicitia
Augustus
Augustus
Actually, there are records, by Spanish Missionaries, of discussions with
the local tribes and their mythologies: Apparently, for one tribe, the
"Hell'' was a barren plain in which no plant would grow and no animal would
live. The souls of the wicked would be tormented wit the sights of food,
but forever denied the pleasure. I do believe that an old crone attended by
vultures presided over this realm. I'm not sure if the souls were able to
exit this hell. There's more to this mythology (i.e. the equivalent of
Heaven(, but that's for another discussion.
--
In Amicitia
Augustus
Theodore M. Seeber
On 14 Apr 1998, Augustus wrote:
> > Some confusion here, surely? Gnostics were active in Rome and Syria in
> > the second century. They thought that the word was evil because Yahweh
> > was evil, and was not the God of Christ (and many other strange things).
>
> What I meant was that the sect appears to have originated in France.
Only the later one. The former ones originated in Greece, Egypt, Spain,
Syria, Rome......
> > The Cathars, or Albigensians, were Manichaeans in belief, again with a
> > God of Evil (Yahweh) and a God of Good (Jesus Christ).
>
> And I refrain:
>
> > > But the Pope of the day called a Crusade against
> > >them, and wiped 'em out.
Actually, no he didn't. The Pope of the day for the earlier ones called a
council and defined the religion in such a way that the rest could no
longer be considered Christian. Then the Romans wiped them out as
practicing an unliscensed religion.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
nihil
> Then their is Mary, the Catholic equivelant of Many supreme-Goddesses.
> and prayers and Feast Days dedicated to them. Or what about the Pope,
> who is basically a Catholic God-King?
Technically--in an ideal Catholic world, where everyone is a theologian--we
would all understand that Mary & Co. (saints) are merely messengers to
God. Glorified postal workers, as one might have it.
This is largely because of the "I'm SOOOO sinful, I'm SOOO dirty, God wants
NOTHING to do with the low, vile, meaningless, sin-filled, wretched,
offal-covered, dung-eating, covetous, leave-the-seat-up-on-the-toilet kind
of guy I am" crowd. They thought that being sinful as they were, it would
be blasphemy to dare to talk DIRECTLY to the Creator, so they use Mary and
Jesus and all the dead-and-not-dead saints who were greater than mankind,
but less than God.
However, when all this heady theology got to the masses--who were largely
converted pagans in later centuries--they thought "Oh! Cool, I get to keep
my Mother-goddess (& Co.), I just call her (& Co.) Mary (et. al.) and eat
this little bit of bread and wine every seven days. Fair deal" and forgot
about the "I'm scum, I'm filth, I'm all that is abhorrent to the God" part.
Love
nihil
Brandon L Pisani
I agree with Mr. Forbes. Catholicism is NOT a paganism in any manner.
People like me, those that worship with others but hold our own beliefs,
realize that spirits can travel in between Heaven and Earth, and Hell and
Earth. Mary prays for those who say the "Hail Mary" because they
basically say,"Help pray for my forgiveness, please," and that when we
pray to the saints, like when I pray to St. Jude over a research paper (a
real lost cause for me) and he helps me muddle through it. I feel a
spiritual presense with me that does not feel the same as when God is with
me, it feels like someone is there and they know what I'm going through.
(BTW Who is the patron saint of Computer Programmers? Or is there one?
Does anyone have a complete list of saints or know where I could get one?
Brandon Pisani
***Hail Mary, full of Grace, the LORD is with thee. Blessed art thou
among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary,
Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.
Amen***
Tammy
nihil wrote in message <3533FBA0...@hotmail.com>...
Good point. And there's nothing wrong with any of that. Some people are just
not capable of getting beyond this level (at least for the time being) and
it gets them through the day.
Tammy
Et itur ad astra
Augustus
While no one likes being corrected, it's good to learn new things. Thanks.
--
In Amicitia
Augustus
Charles Fiterman
If you watched the Pope visit Havana and give that outdoor
mass there is something to ponder.
The majority of the audience practice Sanatria, a cross
between Catholicism and West African Religion. If you
had followed the faithful to their homes you would have
found idols. Not statues of the Virgin Mary or of some
Saint but brightly painted gods made of wood and stone.
When people say there are no gods it tells me what religions
they weren't exposed to as children. Most gods are small
statues and exist.
There are local terms for this, Panama Catholic, Cuban
Catholic, Hoodoo, Voodoo and Sanatria.
The key observation is that the Pope didn't say one thing
about it. He didn't say get Dumbala etc. out of your home
that's idolatry. The local parish priests don't say that either.
If this was the Lubavicher Rabbi or some Mullah or even
Billy Graham there would have been little else discussed.
The key difference between a monotheistic religion and
a polytheistic religion is the amount of tolerance for such
things. There is no Moslem or Jewish equivalent to Santa
Claus much less Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
When my daughter, we are atheists, was in the third grade
there was an Easter party at school. She remarked "Between
flying reindeer and egg laying rabbits these people have a
poor grip on biology." To which I must add "And look at
what the holidays commemorate. And look at their political
causes."
William M. Klimon
Charles Fiterman wrote in message <3534BF59...@geodesic.com>...
>If you watched the Pope visit Havana and give that outdoor
>mass there is something to ponder.
>
>The majority of the audience practice Sanatria, a cross
>between Catholicism and West African Religion. If you
>had followed the faithful to their homes you would have
>found idols. Not statues of the Virgin Mary or of some
>Saint but brightly painted gods made of wood and stone.
There is no evidence that the majority of the crowds that greeted the pope
were Santeristas. The crowds were undoubtedly a mixture of suffering
Catholics, atheists, and Santeristas.
Pope John Paul II is uniquely well-equipped to preach to the first two
groups--and that is what he did.
>When people say there are no gods it tells me what religions
>they weren't exposed to as children. Most gods are small
>statues and exist.
>
>There are local terms for this, Panama Catholic, Cuban
>Catholic, Hoodoo, Voodoo and Sanatria.
Should we assume that the photographs and whatever decorations you have in
your house are idols too?
>The key observation is that the Pope didn't say one thing
>about it. He didn't say get Dumbala etc. out of your home
>that's idolatry. The local parish priests don't say that either.
>
>If this was the Lubavicher Rabbi or some Mullah or even
>Billy Graham there would have been little else discussed.
>The key difference between a monotheistic religion and
>a polytheistic religion is the amount of tolerance for such
>things. There is no Moslem or Jewish equivalent to Santa
>Claus much less Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
Rudolph has nothing to do with Christianity. Santa Claus is a corruption of
St. Nicholas, a 4/c Greek bishop.
Of course, there are Muslim and Jewish saints. In Islam, they are called
*wali* and *tahir*, as well as many Sufi leaders. In Judaism, especially
Hasidism, there are the Zaddiks. See *The Oxford Dictionary of World
Religions*, ed. J. Bowker (Oxford U. Pr., 1997), s.v. "Saint."
_____________________________________________________________________
William M. Klimon ("13") wkl...@worldnet.att.net
wkl...@umaryland.edu http://home.net.att/~wklimon
University of Maryland School of Law
500 W. Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
ric carter
nos...@no.such.net (RJO) wrote:
> Just because a few Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses think we Catholics
> are polytheists don't make it so. Truth is we ain't. Or perhaps you
> knew this already.
Roman Cahtolicism is quite assuredly polytheistic. Besides the
3-godz-in-1 dogma, you've got the Mary cult, and recognition of
Satan and myriads of angels and demons. All these supernatural
entities turn an alleged monotheism into full-blown polytheism.
Note on trinity: Gauls/Celts liked their godz in threes. Romans
picked up this preference, and xians trying to recruit amongst
Graeco/Roman 'pagans' found it convenient to accommodate this
particular aspect of the competition's belief-system. It was a
straightforward meld, a tactic used successfully by xianity and
especially Roman Catholicism over the millennia - if you can't
simply overwhelm your target, absorb it and adapt its features.
> I'm wondering why you're touting "Hellenic Polytheism" on a Catholic newsgroup.
These messages are crossposted to a number of groups.
ric carter
"Daniel A. Forbes" <brave...@lycosemail.com> wrote:
> John Dull <d...@bright.net> wrote in article
> <6h02ke$20j$1...@cletus.bright.net>...
> >
> > But we Catholics are basically polytheists. The Trinity is basically
> > the worship of Three Gods. In fact, it *is* the worship of Three Gods.
>
> *** Actually it isn't. The trinity is the worship of "One God - in three
> persons." or personalities. I am a father to my son, but a son to my
> father. Just as God was a Father to me when He created me. and a brother to
> me when He died on the cross to save me. And He walks with me today and
> dwells in me as the Spirit.
Sorry, that 3-godz-in-1 thang just doesn't wash. It's a neat bit of
bureaucratic wording, but it's still just shuffling words to conceal
the reality of the belief-system - a religion that's absorbed dogmas
and doctrines from myriads of other religions, successfully absorbing
them like an amoeba incorporating the the genetic information of all
the partners its ever merged with. A successful hybrid, eh?
pythia
<snip>
> Roman Cahtolicism is quite assuredly polytheistic. Besides the
> 3-godz-in-1 dogma, you've got the Mary cult, and recognition of
> Satan and myriads of angels and demons. All these supernatural
> entities turn an alleged monotheism into full-blown polytheism.
<snip>
>
> > I'm wondering why you're touting "Hellenic Polytheism" on a Catholic newsgroup.
>
> These messages are crossposted to a number of groups.
Actually, I sent this message all over the place because I know that
worshippers of the Olympians are lurking everywhere.(And where better to
lurk than the Church of Rome?).
Of course we are quite pleased to be known as Polytheists, so I am
amused by the furore this post touched off. "THE INTERVIEW" at
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/signoftheharp is very informative, and
reflects the opinions of the various respondants.
May you recieve the blessings of all the Gods, and remember to be
thankful for all They have given you.
Pythia
RJO
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:23:41 GMT, r...@sonic.net (ric carter) edified
readers everywhere by writing:
[snip]
>Sorry, that 3-godz-in-1 thang just doesn't wash. It's a neat bit of
>bureaucratic wording, but it's still just shuffling words to conceal
>the reality of the belief-system - a religion that's absorbed dogmas
>and doctrines from myriads of other religions, successfully absorbing
>them like an amoeba incorporating the the genetic information of all
>the partners its ever merged with. A successful hybrid, eh?
Okay. If you say so.
Brandon L Pisani
Catholicism is NOWHERE NEAR polytheism. If your going to lable Catholics
polytheistic, then you have to lable all Christians polytheistic. This is
mostly because of the Holy Trinity. You should read the "Hellenic Pagan
Interview" stuff that is posted on alt.mythology. They explain this stuff
a lot better than I ever could.
The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are NOT originations of the Christian
faith, at least not the modern reasons. These come from folk tales that
have been twisted to conform with the most widely followed faith in the
world. Like, who hasn't heard of Christmas in the whole North American
Continent?
There is a Saint Nicholas, however. He is a German saint that rode down
the streets giving candies wrapped in verses to little children. It is
alledged that he came up with the legend of the candy-cane, but that's
another story. He did this every December. It is still a tradition that
people in Germany and the Benelux countries still put their shoe outside
on December 6 in hopes that he will fill their shoes with candy, yet
another folk tale. The Santa Claus that we celebrate is a Norse folk tale
that was started in the 1800's, I think.
The Easter Bunny is a marketing ploy, I'm sure. I don't know how it
originally got started, but it's certainly nothing any of us would do.
I admit that I could have some of my folk tales a little mixed up, but
they're pretty close.
I think that the priests are hoping that they'll see these people who keep
idols around in Confession before the next mass they attend. I'll admit
that I think that it's not right, but that's the way things work,
unfortunately. I have no comments on the Pope. I hold my own secret
beliefs on that one.
Gabhan Mac Elliott of Rohallion
kate brown
>Catholicism is NOWHERE NEAR polytheism. If your going to lable Catholics
>polytheistic, then you have to lable all Christians polytheistic.
Catholicism has frequently been labelled polytheistic , with a certain
amount of truth. Christianity, and specifically Catholicism, has from
the start been a brilliantly synthetic (in a very precise sense) and
syncretic system. It has always absorbed and transmuted elements of
other religions. One of my favourite occupations when travelling
throughout Europe is to try and guess from the dedications of churches
on ancient sites which pagan deity they took over. The cathedral at
Catania in Sicily is a wonderful example - dedicated now to Agatha, a
third century martyr, it is built on a temple to Minerva, which
replaced one to Isis, which was probably originally dedicated to the
fire goddess in Etna.
And doesn't anybody else remember the consternation when the Pope
revised the Canon, and dozens of early Christian saints lost their
historical status (among them St George, St Philomena and St
Nicholas....)? This didn't stop them being revered at least locally,
and any Catholic church is full of statues or pictures of saints
familiar and unfamiliar. These have been attacked as idols since
earliest times (eg the Iconoclasts of the ?fifth century, can't
remember exactly), but remain because they fulfil exactly the same
concentrating purpose as a mantra.
>This is
>mostly because of the Holy Trinity.
Not usually.
>You should read the "Hellenic Pagan
>Interview" stuff that is posted on alt.mythology. They explain this stuff
>a lot better than I ever could.
I'm reading this on alt.mythology, there's nothing on Hellenic Pagan
Interview (what an odd phrase) at the moment. There is a lot of
shouty stuff about pagan atheists, which I would avoid if I were you.
>
>The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are NOT originations of the Christian
>faith, at least not the modern reasons. These come from folk tales that
>have been twisted to conform with the most widely followed faith in the
>world. Like, who hasn't heard of Christmas in the whole North American
>Continent?
<snip slightly confused attributions>
>
>I admit that I could have some of my folk tales a little mixed up, but
>they're pretty close.
Nicholas was technically a 4th century Bishop of Myra in Asia Minor
(now Turkey) and is patron of pawnbrokers (the three golden balls)
and sailors as well as small children. His day is December 6th, and
in Austria (and other Catholic countries) he and a Devil come to
leave the children sweeties or hazel switches (to beat them) according
to how good they've been that year. Santa Claus, as everybody knows,
is a conflation of the Dutch form of St Nicholas with the ancient
pagan Yuletide figure of Father Christmas, who appears in English
mumming plays dating back to the middle ages, and is related, I think,
to the Green Man (the holly and ivy traditions derive from him). The
present American picture of Sanity Clause is due to the poem 'The
Night Before Christmas' conflated with an early CocaCola campaign.
The Easter Bunny is a very old German tradition - der Osterhase - and
is related to England's March Hare. The Hare is an ancient symbol of
fertility - certainly Indo-European, I don't know about other
cultures, can anybody help here?
Sadly, everything seems to become commercially homogenised, sanitised
and Disneyfied (indeed, truly atheistic) as soon as it gets to the
US.... :-)
Kate B
take time out to reply
Charles Fiterman
At 10:16 PM 4/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Catholicism is NOWHERE NEAR polytheism. If your going to label Catholics
>polytheistic, then you have to label all Christians polytheistic. This is
>mostly because of the Holy Trinity. You should read the "Hellenic Pagan
>Interview" stuff that is posted on alt.mythology. They explain this stuff
>a lot better than I ever could.
I'm going to say complex things here which I think are complementary
and I hope you read the whole post before replying.
While you think monotheistic is an important buzzword I don't,
its just a descriptive term with gradations.
As a child I was exposed to Catholicism, Reform Judaism and
Traditional Native American religion (Pima). So I've seen a real
polytheistic religion up close, and a real monotheistic religion
up close and Catholicism is a borderline case. Protestant Christianity
is also a borderline case but closer to monotheistic.
As an atheist I pride myself on living totally in the real world
of physical observations. Theological points like the Trinity are
wasted on me. What I see is that Christians are comfortable with
things like Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer that would send Jews
screaming for the exits. I also see that Catholics can have simultaneous
membership in exuberantly polytheistic religions and the priests
don't say peep. I know first hand they don't say peep. If people
are expected to confess having these things I never heard about
it and I would have.
As desperate as Jews are for membership any rabbi would say
"Good-bye. You're not ours. We aren't that desperate."
I regard that as a good thing about Catholicism not an insult.
I think I've said "Gosh what nice tolerant people." and you
think I'm saying bad things about you. I really don't care if
the Trinity is three gods or one god with multiple personality
disorder. I don't have any physical observations which would allow
me to tell. I can't see why multiple personality disorder is a
good thing. I care about how people act and tolerance is better.
This doesn't mean all Catholics are polytheistic. Some are as
monotheistic as any Jew or Moslem and the priests don't complain
about them either. I've never heard them say its the preferred
form of the religion either.
Laurie Davison
Hmmmm...:)
I'm following this thread with interest as a new member of this group
- and as a person who was raised in the Catholic Church. I have since
switched to Unitarianism, which is a far better fit for me. Don't even
have a Mary on my dashboard!:) Anyway - I've heard these arguments
regarding Catholics having essentially "idols" and many demi-gods. I've
also heard a lot regarding the Trinity.
For me, the distinction between polytheism and monotheism in this case
would be whether the followers of Catholicism themselves *recognize* Mary
et al as actual gods or even demi-gods. I assure you, they do not!:) I
have no doubt whatsoever that there are Catholics who also practice other
religions (I know a woman, for example, who attends the Catholic Church
regularly, but who also claims to be Wiccan - go figure:)). There are
also a number of Catholics who, for one reason or another cannot believe
in one or more of the Church's doctrines. My mother would be a great
example - devoutly Catholic on one hand, but also a firm believer in
several very "non-Catholic" things. For those Catholics with a good
training, full comprehension of the doctrine, and also (importantly) full
faith in the doctrine, however, the notion of polytheism would be
incomprehensible. The Saints are *revered* as people who have seen the
Face of God first hand - as favored humans, perhaps. But also very much
as humans.
As to the Trinity, I see this is very similar to Zeus taking the form
of a white bull on Earth. The form he took was not the thing - he was
still Zeus regardless. The bull did not become a "second god". The
"Father the Son and the Holy Spirit" are three manifestations of one God.
It is a far different thing from "three gods":)
The Greeks and Romans were polytheistic as the pantheon were *all*
recognized and acknowledged to be *gods*. It's that acknowledgement
that's key in my mind. Any good Catholic will tell you that Saints are
not gods or demi-gods. They are very human. Favored by God and revered
for their faith and good works, but very much human just the same. The
Saints help bridge the otherwize overwhelming chasm between man and God
and make the presence of God more real and tangible to believers. After
all, if God could talk directly to "this" human, why not to others? Why
not... me?
Just my thoughts:)
-Laurie-
L.Deerfield
The official party line may be that Catholicism is monotheistic, but
in practice this is often not the case. In -most- areas where this is the
dominant religion, the worship of the saints takes on theistic aspects.
Frequently, there are cults of Mary...
-Sved
RJO
Charles, first you say the following....
>I'm going to say complex things here which I think
>are complementary and I hope you read the
>whole post before replying.
Then, later in the same post, you say....
>Theological points like the Trinity are wasted on me.
and....
>I really don't care if the Trinity is three gods or one god
>with multiple personality disorder. I don't have any
>physical observations which would allow me to tell.
>I can't see why multiple personality disorder is a good
>thing. I care about how people act and tolerance is better.
Charles, you seem to want us Catholics to believe that you've thought
deeply about "theological" things, especially since you've experienced
Catholicism, Judaism, and Native American religion. But whatever point
you were trying to make loses its force in the face of your caricature
of trinitarian theology as "multiple personality disorder." The
Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not really difficult to
understand--difficult to conceive of, perhaps, but not difficult to
understand, since the doctrine has always been explained by using
philosophical categories.
When you say that you're an atheist, you are telling me that you and I
begin with different assumptions. In that case, it's no problem for me
to accept that "theological points like the trinity" are wasted on
you. I merely wish to point out that it's one thing to believe or not
believe a theological assertion, but it's something else to actually
understand a theological point. You may indeed assert something like:
"I don't believe in the trinitarian God of the Catholics." But such an
assertion does not equate to: "I understand the trinitarian theology
of the Catholics."
pythia
kate brown wrote:
>
> >You should read the "Hellenic Pagan
> >Interview" stuff that is posted on alt.mythology. They explain this stuff
> >a lot better than I ever could.
>
> I'm reading this on alt.mythology, there's nothing on Hellenic Pagan
> Interview (what an odd phrase) at the moment.
Actually its an accurate phrase. "THE INTERVIEW" is a new feature on my
website "The Pythia's Page" http://www.angelfire.com/ma/signoftheharp.
It is a monthly interview with contemporary Hellenic Polytheists, both
in Greece and worldwide.
Why not come and read what Vassilis, from Athens, has to say about his
decision to return to the faith of his ancestors.
> Sadly, everything seems to become commercially homogenised, sanitised
> and Disneyfied (indeed, truly atheistic) as soon as it gets to the
> US.... :-)
Well, I agree with the homogenised, sanitised and Disneyfied, but the
atheistic is not accurate at all.
>
> Kate B
> take time out to reply
I did ;-}
Pythia
Frank T. De Angelis
Father of Sagacious wrote:
>
> cmiller <cmi...@pil.net> wrote in article <352E4086...@pil.net>...
> > ric carter wrote:
> >
> > > This model may work with monotheisms, but is irrelevant to a- and
> > > poly- and pan-theisms - and the vast majority of cultures on this
> > > planet, and their religious / supernatural belief systems, have
> > > embraced something other than a single deity. Like all supernatural systems, monotheism is a function of a culture's social structure - specifically, with heirarchies.
> >
> > So polytheistic cultures aren't hierarchical? What about India's caste system?
> >
> Actually the religion Hinduism has a belief in a single diety the many gods percieved are merely descriptions of various attributes attributed to the diety.
>
> The caste system is a direct correlation to the amount of spiritual ability you have been born with. However, vishnu b.14XX the incarnation of krishna was to have condemnd the caste system way back then however, old habits die hard.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. Solicitous and Mr. Carter: X-tianity...Mono or Poly theism?
(1) Although I might concede to you that the monotheistic religions of
Judeo-Xtianity are not the only hypocritical barbaric religions of the
world, I believe that they are -- historically and overwhelmingly -- the
most corrupt (with the most corrupt, usurpacious, and rapacious of all
the priestly castes), politico-economically related and hegemenous in
all of world history.
(2) We should not confuse the scriptures (and other religious dogma,
e.g., canons) with the actions of the priestly castes and the laity;
however, Hinduism, the caste system - led by the Brahmins, and the great
prophets, M. Gandhi and G. Buddha, in spite of the Hindu vs. Muslim
history, has a much, much better track record than X-tianity.
(3) I believe I have satisfactorily demonstrated, in my book, *The
Polytheism of the Bible and The Mystery of Lucifer* (ISBN # 0965783464),
that Judeo-Christianity, based solely upon the Bible and its language,
was polytheistic - hardly *The Word of God.*
Where is your e-mail address? (n...@email.com ?) What are you afraid
of...hiding from?
You have my e-mail, and can freely access my webpage for some info. on
my biblical and pre-biblical uncoverings and discoveries. You never
know; you just might learn something about your bible. I am Spartacus.
Who are you; you are certainly not my father... he died.
*Hell is other people*
Sin-cerely,
Prof./author F.T. De Angelis http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Frank T. De Angelis
Augustus wrote:
>
> > It would be interesting to find the original roots of the idea that the
> > world is evil. The concept certainly predates Judaism, and underlies
> > most ancient Eastern religions like Mazdaism and Buddhism.
>
> I am a devout Christian. But personally, I believe in a Grace-Created
> Evolution: that is: God oversaw and permitted evolution to take place.
> Newton had a theory that God was a clock-maker and the Universe a clock. He
> said that one God created this clock, he sat back and took a nap. However,
> Newton didn't recognize that the clock occaisionally needs a tune up, an
> oiling, et al. So God is also like a repairman that steps in when man mucks
> up the works. A more modern analogy would be God as a computer manufacturer
> and a Guru. But I digress.
>
> During the late MidAges, a cult called the Gnostics appeared in France.
> They believe that all physical nature was created by Satan, and thus evil.
> Only the human spirit was made by Grace. Of course, they also refuted
> Christ as the Son of God. But the Pope of the day called a Crusade against
> them, and wiped 'em out.
> In Amicitia
> Augustus
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++**
Dear Augustus: from Spartacus:
(1) Without getting into splitting hairs at the Wittgensteinian level of
wordgames, I am convinced (along with Friedrich Nietzsche, in his
Genealogy of Morals) that it wasn't until Judeo-X-tianity that the very
modern and pejorative concept of evil was developed.
(2) Gnosticism was and still is a highly philosophical sect of
Christianity, adding apocryphal Gnostic Gospels of Jesus, Mary, etc. to
the synoptic 3 (or even the somewhat traditional 4, including John). It
goes back to the Middle East, in the Fourth Century, C.E. (or A.D.) -
long before your *France* reference. Your description is full of
inaccuracies. The Nag Hammadi Library is the main source -- trans. in
English by many Gnostics and other biblical scholars under the Claremont
Church -- for these biblical additions to YOUR Bible, originally written
in Coptic (the *Egypto-Phoenician* Greek).
*Hell is other people.*
Cordially,
F.T. De Angelis (SEE...---->) http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Adjunct Prof./Author of Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
John Schlismann
I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The concept of
evil was around long before Judeo Christianity. For example in the
Ancient Norse religions Iörmungandr, Loki, Hel and Fenris would all be
considered evil. And the last battle of Ragnarök is seen as the fight
between good and evil. What do you mean by the very modern conception of
evil? The way I look at it is things are either right(good) or extremely
wrong(evil).
-John Schlismann
> Dear Augustus: from Spartacus:
>
> (1) Without getting into splitting hairs at the Wittgensteinian level of
> wordgames, I am convinced (along with Friedrich Nietzsche, in his
> Genealogy of Morals) that it wasn't until Judeo-X-tianity that the very
> modern and pejorative concept of evil was developed.
>
> (2) Gnosticism was and still is a highly philosophical sect of
> Christianity, adding apocryphal Gnostic Gospels of Jesus, Mary, etc. to
> the synoptic 3 (or even the somewhat traditional 4, including John). It
> goes back to the Middle East, in the Fourth Century, C.E. (or A.D.) -
> long before your *France* reference. Your description is full of
> inaccuracies. The Nag Hammadi Library is the main source -- trans. in
> English by many Gnostics and other biblical scholars under the Claremont
> Church -- for these biblical additions to YOUR Bible, originally written
> in Coptic (the *Egypto-Phoenician* Greek).
>
> *Hell is other people.*
>
> Cordially,
>
> F.T. De Angelis (SEE...---->) http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
> Adjunct Prof./Author of Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
--
To educate educators! But first ones must educate themselves! And for these I write.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Frank T. De Angelis
Well, I hear what you are saying, but do you - me? Without going into
other languages (yet - at this point), I'll just say: there is a
qualitative difference concerning the concept of evil, after X-tianity.
Along with Nietzsche, I would say that the/his use and etymological
historical distinction between schlect (bad) and *evil* - böse (übel,
for example) # is sufficient to label the Norse *evil* as a much less
*sin-ister* one...and I really mean that - all puns aside, as an *evil
without sin* (if that satisfies you...?).
_________
# I agree that the distinction has been blurred over in recent history,
and that both are *commonly* given, in -- for example -- both English
and German dictionaries, but I am confident that -- as I work the
linguistics backwards, with etymological dictionaries -- I can
demonstrate my point (especially with something I know all too well, the
Ugaritic-Hebrew-Greek connections; but I know I can do it easily if I
just begin with Romanized Latin).
Re: the Hebrew and greek good/bad transitional opposites; e.g.,
yezer/ra, Kalos/kalon (Here is a short excerpt from my book, describing
some of the pre-Christian oppositional dualities in good and bad vs.
evil (sinful):
Hasidism: Continuity or Innovation?, an esoteric work, represented
by The Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, gives us many
profound insights into Judaic scriptural interpretations.1 The
following phrases and concepts reveal the underlying human message of
scriptural passages and commentaries: łmah,˛ as three evil traits
permeating Good (p. 62); łyezer ha-ra,˛łevil inclinations˛ (p.63); and
finally, łmoving from evil to good is a dialectical process˛ (p.71).
The etymological and dialectical evolution of katav-kalon, in Hebrew and
Greek, forces us to notice the transitional meaning from good to
bad - and evil, complete with subtle ambiguities. Also, numerous
oversights may cause us to not notice the extremes, from ervah to eros,
as łevil inclinations˛(yezer ha-ra). Once again, this truly humanizes
the biblical message, telling us that there is a fine line between the
potential good and evil within all of us...
In addition, we have another, and more basic term in Greek for bad (and
evil) - kakos, along with many allusions to the evil serpent, whether
in the form of a snake or dragon. Kakos - kakos, meaning bad; kakon -
to kakon , bad- as in sick or in an ill state ; and Kalos- kalos,
with all of the variations and derivations of the terms good, and
beautiful, are atypical of the strictly one-sided character-izations of
the evil serpent. The famous depiction of Laocoon, in łthe Laocoon
group˛ statue, or in Virgiląs Aeneid (all taken from the Trojan Wooden
Horse story in Homer), tends to give us the false impression that the
serpent is strictly evil.
The Greek etymological similarities of both good and bad are not a
coincidence; the dialectical nature of good and bad are both
symbolically represented in the serpent. It must be noted that in most
ancient cultures (including Greece), the serpent was not simply a symbol
for evil, but represented divinity and benevolence. To this day, in our
society, the serpent also represents benevolence, as a symbol of health,
and is depicted as such in the universal logo, with a snake and shield,
for medicine and health. Descriptions of the valiant hero of Medieval
chivalry, almost always included the snake and the shield (as do the
logos and insignias for Alfa-Romeo and the city of Milan). Finally, let
us not forget the mighty symbol of Moses: the łmo[t]she of moshe,˛ or
staff of Moses, makes a transformation into a serpent, the snake,
according to the Bible; thus, it should come as no surprise that the
snake itself is etymologically traced back from the word (and name)
moshe. The meanings attached to moshe, then, include the snake-serpent,
mountain, the phallus (mt, the Egyptian hieroglyph), and also (mostly
from the Ugaritic influence) staff, man, lord, governor, anoint/ed, and
savior.
In Asian cultures, the dragon serpent is paradoxically both a symbol
for good as well as bad. The serpent, as both land and sea creature,
first as a horned viper, for the letter Śf,ą and then, the swimming
serpent, as the letter Śd ,ą is represented in the hieroglyphic symbols
of the Egyptian alphabet. The snake, as a personification of evil, is
often as-sociated with the temptation of Eve (hava), and much later, as
the Devil. The snake, which was a phallic symbol in most cults and
religions (e.g., the Egyptian phallus), is now generally interpreted as
being evil and feminine; as evil harlots, fornicators, deceivers, and
seducers, playing into the patriarchal portrayal of the female role,
i.e., that of a temptress...
logical and evolutionary connections between the following key terms:
daemon, for demon; demiurgus, an agent of the underworld, and demarchus,
a chief magistrate in Greece, and an Attican Greek chief who was a
tribune of the people; dementia, for the English dementia (a medical
disorder of psychiatry, and a subcategory applicable to CJD or łMad Cow
Disease˛) and dementio, for someone who is insane or łmad˛; Demos and
Demokratia, representing the Greek god of the people, so highly praised
in Athens; Eros (originally from the Greek hero/love connection), and
Psyche-otis, for Cupid; Heros, from Eros, being a hero and demigod, into
Eous, a morning star; and, finally, the connections between plebicola
and demagogue, reflective of the majority.1 The evolutionary links in
this list establish a built-in critique of Christianity. It is
interesting to note, for example, that Descartesą hypothetical argument
for a malo genio, i.e., an evil demon or genius (from the Greek genio,
for genus or clan), contains the clue for the transitional meaning to a
dehumanized genius who is essentially a Świse demon-devil.ą Are we all
evil demons when we act nobly and heroically for our fellow man, the
poor majority, like a Prometheus? Is genius inherently evil, going back
to the sinful quest for knowledge in the Garden of Eden? Canąt we be
like gods or demigods when we fight for peopleąs rights, like Spartacus,
and the tribunes - for the plebs in Rome? Perhaps Nietzsche was right,
and there was some truth in explaining the Christian tradition as a
perverse reversal of values, in his Genealogy of Morals. What was good
has become evil, and vice versa. Perhaps this is why Kierkegaard
referred to institutionalized Christianity as Christendom, implying,
condemning, and anticipating a universal hypocrisy of disingenuous
łSunday˛ Christians...
If it is true that ŚHell is right here on earth,ą in the true spirit of
Sören Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre, then so is the Devil. Good
and Bad (or evil) is potentially hidden within all of us. We all
contain the internal power to unleash our own demons (personified in the
form of devils and angels), as Christians and the Tibetan Buddhists have
implied with, łSearch your soul for an angel,˛ being somewhat similar to
the concept of łconcretized thought forms.˛ Perhaps the
personifications of angels and devils, e.g., the Devil, Satan, and
Lucifer, are nothing more than manufactured inventions of priestly
castes in order to ensure their presence and raison dą etre...
Compliments of Prof./author F.T. De Angelis
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
Doug Weller
On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:10:42 -0500, in alt.mythology, John Schlismann wrote:
>I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The concept of
>evil was around long before Judeo Christianity. For example in the
>Ancient Norse religions Iörmungandr, Loki, Hel and Fenris would all be
>considered evil.
But how far back can you trace these (even if I accepted what you are saying).
I don't think you can trace them back even before Christianity, certainly not
before Judaism.
Doug
ric carter
Brandon L Pisani <gab...@korrnet.org> wrote:
> (BTW Who is the patron saint of Computer Programmers? Or is there one?
Probably St. Vitus, 'cause we're always hopping between jobs. #8-)
Human: What is the meaning of life?
System: Insufficient data.
Human: Is there a God?
System: <beep> There is now.
> Does anyone have a complete list of saints or know where I could get one?
No such thing. Roman Catholicism revises the qualifications and
personnel lists periodically, so many 'saints' of prior years are
recognized no longer. Eastern Orthodoxy has a HUGE roster of saints,
mostly martyrs, who aren't recognized by the Roman heretics - and
various national Orthodox churches don't necessarily acknowledge
saints of other national churches. Mormons and other non-Orthodox/
Catholic xians list THEIR own saints. Then there're the Buddhist
saints, the New Orleans Saints, and many many others...
Now, if you're just interested in Vatican-vetted saints, try the
Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va - but you'll miss a lot.
enme...@yahoo.com
In article <3534BF59...@geodesic.com>,
c...@geodesic.com wrote:
>
> The majority of the audience practice Sanatria, a cross
> between Catholicism and West African Religion. If you
> had followed the faithful to their homes you would have
> found idols. Not statues of the Virgin Mary or of some
> Saint but brightly painted gods made of wood and stone.
Most Afro-American synchretic religions use Catholic imagery, because it was
easy to keep the old gods under the new images of the saints. It can be
argued, though, that Catholicism is polytheistic system with a two-tiered
theology, the saints as demigods.
> When people say there are no gods it tells me what religions
> they weren't exposed to as children. Most gods are small
> statues and exist.
In most religions that use images of gods, these are understood to be
representations of the gods, not gods themselves.
> There are local terms for this, Panama Catholic, Cuban
> Catholic, Hoodoo, Voodoo and Sanatria.
>
> The key observation is that the Pope didn't say one thing
> about it. He didn't say get Dumbala etc. out of your home
> that's idolatry. The local parish priests don't say that either.
>
> If this was the Lubavicher Rabbi or some Mullah or even
> Billy Graham there would have been little else discussed.
> The key difference between a monotheistic religion and
> a polytheistic religion is the amount of tolerance for such
> things. There is no Moslem or Jewish equivalent to Santa
> Claus much less Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
In popular Islam the tombs of the saints are venerated, and miracles are
associated with some of them, in some forms of Judaism the Torah and Sefirot
take semi-divine aspects. There seems to be a cyclic movement from strict
monotheism to polytheistical belief system, at least in the popular level of a
supposedly monotheistic religion.
Cheers,
Enmenanna
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
enme...@yahoo.com
John Schlismann
In article <3559eef4...@news.demon.co.uk>,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
These can be easily traced before Christianity and Judaism. It is widely
accepted in the mythology/religion field that the early Pagan religions
predated all forms of Christianity and Judaism. I have no dates/proof to
give you but I plan on looking into and getting back to you.
-John Schlismann
Gene
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<3559eef4...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:10:42 -0500, in alt.mythology, John Schlismann
wrote:
>
> >I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The concept of
> >evil was around long before Judeo Christianity. For example in the
> >Ancient Norse religions Iörmungandr, Loki, Hel and Fenris would all be
> >considered evil.
>
> But how far back can you trace these (even if I accepted what you are
saying).
> I don't think you can trace them back even before Christianity, certainly
not
> before Judaism.
>
> Doug
the concept of good and evil has been with us since the first grunt of
humanity
but in written form it can be seen in egyptian writings as far back as
5,000 bc.
which is most certainly before judaism which owes much to the egyptian
religion...in fact parts of their "book of the dead" reads much like the
old
testament...the concept of one god, how man and earth came about etc.
"the desire of every *good* man in egypt was to go to the kingdom of osiris
those who are good pass on those who are wicked are condemmed to fire
or executed...the good journey on to the city of god"..
"the book of the dead" by e.a. wallis budge..one time keeper of the
egyptian antiquities in the british museum.
g.
Frank T. De Angelis
John Schlismann wrote:
>
> I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The concept of
> evil was around long before Judeo Christianity. For example in the
> Ancient Norse religions Iörmungandr, Loki, Hel and Fenris would all be
> between good and evil. What do you mean by the very modern conception of
> evil? The way I look at it is things are either right(good) or extremely
> wrong(evil).
>
> -John Schlismann
Dear John:
We seem to be going in circles now. If you do not see any difference
between bad and evil - as sinful, and want to believe that, well...
I just want you to know that the X-tian Greek Bible --and its language,
itself -- has a very precarious and curious place in the history and
etymology of language. For example, Paul's use of *anathema* (as a new
curse term for evil and revenge - meaning to *anesthetize,* *crucify,*
etc.) and *agape* (as an alternate to the most common term for love and
life principle, eros, and for friendship, philia).# I could quote myself
on the origins of these terms and many others -- from my book, again --
but I somehow feel that it wouldn't do any good (so, in the words of
Augustine, I must say that *one must pass over in silence, when nothing
more can be said* - a ver loose translation). (".")
_________
# I find it curiously interesting (i.e., highly suspicious) that the
*New Deal* Greek contained the words for the Death principle,
*Thanatos,* and *pathos,* but not eros. Also, cf. my treatment of the
biblical Greek word for hate, miseo/n, and the Ugaritic and Hebrew, for
example, on the term - ra (from the Egyptian Good-Holy-Sun God, into the
Ugaritic for *terrible,* and, later, the Hebrew - in Is. 45:7, for
example).
Although I am not a follower of F. N., I highly recommend reading
Nietzsche's *Genealogy of Morals* and *Beyond Good and Evil* (and, of
course, my book, *The Polytheism of the Bible and The Mystery of
Lucifer* - seriously).
Sin-ceriously, ("<")
ome...@flash.net
ric carter wrote:
>
> Brandon L Pisani <gab...@korrnet.org> wrote:
>
> > (BTW Who is the patron saint of Computer Programmers? Or is there one?
>
> Probably St. Vitus, 'cause we're always hopping between jobs. #8-)
>
> Human: What is the meaning of life?
> System: Insufficient data.
> Human: Is there a God?
> System: <beep> There is now.
>
> Now, if you're just interested in Vatican-vetted saints, try the
> Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va - but you'll miss a lot.
D. R. Altland wrote:
>
> I was just wondering how many of you really believe this? And if there
> is to be an antichrist person-do you really care or want to know who it
> might be? Would you want to be close to this person?
>
> ztc
There have been many antichrists down through the ages, beginning with
Nero (his name added up to 666) at the time that John wrote the
Revelation. Hitler was another one, trying to kill off the Jewish
nation. In our present united world, the antichrist may be using
individuals who make up a one world government to further his war against
believers. Satan has been acting through rulers who had power and
control, so it stands to reason he would go for the biggest, most
powerful system available to him.
Man is easily deceived and many well-meaning people are and will
countinue to be used for the devil's evil agenda. I am afraid that we are
all "close to" the antichrist. We Christians are "in the world," but not
"of the world." Symbolically, we are "seated with Christ in the
heavenlies", but actually we are here on a planet ruled by Satan, in a
battle for our minds, our Truth, our very lives. The world does indeed
hate us, but we understand why and are not surprised.
So......I guess if you would have enjoyed sitting by Nero watching the
lions eat Christians, or Hitler gassing the Jews, then I guess you might
enjoy the more modern, technological methods of the end-time antichrist
as he brings destruction on our world.
Mark Hines
Immersing myself in study, I realized that there is very strong and
convincing evidence, even meeting scientific standards, proving God's
existence. For instance, an avenue one can take is to study official
records of exorcisms. Jesuit priests have made this task easy by
keeping careful records of some exorcisms.
Father Malachi Martin, Ph.D., wrote _Hostage to the Devil_. He used to
be a Papal advisor and Jesuit priest. The book is a factual account of
the exorcisms of five different Americans. If one is interested, one
can check it out through interlibrary loan, where I obtained it.
Taking careful notes and tape recordings, priests recorded
preternatural events, such as levitation and many other events that are
impossible for an ordinary human to do. The possessed people also
threw in the priests' faces details of the priests' sexual sins. (The
possessed people could not have known these details without
preternatural powers.) In all exorcisms, only the name and authority of
Christ Jesus drove out the demons and Satan. Nothing else works.
The movie _Exorcism_ is loosely based on the book _Possessed_ by
Thomas Allen. The book is a factual account of the exorcism of a
fourteen-year-old boy who became possessed after playing with a Ouija
board. A few months ago there was a TV show about this possession case.
The priests interviewed were honest and convincing and their memories
of the exorcism were clear.
The boy, with his eyes always closed, never missed hitting the exorcist
or his assistants with spit--usually splattering the victim between the
eyes. As one priest noted, from a distance of four or five feet, the
boy was an "absolute marksman." During the exorcism, the boy often
urinated copiously and farted loudly, creating quite a stench in the
room. Priests recorded that sometimes when the boy was prone, the bed
vibrated and banged up and down on the floor. Several times a dresser
weighing about fifty pounds slid on its own across the wooden floor and
blocked the door. At one point the boy, who was known to sing poorly,
sang at a professional level. Various bloody claw marks and words, such
as "HELL," appeared on the boy's chest. The marks seemed to come from
inside the boy's body. Priests noted that the boy, being watched
continuously, could not have created the marks by himself. The red
marks would disappear as quickly as they appeared. The record of one
preternatural power, taken by itself, may not mean much, but the
cumulative, carefully recorded evidence of many preternatural events
cannot be ignored.
Additionally, convincing internal evidence supports the Bible. In 454
places, the Old Testament foretells events that come to pass in the New
Testament. All come to pass as foretold. The odds against 454
prophecies coming true are beyond remote. For instance, evidence for
the Biblical account of fire raining down on Sodom is found in her
ruins, located southeast of the Dead Sea. Archeologists found thick ash
and evidence of fires having started from roofs.
Speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, God foretold that
Nebuchadnezzar's army would siege Tyre, that other destroyers of the
city would scrape her foundations to bare rock, would throw her stones
and debris into the sea, and that she would be a place for the
spreading of nets. After Nebuchadnezzar did, indeed, take Tyre, her
remaining citizens rebuilt the city on an island one half mile from
shore. To get at the new Tyre, Alexander the Great built a jetty made
up of the ruins of the old city. The prophecy came true to the last
detail, as recent tourist photographs show fishermen's nets spread
over jetty rocks. One would have to be brainless not to be struck hard
by the accuracy of God's prophecies.
The Old Testament accurately predicts over 70 details of Christ's life
before He is born. Nobody other than Jesus can be the Messiah, e.g.,
Daniel 9:25 predicted that the Messiah will come exactly 483 years
after the order to rebuild the Temple. Christ fulfilled this prophecy
(Lk 2:1,2; Lk 2:3-7). Also accurately predicted are Messiah's place of
birth (Micah 5:2 fulfilled Mt 2:1; lk 2:4-7), escape to Egypt (Hosea
11:1 fulfilled in Mt 2:14; Mt 2:15), rejection by Jews (Isa 53:3
fulfilled in Jn 1:11; Jn 5:43; Lk 4:29; 17:25; 23:18), betrayal by a
friend (Ps 41:9 fulfilled in Mk 14:10; Mt 26:14-16; Mk 14:43-45), being
sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zech 11:12 fulfilled in Mt 26:15; Mt
27:3-10), being hit and spat upon (Isa 50:6 fulfilled in Mk 14:65; Mk
15:17; Jn 19:1-3; 18:22), crucifixion with sinners (Isa 53:12 fulfilled
in Mt 27:38; Mk 15:27, 28; Lk 23:33), hands and feet pierced (Ps 22:16
fulfilled in Jn 20:27; Jn 19:37; 20:25,26), side pierced (Zech 12:10
fulfilled in Jn 19:34), clothing distributed by lots (Ps 22:18
fulfilled in Mk 15:24; Jn 19:24), buried in a rich man's tomb
(Isa 53:9 fulfilled in Mt 27:57-60), resurrection (Ps 16:10 fulfilled
Mt 28:9; Lk 24:36-48) and ascension (Ps 68:18 fulfilled in Lk 24:50-51;
Ac 1-9).
No archaeological finding has ever disproved the Bible. In fact,
relevant archaeological discoveries have consistently corroborated
names and events mentioned in the Bible. Here are just a few examples:
Campaign into Israel by Pharaoh Shishak (1 Kings 14:25-26),
recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.
Revolt of Moab against Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27), recorded on
the Mesha Inscription.
Fall of Samaria (2 Kings 17:3-6, 24; 18:9-11) to Sargon II, king
of Assyria, as recorded on his palace walls.
Defeat of Ashdod by Sargon II (Isaiah 20:1), as recorded on his
palace walls.
Campaign of the Assyrian king Sennacherib against Judah (2 Kings
18:13-16), as recorded on the Taylor Prism.
Siege of Lachish by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 17), as recorded
on the Lachish reliefs.
Assassination of Sennacherib by his own sons (2 Kings 19:37), as
recorded in the annals of his son Esarhaddon.
Fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah
(2:13-15), recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar.
Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings
24:10-14), as recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.
Captivity of Jehoiachin, king of Judah, in Babylon (2 Kings
24:15-16), as recorded on the Babylonian Ration Records.
Fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians (Daniel 5:30-31), as
recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
Freeing of captives in Babylon by Cyrus the Great (Ezra 1:1-4;
6:3-4), as recorded on the Cyrus Cylinder.
The existence of Jesus as recorded by Josephus, Suetonius,
Thallus, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud, and Lucian.
Forcing Jews to leave Rome during the reign of Claudius (A.D.
41-54) (Acts 18:2), as recorded by Suetonius.
At the following Web site is an introductory article about evidence of
God's use of number codes or gematria in the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts of the Bible: www.trf.org.au/sunlttr.htm. The article is by
Ivan Panin, who discovered about 30 separate, meaningful multiples of
the number "seven" interwoven beneath the text of Genesis and Matthew.
Excited about his initial discovery, he found multiples throughout the
Bible and spent much of his life detailing his findings in 43,000
pages. He found codes within codes and many more than 30 multiples
until his mind reeled.
In recent years, prominent mathematicians have discovered modern
word-pairs and references to modern-day people and events in the Torah,
the first five books of the Bible. These sites detail impressive
findings: members.xoom.com/bcodes/, j51.com:80/~jrsflw/codes.htm,
www.torahcodes.co.il/, www.filmnoir.com/genesis.htm
"We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the
Book of Genesis is NOT DUE TO CHANCE." ("Equidistant Letter Sequences
in the Book of Genesis," Statistical Science, August 1994, p. 434 )
Statistical Science is a peer-reviewed journal for professional
mathematicians. Robert Kass, editor of Statistical Science, said about
the Witztum-Rips-Rosenberg codes experiment: "When the authors used a
randomization test to see how rarely the patterns they found might
arise by chance alone they obtained a very highly significant result,
with p = 0.000016. Our referees were baffled: their prior beliefs made
them think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful
references to modern-day individuals, yet when the authors carried out
additional analyses and checks the effect persisted." (Statistical
Science, August 1994, p.306.) Harold Gans, a retired Senior
Cryptologic Mathematician, U.S. Department of Defense, presently an
independent mathematical consultant, independently verified the Witztum
results. At this site is an article about Mr. Gans' supportive Bible
code work: j51.com:80/~jrsflw/codes.htm
Five distinguished mathematical scholars, two from Harvard, two from
Hebrew University and one from Yale said that the present work
represents serious research carried out by serious investigators and
that the results obtained are sufficiently striking to deserve a wider
audience and to encourage further study. (Biblical Review, "Divine
Authorship?", October 1995, p.31)
Perhaps, among other things, God used the codes as a kind of watermark
of authenticity. (For instance, since they are not in the Book of
Mormon, the Koran or the Apocrypha, we have evidence that these books
are not authored by God.) The Panin multiples alone are so difficult to
reproduce that, as far as I know, no mathematician, even with the aid
of computers, has been successful reproducing even one page of them in
original prose.
There is also the testimonial of thousands of people whose lives have
been dramatically changed by the Holy Spirit. There are noticeable
differences in the life of a person who has placed his trust in the
Lord Jesus Christ and who has walked in His word, the Bible.
Here is the testimonial of how I became a Christian: In Las Vegas a
little over a year ago, I was driving west on Oakey Boulevard near the
I-15 overpass, where there is a little shopping area and Papa Gar's
restaurant. I parked the car and gave money to a homeless man in a
wheelchair. Part of his leg was amputated. A stranger, he immediately
told me personal things he had no way of knowing through normal means.
Everything he said was true. He told me that I had a scar, and he
indicated its position at my groin area. (It was from a hernia
operation I had as a kid.) Since my clothing covered the scar, his
knowledge of it and its position hit me. He then told me that I had
stock in a certain company, and he named the company. (In fact, it is
the only company in which I have stock.) At this point, he definitely
had my complete attention. He then told me that I was going to hell. (I
knew that this was also true because of my lifestyle.) I drove home,
started crying and began reading the Bible in earnest. In fear of
burning in hell forever, I cried tears of perfect contrition . I
started listening to a lot of Christian radio shows, especially the
teaching ministries. Being in a lot of back pain at night, I prayed
"please Lord" over and over. Several months later the Holy Spirit
infused me with love and taught me some things about God. The Bible
says that we will know something by its fruit. Since this man led me to
God, he was definitely of God.
It is becoming more and more clear that those who go to hell cannot
claim that they did not have ample proof of God's existence and did not
have ample warning of the consequences of not loving God and following
His word. They will have only themselves to blame in eternal blackness
and burn pain, the most severe kind of pain, forever and forever. God
describes hell as a place where there are a lake of fire (Revelation
20:15), a furnace of fire (Matthew 13:50), everlasting fire (Matthew
25:41), everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), eternal damnation
(Mark 3:29), wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42), outer
darkness and weeping (Matthew 25:30) torments in flames (Luke 16:24).
Pax,
Mark Hines
Frank T. De Angelis
> "the desire of every *good* man in egypt was to go to the kingdom of osiris those who are good pass on those who are wicked are condemmed to fire
> or executed...the good journey on to the city of god"..
>
> "the book of the dead" by e.a. wallis budge..one time keeper of the
> egyptian antiquities in the british museum.
>
> g.
Dear g"
Did you ever realize that your quote (above) was in English?
The meaning, interpretation, and translation into words from the
Egyptian hieroglyphs (or hieratic-demotic, and later, Coptic) is not a
transliteration, does not trace the etymology, and is not a
philosophical one - uncovering the real concepts from that
weltanschaaung.
Good Day! Happy Venus Day!
Friday, Freitag, Frig, Frigga, Freida, Bridget, Bridhe, Bride,
Brigantine,
Ishtar, Isis, Asherah, Isha/Isherah/Issa, Astarte,
Aphrodite, and Venus.
(Now that's an etymological and philosophical trail!)
frank
Frank T. De Angelis
Gene wrote:
>
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> <3559eef4...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> wrote:
> >
> > >I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The concept of
> > >evil was around long before Judeo Christianity. For example in the
> > >Ancient Norse religions Iörmungandr, Loki, Hel and Fenris would all be
> > >considered evil.
> >
> saying).
> > I don't think you can trace them back even before Christianity, certainly
> not
> > before Judaism.
> >
> > Doug
>
> the concept of good and evil has been with us since the first grunt of
> humanity
> but in written form it can be seen in egyptian writings as far back as
> 5,000 bc.
> which is most certainly before judaism which owes much to the egyptian
> religion...in fact parts of their "book of the dead" reads much like the
> old
> testament...the concept of one god, how man and earth came about etc.
>
> those who are good pass on those who are wicked are condemmed to fire
> or executed...the good journey on to the city of god"..
>
> "the book of the dead" by e.a. wallis budge..one time keeper of the
> egyptian antiquities in the british museum.
>
> g.
Dear Gene:
I ask you to get out of the present mindset you are in and think of it
like this: do Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian-Akkadian-Babylonian-Assyrian
Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, Minoan-Myceneaen, Attican-Greco-Roman
pre-Christian scriptures contain the concept of Sin with Evil? Ra and
the Serpent, The Book of the Dead, The Amarna Tablets, The Epic of
Gilgamesh, Enuma Elis(h) - The Babylonian Creation Myth and even the
Code of Hammurabi, the Knossos-Hagia Tablets, Homer, etc. do not contain
such as radical notion of sinful/evil/repent. etc. Just try comparing --
and contrasting -- the first Flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh (the
first work known to man), along with the Enuma Elis(h) and Homer's
Iliad, with the biblical one.
Please do not Judeo-X-tianize world history.
Such a major operation amounts to *HISTORECTOMY,* NOT HISTORY.
Thank you very much.
Sin-seriously,
F.T. De Angelis
Adjunct Prof./Author - Philosophy, Religion, and Humanities
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
marty
Sorry it took so long to get back to you.
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 14:10:14 -0600, avrej
<av...@zeus.dsu.edu> wrote:
>marty wrote:
anyone who cares what I wrote can always go look it up...
> I speak for no-one but myself. This is a beautiful spring day, and I
>consider it a gift...
We Christians refer to that as common grace.
>because I know no better.
That is your choice. Ignorance is not bliss, it is a
choice.
>I don't have me to thank for this day other than I'm alive enough
>to enjoy it.
Which you cannot thatnk yourself for, as you did not give
yourself life.
>I am not asking anyone if I deserve this day...what would
>be the point?
Even though you did not ask, I will answer: you do not
(neither do I, or anyone else).
>Someone, somewhere, would always disagree for their own
>(perhaps selfish) reasons.
Actually, I am paraphrasing Romans. Although I personally
would love the opportunity to deserve the good things God
providence gives, I cannot and that is the way it is.
Management has chosen not to consult me on these things.
(Considering some of the desicions I have made in this life,
I know that is a good thing.)
>So the day does not go to good or evil...
>it goes to those free enough to know that tomorrow could be as good
>as today, or better...and even though bad things are happening to good
>people today, I have the heart and compassion to understand
>that the day is still a gift.
The sentence above is not clear. If today is a gift, then
who gave it?
(A) If God gave it, then why would the day (as a part of His
creation) be good in and of itself, and the bad therein the
work of those who disobey God's perfect will?
or
(B) If God did not give it, then are you opting for some
sort of moral neutrality? There is no such thing.
>I have no more control over how I came into this world than I will have
>control leaving this world...it will only seem I have control in the
>in-between.
How much control? Or is it only that you seem to have
control?
>I have the capacity to do good things today or evil.
Is this ability tied to obeying or disobeying God, or
whomever you suppose gave you this day? I do not mean to be
perverse, but what do you believe?
>It is my responsibility to try and control
>this outcome,...
Why? Should not the responsability for control rightly be
handled by the one who provided the gift, or better, who
owns the gift and the ability to provide it?
>my responsibility to the gift or me.
Do you hold yourself and the gift above the provider? I
hope I misuderstand what you are saying here as it sounds
rather shallow.
>If I am caught-up in pure evil, today, or pure good, today
>I do not know...I only believe I am doing good.
Hitler loved dogs and small children.
>Or should I say, I
>choose to believe. I can ask other people how I'm doing to that
>belief...but once again, what is the point...
So why not ignore your teachers at school and reject any
external source of knowledge, or would that be the point?
>Do I not trust myself
>enough to believe the simplest of feelings?
Are your feelings trustworthy? Would not a stomach ache
genuinely affect your feelings? Could you trust a God whose
relationship to you was based upon your feelings? I could
not!
>And was it real evil when I
>was a child and I explored those feelings...they were unknown back
>then?
So a childs feelings should be the basis of our
determination of what is good or evil? What are you saying
here? Do you truly understand the repercussions of this
line of reasoning?
>And today I feel older and a little more tired than
>yesterday...is this how I know that and end of me will come someday?
Gee, the fact that every person dies eventually might
provide a clue...
>But I feel good and I feel alive today...kind-of at peace. So, I chose
>to believe that God is anything larger than me and the Devil is not
>larger than me today...
I spoke of dualism in my first letter, your letter sounds
remarkably like the Buddhist position, and so has no
relationship to Hell. Your statement above is so self
centered as to have no bearing upon anything Christian. Why
then do you believe it to be intellectually honest enough to
be a response to my plainly stated arguments?
>and that does not mean God expects me soon...
No. It means only that you do not "feel" that God expects
you soon. Since you do not seem to give God much credit in
your philosophy (you stated: "I chose to believe that God is
anything larger than me"), I cannot imagine how you would be
in tune enough with God to make any statements about His
expectations.
>I probably, still have some good left in me,
So time is in you. Is this a claim to self existance with
all of it's philosophical consequences.
>and need to give it away or
>use it up, before he'll show me his face.
Would you recognise that face?
>The sentence is death...
Here, we agree.
>and life is only a reprieve to do good or evil?...
I am not going to answer this question, but I would say that
it is not specific enough to be of any real value. When one
tends to be too speculative, one will not find answers of
consequence.
>I'll have to think on this a little more.
I would say, a lot more.
>It is just so Hedonistic to say good feels better.
The natural man speaks and does what is right in his own
eyes.
marty
Frank T. De Angelis
(a few notes from my book, Pt II - on historically and linguistically
tracing gods/devils, good/bad- evil/ etc, from Sumeria to
Judeo-X-tianity ...compliments of F.T. De Angelis):
Tracing Lucifer back from St. Jerome is - to be sure - no easy task. If
we begin our search from the other end of history, so to speak, we find
that the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism contained the
origins of monotheism. The original writings and beliefs of a
monotheistic god, coupled with the strict ethical dualism of Good and
Evil, are represented in this ancient and hitherto unique religion. It
is here where we find the origin of, not Lucifer per se, but the
concepts of fallen angels and the Prince of Darkness. Both are
interdependent with the descriptive concept of the deviląs deception, by
appearing in the form of a bright morning star. All of Luciferąs
characteristics (and, as a matter of fact, the Deviląs, in general) are
found within this Persian religion. What is lacking, however, in
Zoroastrianism, is the name Lucifer itself.
The very next civilization and empire in history, overtaking and
replacing the Persians, was the Greek. Greek culture, however,
contained both the god - Lucifer (little known in our culture), and the
Greek version of Zoroastrianism (with Zarathustra), Manicheaism.
Manicheaism was extremely popular in Greece, and was the original
religion of St. Augustine, the very first philosopher of the
(Catholic-Christian) Church, (within the fourth century C.E./A.D.),
immediately following the tolera-tion and recognition of Christianity as
the official state religion of Rome. It was Augustineąs City of God,
that was written as a reply to those who accused Christianity of
bringing about the downfall of the Roman Empire.
Who else but Augustine could have been influenced by such historical
forces, being responsible for re-creating and securing Lucifer, solely
for Christianity? Who else could have had the ability, knowledge, and
opportunity?; the intellectual passion, imagination, and power?; the
intimate and first hand knowledge of Zoroastrianism, as well as Greek
culture?; and - more importantly - who else lived within the same time
frame, as a contemporary of/with St. Jerome?
Reverend Joseph A. Grispino, in his Confraternity-Douay Version of
the Bible, claims that early łFathers of the Church˛ influenced St.
Jerome in his insertion of Lucifer for the Hebrew heylel in the Isaiah
14:12 passage; accompanied by a very perplexing footnote preceding it,
suggesting that perhaps this came from ła Chanaanite myth.˛1 Not much
more in the way of details is given, nor is known about this, judging
from the commentaries by Catholic scholars (e.g., in the modern St.
Jerome Edition of the Bible). The limited, inconsistent, and even
contradictory information given by priestly sources - I believe - is an
admission of ignorance, more or less, concerning the origin of Lucifer.
As a Manichean, Augustine was well aware of the fallen angel imagery and
the Prince of Darkness epithet inherited from that Greco-Persian
religion he embraced earlier. Not long after Emperor Constantineąs
conversion to Christianity in the fourth century C.E., Christianity was
accepted - if not proclaimed - as the offical state religion of Rome.
This Śintroductoryą period, from the toleration and acceptance of
Christianity to its official sanctioning, spanned the fourth century,
from 313 to 381 C.E. Augustine, who had just converted from Manicheaism
to Christianity (also within this century), struggled intensely with the
philosophical and theological problems of Good and Evil, raised in
Persian religious thought. Later on, Augustine became a bishop of
Hippo, in Africa. St. Augustineąs magnum opus, The City of God, along
with his equally famous On Free Choice of The Will and The Confessions,
all point to the invention and origin of Lucifer as an alternative Satan
or Devil. Although it is certain that Venus (from the Greek Aphrodite,
and originally from Asherah and Ishtar) is the Śrising morning star,ą
how does Lucifer fit in with this astral deity, and through whom, before
reaching the ecclesiastical pen of St. Augustine?
From the themes of Good vs. Evil and (good) angels vs. bad -fallen
angels, to the the preoccupation with refuting Greek and all other
previously inherited Śpaganą sources, St. Augustine makes for the
perfect candidate responsible for inventing Lucifer, to be passed on to
St. Jerome, for his Latin Vulgate version of the Bible. Clearly, both
Greek mythology and Greco-Persian religious influences worked their way
into the theological and philosophical mind of Augustine. Judging from
his philosophical-theological treatises, we confirm his obsession with
trying to explain how evil comes into the world. He claims that God is
neither the author nor the creator of woe or evil (although yahweh
asserts this, in Isaiah 45:7); he insists that evil is not a positive
phenomenon, but only a łprivation of good.˛ This, in itself, reflects
his personal struggle against his own Greco-Persian past.
According to the Persian scriptures, Zoroaster (the prophet of
Zoro-astrianism), bitterly refers to łAngra Mainyu,˛ a devil, from the
time of creation, who opposed God, Ahura Mazda, and the łSpirit of
Good.˛ This arch enemy, a fallen angel, fought God, from creation on,
creating an evil for every good: e.g., the killing frost of winter; the
excessive heat of summer; and the snakes, pests, and human vicesŠ from
doubt and disbelief, to witchcraft, the oppositions of good and evil are
always present, from the beginning of time, i.e., creation. This evil
character was the author of death, and was responsible for creating
99,999 diseases, according to Chapter Twenty-two of the Videvdat. This
personal representative of evil also created a number of demons and
devils, or daeval characters. Thus, this ethical dualism stems from
God, Ahura Mazda, and his arch rival enemy, Angra Mainyu. 2 It is here
- with Zoroastrianism, and the scriptures of the Persian Bible, the
Avesta - that the Devil begins his infamous reputation, as the Prince of
Darkness. Augustineąs personal struggles with the origin of evil, along
with his earlier affiliation with Manicheaism, led to a philosophical
must- avoiding the conclusion that God created evil. The concept of the
fallen angel, one that came from Manicheaism, and whose origin in
Christianity can be attributed to St. Augustine, leaves one with the
unshakable conclusion that Augustine passed the ŚLucifer batoną to
Jerome.
If God does not create evil, and if evil is a privation of good, as
Augustine claims, then one wonders how this first łDoctor of the Church˛
could have avoided, ignored, or explained away passages in the Hebrew
Bible; such as, for example, Isaiah 45:7, where God creates evil: łI am
the Lord, there is no other; I form the light and create the darkness.
I make well-being and create woe. I the Lord do all of these things.˛
How could Augustine really disavow the heavy influence of Zoroastrianism
on him, despite his new acceptance of Christianity, since much of it too
came from his former Persian religion? Is the 666 symbolism of evil in
the Book of Revelation, for example, just a coincidence, or is it
perhaps an Augustinian afterthought in connection with the so-called
author of deathąs creation of 99,999 diseases?
Exactly where and what are we to look at in the Judeo-Christian Bible,
in order to make consistent and non-contradictive sense of evil? In the
New Testament, for example, we are told by St. Paul that Śmoney is the
root of all evilą (Timothy I, 6:10). The actual quote, people of our
contemporary bourgeois society will be quick to tell us, is not that
money is the root of all evil, but that the Ślove of money is the root
of all evil.ą The implication behind such a qualification, however, is
that some perverse preoccupation and attachment with money is at fault
here, i.e., extreme greed - as with lustful, gluttonous, and avaricious
sins - is behind such a warning. The original Greek text, and a
faithful translation into English, however, will render the word and
phrase as a fondness or friendship of money, instead of love of money;
implying a very mild and minimal attraction to money, and not some
exorbitant, usurpious, ostentatious, and/or an exagerrated preoccupation
and attachment to it, reflecting greed. The word used for love is
philos, from philia (filia), meaning fondness or friendship.
Other Greek words for love, are eros (erow or eroV) and agape (agape);
the latter is used to describe universal and unconditional love, also
known as Christian love, and is frequently found in the New Testament,
while the former is used to describe erotic, sensual, and sexual love
and/or desire. If some greedy preoccupation, commensurate with some
lustful, desirous, and avaricious sense was meant in the Timothy I, 6:10
passage, then the term eros would have been used; this term, however,
is never used in the Greek New Testament, even though it is considered
the basic term for love, and the Life Principle, in general. The
opposite of the Life Principle of love (eros), thanatos (qanatoV), the
Death Principle, is used consistently throughout the New Testament.
Eros, of course, is the Greek god (the Roman Cupid) inseparable from
Venus, goddess of love. Philia (filia), emphasized as a
friendship-love, was the main concept, preferred by Aristotle, in his
Nicomachean Ethics, being necessary for łtotal well being˛ - happiness
(eudaimonia, eudaimonia), as well as being a root word for
łphilo-sophy˛(filosofia), literally the łfriendship-love of wisdom.˛
Thus, there is no connotation of łlove˛ as an attachment or
preoccupation with money, intended here, but merely a fondness of money,
since the very Śweakestą sense of love was chosen for this Timothian St.
Paul passage. There is nothing of a strong desirous nature implied
here, at all, or the term eros would (and should) have been employed...
First, I would like to convey to the reader that the section in
Augustineąs On Free Choice of the Will, Book One, Part III, is entitled
łLust is the source of evil.˛ He does not say that lust is a source of
evil, implying one of many, but that it is łthe source of evil.˛ In
Book III, Part X, the connection is made between łsin˛ and the supposed
łlust˛ in the Garden of Eden. (Lust, of course, is identified with the
god/dess of love, Eros and Cupid, and with Aphrodite and Venus.)
Augustine, then, explores the all-important connection of these concepts
with devils and angels, especially with angels as devils. It is here
where Augustine asserts that God created the angels, and that the
Deviląs origin had to come into existence in this manner. We thus have
the theory of fallen angels, here with St. Augustine, which will later
become so prevalent and obvious in the erroneous translation of Isaiah
14:12. Moreover, Augustine translates and transfers the Manichean
influence of Ahriman, the Persian Prince of Darkness, into his
Christianized description of the Devil. His incorporation and
transfusion of Zoroastrianism into Greco-Romanized Christianity,
fomenting and cementing the coming of Lucifer in the Book of Isaiah, is
crystal clear. Augustine is quite emphatic in pursuing the ethical
dualism and monotheism of his earlier Persian beliefs. He is
responsible for Ścreatingą the primordial distinction in Christianity
between Good and Evil, with (good) angels vs. fallen angels - or devils.
Extending the original Zoroastrian distinction, St. Augustine assures
the reader, in Part XII, that łeven if all angels were to sin, the
Creator of angels would continue to rule His empire with no defect.˛ 1
Second, is the connection and development of Lucifer, by Augus-tine,
through The City of God, his main work, his magnum opus. Book XIX is of
particular note, here; since it is full of his allusions to the
Manichees and their concepts of God and angels, including łThe Supreme
Good and Supreme Evil.˛ We are both instructed as well as warned, in
Part IX, not to be Śopenly friendly to all łHoly angels,˛ since Satan
some-times takes the form of an angel of light in order to tempt men.ą2
One must still ask the nagging question, however, of where the actual
name of Lucifer comes from; conceding that all of the characteristics,
descrip-tions, and epithets fit perfectly with Zoroastrian origins.
From the de-ceptive transformation of the devil - as Satan, the fallen
angel - into a łbright light,˛ and then as the łprince of darkness˛
(also attributed to Baal, the Canaanite god), we have clarified what was
previously ambigu-ous and obscure. Thus, in the final analysis, the
nature and origin of the Christian personifications of evil have been
partially discovered and uncovered by tracing the origins of Lucifer
back from (1) Zoroastrianism and (2) St. Augustine to his contemporary,
(3) St. Jerome. Notwithstand-ing these discoveries and revelations, we
are still obligated to push further in solving the mystery surrounding
the name Lucifer, itself - the rising morning star that fellŠ
seemingly an allusion to Venus.
Lucifer, according to ancient Greek mythology, is the god of
bright-ness; also, as the morning star and light bearer, this is the
star that brings in the day with gladness. He was also the father of
Ceyx, a king of Thessaly, where Mt. Olympus is located, housing the
gods. łAll of his fatherąs bright gladness was in his face,˛ according
to Greek legend.3 This mythological-religious account is embellished
upon by Ovid, the Ro-man; it includes the important involvement with
gods of nature, e.g., Storm, Wind, Black Clouds, and Lightening. Ceyxąs
wife was the daughter of Aolus, king of the winds. These Latin-Roman
gods of nature seem to contain many of the characteristics of El, Baal,
and Yahweh, from the Ugaritic and Hebrew scriptures. Light and fire
were exalted and deified, from one religion to another. Light, photos
(fotoV), however, was tradi-tionally reserved for the Greek son of god,
Apollo, and later, Jesus, based upon the gospel of St. John. Aside from
the prestigious sun god, found in almost all religions, both Light and
(interestingly enough) Fire were of primordial importance in Persian
Zoroastrianism. Cremation, as opposed to burial, a misunderstood and
exagerrated aspect of Zoroastrianism, was condemned, (up until recently)
by the Roman Catholic Church. Fire, it has been thought, destroys the
soul, not just the body; therefore, fire is a tool, source, and
application of the Devil. Light vs. Darkness, (good) angels vs. fallen
angels, etc., seem to be crucial in the theological and philosophical
problems of ethical dualism that greatly influenced St. Augustine. So,
this is the origin of Lucifer, from Greco-Persian culture, which was -
to be sure - well known by Augustine in his day.
In roughly a three hundred year period - from the time of Jesus to St.
Augustine and St. Jerome - there seems to be fertile ground for this
composition and synthesis, culminating in the (re)creation of Lucifer.
Lucifer represents all that Christianity has to oppose and hate, much
like Judaism, with its former pagan cultures. What elements are
accepted, though, become immortalized, symbolized, and deified in the
person of Jesus, e.g., as the son of god, the Light (photos, fotoV ),
the Truth, and the Logos (Logos, or łthe logical-ordered and spoken
word˛)Š exactly what Apollo stood for. What, on the other hand (the one
on the conservative ŚRight,ą to be sure), was ruthlessly opposed - with
a hateful vengeance - was the other side, the abysmal dark side, the
deception of light - personified in Lucifer - as a fallen angel. Ovid
lived and wrote his mythological and historical poetry, mostly during
the Augustan periods of 27-20 C.E., making him a contemporary of Virgil;
ergo, both poets must have been well known, and had to have made a
considerable impact on St. Augustine, as well as on all of the other
early Church Fathers and scholars. Tertullian, Plotinus, Origen,
Augustine, and many other Śearlyą theological scholars - no doubt - take
some credit for influencing St. Jerome; all were most assuredly
influenced by the famous Romanized versions of Greek mythology,
especially since they continu-ously referred to the Latin-Roman names of
the gods and goddesses. It was from the Latinized versions of the Greek
accounts that these early Christians drew from; especially in - and for
- their relentless sexual-pagan criticisms. Tertullian, born in
Carthage, lived circa 160 to 230 of the Common Era (A.D.); Plotinus
lived between 204 and 270 C.E.; Origen, from circa 185-253 C.E.; St.
Augustine, from 354-430; and St. Jerome, from circa 345- 420 of the
Common Era. Augustineąs intellectual and passionate synthesis of the
sexual and pagan traits associated with Ishtar, Isis, Asherah,
Aphrodite, Venus, and Lucifer culminated in a new version of a satanic
and devilish character called Lucifer. Christendom now had its own
personified version of evil, to call its very own.
All of the early Christians attacked paganism and eroticism (in
par-ticular), and women and sex (in general). From the well known, and
notoriously infamous (if not outrageous) writings of St. Paul (formerly
Saul, a tax collector), addressing the Corinthians, to the fanatical
raving of Plotinus, e.g., against łthe vulgar harlot Aphrodite˛ and
Eros, we have a very clear sense of the values and attitudes of the
Śearly Christian fathers.ą4 We also get a general picture of the
atmosphere surrounding early Christian culture, during - and preceding -
the lives of Augustine and Jerome.5 From Tertullianąs unequivocal
condemnation of womenąs apparel, ornamentation, and the use of perfume,
to Paul, Origen, and Jeromeąs fanatical warnings of the temptations of
the flesh, we have a hysteria that is unparalleled in all of world
history. This łhysterectomy˛ goes far beyond the Hebrewsą patriarchal
and monotheistic sexism, with a fanaticism and fundamentalism necessary
and indispensable for any understanding of the success celebrated by the
Lucifer character...
...rubric of Śpaganą and Świtchcraftą; thus, goddesses and women per se,
were not the only targets of Jeromeąs ŚRuth-fulą and hateful vengeance.
Lucifer is mythologically connected to Dionysius and Orpheus; the
former, being designated as the god of wine, and the vine, but also
being associated with the characteristics of intoxication, celebration,
dance, narcotic-orgasm, and referred to as the he-goat or goat
song(tragos, tragoV ), the god of tragedy. Similarly, Orpheus is first
and foremost the god of song, and is known as a god Śfrom the dark
underworld.ą Lucifer, literally from łlucre˛ (light), is associated with
the former two gods; thus, cementing the association of evil with the
dialectical, diabolical, and downright deceptive oppositions of
light/darkness and comedy/tragedy.
The masks of comedy and tragedy mask a dialectical development of one
out of the origin of the other. Dance, music, and celebration, in
general, often mask the tragedy of depression and oppression,
neces-sitating the former, as a cathartic safety valve...
So, we have all of the imagery conjured up by the gods and cults of
Isis, Dionysius, and Orpheus, in building up a personal message of evil,
culminating in Jeromeąs Lucifer.
It should be crystal clear to the reader by now, that tracing the
historical development of Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Persian,
and, finally, the Greco-Roman influences on Judeo-Christianity, has led
to a fictitious character of evil, Lucifer. From Ishtar, Isis, Asherah,
Aphro-dite, and Venus, to Dionysius and Orpheus, we have a pantheon of
gods and goddesses, offering many traits to be condemned by the new
Ścenturiansą of censureship and censorship. The casually flippant
reference to our culture - understood as an evolutionary process leading
up to the present łgeneration X˛ - as one of łsex, drugs, and Rock ną
Roll˛ (at best, and Śclueless-nessą or Śnothingness,ą at worst), clearly
embodies all of the decadent and irresponsible values symbolic of evil -
according to fundamentalists and other religious zealots. Pan, another
god of music, characteristic of the Pied Piper, attracts followers as he
travels with his music, and is also associated with Dionysius and
Orpheus. A host of evils have been accumulated into such a collection
of sins, that we find the traits of numerous Greco-Roman gods and
goddesses - all being attributed later to Lucifer.
From Hera/Vesta, Athena/Minerva, Aphrodite/Venus, Persephone
/Proserpine, and Artemis/Diana - to Demeter and Cybele/Semele, we have a
plethora of goddesses connected to Dionysius/Bacchus, a łtrue king of
gods.˛ Strictly from the female lineage of divine world history,
Ishtar, Isis, Asherah, Aphrodite, and Venus all represent aspects of
fertility, deception, passion, promiscuity, and in a word, love.
(Although Isis also maintains the contradictive title of virgin, as
stated earlier, the characteristics of fertility and promiscuity are
also present within her description.) Love, from and beyond Erosąs
limited domain, is surpassed only by women, and is celebrated in
festivals, reflecting fertility and passion. Far beyond the
celebrations of the Dionysian cults, were the wild and exclusively
female Dionysiac-Aphrodysiac festivities, e.g., in the yearly
łall-female˛ festivals on the Island of Lesbos, in honor of Dionysius
(the lone male), Hera, Demeter, Cybele, Proserpine, Artemis-Diana,
Athena, and the other deities worshiped by the sisterhood of women. The
Dionysian principle has always stood in opposition to the Apollonian.
From the nineteenth century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, in his
Die Geburt der Tragödie (The Birth of Tragedy), to the twentieth century
anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, in her Patterns of Culture, we have the
establishment of a perennial distinction in history, separating the
Dionysian cultures from the Apollonian. Apollo, representing the god of
light and truth, is also portrayed as an archer, and reflects the art of
łgentle comedy.˛ In contradistinction, Dionysiac traits include violent
dance, music, promiscuity, intoxication, and wild festivities per seŠ
summarized in tragedy. The Romanized version of Dionysius, Bacchus, is
even more usurpious, ostentatious, and perhaps even rapacious; fitting
the decadence of the Roman Empire to a łT˛Š for Tragedy.
Both the bull and goat are of great significance here, too, with the
Greco-Romans, as they were in all of the ancient pre-Greek cultures.
From Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Ugaritic Canaanites, and Israelites to
the Persians and (Pre-Greek ?) Minoans of Crete, the veneration of the
bull (and bovine, in general) and goat are of the utmost importance.
Re-member that the goat is the symbolic animal of Dionysian cults,
re-quiring sacrificial initiation for rites of passage. It is also the
he-goat that is characterized as the Devil and Satan; since female
veneration (i.e., by and for women) was directly tied to the Dionysian
cults, the she- goat was also included in the festivities. Thus, once
again, in the biblical accounts, it is somewhat unclear if the male, as
a devilish shaggy he-goat, seduces the female (as in the Garden of
Eden), or vice versa.
The Etruscan (early Roman) bronze statue of The Capitoline She-Wolf (of
circa 500 B.C.E.), with the brothers Romulus and Remus suckling, begs
the question of analogy here, notwithstanding the fact that the she-wolf
was a symbol of Rome. 1 Although the wolf is not as significant as the
bull, cow, or goat, we must realize that the analogy is apropos, since
the wolf in sheepąs clothing (first found in Aesopąs Fables, prior to
the fifth century B.C.E., only to be copied later, in Matthewąs account
of Jesus) depicts the most (in)famous character flaw in the
Devil-Satan-Lucifer personification; the deception and seduction via a
change in appearance, much like Zeusą seduction-rape of Leda, after
transforming himself into a swan (and perhaps later copied in the Bible,
with the rape of Leah)...
In Nietzscheąs works, Die Geburt der Tragödie and Also Sprach
Zarathustra, one finds the hero figure in the Greek Dionysius and the
Persian-Greek Zoroaster/Zarathustra, respectively. He describes
Dion-ysius as barbaric - and being from Babylon (originally) -
reflecting total promiscuity, bestial savagery, and the Anti-Christ
himself. In opposi-tion to Apollo, the Lucent One, the God of Light,
Beauty, and Peace (purposely leaving aside Truth here), Nietzsche
contrasts him with Dionysius, a god of Storm, Wind, narcotic rapture,
ecstasy, and orgy. Are these not the traits of the biblical Lucifer, as
well as the original Greek Lucifer? The first two traits, i.e., as the
gods of Wind and Storm, are connected to Lucifer through Ceyx and Aolus,
even though they are also exhibited in Zeus, Baal, El, Yahweh, and
others. Apollo and Dionysius parallel the dialectical unity of
opposition in comedy/tragedy, joy/sad-ness,
celebration/mourning-depression, peace/war-aggression, pleasure/ pain,
and, so on. The rapture of narcotics and wine, Nietzsche acknowledges,
is the saving grace of redemption through łillusion.˛ łDrugs˛ are
necessary in order to get through life, łto ease the pain.˛ Do we not
understand this psychological truth today, reflecting alienation and,
hence, the needs of the consumer and the marketplaceŠ legal or illegal?
Out of Medieval Germany, the same Dionysian power drove an
increasing number of people, singing and dancing from place to
place; we acknowledge this in the St. John and St. Vitus dancers, the
Bacchian choruses of the Greeks (who had their predecessors in
Asia Minor), and as far back as Babylon and the orgiastic Sacaea.4
Frank T. De Angelis
Frank T. De Angelis writes:
> > Doug
>
> the concept of good and evil has been with us since the first grunt of
> humanity but in written form it can be seen in egyptian writings as far back as 5,000 bc. which is most certainly before judaism which owes much to the egyptian religion...in fact parts of their "book of the dead" reads much like the old testament...the concept of one god, how man and earth came about etc.
>
> "the desire of every *good* man in egypt was to go to the kingdom of osiris those who are good pass on those who are wicked are condemmed to fire or executed...the good journey on to the city of god"..
>
> "the book of the dead" by e.a. wallis budge..one time keeper of the
> egyptian antiquities in the british museum.
>
> g.
(Here are a few excerpts -- with my permission -- from Pt I of my book,
on Good- Bad/Evil, as personified in gods and demons. Unfortunately,
none of the Hebrew and other fonts will come out here):
The topics of good and evil, and the personification of gods and demons,
have been explored all throughout history. Comparisons and contrasts
between religions of monotheism (one God) and polytheism (several gods)
have also been made ad infinitum. What has not been advanced, however,
is the theory that the Judeo-Christian Bible contains polytheistic
rather than monotheistic components. Up until now, there have been no
serious challenges to this fundamental and traditional ac-ceptance of
monotheism, concerning the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. Biblical
Criticism, however abundant, has not yet crossed over this łline drawn
in the sand.˛ ...
It is well known that the very oldest writings come from Sumerian
Mesopotamia. The Sumero-Akkadian texts, known as the Epic of
Gilgamesh, had a profound influence on the Jews of the Old Testament.
The Gilgamesh scriptures were written well over one thousand years
before the Book of Genesis; the former date back past two thousand
B.C.E., while the latter (later becoming a part of the Torah) were
written at the time of the split in the Israeli kingdom, between 922 and
722 B.C.E. The Genesis flood story in particular, reveals the
łborrowed˛ and łembellished-upon˛ nature of the Hebrew biblical version,
since it was obviously taken from the Gilgamesh story. These
Mesopotamian writings also corroborate Ugaritic, Egyptian, Greek, and
other pre-Hebrew religious influences, emphasizing female divinity.
The Gilgamesh texts refer to Ishtar(Inan-na, in Sumerian) as the goddess
of fertility. Ishtar has been equated with other prominent ancient
goddesses of fertility and love found in most ancient religions: Isis in
Egypt; Asherah, or At(h)irat and Astheroth, in Ugaritic-Canaan and
Syria; Aphrodite in Greece; Venus in Rome; etc. There were many other
names used for essentially the same goddess. The Old Testament declared
war on Asherah, for she and Baal (and the Ugaritic scriptures in
general) were the most influential on the Jews - in both a positive and
negative way. The distinctions between (1) what the Jews accepted and
(2) what they rejected from this Canaanite-Syriac culture of Ugarit, can
be made, for example, between gods and goddesses, and are revealed in
the very formation of the Hebrew language...
Ra (ur) is a Hebrew term for evil, and is used in the Old Testament
(e.g., in Isaiah 45:7, where God says He is the Ścreator of good and
evilą). In the Egyptian script, Ra and Re are used as key prefixes and
suffixes for divinity, signifying the human-divine status of the Phara -
oh. We know that the Egyptian pronunciation of Ra is similar to the
Hebrew - after breaking the code of the Rosetta Stone - along with many
other clues left to us from the Roman era. This is how we know the
correct pronunciation, e.g., for łCleopat-ra,˛ where the suffix is
used, and also forłRa -messes,˛ where the prefix is used.1 The
Egyptian Ra influenced many other cultures, including the Minoans, and
may even be responsible for the Hindi-Pali-Thai pra and bra prefixes.
I am convinced that the similarity between the Egyptian and Hebrew is no
coincidence, but, rather, is part of a pejorative transition,
juxtaposing łevil˛ for an Egyptian term denoting veneration and
deification (i.e., for łgood/God˛). Furthermore, I do not believe that
Rahab, the name for both the Jewish heroine (carrying the stigma and
shame of being a whore) and the evil sea monster who loses in battle to
Yahweh, is a coincidence either.2
There are numerous examples of ra being used as both a divine
name and a personification for evil in the East, West, and Middle East.
Ancient India and Siam (Thailand) followed suit, as many other cultures
did, in reflecting both the favorable and pejorative uses for the term
ra. Thai, and the Hindi language that influenced it, incorporated the
positive Egyptian sense - as well as the negative Ugaritic-Hebrew sense
- to ra. It is both clear and irrefutable that, with Indian Sanskrit
and the Pali texts, an overwhelming influence was exerted on the
formation and development of the Thai language. If, however, this
influence came from Egypt and/or Canaan, it can not be demonstrated with
any degree of certainty. As a prefix, ra is the designation for royal
divinity; e.g., in family names of kings in both Hindi and Thai.3 As
a root, ra in Thai is connected with evil, e.g., the word ragsat, for
łdemon,˛ in much the same way as the Hebrew ur (and its Ugaritic
predecessor, rz, the transliteration from the original cuneiform
writing, for łterrible˛). These similarities and apparent connections
are uncanny and quite startling. Striking similarities are also to be
found in the terms relating to god(s), especially with concepts of
bovine divinity (found in most ancient cultures)....
The imagery of a mighty god coming down from the mountain top is
usually associated with thunder, lightening, storms, and floods. We
already saw how these traits were characteristic of the Ugaritic
religion, e.g., with El, Baal, and other gods. Similarly, we find the
same terminology and descriptions being characteristic of el and
yahweh, in the He- brew Bible. The prowess of these gods is displayed
through jealousy, rivalry, and competition. The battles between these
gods seem to be typical of patriarchal rivalries, like that of yahweh
and baal. Rarely do they have common foes, but yahweh and baal ,
from their own sep-arate scriptures, fight a common enemy - the
Leviathan (}tywl), or Lotan. Lotan, or Ltn, łthe evil serpent,˛
łcrooked serpent,˛ and łmighty one of seven heads,˛ is destroyed in
battle by Baal, according to Ugaritic litera-ture.1 In Job and Psalms,
Leviathan and Rahab represent evil serpents, and are fought against -
with a vengeance - by yahweh. These great sea battles against
leviathan (}tywl) and rahab are unmistakably similar to the first
scriptural writings found at Ras Shamra, with Baal, Anat, Yam, Mot, and
Lotan.2 The Sea itself appears to be an enemy, or The Enemy, and is
depicted as being female. Asherah, for example, was the Great Lady of
the Sea; the Hebrew serpent, Rahab, was also a famous heroine; and, in
the Babylonian myth, Marduk fights against Tiamat....
Cybele/Semele, The Great Mother (reminiscent of Ishtar and Asherah, The
Great Lady - and Lady of the Sea - similar to Yamm, rabbatu ilima), was
also an original pre-Greek goddess of fertility; her direct origins are
to be found in Asia Minor, where Persian-Median influence was dominant.
Thus, the key to Dionysius - and the he-goat/bull connection - is to be
found in the matriarchal transition of deities from Mesopotamian,
Ugaritic, and Persian sources. It is from here that the development of
pre-Greek and Greco-Roman matriarchal deities came to fruition and took
mature form (i.e., e.g., from Cybele, Demeter, Persephone, and
Aphrodite-Venus to the god Dionysius, even if He was recognized as their
predecessor), and were, then, synthetically unified within the
Judeo-Christian concept of evil, in the person of Lucifer. So, it seems
that the Persian-Greek concepts of bad and fallen angels - as oppposed
to eu aggelion (łgood angels˛ or łmessengers˛) - had a devastating and
lasting effect on Augustine, Jerome, and other Śearly Church Fathers,ą
and thus, on the Christian creation of Lucifer.
From the Ugaritic bull-El, Baal, and Asherah to the Hebrew bull, El and
Yahweh; from the Greek Dionysius (with the same traits as, yet in
opposition to Apollo) to the Christian Jesus - there are no god vs.
devil, good vs. evil characteristics that arenąt already contained
within the ear-liest cuneiform written sources of
Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian-As-syrian Mesopotamia and
Ugaritic-Canaan-Syria.
Starting with El, being both the generic term for god and/or deity and
also the specific god at the head of the pantheon of gods, we have
scriptural documentation in the Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, Phoenician, and
(much later) in the Hebrew religions, in pretty much that order. The
cuneiform was clearly copied right into the Hebrew language, along with
almost the same mythological accounts. Starting with the cuneiform
writing (of el, il, ilum, and ilima - from the Great Lady, rabbatu
ilima Yamm), we have both interesting linguistic and religious
implications for Judeo-Christian theology, shown in the following
comparisons:
((Sorry, cannot copy and transmit the next 4 pgs. of cuneiform,
hieroglyphs, Coptic, Cryptic- Dead Sea Scroll codes, and Hebrew.))
* * * * *
The ironic dialectical relationship here im-plies that Śheavenly
bodiesą are truly seen as the Śgodsą they are. Secondly, the ra, pra,
pr, and bra prefixes appear in the Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Hindi,
and Thai languages, to name just a few. The Hebrew r p (bull), from
the Ugaritic, and the Egyptian ra, seems too close to be a co-incidence
for the Indian-Thai pr, pra, brih, and brah prefixes, being of
divine-human import. From the term, lord, to the divine bull and cow,
is an endless stream of similarities, tied to these łseven stars,˛ and
traceable back to Venus, with all human interventions and Śdire
consequences hanging in the balance.ą Friday is The Day of Crosses,
łnot to be taken lightly.˛ Of course, being associated with Venus,
Friday is also represented by a five-pointed star, symbolic of Satan,
Evil, and Islam...
* * * * *
These mystery cults accomplished, in Greco-Roman times, what other
basic religions could not or did not accomplish; they functioned as a
social leveler of all class distinctions and divisions of labor. The
mystery cults ignored all social and economic differences, placing all
class distinctions on temporary hold; thus, attaining equality, for the
moment, with a lack of social stratification within this temporary
cultural island. This, of course, was never practiced in Judaism,
except in small sects where a strong and powerful priestly caste still
reigned; where patriarchal wealth and ruling with an iron fist seemed to
go together. Patriarchy, theocracy, and monotheism were all
interconnected in ancient Judaic culture.
In many ways, ancient biblical Judaism attacked the mystery cults
through the personification of yahweh, God of the Hebrews. In Isaiah
1:12-14, it is yahweh who detests and łhates˛ the łnew moon festivals˛
and łthe blood of bulls.˛ This seems slightly odd, since, in Isaiah
1:23-5, yahweh is joined by the gods adonay; abyir, the mighty one
(bull) of israel; and the host. The polytheistic strand continues at
a random and rapid pace, and in chapter three, eloah/elohn are added to
the list of gods mentioned. Chapters Twelve to Thirteen(verse 6)
further designates el; yah; the kadoosh, or holy one of israel; the host
of yahweh; and shadday. This plethora of gods, i.e., the concepts and
epithets for them, are all interpreted, translated, synthetically
redacted, and reduced to The One God of the Hebrews and israel, by
religious leaders and writers.
The anti-astral deity attack continues, with a vengeance, in the Śhateą
Book of Isaiah, 13:9, where yahweh is to come and Śturn out the lightą
of the stars and constellations, as well as that of the sun and moon.
Finally, from Isaiah 14:12-14, the łwrath˛ of yahweh and his hosts, is
focused upon he-ylel, łthe morning star˛ that is to fall from the
heavens. Now, yahweh, in the first person (łI˛) vows to Śraise his
throne above the stars of el. ą This is strange talk, straight from
the god yahweh, about the astral gods of elŠ so much for a supposedly
monotheistic religion. This oddity heightens when yahweh predicts that
He will sit on his throne, mounted on the łassembly˛ [of the gods] of
the sacred mountain, łZaphon.˛ One may recall that, from Isaiah
81:17-82:2, God was said to have presided at the łassembly of gods,˛ the
el of elohim. Here, however, He (i.e., yahweh) continues, by promising
His audience of rival gods and sinners that they will descend to the
łpit,˛sheol. I believe that these passages, more than ever, point to
the multileveled tiers of polytheism. One level includes the Hebrew
gods, including yahweh, while the other level includes all of the rival
gods, including the astral deities. The latter are clearly recognized,
with existential real-life status, and hence, are legitimized in and
through the Bible (via the weight of its authority)...
Man-kind, or adam, again as an Ugaritic Śfirstą - to be copied by the
Jews - also had its strictly unique complement and consort in the
He-brew Bible, with hava (Eve), where they both appear together (e.g.,
in Genesis 2:19), as opposed to ish and ish(er)ah, in Genesis 2:24 (also
related to Ugaritic origins through Asherah). A key element of
biblical matriarchy can be found in the fact that hava is the life
principle, i.e., as the fe-male. This is the fundamental principle of
humanity, and of primary importance; not simply the wo(e)-man, to be
condemned as Śthe first to be tempted and to fall to siną (similar to
the Aztec depiction of Coatlicue), but as the very life principle
itself - and perhaps a/the principal deity (as with the sun, adding to
the parallels with the Aztecs, Maya, Egyptians, etc.).
The unique Judaic claim to monotheism, coupled with the elitist and
separatist slogan of Jews being łGodąs Chosen People,˛ enabled the
Hebrews to form a cultural island of exclusivity. They did not blend
in, nor could they, due to their patriarchal monotheism. In that
respect, and only in that respect, were the Hebrews really unique.
Their language and gods were certainly not as unique as they have always
claimed them to be. The contradiction of a twofold double standard of
hypocrisy exists here: via the Jewsą (1) plagiarizing from other
cultures without acknowledgment (being in denial); and yet, at the same
time, (2) condemning those very same cultures as Śpaganą (while
incorporating those very same traits Śstoleną from them). What a
clever and diabolical scheme by the priestly castes! It must be
understood that this entire process evolved over a long period of time,
starting with the piece-meal progression and development of the
scriptures, since they were written and re-written as a scattered work
in progress until the final compilation and canon in 90 C.E. (A.D.).
This is what I have tried to communicate and demonstrate in the present
work, with all of the biblical passages cited. So, this ecclesiastical
coup of patriarchal monotheism over a more matriarchal polytheism took a
very long time to complete. The inseparable connection between
patriarchy and monotheism should be apparent. The exclusivity of the
Jewish patriarchs was not just against outsiders, but extended to women
too, as I have tried to show repeatedly.
The Asherah, Ishtar, and Isis composite was finalized in the feminine
symbol, also associated with Venus; this was represented as the
structure of cultic planetary symbolism. We must understand the
necessity - on the part of Judeo-Christendom - of crushing the symbolic
apparatus behind both matriarchy and polytheism. The łHoly˛ Roman
Empire implemented this policy, time and time again, with the vengeful
destruction of all temples, especially temples of Venus. The Pauline
letters, followed by the obvious sexism and anti-female statements,
practices, and rituals by early łchurch fathers,˛ such as Tertullian,
Jerome, and Benedict, clearly proved such an obsession. Taking their
lead from Paul, all of these Śsaintsą were outrageously prejudiced
against women. The absolute insistence on having women silent, kneeling,
and covering their heads in church, proves that a truly slavish
mentality of subservience and oppressive obedience was at work here,
true to the male dominated ecclesiastical establishment...
The world of Christendom fought against evil by creating what wasnąt
originally there in the Hebrew Bible, namely Lucifer. This was the
intentional work of the łearly church fathers,˛ from Augustine to
Jerome, whose attack was aimed at Venus, the goddess of love, and Eros,
of life itself. The same attack was first waged by the Hebrews,
against Asherah, Isherah, Isis, Aphrodite, and Venus, and thus, also
against hava (Eve) - the life generating principle - and isherah/issa,
i.e., łwoman.˛ Is it a coincidence that ash, in Hebrew, means łfire,˛
and that Ash-erah represents the fiery fertile Queen Mother of us all?
I think not. From the Greek mythological fire-stealing hero,
Prometheus, to Pyhro and Perseus, the ŚGreek version of the łP˛s are not
anti-female, anti-sexual, and anti-erotic as are the łP˛s of the
Judeo-Christian priestly castes. The Judeo-Christian attack was also
waged against Lilith, Ruth, Rahab, Esther, etc. The Christian dogma
associated with these attacks was instrumental in helping to instill
fear into people; the Sacraments, Holy Days of Obligation, exorcisms,
and other rituals of the First Christian Church clearly reveal the slave
mentality of its hovering and groveling subjects. Ultimately and
essentially, the fatal pathological and diabolical attack against Eros
has been waged on behalf of Pathos and Thanatos.
ri...@leading.net
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:08:25 -0500, Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> >wrote:
>If you watched the Pope visit Havana and give that outdoor
>mass there is something to ponder.
>
>The majority of the audience practice Sanatria, a cross
>between Catholicism and West African Religion. If you
>had followed the faithful to their homes you would have
>found idols. Not statues of the Virgin Mary or of some
>Saint but brightly painted gods made of wood and stone.
>
>When people say there are no gods it tells me what religions
>they weren't exposed to as children. Most gods are small
>statues and exist.
>
>There are local terms for this, Panama Catholic, Cuban
>Catholic, Hoodoo, Voodoo and Sanatria.
>
>The key observation is that the Pope didn't say one thing
>about it. He didn't say get Dumbala etc. out of your home
>that's idolatry. The local parish priests don't say that either.
>
>If this was the Lubavicher Rabbi or some Mullah or even
>Billy Graham there would have been little else discussed.
>The key difference between a monotheistic religion and
>a polytheistic religion is the amount of tolerance for such
>things. There is no Moslem or Jewish equivalent to Santa
>Claus much less Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.
>
>When my daughter, we are atheists, was in the third grade
>there was an Easter party at school. She remarked "Between
>flying reindeer and egg laying rabbits these people have a
>poor grip on biology." To which I must add "And look at
>what the holidays commemorate. And look at their political
>causes."
>
Charles,
You are certainly correct concerning Catholicism. It wouldn't be the
first time that they tolerated a pagan culture's practices within the
Church.
Since most religions claiming to be "Christian" claim to base their
beliefs as originating from the Bible, it would be prudent to see what
the Bible says about mixing in false worship with true worship.
First let me define true worship. The Bible says that there is only
"one faith". (Eph 4:5) Thus that "one faith" would be based on God's
inspired word, the Holy Bible. (2 Ti 3:16)
So, the Bible gives us the principle at 2 Co 6:14-17,
"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness
and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with
darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What
does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement
is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of
the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among
them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." 17
"Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no
unclean thing, and I will receive you."" (NIV)
No, the principle is clear. Christians are not to mix pagan beliefs
with the Bible's teachings.
Concerning Easter, a little research will show that even the name
"Easter" itself, comes from a pagan goddess. As this encyclopedia
shows,
"The name Easter comes from 'Eostre', [Astarte, Greek;
Eostre,Ango-Saxon] an ancient Ango-Saxon goddess, originally of the
dawn. Some Easter customs have come from this and other pre-Christian
spring festivals."
"Many Easter customs come from the Old World...Rabbits and colored
eggs have come from pagan antiquity as symbols of new life."
Compton's Encyclopedia,1995,Vol 7,p.41.
The Christmas celebration isn't much better.
The Bible tells Christians to celebrate only one activity. Not Jesus
birth, not Jesus resurrection, but his death. This is the only
celebration Christians are commanded to observe. Lu 22:19,
"Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them,
saying: "This means my body which is to be given in YOUR behalf. Keep
doing this in remembrance of me."" (NWT)
And since this was instituted on the annual Passover celebration, it
would only be reasonable that it would be like-wise celebrated just
once a year.
Yes, the Bible is trustworthy and truthful and in full harmony with
true science. Man's religions may or may not be the same.
Sincerely,
James
***********************************
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
Christopher L Middleman
In article <3534cdc9....@news.sonic.net>, r...@sonic.net (ric carter) writes:
|> nos...@no.such.net (RJO) wrote:
|>
|> > Just because a few Muslims and Jehovah's Witnesses think we Catholics
|> > are polytheists don't make it so. Truth is we ain't. Or perhaps you
|> > knew this already.
|>
|> Roman Cahtolicism is quite assuredly polytheistic. Besides the
|> 3-godz-in-1 dogma, you've got the Mary cult, and recognition of
|> Satan and myriads of angels and demons. All these supernatural
|> entities turn an alleged monotheism into full-blown polytheism.
|>
|> Note on trinity: Gauls/Celts liked their godz in threes. Romans
|> picked up this preference, and xians trying to recruit amongst
|> Graeco/Roman 'pagans' found it convenient to accommodate this
|> particular aspect of the competition's belief-system. It was a
|> straightforward meld, a tactic used successfully by xianity and
|> especially Roman Catholicism over the millennia - if you can't
|> simply overwhelm your target, absorb it and adapt its features.
|>
|> > I'm wondering why you're touting "Hellenic Polytheism" on a Catholic newsgroup.
|>
|> These messages are crossposted to a number of groups.
|>
|> ** Download a free Voice Stress Analysis lie detector. They hate
|> ** it when you do that! >>> http://4bypass.com/truthvsa.html <<<
If took a millenium to come to thhis undertanding how come St. Augustine wrote De
Trinitatae in the Fourth century. Then you have the problem of when God says I am
and the second part of trinity is there and reflects the first part is it truly a
seperate god as you point out.
--
At my first coming into the world I had been (implicitly) warned never to
trust a Papist, and at my first coming into the English Faculty (explicitly)
never trust a philologist. Tolkien was both.
C. S. Lewis Suprised by Joy
Charles Fiterman
ri...@leading.net wrote:
> Yes, the Bible is trustworthy and truthful and in full harmony with
> true science. Man's religions may or may not be the same.
The bible is a human document written over millennia. If you
read an English translation it doesn't seem that way because
it was homogenized by a single author and then passed through
a single committee.
Imagine you were faced with a collection of English documents
from Beowulf to Clinton's statement on the Nashville tornado.
You would look at them and know they came from a variety
of authors with different points of view speaking different forms
of the same language. The bible in Hebrew presents this picture.
But if you have someone translate the whole thing to modern
Chinese a student might easily think it had a single author.
All religions are human religions. What else Martian?
jimmy adams
In article <3536E9...@fda.net>, "Frank T. De Angelis"
<spar...@fda.net> writes
>> "the desire of every *good* man in egypt was to go to the kingdom of osiris
>those who are good pass on those who are wicked are condemmed to fire
>> or executed...the good journey on to the city of god"..
>>
>> "the book of the dead" by e.a. wallis budge..one time keeper of the
>> egyptian antiquities in the british museum.
>>
>> g.
>
>Dear g"
>
>Did you ever realize that your quote (above) was in English?
>
>The meaning, interpretation, and translation into words from the
>Egyptian hieroglyphs (or hieratic-demotic, and later, Coptic) is not a
>transliteration, does not trace the etymology, and is not a
>philosophical one - uncovering the real concepts from that
>weltanschaaung.
>
David Lodge?)
--
jimmy adams
jimmy adams
In article <3536F7...@fda.net>, "Frank T. De Angelis"
<spar...@fda.net> writes
>(a few notes from my book, Pt II - on historically and linguistically
>tracing gods/devils, good/bad- evil/ etc, from Sumeria to
>Judeo-X-tianity ...compliments of F.T. De Angelis):
>
>
>Tracing Lucifer back from St. Jerome is - to be sure - no easy task. If
>we begin our search from the other end of history, so to speak, we find
>that the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism contained the
>origins of monotheism.
I find this a bit puzzling, Frank, since Zoroaster was about six
centuries after Akhenaton and Moses?
> The original writings and beliefs of a
>monotheistic god, coupled with the strict ethical dualism of Good and
>Evil, are represented in this ancient and hitherto unique religion. It
>is here where we find the origin of, not Lucifer per se, but the
>concepts of fallen angels and the Prince of Darkness. Both are
>interdependent with the descriptive concept of the deviląs deception, by
>appearing in the form of a bright morning star. All of Luciferąs
>characteristics (and, as a matter of fact, the Deviląs, in general) are
>found within this Persian religion. What is lacking, however, in
>Zoroastrianism, is the name Lucifer itself.
[...]
>It was Augustineąs City of God,
>that was written as a reply to those who accused Christianity of
>bringing about the downfall of the Roman Empire.
> Who else but Augustine could have been influenced by such historical
>forces, being responsible for re-creating and securing Lucifer, solely
>for Christianity? Who else could have had the ability, knowledge, and
>opportunity?; the intellectual passion, imagination, and power?; the
>intimate and first hand knowledge of Zoroastrianism, as well as Greek
>culture?; and - more importantly - who else lived within the same time
>frame, as a contemporary of/with St. Jerome?
> Reverend Joseph A. Grispino, in his Confraternity-Douay Version of
>the Bible, claims that early łFathers of the Church˛ influenced St.
>Jerome in his insertion of Lucifer for the Hebrew heylel in the Isaiah
>14:12 passage; accompanied by a very perplexing footnote preceding it,
>suggesting that perhaps this came from ła Chanaanite myth.˛1 Not much
>more in the way of details is given, nor is known about this, judging
>from the commentaries by Catholic scholars (e.g., in the modern St.
>Jerome Edition of the Bible). The limited, inconsistent, and even
>contradictory information given by priestly sources - I believe - is an
>admission of ignorance, more or less, concerning the origin of Lucifer.
Have you considered the possibility that both Augustine and Jerome were
human, and that Lucifer (Calaritanus) had been causing no end of trouble
within the Church and between Church and state not long before?
>As a Manichean, Augustine was well aware of the fallen angel imagery and
>the Prince of Darkness epithet inherited from that Greco-Persian
>religion he embraced earlier.
[....]
> If God does not create evil, and if evil is a privation of good, as
>Augustine claims, then one wonders how this first łDoctor of the Church˛
>could have avoided, ignored, or explained away passages in the Hebrew
>Bible; such as, for example, Isaiah 45:7, where God creates evil: łI am
>the Lord, there is no other; I form the light and create the darkness.
>I make well-being and create woe. I the Lord do all of these things.˛
It's even clearer in the KJV: "I form the light, and create darkness; I
make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things."
--
jimmy adams
Frank T. De Angelis
jimmy adams wrote:
>
> In article <3536E9...@fda.net>, "Frank T. De Angelis"
> <spar...@fda.net> writes
Dear g J:
Clever...very clever! ("<")
frank
Frank T. De Angelis
jimmy adams wrote:
>
> In article <3536F7...@fda.net>, "Frank T. De Angelis"
> <spar...@fda.net> writes
> >(a few notes from my book, Pt II - on historically and linguistically
> >tracing gods/devils, good/bad- evil/ etc, from Sumeria to
> >Judeo-X-tianity ...compliments of F.T. De Angelis):
> >
> >
> >Tracing Lucifer back from St. Jerome is - to be sure - no easy task. If
> >we begin our search from the other end of history, so to speak, we find
> >that the ancient Persian religion of Zoroastrianism contained the
> >origins of monotheism.
> I find this a bit puzzling, Frank, since Zoroaster was about six
> centuries after Akhenaton and Moses?
>
Dear g J:
Yes, I can explain (and should). Very good. It is Friday, however, and
my girlfriend is getting mad. So far, I have only read this first set of
comment; thus, will respond to it/them first.
Some refer to Zoroastrianism as Mazdaism, separating it (and the Avesta)
from its later prophet, Zoroaster. I talk about some of the exaggerated
dates given -- as all religions do -- in how far back this religion goes
(and I do talk briefly about this in my book).
The very first writings of the O.T. are fairly recent (more than the
*pre-Zoroaster* Zoroastrian origins - to at least a millennium B.C.E.),
being between 922 and 722 B.C.E. - JUST FOR THE FIRST FOUR-FIVE BOOKS OF
THE BIBLE, the torah. The entire O.T. was not canonized until 90 C.E.
(A.D.). Get it? Okay.
The Isaiah 14:12 *Lucifer* is not in the original Hebrew nor the first
trans. out of H. - Greek (the Greek Septuagint), being a *creation* of
St. Jerome's in his 4-5th c. edition, the Latin Vulgate. Okay? Are you
starting to see the light now? (This is something I have been quoted on
- as an authoritative and controversial source - in interviews and
internet topics, e.g., via alt. Book links. This was (based upon) an
article done by me, quite a few years back.
I gotta go, and haven't been able to look at anything, typing this like
a madman, but tomorrow morn. (late) I will return, read your other
comments, and respond. Okay for now?
Ciao,
F.T. De Angelis http://home.fda.net/~spartacus
(If you haven't already, take a quick look at my book - on my website;
perhaps it might help in answering some of your questions, or show you
more of where I am coming from - I don't know.)
David Zimmer
The concept of evil is as old as man. Man ahs many concepts, but are they
accurate? Is there such a thing as evil or is evil simply the same as
ignorance? Sure the asbsence of truth or wisdom is ignorance. And
ignorance has created concepts like hell. What needs to be examined is
our perception as opposed to whether or not there is such a thing as evil
or hell. For everything is based upon our perception.
---------snip-----
In article <schlis-1704...@x2-95.theramp.net>,
sch...@concentric.net (John Schlismann) wrote:
> In article <3559eef4...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Doug Weller) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Apr 1998 20:10:42 -0500, in alt.mythology, John Schlismann wrote:
> >
> > >I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The concept of
> > >evil was around long before Judeo Christianity. For example in the
> > >Ancient Norse religions Iörmungandr, Loki, Hel and Fenris would all be
> > >considered evil.
> >
> > But how far back can you trace these (even if I accepted what you are
saying).
> > I don't think you can trace them back even before Christianity,
certainly not
> > before Judaism.
> >
> > Doug
>
> These can be easily traced before Christianity and Judaism. It is widely
> accepted in the mythology/religion field that the early Pagan religions
> predated all forms of Christianity and Judaism. I have no dates/proof to
> give you but I plan on looking into and getting back to you.
>
> -John Schlismann
>
> --
> To educate educators! But first ones must educate themselves! And for
these I write.
>
> -Friedrich Nietzsche
--
David Zimmer
Seeing Inside Out
http://www.seeinginsideout.com
Your vehicle to a better reality and inner peace.
Scott Maxwell
RJO wrote in message <35351859...@nntp.netcruiser>...
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:23:41 GMT, r...@sonic.net (ric carter) edified
>readers everywhere by writing:
>[snip]
>
>>Sorry, that 3-godz-in-1 thang just doesn't wash. It's a neat bit of
>>bureaucratic wording, but it's still just shuffling words to conceal
>>the reality of the belief-system - a religion that's absorbed dogmas
>>and doctrines from myriads of other religions, successfully absorbing
>>them like an amoeba incorporating the the genetic information of all
>>the partners its ever merged with. A successful hybrid, eh?
>
>Okay. If you say so.
>
>Cheers, RJO
Sounds like the proper response to someone arguing about a Mystery (with a
capital M) of the orthodox (with a small o) Christian faith.
There is a legend about St. Agustine (of Hippo) that says that he was
pondering the Trinity and walking on the Mediterranean coast. He came
across a young boy who had dug a hole in the sand and was carrying water
from the sea to the little hole. When asked what he was doing the little
boy said that he was emptying the Mediterranean into the hole. St. Agustine
said that it was impossible; to that the boy replied that Agustine was
probably right but that he, the little boy, would empty the Mediterranean
before Agustine figured out the Trinity.
'uhane
I have to admit, I have no interest in philosophical and theological
discussions of "hell" and the origin of "evil" but I did
appreciate the quote left here by:
Frank T. De Angelis:
> *Hell is other people.*
Was this Nietzche? Anyway, I can't help but wonder (and forgive
the over-simplification of the subject matter) if that which we
perceive as "evil" would not exist if humanity had never evolved
to perceive/create it. Had the planet been left to the non-human
animals, or if we humans hadn't created such a wild gulf between our
consciousness' and that of the animal-others, the plants, the rocks
and the mountains, what kind of world could have been?
'uhane
"In order to understand the marvelous language of
Amazonia, it is necessary to get down on the ground
and listen with compassion to the heats beating
underneath."
-Nuno Vieira Peregrino, Jr.
"One of the deep silences fell on them, that
seemed so much more natural than speech, a
timeless silence in which there were at first
many minds in the overhang; and then
perhaps no mind at all."
W. Golding
ric carter
ome...@flash.net wrote:
> ric carter wrote:
> >
> > Human: What is the meaning of life?
> > System: Insufficient data.
> > Human: Is there a God?
> > System: <beep> There is now.
> >
> lions eat Christians, or Hitler gassing the Jews, then I guess you might
> enjoy the more modern, technological methods of the end-time antichrist
> as he brings destruction on our world.
omegab emailed this to me privately, as well as posting it here; and I
responded in email by saying that he's totally incorrect, and that I
bitterly resent his implications. I'm very tired of seeing [and being
the subject of] demagogic misconstructions and manipulations of what's
been said, bending everything to fit twisted dogmas, debasing what
should be civilized discourse into ad hominems and propaganda. Feh!
It's YOUR religion, they're YOUR rules, YOU go burn in hell!!
ric carter
mjh...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Hines) wrote:
> Immersing myself in study, I realized that there is very strong and
> convincing evidence, even meeting scientific standards, proving God's
> existence. For instance, an avenue one can take is to study official
> records of exorcisms. Jesuit priests have made this task easy by
> keeping careful records of some exorcisms.
Fascinating myth-system. And *so* entertaining.
ric carter
ri...@leading.net wrote:
> Yes, the Bible is trustworthy and truthful and in full harmony with
> true science. Man's religions may or may not be the same.
Tthe thousands of distinct groups of xians can't agree even on which
biblical texts to acknowledge as canonical, let alone what those texts
mean. And they gladly slaughter each other over their differences.
Sounds like this is a particularly dangerous and frustratinng myth-
system to pursue - and the notions are untestable, and thus have
nothing to do with science. Bother.
Larry Caldwell
In article <6gvq5q$j...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"Gene" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> i doubt there are many religions indian or otherwise that do not teach a
> hell concept or a reward for doing what is good for the tribe
I got roped into singing at a funeral today, and while the preacher was
doing his thing I got to wondering how the idea of heaven and hell got
welded into Christianity. Mosaic Judaism didn't believe in an afterlife,
and many modern Jews still don't. You live in the covenant and you die
in the covenant, for the sake of your people. The tribe goes on, but
the individual does not.
At the time of Jesus the whole afterlife thing was approached very
differently. Early Christians expected Jesus to come again and the
dead to rise up. This was pretty close to the view of the Pharisees,
and was the angle Paul would have pushed. It's pretty clearly Egyptian.
At some point, Christians switched from the resurrection thing to the
heaven thing. This funeral had all sorts of heaven quotes, but no
resurrection quotes. After 2000 years, Christians seem to have abandoned
resurrection as a misunderstanding, and adopted the celestial afterlife
as the final reward.
From my understanding, the resurrection thing was invented by the
Egyptians, and reincarnation by the Dravidians. The celestial heaven
was Babylonian mythology. I may be mistaken about that. AFAIK
Egyptians were the only people who had a firm concept of an afterlife.
The Celts had a belief in reincarnation, but they were pretty late
coming on the scene, and there's no telling where they picked it up.
The Pythagoreans probably picked theirs up from Babylon.
The concept that people would go to heaven and stay there seems to have
popped up about the time the Roman Empire took control of the church.
Was the idea common in any pre-Christian religion, or did the early
church invent it? I'm looking for references prior to the 4th century
ce here, not reports of the efforts of post-christian pagans to compete
with missionaries by fabricating their own heaven.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
In article <schlis-1604...@x2-138.theramp.net>,
sch...@concentric.net (John Schlismann) wrote:
> I would have to disagree with you on your first point. The concept of
> evil was around long before Judeo Christianity. For example in the
> Ancient Norse religions Iörmungandr, Loki, Hel and Fenris would all be
> considered evil. And the last battle of Ragnarök is seen as the fight
> between good and evil. What do you mean by the very modern conception of
> evil? The way I look at it is things are either right(good) or extremely
> wrong(evil).
Norse religions are hardly ancient, dating as they do from well within the
Christian era. However, the concept of evil does seem to be an ancient
one. The Babylonians were certainly some of the most demon ridden,
paranoid people in history. Their life was spent propitiating a vast
number of personal, malefic demons.
I find it interesting that the concept of a personal devil predates the
concept of a personal savior by at least a thousand years.
-- Larry
joshua geller
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) writes:
> In article <6gvq5q$j...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Gene" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I got roped into singing at a funeral today, and while the preacher was
> doing his thing I got to wondering how the idea of heaven and hell got
> welded into Christianity. Mosaic Judaism didn't believe in an
> afterlife,
what is 'mosaic judaism'? do you mean the religion practiced by the
confederation of tribes who later became the kingdoms of judah and
israel one small remnant of whom became the modern jews around the
time of moses, say 1700 BC or so?
or do you mean the religion(s) of the same group of peoples at the
time of the founding of the temple of jerusalem by solomon son of
david around 950 BC or so?
or do you mean that religion as reformed a hundred years or so after
that after the 'discovery' of 'the book of the law' during a
renovation of that same temple?
or do you mean what that religion had become in two hundred fifty more
years when the upper and middle class of those people had been
relocated to babylon?
or do you mean the religion that was established in palestine after
the babylonian captivity?
or what?
> and many modern Jews still don't. You live in the covenant and you die
> in the covenant, for the sake of your people. The tribe goes on, but
> the individual does not.
simplistic. and not, strictly speaking, true.
> At the time of Jesus the whole afterlife thing was approached very
> differently. Early Christians expected Jesus to come again and the
> dead to rise up. This was pretty close to the view of the Pharisees,
> and was the angle Paul would have pushed. It's pretty clearly Egyptian.
osirian. the religious situation in pre-christian egypt is most
similar to the religious situation in india today. there were lots and
lots of little religions and a few big ones.
> From my understanding, the resurrection thing was invented by the
> Egyptians, and reincarnation by the Dravidians.
what, within the last ten thousand years? please be serious, larry.
> The celestial heaven
> was Babylonian mythology. I may be mistaken about that.
may be.
> AFAIK
> Egyptians were the only people who had a firm concept of an
> afterlife.
not hardly.
best,
josh
joshua geller
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) writes:
> Norse religions are hardly ancient, dating as they do from well within the
> Christian era.
how long do you think they were going before people wrote them down?
best,
josh
Gene
Larry Caldwell <lar...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<FlCO10O5...@teleport.com>...
> In article <6gvq5q$j...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Gene" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > i doubt there are many religions indian or otherwise that do not teach
a
> > hell concept or a reward for doing what is good for the tribe
>
> I got roped into singing at a funeral today, and while the preacher was
> doing his thing I got to wondering how the idea of heaven and hell got
> welded into Christianity. Mosaic Judaism didn't believe in an afterlife,
> and many modern Jews still don't. You live in the covenant and you die
> in the covenant, for the sake of your people. The tribe goes on, but
> the individual does not.
zoroastrianism is responsible for heaven and hell, some of judaism
and much of christianity is taken from this early religion...as well as
the egyptians which i believe zoroastrian may also have borrowed from.
> At the time of Jesus the whole afterlife thing was approached very
> differently. Early Christians expected Jesus to come again and the
> dead to rise up. This was pretty close to the view of the Pharisees,
> and was the angle Paul would have pushed. It's pretty clearly Egyptian.
>
> At some point, Christians switched from the resurrection thing to the
> heaven thing. This funeral had all sorts of heaven quotes, but no
> resurrection quotes. After 2000 years, Christians seem to have abandoned
> resurrection as a misunderstanding, and adopted the celestial afterlife
> as the final reward.
well what is a resurrection? but a reborning of the individual i suppose
from
their point of view one can be resurrected in a heaven
>
> From my understanding, the resurrection thing was invented by the
> Egyptians, and reincarnation by the Dravidians. The celestial heaven
> was Babylonian mythology. I may be mistaken about that. AFAIK
> Egyptians were the only people who had a firm concept of an afterlife.
> The Celts had a belief in reincarnation, but they were pretty late
> coming on the scene, and there's no telling where they picked it up.
> The Pythagoreans probably picked theirs up from Babylon.
i don't like your choice of "invented" if you take religion back far enough
you will see a borrowing and an adding
> The concept that people would go to heaven and stay there seems to have
> popped up about the time the Roman Empire took control of the church.
> Was the idea common in any pre-Christian religion, or did the early
> church invent it? I'm looking for references prior to the 4th century
> ce here, not reports of the efforts of post-christian pagans to compete
> with missionaries by fabricating their own heaven.
there is no clear statement on whether people on "reaching" heaven
stay there....it was not invented but borrowered...this whole religious
thing is one large mulligan stew and growing....people take what they
like from it and serve it as a dish....and each time you dip the ladle..
it comes out a bit differently...and all add to the pot from time to time.
g.
>
> -- Larry
>
Timothy C. Consodine
Laurie Davison wrote in message <35363...@pop.uky.edu>...
> I'm following this thread with interest as a new member of this group
>- and as a person who was raised in the Catholic Church. I have since
>switched to Unitarianism, which is a far better fit for me.
[ . . .]
Why would you leave the one church that Jesus Christ founded to join a sect
that some Englishman started in the 18th century?
Timothy C. Consodine
L.Deerfield wrote in message <6h5fq3$mjc$1...@shell15.ba.best.com>...
> The official party line may be that Catholicism is monotheistic, but
> in practice this is often not the case.
If people don't follow what the church teaches, what are we to conclude from
that?
>In -most- areas where this is the
> dominant religion, the worship of the saints takes on theistic aspects.
> Frequently, there are cults of Mary...
What constitutes a "cult of Mary?"
pythia
umm..... The "Militia Immaculatae" perhaps?
Is this a trick question?
Best,
Pythia
Timothy C. Consodine
ri...@leading.net wrote in message <353785c4...@news.leading.net>...
>You are certainly correct concerning Catholicism. It wouldn't be the
>first time that they tolerated a pagan culture's practices within the
>Church.
>Since most religions claiming to be "Christian" claim to base their
>beliefs as originating from the Bible, it would be prudent to see what
>the Bible says about mixing in false worship with true worship.
So then we are to follow the teachings of a sect (Jehovah's Witnesses) which
existed nowhere until it was started by an ex-Baptist in New York City in
the 1880s?
>First let me define true worship. The Bible says that there is only
>"one faith". (Eph 4:5) Thus that "one faith" would be based on God's
>inspired word, the Holy Bible. (2 Ti 3:16)
This interpretation of the Bible proves itself to be false. It is not a
divinely revealed truth - it is a product of the Protestant Reformation. If
you can refute these eight points for me using nothing but the Bible, I will
leave the Catholic Church and become a Jehovahs Witness:
1. Protestantism asserts "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired
Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are
meant by the "inspired Scriptures" since many different sects and religions
have many different books which they call "inspired Scriptures."
2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures,"
means in fact those 66 books which are bound and published in Protestant
Bibles. (henceforth referred to as "the 66 books")
3. The statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B:
"All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books."
4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any
statements telling us which books make up the entire body of inspired
Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their
own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses
together. This would be the case:
(a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel
is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture,"
etc., for all of the 66 books; and
(b) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other
than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even
pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the
Bible itself.
5. It follows that Proposition B - the very foundation of all Protestant
Christianity - is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from
Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in
Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all
revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, it must be
now affirmed in Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66
books. "
6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition
B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a
self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66
books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there."
7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed
truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be
deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone
can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is
ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from
Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra- Scriptural premise
from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second
possibility involves no self- contradiction, but it is factually
preposterous, and is doubtful whether any Protestant has seriously tried to
defend it - least of all those traditional Protestants who strongly
emphasize the corruption of man's natural intellectual powers as a result of
the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and
responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality
of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that
this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence.
(Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an
authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded
certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what
is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those
who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely
Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own
fallibility - whether individually or collectively - in matters of religious
doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as
they deny the Pope's.)
8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be
deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at
all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought, and which
Protestants accept, is simply false.
>Yes, the Bible is trustworthy and truthful and in full harmony with
>true science. Man's religions may or may not be the same.
The only thing that you, the Bible and the Jehovah's Witnesses have
demonstrated is the phenomenon described in teh Bible itself:
2 Peter 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our
beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16
speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in
them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own
destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved,
knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of
lawless men and lose your own stability.
Let's examine some other pagan customs:
Use of the names of the days of the week; and the months of the year:
Monday (the Moon), Tuesday (?), Wednesday (Woden), Thursday (Thor), Friday
(Frigg), Saturday (Saturn), Sunday ( the Sun). These are entirely of pagan
origin – do you use these names to designate the days of the week on your
calendar? If so, you are engaging in paganism. Same goes for the months of
the year – several are even named after pagan emperors: January, February,
March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November,
December. Why are silent on this pagan custom? Where is your condemnation
of using pagan names for days and months?
Money:
Do you spend money? Rather, does the coinage and currency you use as your
medium of exchange bear the image of deceased presidents (heads of state)
or other national leaders? This is straight out of pagan Rome and Pagan
Greece. You are technically worshipping a dead president when you plop down
that $5.00 bill at the grocery store (of course you are probaly purchasing
food products invented by pagans). Where is your condemnation of spending
money?
Middle names:
Do you have a middle name? This is a defintie a pagan custom.
The Greek Language:
Do you insist on proof-texting your doctrines from a Greek translation of
Scripture? Why? Greek is a pagan language or cryin’ out loud! We should all
speak Aramaic like Jesus and His followers.
Funerals, embalming and burial of the dead:
Do you allow funerals within your church? This is a 100% pagan custom. So is
post-mortem embalming of the deceased – right out of Pagan Egypt.. In
fact, so is burying the dead in burial grounds (cemeteries). So is erecting
monuments over graves. What’s the difference between erecting a pyramid
over a person’s grave vs. erecting a headstone with an epitaph – other than
the size and shape? The fact is, if you allow funerals, embalming, and
burials, then you are engaging in unabashed paganism. Where is your
condemnation of funerals, burials and embalming?
Exchanging wedding rings:
This is another 100% pagan custom. Do you allow it in your church when
couples get married? If so, you are certainly allowing a pagan practice.
Where is your condemnation of exchanging wedding rings?
Artificial contraception.
This is condemned in Gen 38 (God takes the life of Onan) and was equated
with sorcery in the early church. Catholics have condemned artificial
contraception as being gravely sinful for 2000 years. Not one Protestant
denomination considerd artificial contraception as moral and acceptible
until the Lambeth Council of the Church of England did so in the 1930s. Sex
without consequence is straight out of paganism. Where is your condemnation
of contraception?
Civil divorce and remarriage.
This is no different than polygamy. Pagan, pagan, pagan. Where is your
condemnation of divorce and remarriage?
Consumption of Cocoa or Chocolate.
Chocolate was considered to be the “food of the Gods” by the Aztecs and/or
the Mayans. Have you ever eaten Chocolate? It was used in pagan religious
ceremonmies. Technically by eating chocolate, you offer sacrifice to the
pagan deity Quetzalcoatl – thus, you are a pagan. Where is your condemnation
of eating chocolate?
Consumption of Tobacco products:
Ever smoke a cigarette or cigar? Chew tobacco? Smoking is a pagan custom.
Tobacco was used (and still is) used in Pagan Indian religious ceremonies.
Where is your condemnation of tobacco? (ok… you might be a liberal, so you
can get away with that one)
Indoor Plumbing and paved streets:
Does your dwelling place have indoor plumbing? This is an invention of the
Pagan Roman Empire who used pagan Roman aqueducts and crude pagan Roman
plumbing fixtures to bring pagan water and pagan sewage disposal into pagan
Roman bath houses. If you drive around on paved streets, you are paying
homage to pagan Roman construction techniques. Where is your condemnation of
plumbing and pavement?
If I attended your church on a Sunday (a pagan name for the first day of the
week) and strolled through your paved parking lot (another pagan invention)
I bet I could even find automobiles -- named after Pagan gods no less --
driven by your parishioners. Might I expect to find a Saturn? A Mercury? Or
a Thunderbird?
I can think of more Pagan traditions - like the election of Representatives
in Governement (Rome); creation of City States (Greece). Should I go on?
Leslie O. Segar
In article <353847...@aloha.net>, due...@aloha.net says...
> > *Hell is other people.*
>
> Was this Nietzche?
Sartre, in "No Exit".
LOS
--
Leslie O. Segar
First Instigator, Church of the Open Hand
http://www.wmblake.com/ohc
John Dull
dav...@seeinginsideout.com (David Zimmer) writes: > The concept of evil is as old as man. Man ahs many concepts, but are they
> accurate? Is there such a thing as evil or is evil simply the same as
> ignorance? Sure the asbsence of truth or wisdom is ignorance. And
> ignorance has created concepts like hell. What needs to be examined is
> our perception as opposed to whether or not there is such a thing as evil
> or hell. For everything is based upon our perception.
Well, to me evil is not a controlling force that makes people do some-
thing. It's basically a state of mind/emotion that we can choose to
act upon or not. And evil doesn't exist until one actually acts upon
that state of mind/emotion. So one can have evil thoughts but not act on
them and still be a good person. But if you act on evil thoughts, then
you become an evil person.
It's the same as acting on thoughts of love make you a lover, or acting
on thoughts of anger make you angry.
But that's just how I see it.
Josh