PDA

View Full Version : Guardian Angel, how do they help us?



LuciaUruguay
27th December 2006, 09:43 PM
Well, Hi, its me again. I am really curious to know how is supposed to help me my guardian angel.
I had an expereince today that was very interesting. Normally I have brilliant ideas to solve certain problems, but, there are "those" problems in wich I am pretty bad solving them, for example (like today) planning of tasks at my job. I work in a library and normally my life is simple and happy (making translations, giving books to people, etc) but in the last 2 weeks I had a very very bad job. It was becoming disgusting to go to work, I was rilly pissed with it. But today while I was working I had a very good idea that changed completly my work and made it funnier than before.
Then I asked my angel if he had something to do with that idea (I have real problems organizing work duties) and he said that he only "inspire me" to have the idea, that the idea was all mine. What I really dont understand is this thing about "inspiration" what is it? Thanks any idea is wellcome, he never acted before, this is my first time and I really like it :)

journyman161
27th December 2006, 10:48 PM
Edward de Bono had some insights into what inspiration is - when the mind 'jumps a track' & connects previously unconnected bits of information - he called it Lateral Thinking.

Maybe your GA nudged you in the direction of some thought you hadn't connected up before?

yeyeman9
9th January 2007, 05:39 AM
I thought I could shime in here. So here it goes:

That was not your guardian angel, but your spirit guide. The differnece? Simple:
Spirit guide- guides us through our life, those little guts feeling and sometimes "conversations in our heads"...thats him.
Guardian Angel- they protect us from any evil spirit that tries to harm us.

Our spirit guide talks to us all the time, some of us just don't pay attention. All those "feelings" you have sometimes, like "Dont do this" yet you still do it and something bad happens, that kind of feelings and stuff is him talking to you. They can also communicate in words, send out signs in different ways, etc.

This is why he said "I inspire you" becuase he sent out some ideas, he gives out messages that you recieve and create into an idea which you put to use.

Hope that helps.

9th January 2007, 11:44 PM
I thought I could shime in here. So here it goes:

That was not your guardian angel, but your spirit guide. The differnece? Simple:
Spirit guide- guides us through our life, those little guts feeling and sometimes "conversations in our heads"...thats him.
Guardian Angel- they protect us from any evil spirit that tries to harm us.

Our spirit guide talks to us all the time, some of us just don't pay attention. All those "feelings" you have sometimes, like "Dont do this" yet you still do it and something bad happens, that kind of feelings and stuff is him talking to you. They can also communicate in words, send out signs in different ways, etc.

This is why he said "I inspire you" becuase he sent out some ideas, he gives out messages that you recieve and create into an idea which you put to use.

Hope that helps.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Aunt Clair
12th January 2007, 12:10 AM
IMHO,
The guardian angel is a part of the source and our connection to Godhead . The secular may call it the conscience .Each human being has the guardian angel within . In a reading the sitter who has begun to unite with their guardian angel has their own face upon the angel . If not the angel is light and faceless . In online readings this face is generally easier to see and helps me to know what the sitter looks like . Magicians notably Crowley and Golden Dawn often believe that the Knowledge & Communication with the Guardian Angel is highly sought as a goal of consciousness , realization , and ascension . Uniting the Higher Self to the Guardian Angel allows clearer communication with master spirit teachers ,archangels and avatars . There are angels that are external to us and these may act as inspiration also ie muses. Muses can be deceased spirit or angelic . The voice of the GA can avert disaster by providing warnings and can be heard as a voice in the room or as a voice in the mind and heart only ,like a knowing .
http://members.iinet.net.au/~curran/smiles_files/image065.gif
EDIT: removed earlier less complete post & fixed image - Mod

LuciaUruguay
15th February 2007, 10:25 PM
Thanks all for you answers, and when I said that it was my Guardian Angel, I mean it seriously. I mean, I already talked to the guy and he is not a spirit guide, also I am feeling lots and lots of angels coming to see how I am doing bringin messages of hope, and supporting me to do things right and helping me with a problem with the dark (yeah I know, childish but well, I am winning right now, at least they helped me more than my psychologist)
Also, I had take medication against allucinations the las 2 month and they did not work, the angel is always with me when I aks him to do so, he is not a constant presence and thats very imnportant to me because I can continue my normal life.
Thanks Aunt Clair, I know you are very busy, I will continue developing naturally and well, I hope some day when I am more mind balance I can talk to you again in the net.

star
16th February 2007, 11:55 AM
Guardian Angels send some interesting type of energy. I've only experienced it one or twice. The most intense experience was when I was dreaming. I saw my G.A.

That morning I was chatting with a mystic I knew and she nearly shouted that I had just recieved Angel healing.

Neat stuff eh?

LuciaUruguay
16th February 2007, 09:40 PM
Guardian Angels send some interesting type of energy. I've only experienced it one or twice. The most intense experience was when I was dreaming. I saw my G.A.

That morning I was chatting with a mystic I knew and she nearly shouted that I had just recieved Angel healing.

Neat stuff eh?

Thats tru of course, I am having this kind of help very often. Specially when I feel pain or I am nervous about something. The only thing similar to that energy I know of is Reiki :)

Veles
17th February 2007, 05:55 AM
Our spirit guide talks to us all the time, some of us just don't pay attention. All those "feelings" you have sometimes, like "Dont do this" yet you still do it and something bad happens, that kind of feelings and stuff is him talking to you. They can also communicate in words, send out signs in different ways, etc.

hmmm... i have had this gut feeling many times, and a lot of my choices have been based upon those feelings, but very often they pushed me into making the wrong choice. So, if that was my guardian spirit, why did he\she make me choose the wrong option..?

P.S. i though this gut feeling is called intuition

CFTraveler
17th February 2007, 06:53 PM
Our spirit guide talks to us all the time, some of us just don't pay attention. All those "feelings" you have sometimes, like "Dont do this" yet you still do it and something bad happens, that kind of feelings and stuff is him talking to you. They can also communicate in words, send out signs in different ways, etc.

hmmm... i have had this gut feeling many times, and a lot of my choices have been based upon those feelings, but very often they pushed me into making the wrong choice. So, if that was my guardian spirit, why did he\she make me choose the wrong option..?

P.S. i though this gut feeling is called intuition There is a very important distinction. We have many 'voices whispering in our subconscious ear', and the trick is to learn to discern where your 'gut feeling' is coming from.
Sometimes something happens when you're young, and you learn to associate certain things with fear that may make sense at the time but not when you get older, but your subconscious has already learned a fear response to it. Stuff like 'bad things come in threes', and other things that are fear-based become part of your mind programming, and when you get that 'gut feeling', it can be from:
Your guide telling you what's most advantageous for your development,
Your guardian angel trying to keep you alive
Your common sense that realizes that you're about to go into a dangerous situation, or
Your bad programming, rearing it's ugly head, making you react in such a way that is not good for you.
One of the reasons why we engage in meditatory practices is so that we learn to discern where the messages are coming from, and learn to follow our 'good intuition' and also learn to get rid of the fear-based bad programming that may be in there and steering us wrong.
Your guides and angels may be screaming their heads off at you, but if you still insist on jumping off that cliff, chances are it's still not going to end well.
Of course, this was just an example not aimed at anybody in particular.

wstein
18th February 2007, 12:43 AM
Your guide telling you what's most advantageous for your development,
Your guardian angel trying to keep you aliveShouldn't my angel be supporting my spiritual development as the number one priority? Or perhaps it should honor what my goals are???

Veles
18th February 2007, 10:26 AM
ok, that sounds logical enough, thanks, CFTraveler.
i also heard stories when guides\angels intensively help their people in some particular aspects of their lives. For example some people may hear voice in their dreams which aids and teaches them to handle their dreams lucidity, helps them to get out of their bodies during meditations. As if they must learn these skills for some reason. While in other aspects, they do not respond even if they've been called for assistance...
Why does that happen?

21st February 2007, 12:57 AM
Shouldn't my angel be supporting my spiritual development as the number one priority? Or perhaps it should honor what my goals are???
Discernment, discernment, discernment...

CFTraveler
21st February 2007, 01:10 AM
ok, that sounds logical enough, thanks, CFTraveler.
i also heard stories when guides\angels intensively help their people in some particular aspects of their lives. For example some people may hear voice in their dreams which aids and teaches them to handle their dreams lucidity, helps them to get out of their bodies during meditations. As if they must learn these skills for some reason. While in other aspects, they do not respond even if they've been called for assistance...
Why does that happen? If I knew this I probably wouldn't need to be here.... http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/engel/angel-smiley-022.gif

2nd March 2007, 08:01 PM
Thats tru of course, I am having this kind of help very often. Specially when I feel pain or I am nervous about something. The only thing similar to that energy I know of is Reiki :)
I suggest you place a blessed icon of an angel where you will see it every day. Icons are, you know, the very Windows into Heaven. I'm not selling icons, mind you, but here is a good link...

http://www.monasteryicons.com/monastery ... s_srm.html (http://www.monasteryicons.com/monasteryicons/Item_Guardian-Angel_580_ps_srm.html)

LuciaUruguay
2nd March 2007, 11:02 PM
"I suggest you place a blessed icon of an angel where you will see it every day. Icons are, you know, the very Windows into Heaven. I'm not selling icons, mind you, but here is a good link... "

Jaja, thanks but I already have statues of saint in my house and photos too. My mom has a
statue of Maria in the living room you know, very attracting (at least I feel attract
to it whenever I am near)

Pathedpe
7th March 2007, 09:57 AM
are the personal images of guides the actual guides or just my brain's way of describing the form of their spiritual presence?

Nnonnth
7th March 2007, 02:17 PM
are the personal images of guides the actual guides or just my brain's way of describing the form of their spiritual presence?

In my opinion, the second one.

By the way, every monday I light a candle to thank my guardian angel and this has had benefits for me over a long time.

Best NN

8th March 2007, 01:48 AM
are the personal images of guides the actual guides or just my brain's way of describing the form of their spiritual presence?
I don't know what you mean by guide. If you mean guardian angel they are messengers from God. But not every guide is an angel. Many are self-deception.

Aunt Clair
8th March 2007, 07:49 AM
Please forgive me from diverging from politically correct thought about angels here .

I ask you to read this, my opinion , and if you hold some truth in it also then to react to it .But I do not wish to argue this point because I can not .

It is new to me and as such I have only mystic experience and Gnostic Gospels to substantiate it . It is not a belief held by any established esoteric wisdom or religion and I realise that I could be flawed in my discernment .

So please dont ridicule or argue with me about it . I have nothing more to say to defend this humble point of view . Thank you kindly .
==========================================
Imho , angels are not as we have been taught as Christians . They are not all external to us and immortal giant beings of love and light .

When I was a child I enjoyed the angel getting his wings in that Christmas Classic It's a Wonderful Life . I thrilled when the bell rang and Charlie got his own . But some of the grownups said that was impossible that God created the angels as immortal beings and that they were never human .

I am rethinking this now . In the Gospel of Judas ,recently unearthed and available on the National Geographic Site , Christ instructs the apostles to come out of themselves as angels.

Again this is my own exegesis combining this gnostic text to the lesson of the Pistis Sophia and mystic lessons we received in circle .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostg ... raphic.com (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis_Sophia

The apostles argue with him quoting the current and popularly held Jewish perspective but Christ insists . Then he comes out of himself as 4 distinct angelic forms in demonstration . And Christ tells them to obey him and to do likewise . But only Judas can .

So Christ says to the apostles ,who wonder why they cannot do this too ,that it will take 2000 years before most humans are able to achieve this .

He applauds Judas and tells him to follow him in OBE to Barbello . Judas does but he cannot get in the door . Christ tells him that it is enough that he was able to come to the edge . They return to the body and the apostles complain once more why is it Rabbi ( which is to mean master teacher ) that you were as asleep and gone from us this time and would not be roused . Where did you go when we saw you leave us . Christ tells them that he has gone to the realm of his grandmother Barbello .

The gnostic Essene Jews believed that Barbello was the never incarnate cosmic womb which bore the living light which became incarnate as Yahweh and then came to Earth and many other planets .

Imho , angels are external and internal to the cosmology of the human spirit . That is that there are mighty angels who Godhead has formed who have never been human . There also exist manifested angels who project from an avatar being born if you will from that body and looking thereafter like that incarnation of the avatar . But even the humble human may project an angel and in time a human will be able to project more than one without even being close to the divine vibration of an avatar .

The first angel projects out of the brow in sapphire blue then it comes out of the heaven stone as chartreuese green then it flies away to Kether for a time . When it returns to the magician it will be capable of uniting to the higher self so that for a too brief time we can unite with it in consciousness for shamanic healing and projection . When it becomes stronger it is an archangelic form and it is named by the Godhead . If each human could project one archangel each lifetime , how much better would our human condition be ?

Sadly , as Robert Bruce always says , "every yin will have its yang "and so he believes , as do I , that humans are also becoming capable of manifesting dark forms . So an archdemonic form is possible then . Although the last time I spoke to him about this we and others we were unclear about the consequences or the reality of this . We were speaking in probablilities only . I have never met anyone who manifested an archdemon and do not wish to do so . I just suggest to you that it is theoretically possible .

The human is made in the likeness of God and is the way that God experiences a corporal body . Thru our slow spiritual evolution , imho , we will eventually be able to spawn a human generation that is truly Godlike which will live in peace upon this planet .


Be not forgetful to entertain strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares

8th March 2007, 07:01 PM
It truly amazes me that a Christian would idolize the one who betrayed our Blessed Lord. But who am I to say what is wise -- I who am but a Fool for Christ?

journyman161
8th March 2007, 10:21 PM
It truly amazes me that a Christian would idolize the one who betrayed our Blessed Lord. But who am I to say what is wise -- I who am but a Fool for Christ?That would be IF the story you've been told, by people who have a very good reason to lie, is actually the truth. If Judas WAS as the gospel of Judas says then it would make sense for those like Peter to play down his role - it wouldn't look good for someone trying to start a church to tell everyone he was one of the lesser members of the apostles.

Imagine how silly those who implicitly believe the story told over the centuries will look when they arrive at the pearly gates to find Judas standing there, querulous look on his face as he says, 'Peter? Peter who?' *grins*

8th March 2007, 11:57 PM
It truly amazes me that a Christian would idolize the one who betrayed our Blessed Lord. But who am I to say what is wise -- I who am but a Fool for Christ?That would be IF the story you've been told, by people who have a very good reason to lie, is actually the truth. If Judas WAS as the gospel of Judas says then it would make sense for those like Peter to play down his role - it wouldn't look good for someone trying to start a church to tell everyone he was one of the lesser members of the apostles.

Imagine how silly those who implicitly believe the story told over the centuries will look when they arrive at the pearly gates to find Judas standing there, querulous look on his face as he says, 'Peter? Peter who?' *grins*
What you say is certainly -- Politically Correct -- in today's world. After all, National Geographic says it's so. And who would question National Geographic's motives?

CFTraveler
9th March 2007, 12:50 AM
I have to say that I've never thought of Journyman as politically correct...

9th March 2007, 12:57 AM
I have to say that I've never thought of Journyman as politically correct...
Think again. He is almost always on the side of political correctness.

LuciaUruguay
9th March 2007, 10:15 PM
Aunt Clair, I would never ridiculize someone because of a post (I had suffered it, so I never do it)

But anyway, I am going now to a group in wich a lady can speak to GOD itself (if she lies shes very good at it)

I hear some of what God said about us and reincarnation and what she said is that Jesus was HUMAN in ALL the meaning of being human. Period, she never talk about stuff like that. Personally I do believe in the miracles and knwoledge but not in stuff like that, I mean, it can be written by everyone dont you think?

10th March 2007, 01:30 AM
Aunt Clair, I would never ridiculize someone because of a post (I had suffere it, so I never do it)

But anyway, I am going now to a group in wich a lady can speak to GOD itself (if she lies shes very good at it)

I hear some of what God said about us and reincarnation and what she said is that Jesus was HUMAN in ALL the meaning of being human. Period, she never talk about stuff like that. Personally I do believe in the miracles and knwoledge but no in stuff like that, I mean, it can be written by everyone dont you think?
Everyone can speak to God... Even fools like myself.
[/*:m:3mggxhl6]
Jesus was human in every respect but one: He was a divine person, not a human person.
[/*:m:3mggxhl6]
But His human nature was truly human, just as His divine nature was truly divine.[/*:m:3mggxhl6]

Palehorse Redivivus
11th March 2007, 03:42 AM
What you say is certainly -- Politically Correct -- in today's world. After all, National Geographic says it's so. And who would question National Geographic's motives?

If it was politically correct, it wouldn't be so controversial or newsworthy.

Anyway, most or all of the gospels, canonical and non, play up some figures and strains of thought while taking shots at others. IMO as with most things the ideal is to learn how to recognize and sift out the human drama, while hanging on to the grains of truth that any of them might have to offer.

Though for what it's worth, I myself have long believed there are good reasons to think Judas may well have been given a bad rap by the proto-orthodox.

Tempestinateapot
11th March 2007, 04:12 AM
Soph said regarding Aunt Clair:

It truly amazes me that a Christian would idolize the one who betrayed our Blessed Lord.I don't think that what Aunt Clair believes and does could be classified as idolizing. She learns from avatars while projecting. She knows what she's doing. Idolize implies blind devotion. I would hardly call Aunt Clair blind.

The word Christian has many meanings, as you know. There are a number of people who consider the Apocrypha to be as authoritative as the King James Bible. And, they have as much right to call themselves Christians as any other.

Tempestinateapot
11th March 2007, 04:19 AM
I thought that most people believe guardian angels to be protectors and guides to be teachers? It sounds like some people don't see a distinction. Could it be their personal filters? Just wondering....

star
11th March 2007, 09:34 PM
The human is a strange animal, I'd not see a reason to be worried over which thing or being anyone would idolize.

There are people that do so, with objects and animals too. Thats fine also.

Life is ludicrous.

Did I ever mention, that regardless of the work I do with where I ask the assistance of Buddhas and Arch Angels, or for ""God's"" help, I once asked for Lucifer to fix my broken CD player and not only did it immediatley start to work but it seemed to sound better?

Don't you think being human is strange? Irrealistic? What do you see when you look at the person next to you? I don't even know who's looking back at me in the mirror.

Read your books, literature, and pray to whomever or whatever pleases you. It won't make a lick of difference.

journyman161
12th March 2007, 01:53 AM
The word Christian has many meanings, as you know. There are a number of people who consider the Apocrypha to be as authoritative as the King James Bible. And, they have as much right to call themselves Christians as any other.I was on a writing site where one of the most vociferous christians took umbrage at the idea of any catholic calling themselves christian because he thought the worship of saints & Mary was directly against what the bible gives as the only way to salvation - ie. through the Christ himself.

There're also others who find anyone who doesn't specifically believe what they do to be sinners, heretics & blasphemers.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
He said, "Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!"
I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

The title Christian is apparently extremely difficult to define.

12th March 2007, 08:45 PM
If it was politically correct, it wouldn't be so controversial or newsworthy.

Anyway, most or all of the gospels, canonical and non, play up some figures and strains of thought while taking shots at others. IMO as with most things the ideal is to learn how to recognize and sift out the human drama, while hanging on to the grains of truth that any of them might have to offer.

Though for what it's worth, I myself have long believed there are good reasons to think Judas may well have been given a bad rap by the proto-orthodox.
All four of the authentic Gospels highlight Saint Peter whom they refer to more than to all the other Apostles put together. And they refer to Judas with one voice, saying that he was a thief and the betrayer.

But who are they to say? After all, National Geographic says they are wrong and the National Geographic is an honorable magazine.

12th March 2007, 08:50 PM
The human is a strange animal, I'd not see a reason to be worried over which thing or being anyone would idolize.

There are people that do so, with objects and animals too. Thats fine also.

Life is ludicrous.

Did I ever mention, that regardless of the work I do with where I ask the assistance of Buddhas and Arch Angels, or for ""God's"" help, I once asked for Lucifer to fix my broken CD player and not only did it immediatley start to work but it seemed to sound better?

Don't you think being human is strange? Irrealistic? What do you see when you look at the person next to you? I don't even know who's looking back at me in the mirror.

Read your books, literature, and pray to whomever or whatever pleases you. It won't make a lick of difference.
Well, according to you, Lucifer may be the one. Nevertheless, I would not wish to sell my soul for a CD player.

12th March 2007, 09:04 PM
I thought that most people believe guardian angels to be protectors and guides to be teachers? It sounds like some people don't see a distinction. Could it be their personal filters? Just wondering....
I don't know what people think. I know what the Hebrew word angel means: messenger. And I know what the Four Gospels say...
See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.
~ Matthew 18:10

journyman161
12th March 2007, 09:29 PM
All four of the authentic Gospels highlight Saint Peter whom they refer to more than to all the other Apostles put together. And they refer to Judas with one voice, saying that he was a thief and the betrayer.

But who are they to say? After all, National Geographic says they are wrong and the National Geographic is an honorable magazine.You do like to pick irrelevanices & mock them as if it somehow makes your point for you don't you? You totally ignore the scholars who identified & dated the find, the supporting evidence about it & pick on the TV channel that brought it to the public. If we adopted your tactics we wouldn't criticise the bible or church, we'd pick on Gutenberg. It's a poor attempt at distraction so maybe you should stop it & concentrate on the issues?

It never struck you as strange that Jesus told them, (including Judas) that he knew about the betrayal & yet Judas still went off & did it? It never made you wonder why, if the Christ knew it was coming he didn't make any moves to stop it? You never queried how fair it was, if it was God's plan for it all to happen, that Judas became the scapegoat for God's work?

I've heard of blind faith, but even as a 9yo I was wondering about the rotten deal Judas got. And while you say the 4 gospels agree about Judas, his fate seems a little more murky. Did he live or die? Did he hang himself or die in the field he bought with the purported 30 pieces of silver?

There's a lot to the Judas story (& Mary Magdalene) that is under suspicion & the subsequent behaviour of Peter's church also makes you wonder - the message of the Christ got lost in one hell of a hurry after the Christ supposedly died.

star
12th March 2007, 09:31 PM
If Satan has my soul I'll have to ask Michael to take it back next time I invoke him.

I'm not kidding.

star
12th March 2007, 09:40 PM
Look what I just said was rude. But I'm giving up on you now. Really. Its like I want to help you but I don't see a point in the trying.

Well, hmm. Your into the Christianity thing. Have you recieved the Angel Rays?

I use it myself, I added in the Plantinum ray for Metatron too. So Its a bit stronger.

How are you by the way?

star
12th March 2007, 10:19 PM
Here, this is the qoute I needed.


Senator: Gentlemen, it's clear that we're in a universally precarious situation. Dethklok has summoned a troll.
General: That's impossible, there's no such thing as trolls.
Senator: Then how do you explain the dead unicorns?

I don't remember what it was supposed to mean, exactly. Although it still describes the situation we are in.

You're denying the existence of the troll while you're tripping over dead unicorns.

12th March 2007, 10:23 PM
Look what I just said was rude. But I'm giving up on you now. Really. Its like I want to help you but I don't see a point in the trying.

Well, hmm. Your into the Christianity thing. Have you recieved the Angel Rays?

I use it myself, I added in the Plantinum ray for Metatron too. So Its a bit stronger.

How are you by the way?
I am Fantastic!! How about you?

star
12th March 2007, 10:24 PM
Outstanding. Fantastic sounds fishy to me.

12th March 2007, 10:26 PM
Here, this is the qoute I needed.


Senator: Gentlemen, it's clear that we're in a universally precarious situation. Dethklok has summoned a troll.
General: That's impossible, there's no such thing as trolls.
Senator: Then how do you explain the dead unicorns?

I don't remember what it was supposed to mean, exactly. Although it still describes the situation we are in.

You're denying the existence of the troll while you're tripping over dead unicorns.
Who am I to say otherwise? I am the merest Fool for Christ.

journyman161
12th March 2007, 10:28 PM
FYI:
Fantastic...
1. conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque: fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2. fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions: We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3. imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational: fantastic fears.
4. extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.
5. incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant: to spend fantastic sums of money.
6. highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish: a fantastic scheme to make a million dollars betting on horse races.

Note, there is an informal usage about extraordinarily good but surely Soph wouldn't resort to informal use of anything? :grin:

12th March 2007, 10:49 PM
You do like to pick irrelevanices & mock them as if it somehow makes your point for you don't you? You totally ignore the scholars who identified & dated the find, the supporting evidence about it & pick on the TV channel that brought it to the public. If we adopted your tactics we wouldn't criticise the bible or church, we'd pick on Gutenberg. It's a poor attempt at distraction so maybe you should stop it & concentrate on the issues?

It never struck you as strange that Jesus told them, (including Judas) that he knew about the betrayal & yet Judas still went off & did it? It never made you wonder why, if the Christ knew it was coming he didn't make any moves to stop it? You never queried how fair it was, if it was God's plan for it all to happen, that Judas became the scapegoat for God's work?

I've heard of blind faith, but even as a 9yo I was wondering about the rotten deal Judas got. And while you say the 4 gospels agree about Judas, his fate seems a little more murky. Did he live or die? Did he hang himself or die in the field he bought with the purported 30 pieces of silver?

There's a lot to the Judas story (& Mary Magdalene) that is under suspicion & the subsequent behaviour of Peter's church also makes you wonder - the message of the Christ got lost in one hell of a hurry after the Christ supposedly died.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You say that I mock at sound judgment. Some might think that you mock at sound judgment. Who am I to say, I who am but a Fool for Christ?

In any event, what you say is clearly and unequivocally the Politically Correct view.

12th March 2007, 10:57 PM
FYI:
Fantastic...
1. conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque: fantastic rock formations; fantastic designs.
2. fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions: We never know what that fantastic creature will say next.
3. imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational: fantastic fears.
4. extravagantly fanciful; marvelous.
5. incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant: to spend fantastic sums of money.
6. highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish: a fantastic scheme to make a million dollars betting on horse races.

Note, there is an informal usage about extraordinarily good but surely Soph wouldn't resort to informal use of anything? :grin:
I certainly recognize that I am a limited being with human faults such as the ones you point out.

In any event, life is fantastic!! A miracle waiting to happen...

journyman161
12th March 2007, 10:57 PM
I asked in another thread but I will repeat it here... Is 'Politically Correct' your new Insult for Today?

For an intelligent person you indulge in a lot of mockery; perhaps you could use those neurons for worthwhile purposes rather than childish mocking? Calling names is something most people grow out of around the time they stop wearing short pants.

Maybe you'd like to actually address issues rather than simply using labels to mock those who have opinions that don't come from a pulpit?

Perhaps you are feeling as if the church is being persecuted & that's why you think the politically correct tag can be applied to those who disagree with your PoV? Strange though, because those who comprise the 'Politically Correct' group tend to use the mores of the church to justify their stands.

In this age of demonisation of anyone who disagrees with the right wing religious types, it is hardly 'politically correct' to espouse any anti-christian viewpoint at all. That tends to get one categorised into the 'Them' bucket along with terrorists, muslims, gays & the like. (those who enjoy categorisation are notorious for lumping people into buckets)

Palehorse Redivivus
13th March 2007, 06:18 AM
All four of the authentic Gospels highlight Saint Peter whom they refer to more than to all the other Apostles put together. And they refer to Judas with one voice, saying that he was a thief and the betrayer.

And? These are four anonymous gospels, handpicked by a council who was in turn handpicked by the Roman government in order to represent a single unified front... in spite of the fact that they disagree on so many details, one of which JMan already pointed out.

Even within the canonical gospels though, the issue is not so clear cut. I'm not really so concerned about the personal opinion of the anonymous authors, or even the apostles, about the two men in question; I'm more intrigued by the surrounding circumstances, and what Jesus himself had to say about them.

This question of betrayal is interesting. Peter betrayed Jesus three different times; four if you count not being able to stay awake for a few hours in the garden. He is portrayed as being very reactionary, often slow to understand, and is also rebuked by Jesus more than any other individual.

Consider the reaction when the apostles found out that Jesus was to be put to death, which Jesus had foreknowledge of well in advance. Peter took Jesus aside and protested the whole idea -- and what was Jesus' response?


Matt 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Pretty strong words for someone who wanted to prevent his crucifixion. So what did he have to say to Judas, who was helping it along, just as Jesus had said he would a few minutes prior (even though none of the others understood what he was saying)?


John 13:28
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him.

There are a lot more intriguing details to the whole story, but that'll do for now. So riddle me this: if Peter is condemned for trying to prevent Jesus' death (and by extension, resurrection), and Judas is encouraged to be quick about fulfilling his role in bringing it about, which he then does, who is the one doing the will of God here? Who is the betrayer? And what do we make of the fact that both seemed repentant after the fact?

While we may never know the truth behind everyone's intentions, I see good reasons to think there could very well have been a private agreement between Jesus and Judas to do what had to be done. It's not surprising to me that the other disciples had no idea what was going on, because if they had, Judas would've been stopped and possibly killed (possibly by Peter himself, quick as he was to amputate the ear of the high priest's servant at the arrest), and Jesus would not have been able to carry out his repeatedly stated mission.

13th March 2007, 11:34 PM
I asked in another thread but I will repeat it here... Is 'Politically Correct' your new Insult for Today?

For an intelligent person you indulge in a lot of mockery; perhaps you could use those neurons for worthwhile purposes rather than childish mocking? Calling names is something most people grow out of around the time they stop wearing short pants.

Maybe you'd like to actually address issues rather than simply using labels to mock those who have opinions that don't come from a pulpit?

Perhaps you are feeling as if the church is being persecuted & that's why you think the politically correct tag can be applied to those who disagree with your PoV? Strange though, because those who comprise the 'Politically Correct' group tend to use the mores of the church to justify their stands.

In this age of demonisation of anyone who disagrees with the right wing religious types, it is hardly 'politically correct' to espouse any anti-christian viewpoint at all. That tends to get one categorised into the 'Them' bucket along with terrorists, muslims, gays & the like. (those who enjoy categorisation are notorious for lumping people into buckets)
And as I said in another thread, it is not an insult. I would think you would be proud to be politically correct. Other people are proud of that title. Why not you?

13th March 2007, 11:45 PM
[quote=Sophroniscus]All four of the authentic Gospels highlight Saint Peter whom they refer to more than to all the other Apostles put together. And they refer to Judas with one voice, saying that he was a thief and the betrayer.

And? These are four anonymous gospels, handpicked by a council who was in turn handpicked by the Roman government in order to represent a single unified front... in spite of the fact that they disagree on so many details, one of which JMan already pointed out.

Even within the canonical gospels though, the issue is not so clear cut. I'm not really so concerned about the personal opinion of the anonymous authors, or even the apostles, about the two men in question; I'm more intrigued by the surrounding circumstances, and what Jesus himself had to say about them.

This question of betrayal is interesting. Peter betrayed Jesus three different times; four if you count not being able to stay awake for a few hours in the garden. He is portrayed as being very reactionary, often slow to understand, and is also rebuked by Jesus more than any other individual.

Consider the reaction when the apostles found out that Jesus was to be put to death, which Jesus had foreknowledge of well in advance. Peter took Jesus aside and protested the whole idea -- and what was Jesus' response?


Matt 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Pretty strong words for someone who wanted to prevent his crucifixion. So what did he have to say to Judas, who was helping it along, just as Jesus had said he would a few minutes prior (even though none of the others understood what he was saying)?


John 13:28
"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him, but no one at the meal understood why Jesus said this to him.

There are a lot more intriguing details to the whole story, but that'll do for now. So riddle me this: if Peter is condemned for trying to prevent Jesus' death (and by extension, resurrection), and Judas is encouraged to be quick about fulfilling his role in bringing it about, which he then does, who is the one doing the will of God here? Who is the betrayer? And what do we make of the fact that both seemed repentant after the fact?

While we may never know the truth behind everyone's intentions, I see good reasons to think there could very well have been a private agreement between Jesus and Judas to do what had to be done. It's not surprising to me that the other disciples had no idea what was going on, because if they had, Judas would've been stopped and possibly killed (possibly by Peter himself, quick as he was to amputate the ear of the high priest's servant at the arrest), and Jesus would not have been able to carry out his repeatedly stated mission.[/quote:3ffxcngt]
And as I have pointed out, before the Oriental New Testament Canon predates the First Council of Nicea. But, of course, you prefer to ignore what doesn't fit in with your ideas.

It is really strange that so many people can accept the idea that various pagans were able to preserve oral traditions over many hundreds of years but adamantly reject the idea that Christians could have done so over a far shorter period. I guess it is Politically Correct to believe pagan claims but Politically Incorrect to believe Christian ones. Each to his own, I suppose.

Tempestinateapot
14th March 2007, 12:16 AM
so many people can accept the idea that various pagans were able to preserve oral traditions over many hundreds of yearsWhile I'm not a scholar, I have done some investigation into the origins of Christianity. I was really surprised at how much of the religion "borrows" from pagan beliefs and religions. I can't remember if it was on AD or another forum, but I was reading a list of the things that were not new with Christianity. It might have even been in this thread. But, the biggest standout was the idea that a pairing of a God and man created a "son of God" (pagan gods mating with human women). There were a number of others, but suffice it to say that when looked at in the context of history (including pagan oral traditions), Christianity appears to be a very borrowed religion. If God needed to save the world, couldn't he have come up with something a lot more original?

Aunt Clair
14th March 2007, 12:32 AM
D'accord ! . Since the time that I first learned that some gospels were chosen and that others were burnt and destroyed or buried and hidden , I have been disgusted with the church . That does not mean I am disgusted with God or that I refuse to attend church . I continue to be religious .One might as well say that they are disgusted with the crimes of humanity and give up life itself . That is equally vain and foolish . We must evolve instead and heal ourselves and our planet .

I consider the ills of the church as the inhumanities of an institution bent on power which hoards money and lives in wealth while children die of poverty and in ignorance . The church is not the vatican . It is in this context every temple , every religion that does not reach out to educate and uplift the children of the world to provide them with sustenance , medical care ,education and personal freedoms .

No ,the institutions are not perfect . Not one human is perfect . The churches and temples we build are not perfect either .

From the first time I read as a child of the histories of the great religions I decried such hypocrisy and blasphemy by the Politics of vain human church officers . The Abrahamic churches persecuted and murdered in order to framework their own faiths as they wanted to build as a great white male hope of manifest destiny .

Christ was not so prejudiced . There were female gospels , there were female apostles . But man in his vanity decided to reject the Goddess , the mother , the female sage and ultimately to strip God of any feminine aspect . The Tree of Life has always had 2 pillars male and female Godhead . The ancient religions from which Christianity sprung were reinvented by men who wished to dominate their daughters , wives and mothers .

That is our travesty because we allowed it to occur . Just as women today hold down girls to infibulate them with a dirty rock and without anesthesia. We all of us fathers and mothers , teachers and coaches , doctors and lawyers and every brother and sister . We indoctrinate our daughters to walk a step behind in silence and to wear a burka . We think that it is just them but my burka is invisible .

Just as we tax tampons but not toilet paper . We provide free toilet paper but charge for tampons in public lavatories . We no longer circumcise the boys so now we have a huge increase in cervical cancer so we have invented a shot for each little girl to prevent cervical cancer which could be irradicated with circumcision . Condoms have no tax in Australia but tampons do . Women and children live in poverty while men prosper . Why is that ? Women make 72 % of the man's salary for the exact same job . Why ? And women allow these injustices to continue . In America the freed slave was allowed to vote and go to free school before the slaveholders wives and daughters ! Thomas Jefferson advocated for free education for all children despite race but he meant only boys !

Beyond this , there are precious words and truths which have been removed or rather painted invisible . This fragments the Bible and darkens out pathway back to Kether making it more illusive more unstable and more difficult to navigate and comprehend . We , vain vain humans built the abyss which is that which seperates us from God .



If God needed to save the world, couldn't he have come up with something a lot more original?
I feel in my heart of hearts that all paths lead to God and that Godhead is dual and plural . I feel that we began in other planets and that we came from the stars to Earth and mixed with the animals here to spawn a sentient being in our own image . Sentient Beings came out of Africa at the dawn of Civilization and the path that they took as they became divergent cultures and races over time is cohesive and contingent one upon another .

The Tree of Life is seen in ancient cultures of Sumer , Egypt ,as one djed then 2 then 4 elemental spheres in Abrahamic culture we got 8 , in European Norse 9 ,Indigenous Pan Americans, Celtic 10 . Medieval alchemists and Jewish /Islamic Mystics gave us 11 sepiroth . We have 12 and are developing more now .

We are all part of one universal mind , it is only natural that as we evolve spiritually that we will colour our Godhead with our own truths and prejudices reinventing them to be worthy of us , in our private vanities .We manifest God as much as God manifested us .

We allow God to become incarnate on Earth and to experience life amongst us and by our devotion , Godhead continues to teach us eternally with much love and light as beloved children .

Tempestinateapot
14th March 2007, 12:49 AM
We manifest God as much as God manifested us.I really like this idea.

14th March 2007, 10:35 PM
While I'm not a scholar, I have done some investigation into the origins of Christianity. I was really surprised at how much of the religion "borrows" from pagan beliefs and religions. I can't remember if it was on AD or another forum, but I was reading a list of the things that were not new with Christianity. It might have even been in this thread. But, the biggest standout was the idea that a pairing of a God and man created a "son of God" (pagan gods mating with human women). There were a number of others, but suffice it to say that when looked at in the context of history (including pagan oral traditions), Christianity appears to be a very borrowed religion. If God needed to save the world, couldn't he have come up with something a lot more original?
You have reversed the relationship. Satan borrowed from Christianity in creating religions which falsely prefigure Christ. For Satan is the Father of Lies.

14th March 2007, 10:41 PM
D'accord ! . Since the time that I first learned that some gospels were chosen and that others were burnt and destroyed or buried and hidden , I have been disgusted with the church . That does not mean I am disgusted with God or that I refuse to attend church . I continue to be religious .One might as well say that they are disgusted with the crimes of humanity and give up life itself . That is equally vain and foolish . We must evolve instead and heal ourselves and our planet .

I consider the ills of the church as the inhumanities of an institution bent on power which hoards money and lives in wealth while children die of poverty and in ignorance . The church is not the vatican . It is in this context every temple , every religion that does not reach out to educate and uplift the children of the world to provide them with sustenance , medical care ,education and personal freedoms .

No ,the institutions are not perfect . Not one human is perfect . The churches and temples we build are not perfect either .

From the first time I read as a child of the histories of the great religions I decried such hypocrisy and blasphemy by the Politics of vain human church officers . The Abrahamic churches persecuted and murdered in order to framework their own faiths as they wanted to build as a great white male hope of manifest destiny .

Christ was not so prejudiced . There were female gospels , there were female apostles . But man in his vanity decided to reject the Goddess , the mother , the female sage and ultimately to strip God of any feminine aspect . The Tree of Life has always had 2 pillars male and female Godhead . The ancient religions from which Christianity sprung were reinvented by men who wished to dominate their daughters , wives and mothers .

That is our travesty because we allowed it to occur . Just as women today hold down girls to infibulate them with a dirty rock and without anesthesia. We all of us fathers and mothers , teachers and coaches , doctors and lawyers and every brother and sister . We indoctrinate our daughters to walk a step behind in silence and to wear a burka . We think that it is just them but my burka is invisible .

Just as we tax tampons but not toilet paper . We provide free toilet paper but charge for tampons in public lavatories . We no longer circumcise the boys so now we have a huge increase in cervical cancer so we have invented a shot for each little girl to prevent cervical cancer which could be irradicated with circumcision . Condoms have no tax in Australia but tampons do . Women and children live in poverty while men prosper . Why is that ? Women make 72 % of the man's salary for the exact same job . Why ? And women allow these injustices to continue . In America the freed slave was allowed to vote and go to free school before the slaveholders wives and daughters ! Thomas Jefferson advocated for free education for all children despite race but he meant only boys !

Beyond this , there are precious words and truths which have been removed or rather painted invisible . This fragments the Bible and darkens out pathway back to Kether making it more illusive more unstable and more difficult to navigate and comprehend . We , vain vain humans built the abyss which is that which seperates us from God .


If God needed to save the world, couldn't he have come up with something a lot more original?
I feel in my heart of hearts that all paths lead to God and that Godhead is dual and plural . I feel that we began in other planets and that we came from the stars to Earth and mixed with the animals here to spawn a sentient being in our own image . Sentient Beings came out of Africa at the dawn of Civilization and the path that they took as they became divergent cultures and races over time is cohesive and contingent one upon another .

The Tree of Life is seen in ancient cultures of Sumer , Egypt ,as one djed then 2 then 4 elemental spheres in Abrahamic culture we got 8 , in European Norse 9 ,Indigenous Pan Americans, Celtic 10 . Medieval alchemists and Jewish /Islamic Mystics gave us 11 sepiroth . We have 12 and are developing more now .

We are all part of one universal mind , it is only natural that as we evolve spiritually that we will colour our Godhead with our own truths and prejudices reinventing them to be worthy of us , in our private vanities .We manifest God as much as God manifested us .

We allow God to become incarnate on Earth and to experience life amongst us and by our devotion , Godhead continues to teach us eternally with much love and light as beloved children .
Every yang will have its yin -- and so it is, the Light of Christ is met by the Darkness of Satan.

So I would advise great discernment lest one be walking into darkness.

14th March 2007, 10:45 PM
We manifest God as much as God manifested us.I really like this idea.
I would agree if one substitutes the word, truly in place of much.

journyman161
14th March 2007, 10:53 PM
You have reversed the relationship. Satan borrowed from Christianity in creating religions which falsely prefigure Christ. For Satan is the Father of Lies.That's a neat trick - if Satan can pinch ideas about the basics of Christianity many thousands of years before even the Hebrews come into being, perhaps we've been conned into worship of the wrong Deity?

See Soph, the problem with believing stuff with only faith as a basis is it has a tendency to contradict rather substantial solid facts - like the Hebrews date to about 2500BC even if you stretch the facts to accommodate the idea, & Christianity can't possibly pre-date the Christ. Yet at the time the Hebrews were wondering if stealing from the cities on the plain was a good idea, the Egyptians were, according to orthodoxy, building the Pyramids & Sumeria was several thousand years dead & gone.

Certainly the Harrapan civilisation in India had already had several thousand years of history & Caral in South America was already deserted.

So you saying that Satan somehow stole the ideas of Christianity to create religions in prehistory seems a bit silly.

Tom
14th March 2007, 10:58 PM
Every yang will have its yin -- and so it is, the Light of Christ is met by the Darkness of Satan.

So I would advise great discernment lest one be walking into darkness.

I think Aunt Clair knows darkness and lies when she sees them.

Aside from that could you please trim down the amount of text you quote to just the relevent sections and slow down on the double and triple posting?

And Journyman161, I think you are forgetting that facts are just there to test our faith. :)

journyman161
14th March 2007, 11:29 PM
And Journyman161, I think you are forgetting that facts are just there to test our faith. :)Or maybe faith is a creation of the Dark to make us doubt the facts? *grins* Given I'm a results based person, I think my idea bears a lot of merit - faith has caused more damage to the Earth & Mankind than any amount of fact or knowledge.

Hmm... in fact, (pun intended) I think I can make a pretty good case for faith being a creation of the Dark or satanic side of things.

Tom
14th March 2007, 11:37 PM
Given I'm a results based person, I think my idea bears a lot of merit - faith has caused more damage to the Earth & Mankind than any amount of fact or knowledge.

It's okay because we are in the End Times. This planet is like a rented apartment and we are going to be leaving soon. I learned all about The Rapture in college. Even the Holy Spirit is going to abandon this rock. That's why President Bush is so determined to use the last of his oil before we go even if it did accidentally end up in the Middle East. Let's just not start thinking that the oil reserves used to be plants and dinosaurs, though, because the fossil records are just there to test our faith in Jeesus.

If anyone is wondering, yes: I am joking.

journyman161
14th March 2007, 11:42 PM
Would that be the 2nd year of the Intelligent Design course you did? The one with the minor in Dumb Incineration Of Terra? :grin: I understand the ID/DIOT course is very popular in the US... :lol:

14th March 2007, 11:46 PM
You have reversed the relationship. Satan borrowed from Christianity in creating religions which falsely prefigure Christ. For Satan is the Father of Lies.That's a neat trick - if Satan can pinch ideas about the basics of Christianity many thousands of years before even the Hebrews come into being, perhaps we've been conned into worship of the wrong Deity?

See Soph, the problem with believing stuff with only faith as a basis is it has a tendency to contradict rather substantial solid facts - like the Hebrews date to about 2500BC even if you stretch the facts to accommodate the idea, & Christianity can't possibly pre-date the Christ. Yet at the time the Hebrews were wondering if stealing from the cities on the plain was a good idea, the Egyptians were, according to orthodoxy, building the Pyramids & Sumeria was several thousand years dead & gone.

Certainly the Harrapan civilisation in India had already had several thousand years of history & Caral in South America was already deserted.

So you saying that Satan somehow stole the ideas of Christianity to create religions in prehistory seems a bit silly.
God allowed Satan to know what would one day lead to God's Glory. In my humble opinion, you may not understand that because you have may have blinded yourself to the power of good reasoning. I can not help that, only point out things you have not considered.

Tom
14th March 2007, 11:54 PM
Would that be the 2nd year of the Intelligent Design course you did? The one with the minor in Dumb Incineration Of Terra? :grin: I understand the ID/DIOT course is very popular in the US... :lol:

I hope you aren't trying to imply you believe in Global Warming, or worse, the idea that it is causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms around the world. Hurricane Katrina was an Act of God - not an Act of Halliburton. (I heard about Halliburton and Halle Berry at about the same time and was initially confused about which one was the large corporation and which one was the woman who is in movies. The people on TV need to speak more clearly.)

Intelligent Design just means that someone was here to make sure that our planet ended up the right distance from the sun to support life. They're not saying that God did it; they're just saying that it was too unlikely to happen just based on an accident. So someone who is powerful enough to line up the planets in nice orbits - who doesn't have to be God - was doing us a favor because He loves us. This same someone also brought us President Bush. See? The same intelligence who didn't let us burn up or freeze thought we needed to liberate Iraq. The least we can do is to teach this history in schools.



God allowed Satan to know what would one day lead to God's Glory. In my humble opinion, you may not understand that because you have may have blinded yourself to the power of good reasoning. I can not help that, only point out things you have not considered.

You forgot to mention that you are joking, right?

15th March 2007, 12:28 AM
I hope you aren't trying to imply you believe in Global Warming, or worse, the idea that it is causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms around the world. Hurricane Katrina was an Act of God - not an Act of Halliburton. (I heard about Halliburton and Halle Berry at about the same time and was initially confused about which one was the large corporation and which one was the woman who is in movies. The people on TV need to speak more clearly.)

Intelligent Design just means that someone was here to make sure that our planet ended up the right distance from the sun to support life. They're not saying that God did it; they're just saying that it was too unlikely to happen just based on an accident. So someone who is powerful enough to line up the planets in nice orbits - who doesn't have to be God - was doing us a favor because He loves us. This same someone also brought us President Bush. See? The same intelligence who didn't let us burn up or freeze thought we needed to liberate Iraq. The least we can do is to teach this history in schools.



God allowed Satan to know what would one day lead to God's Glory. In my humble opinion, you may not understand that because you have may have blinded yourself to the power of good reasoning. I can not help that, only point out things you have not considered.

You forgot to mention that you are joking, right?
No, I'm not joking. Global Warming is more of that Politically Correct nonsense. At least we seem to agree on something!!

Tom
15th March 2007, 12:44 AM
No, I'm not joking. Global Warming is more of that Politically Correct nonsense. At least we seem to agree on something!!

I knew I should have made that clearer ... I do believe in the global warming and the severity of its effects.

journyman161
15th March 2007, 01:47 AM
Again I am forced to point out the problems with belief. The link between global warming & human causes is, at best, bad science. The facts are that in the past, the Earth has spent a lot more time at warmer temps than current averages. Our current range is more of an anomaly than the rule. Look forward to warmer times to come as the Earth swings back to its more normal condition.

The temp is determined not only nor even mostly by CO2 in the atmosphere - in fact the CO2 is more an indicator of where the temp process is at any given time.

Water vapour is a much greater greenhouse producer than CO2 & there is one hell of a lot more water in the atmosphere than CO2.

By far the biggest contributors are the combination of Earth's Obliquity & at what season the Earth reaches aphelion/perihelion from the sun. When conditions are right, the Earth cools; ALL of Man's history has been in one of the cool periods - ALL OF IT! Now the Earth's average global temp is on
the upswing again & the politicians are beating us with the fear stick again.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif


Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment.

Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial.

It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 380 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise.

journyman161
15th March 2007, 05:28 AM
Further to the global warming phenomena...

There are 3 major cycles affecting how the climate changes & they've been found in the climate records - Precession happens over a period of 21,592 years, there is the obliquity cycle of approx 41,000 years but there is also the eccentricity of the orbit (how much it varies from circle to ellipse & back) which is a cycle of approximately 100,000 years.

It is the combination of these 3 cycles that determines how Earth's climate changes.

One of the things noted is that when the Northern Hemisphere winters fall at the time when the Earth is at maximum eccentricity, as well as at aphelion & also at extreme obliquity, the ice comes. This is because the colder winters (aphelion - furthest from the Sun) are enhanced by the Earth being as far from the sun as it gets & the summers are shorter because orbital mechanics dictates that the sun speeds up as it swings into perihelion (closest approach to the sun) & so the snow builds up & the ice sheet expands.

This is exacerbated by the ocean currents changing, swinging the warm Atlantic current away from the European continent, bringing a freeze to Europe. The increased snow & ice cover reflects back significantly more light and the Earth cools.

Now, all of that has been reversing for the past approximately 18,000 years & the Earth is in a warming trend. While humans might be adding to things, our effects are miniscule beside ther planetary heat-exchanger that has been running all this time.

Palehorse Redivivus
15th March 2007, 09:17 AM
And as I have pointed out, before the Oriental New Testament Canon predates the First Council of Nicea.

You have indeed mentioned it... do you have anymore links or resources on this Oriental Canon? I've heard about a few different canons from groups in the early Church, but not remembering anything on that one. I've got a shelf full of books on Church history about five feet thataway ----> whose indexes I've flipped through, googled, Wiki-ed... and the only thing that has come up on it thus far is a post on a random Catholic forum where one person asked if anyone knew of it (and nobody answered) and two of your posts here. :P I'm not disbelieving you, but is it called by another name, maybe?


But, of course, you prefer to ignore what doesn't fit in with your ideas.

Do I really? Hrm, thanks for letting me in on this preference o' mine. ;)

Oriental canon aside, this is a red herring. My post may have mentioned the selection of the Nicene canon, but my overall point wasn't dependent on it.


It is really strange that so many people can accept the idea that various pagans were able to preserve oral traditions over many hundreds of years but adamantly reject the idea that Christians could have done so over a far shorter period. I guess it is Politically Correct to believe pagan claims but Politically Incorrect to believe Christian ones. Each to his own, I suppose.

Methinks I smells another red herring. Nobody has mentioned Pagans or their oral traditions in this thread (edit: or at least they hadn't before you replied to my post anyway, heh), and no Pagans are here making claims about them. Nobody has questioned the integrity of specific books in this thread that I've seen either. I wasn't questioning whether the traditions had been passed down accurately -- I was questioning the bias of the authors, as well as the apostles, based on the plain words of the text that we do have.

And I've been called a lot of things in my day, but "politically correct" is a new one for me, I must say. ;)

15th March 2007, 11:55 PM
No, I'm not joking. Global Warming is more of that Politically Correct nonsense. At least we seem to agree on something!!

I knew I should have made that clearer ... I do believe in the global warming and the severity of its effects.
I have no problem with the science. It is the Politics where there is a problem. Back in the '70s the Enviro-Fascists were talking about Global Cooling. I remember clearly reading an article in Scientific American predicting how in 100 years there would be glaciers ready to destroy New York City.

There was some reason, behind it, of course: The earth had, in fact, been cooling for about 40 years. But that turned out to be a bit of an exaggeration -- and things started warming up. So now, the same Enviro-Fascists have switched their strategy. Now it's Global Warming they are trying to frighten us with. Al Gore says that we are all but lost.

On the other hand, I heard a scientist saying, the other day, that there is some reason to believe that the warming cycle may be reversing and we will go back to Global Cooling. Who am I to say? What I know is that the Enviro-Fascists will say -- whatever happens -- that the only solution is to go back to the Stone Age, which is what they wanted to begin with. If the facts don't match the politics they will just come up with another slogan.

journyman161
16th March 2007, 12:28 AM
Interestingly, the development of the Oriental New Testament Canon seems to be traced more to Egypt than to supposedly Christian sources - This is from this page (http://www.ntcanon.org/Apocalypse_of_Peter.shtml) While it may be correct that it predates Nicea, it also seems to highlight the Egyptian origins of things... Which makes sense seeing the Egyptian Astrology has the Age of Ares ending & the Age of Pisces beginning at the time of the Christ & the biblical references move from shepherd to fisher of men.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

Apocalypse of Peter (Egypt, ~135 CE)

The Apocalypse of Peter is best known for its lurid descriptions of the punishments of hell. It is an outstanding an ancient example of that type of writing by means of which the pictorial ideas of Heaven and Hell were taken over into the Christian Church. In contrast to the Revelation of John which displays the final struggle and triumph of Jesus Christ, its interest no longer lies on the person of the Redeemer, but on the situation in the after-life, on the description of different classes of sinner, on the punishment of the evil and the salvation of the righteous. If the Apocalypse of Peter as a book lost its meaning in time, the ideas represented in it lived on in various ways -- Sybyllines II; Apocalypse of Paul; apocalypsis seu visio Mariae virginis; right up to the full tide of description in Dante's Divina Commedia.

For the identification of the Apocalypse of Peter and the assessment of its significance and influence, the citations in the Church Fathers are particularly important. Theophilus of Antioch (about 180 CE) alludes to a verse of the Akhmîm fragment (see below). Clement of Alexandria (before 215) twice quotes chapters 4 and 5. Methodius of Olympus (about 311) once quotes chapter 8. Macarius Magnes (about 400) quotes chapters 4 and 5 once each.

The full text has been known to us for only a century. During the excavations instigated by S. Grébaut in the winter of 1886/87 in cemetery A at al-Hawawis in the desert necropolis of Akhmîm, parchment leaves of the Greek version were discovered in the grave of a Christian monk. In addition to this fragment of text, some further unpaginated leaves were found with parts of the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Peter. The three texts, which are today in Cairo, are all from the same hand and were written in the 8th or 9th century. The Greek text, which occupies not quite half of the original book, was divided by Harnack into 34 verses. The identification of the text results from a quotation adduced by Clement of Alexandria in his Eclogae Propheticae.

The Ethiopic translation has been known since 1910. A. Dillmann had already referred to the extensive Ethiopic translation of the Corpus Clementinum, which may go back to the 7th-8th century. S. Grébaut finally published Pseudo-Clementine literature from MS No 51 of the Abbadie collection, and added a French translation. It was however M. R. James who, in a fundamental study, first succeeded in classifying the Ethiopic text correctly.

We do not know the original text of the Apocalypse, the Greek and Ethiopic texts frequently diverge from each other.

The earliest possible date of origin can be determined through the date of 4 Esdras -- about 100 CE -- which was probably used in the Apocalypse of Peter and 2 Peter, the priority of which was demonstrated by F. Spitta. The latest possible date, using the quotations of Theophilus above, is 180. We thus come, with H.Weinel, if in interpreting the parable of the fig-tree in c. 2 we also relate the Jewish Antichrist who persecutes the Christians to Bar Chocba, to approximately the year 135 as the probable time of origin.

The Apocalypse presumably came into being in Egypt (c.f. Clement); the reference to Egyptian worship of animals also points in this direction. In this connection however we must refer above all to the ancient Egyptian Peter tradition. Starting from a first rendering into Coptic, the Ethiopic translation probably came into being - as usual - through Arabic versions. To this extent our Ethiopic text, linguistically not altogether unexceptional, is only the last in a series, with all the imponderables that entails.

In its description of heaven and hell the Apocalypse draws on the Orphic-Pythagorean mystery religions. The motif of the river of fire, certainly goes back to ancient Egypt. The ideas of the last judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the destruction of the world by fire, etc., are to be traced back, through the medium of Jewish Apocalyptic (the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.) to oriental origins. Mind you, if the Canon is based on this, it doesn't really support what Soph is claiming at all - it would seem to be about the afterlife rather than not being able to define God.

Strange...

16th March 2007, 01:06 AM
Interestingly, the development of the Oriental New Testament Canon seems to be traced more to Egypt than to supposedly Christian sources - This is from this page (http://www.ntcanon.org/Apocalypse_of_Peter.shtml) While it may be correct that it predates Nicea, it also seems to highlight the Egyptian origins of things... Which makes sense seeing the Egyptian Astrology has the Age of Ares ending & the Age of Pisces beginning at the time of the Christ & the biblical references move from shepherd to fisher of men.

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament

Apocalypse of Peter (Egypt, ~135 CE)

The Apocalypse of Peter is best known for its lurid descriptions of the punishments of hell. It is an outstanding an ancient example of that type of writing by means of which the pictorial ideas of Heaven and Hell were taken over into the Christian Church. In contrast to the Revelation of John which displays the final struggle and triumph of Jesus Christ, its interest no longer lies on the person of the Redeemer, but on the situation in the after-life, on the description of different classes of sinner, on the punishment of the evil and the salvation of the righteous. If the Apocalypse of Peter as a book lost its meaning in time, the ideas represented in it lived on in various ways -- Sybyllines II; Apocalypse of Paul; apocalypsis seu visio Mariae virginis; right up to the full tide of description in Dante's Divina Commedia.

For the identification of the Apocalypse of Peter and the assessment of its significance and influence, the citations in the Church Fathers are particularly important. Theophilus of Antioch (about 180 CE) alludes to a verse of the Akhmîm fragment (see below). Clement of Alexandria (before 215) twice quotes chapters 4 and 5. Methodius of Olympus (about 311) once quotes chapter 8. Macarius Magnes (about 400) quotes chapters 4 and 5 once each.

The full text has been known to us for only a century. During the excavations instigated by S. Grébaut in the winter of 1886/87 in cemetery A at al-Hawawis in the desert necropolis of Akhmîm, parchment leaves of the Greek version were discovered in the grave of a Christian monk. In addition to this fragment of text, some further unpaginated leaves were found with parts of the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Peter. The three texts, which are today in Cairo, are all from the same hand and were written in the 8th or 9th century. The Greek text, which occupies not quite half of the original book, was divided by Harnack into 34 verses. The identification of the text results from a quotation adduced by Clement of Alexandria in his Eclogae Propheticae.

The Ethiopic translation has been known since 1910. A. Dillmann had already referred to the extensive Ethiopic translation of the Corpus Clementinum, which may go back to the 7th-8th century. S. Grébaut finally published Pseudo-Clementine literature from MS No 51 of the Abbadie collection, and added a French translation. It was however M. R. James who, in a fundamental study, first succeeded in classifying the Ethiopic text correctly.

We do not know the original text of the Apocalypse, the Greek and Ethiopic texts frequently diverge from each other.

The earliest possible date of origin can be determined through the date of 4 Esdras -- about 100 CE -- which was probably used in the Apocalypse of Peter and 2 Peter, the priority of which was demonstrated by F. Spitta. The latest possible date, using the quotations of Theophilus above, is 180. We thus come, with H.Weinel, if in interpreting the parable of the fig-tree in c. 2 we also relate the Jewish Antichrist who persecutes the Christians to Bar Chocba, to approximately the year 135 as the probable time of origin.

The Apocalypse presumably came into being in Egypt (c.f. Clement); the reference to Egyptian worship of animals also points in this direction. In this connection however we must refer above all to the ancient Egyptian Peter tradition. Starting from a first rendering into Coptic, the Ethiopic translation probably came into being - as usual - through Arabic versions. To this extent our Ethiopic text, linguistically not altogether unexceptional, is only the last in a series, with all the imponderables that entails.

In its description of heaven and hell the Apocalypse draws on the Orphic-Pythagorean mystery religions. The motif of the river of fire, certainly goes back to ancient Egypt. The ideas of the last judgment, the resurrection of the dead, the destruction of the world by fire, etc., are to be traced back, through the medium of Jewish Apocalyptic (the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.) to oriental origins. Mind you, if the Canon is based on this, it doesn't really support what Soph is claiming at all - it would seem to be about the afterlife rather than not being able to define God.

Strange...
I know nothing about any Egyptian connection. I saw it in regard to the Assyrian Church of the East.

The Church of Alexandria was, of course, the second most important of the early Churches -- after that of Rome. The Council of Nicea, of course, placed the Church of Constantinople ahead of Alexandria.

There is no connection to the pagan religion of Egypt, as some might want to imagine. There is a far greater connection to Plotinus, who was probably born in Egypt.

Saint Mark was probably from Egypt or Libya and is given credit for establishing the Church of Alexandria. Some of the greatest Fathers of the Church came from Egypt, such as Saint Athanasius and Saint Cyril.

Eventually, the ideas of Eutyches caused a schism between the Monophysite Churches, including that of Alexandria, and the Orthodox churches... Rome and Constantinople. The Monophysites call themselves Oriental Orthodox.

But the Church of the East is clearly unorthodox, and -- from what I understand -- recognizes itself as something completely separate from any orthodoxy but their own.

I do love the Coptic (Egyptian) liturgy, mind you. I might attend such a church, were it not for their Monophysite beliefs -- I have heard one of their deacons condemning the Council of Chalcedon so I wouldn't get along well with them, I suppose. But I do love their Song of the Cymbals. It's heavenly!!

16th March 2007, 01:18 AM
You might want to consider the Pe♥♥♥♥ta...
http://www.pe♥♥♥♥ta.org/

Aunt Clair
16th March 2007, 02:10 AM
Soph said regarding Aunt Clair:

It truly amazes me that a Christian would idolize the one who betrayed our Blessed Lord.
Patti:

I don't think that what Aunt Clair believes and does could be classified as idolizing. She learns from avatars while projecting. She knows what she's doing. Idolize implies blind devotion. I would hardly call Aunt Clair blind.
Thankyou .

The word Christian has many meanings, as you know. There are a number of people who consider the Apocrypha to be as authoritative as the King James Bible. And, they have as much right to call themselves Christians as any other.

I agree . How can any Christian possibly believe that what has been bound is the only Gospel ? Please read the history of the foundations of the NEW Testament and learn.Scrolls and codices which were not acceptable to the church were burnt or buried or merely left shelved . Many are in the vatican and not allowed to be read .

Sometimes the church depended on the discernment of one human being in the Bishop Ireneaus . This is hardly a man of God . He arranged for the murders of humans to suppress ideas of a Goddess and other ideas he found politically incorrect .

I do love Christ . I have read every part of the Bible many times over . I believe in my heart of hearts that apocrypha and gnosticism are valid aspects of Christianity .

Aunt Clair, I would never ridiculize someone because of a post (I had suffere it, so I never do it) But anyway, I am going now to a group in wich a lady can speak to GOD itself (if she lies shes very good at it) I hear some of what God said about us and reincarnation and what she said is that Jesus was HUMAN in ALL the meaning of being human. Period, she never talk about stuff like that. Personally I do believe in the miracles and knwoledge but no in stuff like that, I mean, it can be written by everyone dont you think?
I do not believe that Christ was entirely human . I believe he is an avatar which is a emanation of the Godhead entering into a human form to teach , heal , inspire , uplift .. I believe in a Cosmic Christ which continues to appear as a spirit teacher to humanity .

I do believe the Gospel of Judas is truth

http://www.psyche.com/psyche/meta/gjudas_reaction.html

and I do believe that the Gospels of Mary and Thomas for example are also truths . But we can agree to disagree on these points respectfully .
http://members.iinet.net.au/~curran/smiles_files/image101.gif

17th March 2007, 12:14 AM
Soph said regarding Aunt Clair:

It truly amazes me that a Christian would idolize the one who betrayed our Blessed Lord.
Patti:
[quote]I don't think that what Aunt Clair believes and does could be classified as idolizing. She learns from avatars while projecting. She knows what she's doing. Idolize implies blind devotion. I would hardly call Aunt Clair blind.
Thankyou .

The word Christian has many meanings, as you know. There are a number of people who consider the Apocrypha to be as authoritative as the King James Bible. And, they have as much right to call themselves Christians as any other.

I agree . How can any Christian possibly believe that what has been bound is the only Gospel ? Please read the history of the foundations of the NEW Testament and learn.Scrolls and codices which were not acceptable to the church were burnt or buried or merely left shelved . Many are in the vatican and not allowed to be read .

Sometimes the church depended on the discernment of one human being in the Bishop Ireneaus . This is hardly a man of God . He arranged for the murders of humans to suppress ideas of a Goddess and other ideas he found politically incorrect .

I do love Christ . I have read every part of the Bible many times over . I believe in my heart of hearts that apocrypha and gnosticism are valid aspects of Christianity .

Aunt Clair, I would never ridiculize someone because of a post (I had suffere it, so I never do it) But anyway, I am going now to a group in wich a lady can speak to GOD itself (if she lies shes very good at it) I hear some of what God said about us and reincarnation and what she said is that Jesus was HUMAN in ALL the meaning of being human. Period, she never talk about stuff like that. Personally I do believe in the miracles and knwoledge but no in stuff like that, I mean, it can be written by everyone dont you think?
I do not believe that Christ was entirely human . I believe he is an avatar which is a emanation of the Godhead entering into a human form to teach , heal , inspire , uplift .. I believe in a Cosmic Christ which continues to appear as a spirit teacher to humanity .

I do believe the Gospel of Judas is truth

http://www.psyche.com/psyche/meta/gjudas_reaction.html

and I do believe that the Gospels of Mary and Thomas for example are also truths . But we can agree to disagree on these points respectfully .
http://members.iinet.net.au/~curran/smiles_files/image101.gif[/quote:3b1nhvvt]
How can any Christian believe that there are only Four Gospels? I do not question that some reject the idea. You have a right to do that. I think I never denied your right to believe in whatever you wish. But why should I believe in such things? You have given me no reason.

On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons why one might believe that the four Gospels are sufficient for man's salvation. I would point to the great saints such as Ireneaus, for example.

And if the Four Gospels are sufficient, then other so-called gospels are unnecessary.

Tempestinateapot
17th March 2007, 02:42 AM
Soph said:
Every yang will have its yin -- and so it is, the Light of Christ is met by the Darkness of Satan.

So I would advise great discernment lest one be walking into darkness.As this was directed at me and others of like mind, I will answer. You really love to get these passive/aggressive zingers in, don't you? And, yet you play completely innocent, accusing the moderators of all kinds of imagined wrongs to you. It's really getting old. You can keep accusing us of all kinds of wrongs, but you manage to continue to slip these knds of statments in, and they don't get edited or deleted. And, your complaints on a couple of other threads are still standing there.

You think I am walking into darkness? I would say that you are walking towards a lot of confusion and some absurd time spent in the hollow heavens until you finally understand. Isn't that great, we both have an opinion on the subject.

19th March 2007, 03:45 PM
Soph said:
Every yang will have its yin -- and so it is, the Light of Christ is met by the Darkness of Satan.

So I would advise great discernment lest one be walking into darkness.As this was directed at me and others of like mind, I will answer. You really love to get these passive/aggressive zingers in, don't you? And, yet you play completely innocent, accusing the moderators of all kinds of imagined wrongs to you. It's really getting old. You can keep accusing us of all kinds of wrongs, but you manage to continue to slip these knds of statments in, and they don't get edited or deleted. And, your complaints on a couple of other threads are still standing there.

You think I am walking into darkness? I would say that you are walking towards a lot of confusion and some absurd time spent in the hollow heavens until you finally understand. Isn't that great, we both have an opinion on the subject.
Why so sensitive? I was responding to Aunt Clair. And she replied.

There was no 'zinger,' no accusation, no mention of moderators I was simply urging her to be cautious, from a genuine concern for her safety. For the Powers of Darkness do not rest in their desire to confuse us.