Weird

How come human sense of justice is far superior
to the creators. The creator is either a moron
or a diabolical psychopath. Christ died for our sins
big deal, what about the hundreds of thousands nay
millions who die for our oil.

Christs death was obviously futile.

Ofcourse Dynasty would have never aired. Maybe oil isn't so bad.

Well, if you look at religions' dogmatic beliefs, I won't argue with
you; you're right.

However, if you form your own thoughts based in spirituality and
meditation, then you can avoid these problems.

It is very easy to criticize the god of the Bible. After all,
according to the Bible, God killed more people than Satan. And he
was prone to anger. In fact, the Old Testament and the New do not
belong together in one book. The Torah is the Hebrew "Bible" and the
New Testament are the gospels about Jesus.

Also, I find your point about Christ's death interesting. Consider
that scholars believed Jesus came into contact with about 20,000
people during his life. At the time of his death, he only had 100
followers. That is less than 1%!

One more thing, there were other people from that period who preached
the same message as Jesus, and their followers also claimed that
these people came back from death, like Jesus.

I blame it on the dinosaurs. If they hadn't died and left all that
oil, we'd be driving water powered cars.

"Christopher L Chatfield" <me@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oxpzi.55537$L85.17602@fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> How come human sense of justice is far superior
> to the creators. The creator is either a moron
> or a diabolical psychopath. Christ died for our sins
> big deal, what about the hundreds of thousands nay
> millions who die for our oil.
>
> Christs death was obviously futile.

Christ did not die for anyone's sins.
He was laughed at - jeered - mocked - and then nailed up on a cross and
crucified. He did not want to die.
Even while dying he asked for a drink of water - and had a sponge soaked in
vinegar thrust in his face - whilst the crown taunted and mocked him.

"Theseus82" <david.m.metcalf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187988200.765024.192330@l22g2000prc.googlegr oups.com...
> Well, if you look at religions' dogmatic beliefs, I won't argue with
> you; you're right.
>
> However, if you form your own thoughts based in spirituality and
> meditation, then you can avoid these problems.
>
> It is very easy to criticize the god of the Bible. After all,
> according to the Bible, God killed more people than Satan. And he
> was prone to anger. In fact, the Old Testament and the New do not
> belong together in one book. The Torah is the Hebrew "Bible" and the
> New Testament are the gospels about Jesus.
>
> Also, I find your point about Christ's death interesting. Consider
> that scholars believed Jesus came into contact with about 20,000
> people during his life. At the time of his death, he only had 100
> followers. That is less than 1%!
>
> One more thing, there were other people from that period who preached
> the same message as Jesus, and their followers also claimed that
> these people came back from death, like Jesus.
>
Supposedly the whole thing - the Bible - Jesus - happened at a time when
Earth was without any kind of belief or leader and the Romans looked back in
history and thought "Hey - here is a good story" and picked Jesus and thus
the New Testament came about.
As you say - they maybe could have picked someone else.
The difference may be that his birth was prophesied and he was to be "King
of the Jews" - his destiny was never to be crucified or to die for anyone's
sins - but to be their King - and presumably live happily ever after.

"Mars" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:sQJzi.26175$Db6.19783@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Theseus82" <david.m.metcalf@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1187988200.765024.192330@l22g2000prc.googlegr oups.com...
>> Well, if you look at religions' dogmatic beliefs, I won't argue with
>> you; you're right.
>>
>> However, if you form your own thoughts based in spirituality and
>> meditation, then you can avoid these problems.
>>
>> It is very easy to criticize the god of the Bible. After all,
>> according to the Bible, God killed more people than Satan. And he
>> was prone to anger. In fact, the Old Testament and the New do not
>> belong together in one book. The Torah is the Hebrew "Bible" and the
>> New Testament are the gospels about Jesus.
>>
>> Also, I find your point about Christ's death interesting. Consider
>> that scholars believed Jesus came into contact with about 20,000
>> people during his life. At the time of his death, he only had 100
>> followers. That is less than 1%!
>>
>> One more thing, there were other people from that period who preached
>> the same message as Jesus, and their followers also claimed that
>> these people came back from death, like Jesus.
>>
> Supposedly the whole thing - the Bible - Jesus - happened at a time when
> Earth was without any kind of belief or leader and the Romans looked back
> in history and thought "Hey - here is a good story" and picked Jesus and
> thus the New Testament came about.
> As you say - they maybe could have picked someone else.
> The difference may be that his birth was prophesied and he was to be "King
> of the Jews" - his destiny was never to be crucified or to die for
> anyone's sins - but to be their King - and presumably live happily ever
> after.

Had Jesus lived longer and presumably having power over life and death he
could maybe have taught immortality. He could cure any sickness. He would
have continued to preach and perform miracles and in my opinion the world
would be a far better place had he not been crucified.

Due to the fact that Christ died the way He did, any sin we have,
if we repent, will be forgiven.
Under the Temple on the Mount, the same mount on which Isaac was
almost sacrificed by Abraham, ten feet of dried blood was found under
the ground there from the centuries of sacrifice performed there, yet,
all that blood didn't even forgive one single sin.
Just one drop of Christ's blood forgave all our sins. Some people
are lead to believe that Christ bled to death on the cross. No. People
tied up or nailed up like that smother. You just can breathe enough in
that position, so, people in that position struggle to breath enough,
and this struggling is like "holotropic breathing",
http://www.holotropic.com , which replaced LSD "therapy".
Being crucified isn't like being bombed or shot in Iraq. The vagal
stimulation is so severe that it puts you in perinatal matrix three,
better known as Hell. My personal experiences in Hell are that you body
switch into other bodies backward and forward in time suffering the
sufferings of those whose bodies you inhabit. This has always taken me a
about thousand years before I started over again back in time. There are
others here who have had the same experiences. In this way we are
"schizophrenics", for, we have tresspassed into the forbidden realm of
the psychosis of the cartel of secret lodges.
The Greek translation of "eternal damnation" is "aioniu
martaematos" which means "an aeon of failure". An "aeon" is for about a
thousand years.
Some ancient Gnostics thought that the creator, demiourgos, of
this physical world was an evil being. Yoruba Ju Ju has the belief that
the creator, Ela, is the most evil being. The Black Left Hand Path seeks
nonexistence. And the Vama Margh has figured that this nonexistence is
attainable by cancellation with the opposite polarities (sex). This is
most easily accomplished in a world of fire called Dharma Loka where the
males and females are the flames. Vama Margh means "easy way" in
Sanskrit.
Seventh Day Adventists, Jehova Witnesses, and a growing number of
Christian sects believe that Hell is the place to become nonexistent.
The "immortality of the soul" was a totally unsubstantiated declaration
by Plato. In the Book of Timothy it says that only Christ (God) is
immortal. Eternal punshment would be infinite injustice. The fear of
eternal suffering impending over everyone has filled the church's bank
accounts. The formula -1+1=0 is simple, but is it that easy?

Miguel, your post was very informed, I can tell you know your facts
very well.

I agree with your points. I would just like to add some of my
thoughts, since it is rare to find someone so informed and
knowledgable and open-minded as you are on this point.

When I read your post about how some sects believe(d) that the creator
was evil, it reminded me of a Douglas Adams quote, "In the beginning,
the universe was created and it made a lot of people angry and was
widely regarded as a bad move."

Now that we have lightened the subject a bit let me explore your post
a little further.

I, myself, believe that Christ was a very wise person. IMO, I don't
think anyone can be more enlightened than Christ, but this does not
mean that Buddha, and other spiritual avatars were any LESS
enlightened than Jesus. However, there are some things about both
Christ AND Buddha that people may not be familiar with.

At the temple when Jesus confronted the money-changers, he actually
beat the crap out of them. Despite his message of turning the other
cheek, he was so offended at their profiteering at the temple that he
violently beat very severely. People might find this at odds with the
message he preached. He also is quoted as saying, "Do not cast
pearls before the swine," referring to the futility of giving gems of
wisdom to the ignorant.

Now, we could point out that the gospels in the Bible were recorded
long after his death, but the Bible itself contains these points.
Though we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls which were found (I believe in
the last century), they were not included in the Bible because they
were only recently discovered.

There is another gospel, I believe it was the gospel of Thomas,
which viewed Jesus as an ordinary man with some great ideas. I read
this in Harpers. It was written in close proximation to Jesus'
death, but the Romans--after adopting Christianity--actively
destroyed this document because they considered it heretical. It was
also recently found in the Middle East after an Arab had found it and
began trading pieces of it for goods.

Notice, I don't have my sources on all this information. I trust my
sources (most are from my psychiatrist)--who is Buddhist and studied
the Bible in its original Greek, Latin, and Hebrew versions. He
knows it back and forward knows more about its stories than anyone I
have ever met. (Fortunately he takes his work as seriously as his
studies and stays just as informed about new medications).

So as I point this out, you will simply have to trust my facts the
way I trust yours; since I can tell from your level of detail that
you clearly know a lot about this.

Our beliefs about Christ may not be entirely congruent. Because I
feel that there are many paths to True God and Christ is one of
them. I do not believe in original sin, nor in Hell, and certainly
not Satan.

On the subject of Satan, I will tell you my personal belief.

No one can know much about the oral traditions of our ancestors before
the agricultural revolution. Because that was 10,000 years ago
writing was only invented 6,000 years ago (check my facts--I suspect
there may be some error on this point). We know that a lot of the
Bible stories originate with Semitic civilizations that pre-date
Judaism. The Garden of Eve has its roots in the Babylonians, and the
flood dates back to these ancient civilizations as well. The Epic of
Gilgamesh, includes the story of Adam's original sin and the apple
containing the knowledge of good and evil. In return for this
knowledge the character loses his immortality.

I digress. I meant to talk abuot Satan. I attribute the creation of
this divine antogonist to pre-historic tribes. I believe that hunter-
gatherer communities may have long held the female as divine-- as your
facts also allude to. I believe the incidence of female-led
communities were probably much more common prior to 10,000 years ago.
This is speculation, albeit one that I have read in books) that
female leadership resembled more open love and emotion than male
leadership shows today. Consider the unconditional love of mothers
compared to the conditional love of fathers. I believe women were
both the leaders and the spiritual medium for the tribe. And humans
living in these conditions lived in complete harmony with nature.

Here is where the idea of Satan comes in. Women conceived that the
nature of God was much like a woman's unconditional love. God loves
infinitely, unconditionally, and doesn't HAVE to forgive because
this force never GETS angry. This sort of God would never punish
humans EVER, and warmly accepts our souls in the afterlife and thus
there is no Hell.

You say, eternal punishment would be infinitely unjust. You are
completely right. Unfortunately, many people today think the notion
of a forgiving God is compatible with a belief in Hell and Satan. If
God was truly loving, then he/she would have no purpose in seeing
your immortal soul tortured for eternity. If this were the case,
then the concept of Free Will is a farce because it is contradicted by
the fact that there is only one correct choice. If God loves us
unconditionally, then it is beyond comprehension why he would allow
us to be tormented by Satan in Hell FOREVER.

Again, let me return to Satan. I believe men in these truly ancient
tribes began to lament women's control over the community. The
feminine goddess was far to accepting and placed women as the clear
avatars of society. What was necessary was an antogonist to this
perfectly divine Goddess. Thus, the beginnings of this character
called Satan emerged. Satan was essentially the male son of the
Goddess who held the female creator in contempt. He sought to over-
throw her and rule humans as he saw fit. With the idea of a male
competitor, albeit lesser, god than True God, men were able to
advance a point that the Goddess had to be protected from this angry
god. Here comes the notion of a divine battle between competing
forces.

I often wonder, why would there be a competitor to God? Why is it
that the belief in Satan does not constitute a belief in AT LEAST 2
gods (one lesser and one greater)? We were told as children that
Satan tempts us and celebrates human choice in opposition to Gods will
for us. Satan wants us to live in sin and so on. And as a reward for
celebrating our free will--even by choosing wrongly--Satan will accept
us to Hell because God doesn't WANT us in Heaven.

I could write pages on this concept alone. I have already gone on at
length and still have some more thoughts that may wind on a little
longer (sorry about that).

I suppose I will finish by saying that, in the Christian sense, if I
were given a choice between a grudge-bearing, angry God and a devil
(who respects my human capacity for choice), I would choose the
devil. Because it is only the devil that truly grants free will (God
is only the Supreme Judge--who will condemn you if your choice between
two life-styles is incorrect). But again, I don't believe in Satan,
and I would not label myself a satanist. I believe in a spiritually
loving God. One that has no need to forgive because she/he is never
mad at us.

If you have gotten this far, and have not given up because much of
this post can not be substantiated by hard facts, then I am glad and
hope to hear your thoughts on this. I would like to end with a quote
currently on my iGoogle page from Einstein, "not everything that
counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted
counts." All this stuff about the beliefs of our elders before
written history is knowable. All this has been lost to time. But
when I think, and as I have read about this, this is what makes sense
to me.

at the end, I meant "unknowable" not knowable, but I think that is
obvious

It's a completely different way of understanding between people who think
things through
and people who 'feel' things through.

There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise her.

There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise anybody.












"Theseus82" <david.m.metcalf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188075762.236191.296330@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> Miguel, your post was very informed, I can tell you know your facts
> very well.
>
> I agree with your points. I would just like to add some of my
> thoughts, since it is rare to find someone so informed and
> knowledgable and open-minded as you are on this point.
>
> When I read your post about how some sects believe(d) that the creator
> was evil, it reminded me of a Douglas Adams quote, "In the beginning,
> the universe was created and it made a lot of people angry and was
> widely regarded as a bad move."
>
> Now that we have lightened the subject a bit let me explore your post
> a little further.
>
> I, myself, believe that Christ was a very wise person. IMO, I don't
> think anyone can be more enlightened than Christ, but this does not
> mean that Buddha, and other spiritual avatars were any LESS
> enlightened than Jesus. However, there are some things about both
> Christ AND Buddha that people may not be familiar with.
>
> At the temple when Jesus confronted the money-changers, he actually
> beat the crap out of them. Despite his message of turning the other
> cheek, he was so offended at their profiteering at the temple that he
> violently beat very severely. People might find this at odds with the
> message he preached. He also is quoted as saying, "Do not cast
> pearls before the swine," referring to the futility of giving gems of
> wisdom to the ignorant.
>
> Now, we could point out that the gospels in the Bible were recorded
> long after his death, but the Bible itself contains these points.
> Though we do have the Dead Sea Scrolls which were found (I believe in
> the last century), they were not included in the Bible because they
> were only recently discovered.
>
> There is another gospel, I believe it was the gospel of Thomas,
> which viewed Jesus as an ordinary man with some great ideas. I read
> this in Harpers. It was written in close proximation to Jesus'
> death, but the Romans--after adopting Christianity--actively
> destroyed this document because they considered it heretical. It was
> also recently found in the Middle East after an Arab had found it and
> began trading pieces of it for goods.
>
> Notice, I don't have my sources on all this information. I trust my
> sources (most are from my psychiatrist)--who is Buddhist and studied
> the Bible in its original Greek, Latin, and Hebrew versions. He
> knows it back and forward knows more about its stories than anyone I
> have ever met. (Fortunately he takes his work as seriously as his
> studies and stays just as informed about new medications).
>
> So as I point this out, you will simply have to trust my facts the
> way I trust yours; since I can tell from your level of detail that
> you clearly know a lot about this.
>
> Our beliefs about Christ may not be entirely congruent. Because I
> feel that there are many paths to True God and Christ is one of
> them. I do not believe in original sin, nor in Hell, and certainly
> not Satan.
>
> On the subject of Satan, I will tell you my personal belief.
>
> No one can know much about the oral traditions of our ancestors before
> the agricultural revolution. Because that was 10,000 years ago
> writing was only invented 6,000 years ago (check my facts--I suspect
> there may be some error on this point). We know that a lot of the
> Bible stories originate with Semitic civilizations that pre-date
> Judaism. The Garden of Eve has its roots in the Babylonians, and the
> flood dates back to these ancient civilizations as well. The Epic of
> Gilgamesh, includes the story of Adam's original sin and the apple
> containing the knowledge of good and evil. In return for this
> knowledge the character loses his immortality.
>
> I digress. I meant to talk abuot Satan. I attribute the creation of
> this divine antogonist to pre-historic tribes. I believe that hunter-
> gatherer communities may have long held the female as divine-- as your
> facts also allude to. I believe the incidence of female-led
> communities were probably much more common prior to 10,000 years ago.
> This is speculation, albeit one that I have read in books) that
> female leadership resembled more open love and emotion than male
> leadership shows today. Consider the unconditional love of mothers
> compared to the conditional love of fathers. I believe women were
> both the leaders and the spiritual medium for the tribe. And humans
> living in these conditions lived in complete harmony with nature.
>
> Here is where the idea of Satan comes in. Women conceived that the
> nature of God was much like a woman's unconditional love. God loves
> infinitely, unconditionally, and doesn't HAVE to forgive because
> this force never GETS angry. This sort of God would never punish
> humans EVER, and warmly accepts our souls in the afterlife and thus
> there is no Hell.
>
> You say, eternal punishment would be infinitely unjust. You are
> completely right. Unfortunately, many people today think the notion
> of a forgiving God is compatible with a belief in Hell and Satan. If
> God was truly loving, then he/she would have no purpose in seeing
> your immortal soul tortured for eternity. If this were the case,
> then the concept of Free Will is a farce because it is contradicted by
> the fact that there is only one correct choice. If God loves us
> unconditionally, then it is beyond comprehension why he would allow
> us to be tormented by Satan in Hell FOREVER.
>
> Again, let me return to Satan. I believe men in these truly ancient
> tribes began to lament women's control over the community. The
> feminine goddess was far to accepting and placed women as the clear
> avatars of society. What was necessary was an antogonist to this
> perfectly divine Goddess. Thus, the beginnings of this character
> called Satan emerged. Satan was essentially the male son of the
> Goddess who held the female creator in contempt. He sought to over-
> throw her and rule humans as he saw fit. With the idea of a male
> competitor, albeit lesser, god than True God, men were able to
> advance a point that the Goddess had to be protected from this angry
> god. Here comes the notion of a divine battle between competing
> forces.
>
> I often wonder, why would there be a competitor to God? Why is it
> that the belief in Satan does not constitute a belief in AT LEAST 2
> gods (one lesser and one greater)? We were told as children that
> Satan tempts us and celebrates human choice in opposition to Gods will
> for us. Satan wants us to live in sin and so on. And as a reward for
> celebrating our free will--even by choosing wrongly--Satan will accept
> us to Hell because God doesn't WANT us in Heaven.
>
> I could write pages on this concept alone. I have already gone on at
> length and still have some more thoughts that may wind on a little
> longer (sorry about that).
>
> I suppose I will finish by saying that, in the Christian sense, if I
> were given a choice between a grudge-bearing, angry God and a devil
> (who respects my human capacity for choice), I would choose the
> devil. Because it is only the devil that truly grants free will (God
> is only the Supreme Judge--who will condemn you if your choice between
> two life-styles is incorrect). But again, I don't believe in Satan,
> and I would not label myself a satanist. I believe in a spiritually
> loving God. One that has no need to forgive because she/he is never
> mad at us.
>
> If you have gotten this far, and have not given up because much of
> this post can not be substantiated by hard facts, then I am glad and
> hope to hear your thoughts on this. I would like to end with a quote
> currently on my iGoogle page from Einstein, "not everything that
> counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted
> counts." All this stuff about the beliefs of our elders before
> written history is knowable. All this has been lost to time. But
> when I think, and as I have read about this, this is what makes sense
> to me.
>

"Judy" <jalees@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:46d14b3a$0$21090$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> It's a completely different way of understanding between people who think
> things through
> and people who 'feel' things through.
>
> There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise her.
>
> There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise
> anybody.
>

Any son is capable of making up his own mind and having his own feeling
regardless of how domineering the mother is.

"Christopher L Chatfield" <me@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Oxpzi.55537$L85.17602@fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> How come human sense of justice is far superior
> to the creators. The creator is either a moron
> or a diabolical psychopath. Christ died for our sins
> big deal, what about the hundreds of thousands nay
> millions who die for our oil.
>
> Christs death was obviously futile.

The whole point of the Jesus story is that it is not true.
It would be impossible to harm a hair on the head of any so called son of
God. The crucifixion story was invented as a means of a test.
If you believe in the story you are capable of this atrocity. Thus those
who believe in the crucifixion are the real bad people and the real sinners.
Those who know that it could NEVER happen are the innocent and really good
people.

Just click the address at the bottom of the page here to read the
scientific proof of God's existence; and it is obvious that mankind
needs help, so, God incarnated among us as Jesus Christ. He did what he
could to save us. He doesn't interfere with free will. Gellie explained
what crucifixion does to a person.


http://community.webtv.net/mpereira/TheSecretsofthe

Gautama Buddha tried to make easy the way to Nirvana, Liberation,
the drop returning to the sea, undifferentiation. Technically this was
expected to be most probable to attain in Dharmaloka, a world of fire,
the Lake of Fire. Like the Seventh Day Adventists, and the
Jehova Witnesses, it was believed that nonexistence was attainable in
this place. Theoretically, -1+1=0 says it is. But in the one substance,
E= Mc², we know that motion can only be in closed circuitry, that
there be something to move out of the way and fill in behind, and that
our entities are differentiated closed circuits of the one substance,
E=Mc².
A bunch of closed circuits flowing confluently with one another
can undifferentiate with each other. Remember, like coins, head can
represent counterclockwise, male; and tails clockwise female, so that
when they turn face to face they are confluent. It was found that male
substance turned polaized light counterclockwise, levorotatory; and
female substance turned polarized light clockwise, dextrorotatory.
With all of the ambient differentiations around how can a circuit
undifferentiate completely? It is a mathematical problem of mechanics
and fluid dynamics.
When we increase the neuron wall permeability of the neurons that
force consciousness upon us we lose consciousness. In life the ectropy
(improbable work) of the neural system restores the impermeability of
those neuron walls. But after death these neuron walls are permanently
destroyed so that the entity's circuit is loose in the world. But with
all the mess out there, how can it undifferentiate? If it can't find
total undifferentiation like Dr. David Bohm's "implicate", probability
will eventually necessitate that it become "explicate", fully conscious
again. And, when you're totally unconscious time passes instantaneously.
No rest at all. Chirst is your only hope.

"Mars" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message
newsbeAi.30082$rr5.20392@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "Judy" <jalees@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:46d14b3a$0$21090$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> It's a completely different way of understanding between people who think
>> things through
>> and people who 'feel' things through.
>>
>> There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise her.
>>
>> There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise
>> anybody.
>>
>
> Any son is capable of making up his own mind and having his own feeling
> regardless of how domineering the mother is.

You misunderstand.
It's not about domineering.
It's about feeling.
To feel someone from the inside
is to know them
The son would also know the mother in a feeling way.
A more respectful, mutually respectful, way of living.
A feeling mother would know if there was a problem in this harmonious world
that theseus' psychiatrist proposed existed before the son started to
despise his mother.

My point was the theory doesn't fit.
In an harmonious world, people don't despise other people.
Harmoniuos is harmonious

If a son is capable of making up his own mind and having his own feeling
regardless of how domineering (he considers) his mother to be,
he is also capable of seeing that harmonious existences don't produce people
who despise each other.

Judy

You interpret the theory as though it should be compatible with your
view of the mother/son relationship.

In reality, the theory was explaining how men overturned the rule of
women by creating an unlikely god who challenges what is, essentially,
the True God. The son, or Satan, does not truly exist. But
creating the story of him allowed men to justify violence as a means
to power (as men were stronger than women). Women's positions were
secure because they were viewed as divine and mediums to the mother
Goddess.

The men advanced a theory that a male god had ill will towards the
perfect God, and so they needed to protect Her. Thus, men also must
protect women in the tribe through force, and eventually, men's
position in the tribe became more important than women's.

It is all speculation. None of this can be known for certain. I
simply think that because humans lived for a very long time in harmony
with the Earth, that these socities might have been more balanced
than our's of today.

Also, I am suggesting that this idea of Satan emerged long before the
agricultural revolution. Because after men usurped power from women
the tribes became more violent and began fighting with neighboring
tribes.

"Theseus82" <david.m.metcalf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188152291.060400.152990@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> Judy
>
> You interpret the theory as though it should be compatible with your
> view of the mother/son relationship.

Hi Theseus82,

What I said is that an harmonious environment doesn't, in that environment,
produce people who despise other people.
It takes a specific kind of activity to produce people who despise other
people,
and that isn't apparent in your theory.


> >"What was necessary was an antogonist to this
> > perfectly divine Goddess. Thus, the beginnings of this character
> > called Satan emerged. Satan was essentially the male son of the
> > Goddess who held the female creator in contempt"


and I repeat

"There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise her."

"There is no way that a feeling woman would allow her son to despise
anybody."


You said that you read in books about female rule being something like open
love -
I read in books that love is ferocious.....

>
> The whole point of the Jesus story is that it is not true.
> It would be impossible to harm a hair on the head of any so called son of
> God. The crucifixion story was invented as a means of a test.
> If you believe in the story you are capable of this atrocity. Thus those
> who believe in the crucifixion are the real bad people and the real
> sinners. Those who know that it could NEVER happen are the innocent and
> really good people.
>

Dear Mars,
i once read the new testament while high on cannabis and immidiatly knew
that it IS TRUE!

Well, I may agree that a harmonious environment does not produce
people who despise each other. But by the term "harmonious" I meant
that humans lived in balance with nature itself. I would still
concede that society was more well-adjusted in this theory.

But that does not mean that a women during this time would not allow
her son to despise anyone. Consider my view of perfect love as
perfectly accepting. This means that Goddess and woman love without
conditions. A mother still loves her son if he is a criminal.

If you contend that love is ferocious, I would contend that what IS
love is not clearly defined. Lets equate your statement to:
Love=ferocity
Does this describe what love is? What is love is a question
philosophers struggle with and my answer may not be the same as
someone elses. But no third party could dispel my notion if they did
not agree with it. This question should be answered through
spirituality and meditation. This means that people should not accept
others' views on love unless they carefully consider these views and
agree with them.

So I will not tell you that your view of love is wrong. It is your
belief and it is your right to believe it.

But my post is talking about what I believe is love. And I believe
that true love (perfect love) contains no judgement, is totally
accepting, and completely unconditional. This means, if a son were
to internalize the wrong message from the environment, the mother
would not force him to change his beliefs. She would accept her son
and support him in living whatever life he wants to lead. Perfect
love does not use coercion to persuade.

Perhaps a better point is as you said: that harmonious societies
don't produce people who despise each other. This is a rule which
can be broken. If you expect that healthy families in complete
isolation will never produce unhappy children, you may be
oversimplifing human nature as we currently understand it. Just as
children can break the mold of an unhealthy upbringing, I contend
that a child of a healthy upbringing (let's assume in isolation from
turbulence) can break that mold as well.

This is largely speculation. We can not point to any examples because
society is complex and has many parts and we can not isolate a culture
that was ever PERFECTLY harmonious in all ways. All I have to
demonstrate is that a society directed by ancient Women was more
healthy than society is today. I am actually saying it may have been
entirely harmonious at one time, but maybe circumstances changed and
a paradigm shift occurred.

The paradigm shift in their spirituality which I described was the
creation of a Satan-like entity. Now, you may contend that men would
have no need to create Satan if they were happy with the way things
were. I would respond that though a son may get a healthy upbringing
and have a loving mother, he may still be unsatisifed with the way
things are. I could easily say this man became arrogant because he
thought he should be in charge of things--because he is stronger than
a woman. Perhaps he is frustrated sexually because the women of this
small community do not find him attractive. There are many possible
reasons why he could become resentful.

We can talk all day about utopian societies, but perfection as a
concept is like infinity. You can approach in a sense as much as
possible, but it is impossible to attain it. Humans are not PERFECT
beings. If they were, then they would have the wisdom and capacity
of God and would have no need for life.

This issue now extends beyond our original conversation into something
like the meaning of life. I don't need to say that this would not be
an issue we can resolve through debate. This is a deeply personal
issue that each person needs to resolve one their own.

I think that on this notion, and on your view of love, that both
questions fit into the basic three eternal questions that all people
have struggled with since we could achieve sentient thought:

1. What is it to be human?
2. What is the nature of my relationship with other humans?
3. What are my feelings toward a greater force of the universe
(specifically: how do I interpret the miracle that there is something
instead of nothing?)

If you had the answers to these questions, you would have solved the
most important questions in the universe and would know the meaning of
life.

I, myself, believe the meaning of life is to experience life. In a
state of life, our perception is limited and this allows us to have
personal experiences which would not be possible if we were perfect
like God. It is our imperfection that makes us human and it allows us
the free-will to make mistakes so that we can live how we choose. If
we had a perfect understanding of right action and the perfect will to
use that knowledge, then there would be no need of life at all.
There would be nothing to learn and nothing new to experience.

"Michael A. Pereira" <mpereira@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24517-46D1898B-700@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
> Just click the address at the bottom of the page here to read the
> scientific proof of God's existence; and it is obvious that mankind
> needs help, so, God incarnated among us as Jesus Christ. He did what he
> could to save us. He doesn't interfere with free will. Gellie explained
> what crucifixion does to a person.
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/mpereira/TheSecretsofthe
>

Of course there are Gods. Many of them. When Zeus was here, those that
believed in him and worshipped him left with him. The same for Krishna.
The same for many others. There have been many Gods who have visited Earth,
and each have their own followers. You believe in the Jewish God - so no
doubt you will follow him and this is your eternal future. I personally did
not choose this God. But you may. This is your choice. If you like the
images of crucifixion and the son of God hanging on a cross bleeding to
death, then this is to your taste, so this God will suit you.

The Bible tells us what God is. 1John1:5 says "God is light". That
is neither male nor female. Some mystics have said that the Holy Spirit
is female. Elsewhere in the New Testamnent it is said that "God is
love".
If you take an electron and take its exact opposite sex, exactly
opposite polarity and with the same frequency, they will cancel out into
pure light. I have talked these things over with my Pastor; and he's
strict; and he has said, "That's preachable".
God is beyond sex. The male sex was used in those days for
"respect". The so called "gods" and "godesses" are no more anybody than
we are. There is a hymn that goes, "There is no god like Jehova". That
is an understatement. God is light, E=Mc². All the others are
differentiations like us. God is extra special.


http://community.webtv.net/mpereira/TheSecretsofthe

I only use He/She because it is more convenient than referring to God
as "it."

I don't believe God has a sex, but for ease of explanation it is
easier to think of God as the mother of creation in that her, or it's
(if you like) love is much like that of a mother.

I would not consider myself religious so I am not concerned with what
the Bible says. Just know that the Bible says a lot of things:

1. Men with damaged testicles will not be allowed into heaven
2. Rebellious children should be killed
3. It is ok to smite people if the Lord tells you to (which he does a
lot)
4. You should love God -- and elsewhere-- You should fear and love
God. And elsewhere "There is no fear in Love"

So maybe you can consider whether you want to take the Bible literally
or not.

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:18:11 +0000, Theseus82 wrote:

> Judy
>
> You interpret the theory as though it should be compatible with your
> view of the mother/son relationship.
>
> In reality, the theory was explaining how men overturned the rule of
> women by creating an unlikely god who challenges what is, essentially,
> the True God. The son, or Satan, does not truly exist. But
> creating the story of him allowed men to justify violence as a means
> to power (as men were stronger than women). Women's positions were
> secure because they were viewed as divine and mediums to the mother
> Goddess.
>
> The men advanced a theory that a male god had ill will towards the
> perfect God, and so they needed to protect Her. Thus, men also must
> protect women in the tribe through force, and eventually, men's
> position in the tribe became more important than women's.

What's all this evil men, good woman bit about.

I've seen girls as young as six egging boys into battle with each other.
Margret thatcher was one of the biggest war mongers out.

Men might be more disposable and thicker than women but they are no more
evil.

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:44:59 -0400, Michael A. Pereira wrote:

> The Bible tells us what God is. 1John1:5 says "God is light". That
> is neither male nor female. Some mystics have said that the Holy Spirit
> is female. Elsewhere in the New Testamnent it is said that "God is
> love".
> If you take an electron and take its exact opposite sex, exactly
> opposite polarity and with the same frequency, they will cancel out into
> pure light. I have talked these things over with my Pastor; and he's
> strict; and he has said, "That's preachable".
> God is beyond sex. The male sex was used in those days for
> "respect". The so called "gods" and "godesses" are no more anybody than
> we are. There is a hymn that goes, "There is no god like Jehova". That
> is an understatement. God is light, E=Mc². All the others are
> differentiations like us. God is extra special.
>
>
> http://community.webtv.net/mpereira/TheSecretsofthe

I thought God was a word and then said "Let there be light"
He's merely a word.

Light itself is light and is above all churches and religions
yet in all of us, even the humblest bacterium.

It is how our minds through desire channelled with faith
forms the light into dreams and nightmares.

"Evil" wouldn't be my choice of words for men in my previous post.
Misguided is more appropriate.

As far as women showing the same qualities as men today, that is
because we all have been subjected to a violent culture with
inconsistent values.

After the sacrifice of Christ the Old Testament became obsolete.
It is easy to see how infinity could convey consciousness to
light. But it was always that way. There was never a beginning to the
consciousness of light. Infinity was always there with its probability,
which the ancients called phronaesis; and light was always there,
E=Mc², energy can neither be created nor destroyed is the First Law of
Thermodynamics.
We have consciousness imposed upon us by the capacitance and
ectropy (improbable work) of the neurons of the arising reticular
formation of the medulla oblongata. It is then ultimate that light would
have consciousness by infinity.
Now, when I speak of light I mean all frequencies of its spectrum,
not just visible light. For example, when there are energy transfers
within atoms they are done with photons of light. God is at work
everywhere. This is easy to believe.
All that light out there is conscious. All that light out there is
God. Even in the dark there is light in frequencies you can't see;
conscious light that has existed from eternity.


http://community.webtv.net/mpereira/TheSecretsofthe