|
Post by corab on Jun 15, 2008 22:08:13 GMT
Well, their adventures on TFM were short lived. Either they've unsubscribed straightaway, or they were banned on the spot. Indeed: who's next?
|
|
|
Post by bluebeard on Jun 15, 2008 23:19:05 GMT
This is exactly the kind of manipulation and lies that has been giving Christianity a bad name. Too bad.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jun 16, 2008 0:25:29 GMT
- the Psalm nowhere says that the gods are deprived of their divinity True. Immorality does not necessarily follow upon divinity, though most cultures feel it does. Again, true. In Genesis, their loss of immortality is a consequence of eating that fruit. As so become "like" Gods, knowing good from evil. But they die. Like people. Aside from intentionally sticking temptation in their midst, the Gods (for it is Elohim here; plural of "god"; as well as the always interesting "Yahweh Elohim" construct) didn't do it to them. T'would follow an established pattern. God begats himself as his own sun/son. Happens in a few places (a good example being Osiris and Horus) Why? Do we have any evidence that the Most High requires worship? [/quote]
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jun 16, 2008 0:28:30 GMT
Bro. Tamrin scored the 888th post. Bro. Prom, I'm missing the significance of 888 (except in the palindrome sense). Could you share that with us? It was a very cool post, BTW
|
|
|
Post by droche on Jun 16, 2008 1:01:31 GMT
Well, their adventures on TFM were short lived. Either they've unsubscribed straightaway, or they were banned on the spot. Indeed: who's next? Looks like the administrators on TFM locked the topic. Good for them.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jun 16, 2008 1:14:50 GMT
Just out of idle curiosity, and not having followed this thread, did anyone point out that a large part of Jesus' ministry was spent attacking religion. He attacked both religious ideas and religious leaders. His message was to bypass religion, with its doctrines, sects, services and programs, and look for the truth of who God is within your own being, because God speaks to the hearts of mankind.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jun 16, 2008 1:43:36 GMT
I am disappointed that the Angelos have stopped posting.
I was awaiting with keen interest the answer to why one would worship the god of the Old Testament (Jehovah) rather than his father The Most High
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jun 16, 2008 1:47:25 GMT
Most excellent point, Bro. Ma'at. Is a reason I asked, earlier, if God really desires worship. And I'm glad to see you, likewise, came out from under the table Bro. Prom, thanks for filling me in on the 888 thing. I dabble, occasionally, in gematria but I'm not especially good at it. And I'm glad this thread was never locked. And that we didn't dismiss Elshama out of hand. I'm proud of our level playing field here, something the AntiMasons will never provide in their forums. While Freemasons who wander into their sites often find themselves outnumbered, as Elshamah did here, Elshamah's posts were not deleted or edited, as are the posts of Freemasons at AntiMasonic forums. And when Elshamah left, Elshamah left. S/he/they was/were not driven out. I think it's important it worked out that way. Though, truth be told, I suspect Elshamah still lurks here. And, so, s/he/they should know the door remains open.
|
|
|
Post by droche on Jun 16, 2008 1:55:16 GMT
I don't recall seeing that being brought up in the thread, but I can't remember everything posted and it may have been mentioned. The Religious Society of Friends' (Quakers) are built on that very principle- the Light Within- that is, God can speak to every person. I would think that such people as Elshamah would have adamantly rejected that doctrine, seeing that they and others of the same school of thought feel strongly that only through a strict and narrow interpretation of the scriptures, and only by acknowledging that Jesus Christ is the sole savior of the human race can one reach God.
I have tried to stay away from the theological aspects of this discussion, but feel compelled to say now that my own personal belief is that it is not so much Christ the person, but what he said and taught that is important. My impression of him is that he was not the type of person who would demand that people bow down and worship Him, but that they behave and act as he taught. When he said that the only way to the Kingdom of Heaven is through Me, I don't think he meant that in a personal sense, I think he meant that in a context of what he was teaching and saying was the appropriate way of life. If someone else said the same things as he did, I don't think he would reject that person just because it was not him who was saying it. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 16, 2008 2:14:41 GMT
Just out of idle curiosity, and not having followed this thread, did anyone point out that a large part of Jesus' ministry was spent attacking religion. He attacked both religious ideas and religious leaders. His message was to bypass religion, with its doctrines, sects, services and programs, and look for the truth of who God is within your own being, because God speaks to the hearts of mankind. Maat Love is the law, love under will.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 16, 2008 2:37:39 GMT
Do we have any evidence that the Most High requires worship? None whatever. I doubt the ultimate universal intellegence deigns to take notice of us. Our local deities, on the other hand, need our worship.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jun 16, 2008 6:31:27 GMT
Brothers et al, Just a point of interest. I did a search on the following quote: My favorite definition of religion is "a misinterpretation of mythology." The misinterpretation consists precisely in attributing historical references to symbols which properly are spiritual in their reference. -- Joseph Campbell And found a delightful read that reflects much of some of the concepts shared in this thread. It's a hoot to read Joe and reflect on all that we collectively wrote on this thread. Here it is: www.whidbey.net/parrott/toms.htmEnjoy! P What a great read. Thanks P. Here's another interesting point/observation:
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jun 16, 2008 6:49:42 GMT
Though, truth be told, I suspect Elshamah still lurks here. And, so, s/he/they should know the door remains open. According to latest stats he/she's still visiting and presumably reading: Last Login Date: Today at 3:56am
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jun 16, 2008 7:53:18 GMT
>Do we have any evidence that the Most High requires worship?
Karen
I missed your post of the above - had a busy day
The answer is already in the lodge in the use of "worshipful" as a title and in the expression "work and worship" - note the similarity of the words
"The term ‘worship’ in the [Old Testament] translates the Hebrew word meaning ‘to bow down, prostrate oneself,’ a posture indicating reverence and homage given to a lord, whether human or divine. The concept of worship is expressed by the term ‘serve.’ In general, the worship given to God was modeled after the service given to human sovereigns."
Here we have worship and work very closely related.
So perhaps worship of the Most High is usefully conducted by carrying out the Divine Plan
In a religious context worship is used in the sense of adoration but that is perhaps of less use to the Most High than willing workers in the quarries
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jun 16, 2008 9:07:36 GMT
Well, Bro Cora, I can tell you one Forum where he has already been pre-banned and if he tries to join I will cast him into the exterior darkness (he should like that little Biblical touch) ;D
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Jun 16, 2008 18:49:08 GMT
Worship comes from "worthing," literally rooted in "worth-ship." Worship is the practice and state of worthing; the practice and state of showing that what it is that is the focus of your attention is valuable in your eyes and in your practices. P worship (n.) O.E. worðscip, wurðscip (Anglian), weorðscipe (W.Saxon) "condition of being worthy, honor, renown," from weorð "worthy" (see worth) + -scipe (see -ship). Sense of "reverence paid to a supernatural or divine being" is first recorded c.1300. The original sense is preserved in the title worshipful (c.1300). The verb is recorded from c.1200.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jun 16, 2008 21:00:31 GMT
"The term ‘worship’ in the [Old Testament] translates the Hebrew word meaning ‘to bow down, prostrate oneself,’ a posture indicating reverence and homage given to a lord, whether human or divine. The concept of worship is expressed by the term ‘serve.’ In general, the worship given to God was modeled after the service given to human sovereigns." Source? From a work of mine, in progress: Rendering the ‘Queen of Sheba’ as the ‘Queen of the Seven-fold Oath’ is more than simply a literal translation of the word 'Sheba' (Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, #7650) : It accords with Josephus having said she was the Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia (Antiq. Bk.8, 6:5), with the Levant having been the Egyptian province of Retjenu (Steindorff & Seele, When Egypt Ruled the East, p.105), and with Solomon being said to have made affinity with Pharaoh (I Kings 3:1). Egypt still laid claim to Retjenu and, upon hearing reports of local kings establishing themselves upon 'Egyptian' soil, would have tested them with 'hard questions' (I Kings 10:1) seeking assurances that the upstarts still acknowledged Egypt's overall sovereignty. V. Rev. E.W. Heaton, in writing about Solomon's New Men (p.168), tells us:
The Canaanite kings were allowed to retain their thrones on condition that they submitted to vassal treaties which bound them in personal obedience to the Pharaoh. Despite the formal humiliation which this status entailed ('seven times on the belly and seven times on the back' was the salutation expected by the Pharaoh), the vassal kings were, in fact, permitted a considerable degree of independence and continued to recruit their own armies, engage in their petty wars and even reduce their royal neighbours to vassaldom.
|
|
|
Post by elshamah on Aug 3, 2008 11:44:36 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 3, 2008 12:44:14 GMT
What complete and utter rubbish! I guess such obviously clinically deranged sites are useful in the early stages of developing appropriate discrimination (the first step on the path of wisdom). In Australia we call such material bullsh*t (one especially needs to be attuned to the BS factor when assessing information on the net). To our messenger/s of a false god I ask, if we Masons are into such merciless victimization, why after their persistent, deceitful libels have we continued to allow him, her or them such liberty?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Aug 3, 2008 13:29:53 GMT
Chick tracts make me giggle, especially the classic "The Curse of Baphomet." Why was the preacher dude carrying around a picture of Levi's Baphomet in his car anyway? Hmmm...
|
|