Killarican wrote:There's a reason why for milleniums across the globe why spirituality up until this day, remains ambiguous. For an All Knowing being, "god" did more harm then good when he/she/it decided to contact humans. :

And what if by harm did more good than bad from its own view trying the best it/he/she could?
oaky this is geeting to a :
I mean doing harm in order to help someone (someones a junkie their dealers are murdered by lets say a junkie said junkies now dont have drug need to leave or someone finds them speaks with authorities junkie get on detox from drugs(well on small scale at least this))
Bad example i could try for a better one but i think this will suffice..=p for now?

What about the Enochian angel Ophaniel?

I read in the CH Encyclopedia that he's both an angel and an immortal :silly:

I believe the Immortals in the CH Encyclopedia (and more not on there) are Gods/Goddesses. I don't call them Immortals. They are Gods/Goddesses to me. The Archangels are Immortals to me. But I have heard of some people Worshiping them. I am curious of that. Perhaps they could be classed as Gods/Goddesses too.

As for the Archangels, they respect them, even work with them too sometimes. It happens. So the Archangels are fine with the Gods/Goddesses and and the Gods/Goddesses are fine with them. Angels like them and Respect them too, I guess.

Anubis says He is a God to some. He is to me too. I think He may be my God too that I will worship (still deciding, along with Wadjet and the other Egyptian Gods/Goddesses) But they are not Gods/Goddesses to all. I believe Anubis is the Higher Power among the others, but perhaps there is something else that I do not know of. I'm not sure, but I cannot grasp it.

Na'rayah Earth wrote:

I'm also thinking, where it says in the Bible (sorry to bring up religion guys) where it says that God says, you must not worship any other Deity/God other than himself, it especially makes sense to me, if we consider Immortals as Fallen Angels.

I'm not saying I AGREE with this said in the Bible, I'm just saying it makes more sense then.

Just a thought I had now

I haven't read the whole thread but i'm just going to reply to this quickly.

I've never actually read the bible myself although i obviously know about some things and key points, i've never gone out of my way to read it. However, to my unstanding the bible is highly edited and was changed to satisfy personal views, greed and corruption and so forth. I mean not just the big things. Little things edited by dukes, popes, etc, because they disagreed with what was written.
Have you ever heard of the saying, the "jealous" god? Apparently, it's told that the commandment "Though Shalt Not Worship False Idols" was added because god(the christian/New testament) was a "jealous" god and didn't like other people worshipping other deities.
In my opinion, that was added probably because, first, they didn't want people seeking out other religions or practices, One god = One religion. That was likely the mindset the church wanted to place upon people in those days.
Secondly i think that it may have been because the church, emporers, etc, may have been jealous of other religions themselves. That may sound odd, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. It sounds like a funny term, to call a god "jealous", yet don't they also have the mindset that jealously is a sin?
Anyway, my point is that you can't really use that as any kind of evidence to suggest that Immortals/gods of other religions are really just fallen angels because the bible was made/edited to deny the worthiness of other religions by orders of several popes, emporers and so forth. The bible is bound to put anything that's not christian in a negative light because that's what the people wanted of the time. I personally don't think it's fair to use that as any kind of proof about other god/desses. 2cents

Sorry if that came across like i was just bluntly knocking what you said. Not my intention to knock other opinions. I just wanted to put that forward.

What's the deciding factor on choosing which parts were "edited" and which weren't? Ideas cannot be broken. Perhaps this is the way things were meant to be in the world. We should all be asking "how much is independent?". At this time theirs no satisfying answer for that no matter what one chooses to believe.

If I had the time I could go into a lot of things like what I mentioned. Another example ( GETTING EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL HERE ) is the book of genesis having two narratives of the creation of man (betcha didn't know that) in which there are 2 different words being translated into "man"... In chapter 1 verse 27 the word for man would be better translated generic man or common man. Also note that here it says he created male AND female. In chapter 2 verse 8 the word for man could have been better translated as royal or high man...Notice that here it only refers to "the man" being placed in the garden .. so the sixth day all the races were created... and the eighth day ADAM was made.... from whose lineage Jesus would come


Oh yeah another thing, the word rib is translated from a word that means "the curve"... and that could be deoxy(RIB)onucleic acid ...DNA

On a side note, to give you a one word stick of dynamite to throw in some preachers lap, ( the ones that say the king james bible is THE word of GOD.) in chapter one verse 28, God tells man to "replenish the earth"... look up the word replenish in the dictionary.. it means to replace what once was plentiful and has been depleted... That kinda boogars up the notion that this planet is only 6,000 years old... something happenned to wipe out life and we are the replacements....


I could go on and on ... ( I told ya my mind is highly analytical ) basically what I am saying is the truth is in the bible... just that you have to dig it out for yourself... don't rely on some man that is being paid to tell you what the bible says

Killarican wrote:What's the deciding factor on choosing which parts were "edited" and which weren't? Ideas cannot be broken.

Do you mean, how do i know which parts are or are very likely to be edited.. Good question.

I'm not sure what to say, it's simply a matter of using insight really.

The chances are, you can probably look some of it up. Isn't the book of enoch and the gospel of thomas well known for having been removed...
I remember reading that in the book of thomas, it said something to the effect of, men didn't have to go to church because their body was a temple..man carried god in his heart. I believe, and i think Crone said this once too, that they removed that because they wanted people to come to church so they could get donations/tithing. Which comes across as very logical and makes sense.
If you're asking about what i said about the "jealous" god.. Well, again, more than anything, it's using my own insight. I personally thought it was pretty obvious that it was made up. 2cents
I was reading what Huff said on the other page, and that kind of links in to what i said as well.

Killarican wrote:We should all be asking "how much is independent?".

I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you mean by that...

Noc wrote:These angels aren't present in all religious or spiritual backgrounds and mythology, so to involve them as if they do apply and to set them so apart from immortals of other cultures, would be placing one belief system as superior.. which I think is wrong.

It makes sense for one who is of that religion and devoutly so, but otherwise not so much. If one is going to ask what the high angels think of all immortals, it should also be asked what immortals of each and every pantheon think of eachother.
Supreme "God" force is different in all cultures.

:thumbup:

I cannot say which parts of the Old Testament were altered, but I have come across texts within the New Testament that were obviously altered. It is obvious if you know the language of the time, because whoever altered the text didn't take enough care in some parts and the changes stand out in these parts because:
1) The language used is not consistent with the main writer's style, but more obviously
2)Some of the words used as a replacement to the original writing were not in use yet at the time the original writer lived. They were created later on (meaning 300 or 500 years later). This was something easily missed at the time the changes occurred because few people could study the language and books where scarce. The only people who had the knowledge and material to realize that the original text was altered this way where most probably followers or successors of the people who altered the text. When you had the original manuscript or one of the few copies available worldwide it was easily to alter something and you could be assured that whoever copied the manuscript would not notice, because the closest copy of the same text could be located so far away that no one would make that trip just to see if there are any differences between the two copies. Furthermore, if by chance two copies of the same manuscript happened to be at the same place at the same time, any differences between the two would be considered a mistake made by the person who copied one of the manuscripts.
It is still difficult today to gain access to such a manuscript to check for differences between today's printed versions and the manuscript, but you can find parts of the text that have mistakes in grammar that the rest of the text hasn't (therefore can't be attributed to the original writer's lack of knowledge on the language) or words that belong to category 2 above.

Bah. The bible and most religious texts in general contain too many plot-holes and inconsistencies to be taken seriously. I am not of the stance that all the problems and contradictions we have are of man's doing alone.

What most of us can collectively agree on is that that there has been a super natural unseen influential force amongst us humans since the dawn of time. Their is a Positive Force, and A negative force, and depending on the region and culture they take up "Forms".

As man has evolved gaining intelligence, the ability to rationalize, awareness of all that is around him, they set out exploring, seeking answers, attempting to understand our curious world, and along the way they adopted numerous philosophies as they spread across the globe. Populating the world, building cities of it's own, and collecting knowledge from the far corners of the globe. Evolving cultures and civilizations form and embrace their own explanations for the universe and its mysteries, giving rise to two divergent views mysticism vs faith.

Mysticism, mans study of science and magic, the seen and unseen forces which shape the world around us. Faith The view that man must put his trust in powers beyond mortal understanding to determine fate and establish set ethical and moral guidelines to live by.

As the Influential Force remained, Over time humans become convinced that "spirits" dwell among them on this earth and in places outside the physical world. We've called them many names. While they could not directly commune with these entities, they believed contact was possible. Eventually comes the perfecting arts of conjuring and summoning these beings. Inspirational/Chanelled writing, the creation of religious texts. Some forms claimed to be creators of the universe, others claimed to be messengers and sent from the "source.".

It wasn't one man that wrote the bible. Over century's dozens of people have added and taken away from it as they truly felt inspired by God, otherwise they lied and left permanent damage on this earth that "God" let them get away with.

Some spiritual frames have more in common then some people think. The controversy starts where one particular spiritual ideology man-made or inspired claims itself supreme to all others. Or the idea that "All Paths lead to God."

I'll paste a short story as an example to convey my message. In Lukimi Eshu/Ellegua is a trickster diety. He is Chaos and Trickery. Some cultures in brazil believe him to be a primitive version of the "devil".

"Ellegua plays frequently by leading mortals to temptation and possible tribulation in the hopes that the experience will lead ultimately to their maturation. In this way he is certainly a difficult teacher, but in the end is usually found to be a good one. As an example of this, let us look at one of his patakis or stories of the faith.[3] Èṣù was walking down a road one day, wearing a hat that was red on one side and black on the other. Sometime after he entered a village which the road went through, the villagers who had seen him began arguing about whether the stranger's hat was black or red. The villagers on one side of the road had only been capable of seeing the black side, and the villagers on the other side had only been capable of seeing the red one. They soon came to blows over the disagreement which caused him to turn back and rebuke them, revealing to them how one's perspective can be as correct as another person's even when they appear to be diametrically opposed to each other. He then left them with a stern warning about how closed-mindedness can cause one to be made a fool. In other versions of this tale, the two halves of the village were not stopped short of extreme violence; they actually annihilated each other, and Èṣù laughed at the result, saying "Bringing strife is my greatest joy". "

Interpreting the story a certain way can definitely support that all spiritualities while looked at differently, are in core essence the same. It's familiar to us on an obvious level because people really do kill each other and cause violence and hate crimes over beliefs, that are not that much different.

What Ellegua represents for me is the Potential of interference in Humankind. Taking advantage of our senses. They tell us what is "real" and what "isnt" and the rest remains ambigous.

I cannot accept that a God leave's things be, and lets us fight over each other to who or what it is, and what it has left behind for us on this planet thousands of years ago. The world is already in the shape it's in and it was either intended to be that way or wasn't.

Their is evidence of alteration in ancient scriptures but their is no way to measure what was altered and what remains, I dont think it really matters much anymore it is all quite irrelevant.

The chances are, you can probably look some of it up. Isn't the book of enoch and the gospel of thomas well known for having been removed...

Quite a lot of gnostic gospels some rejected from biblical canon. Others were lost or destroyed in time, some yet to be discovered to this day. The likely reason why Enoch got rejected was it's main "theme". It talks a lot of Enoch being "taken" from god literally. And Traveling the heavens and space, being shown around the world, being picked up by chariots inhabited by "angelic" beings that took him around the world within minutes. Also some of these beings being attracted to humans, created off-spring with them. But it went into great detail with it. It would sound like an ancient alien encounter. Besides this, the book of Enoch has to be one of the most overzealous books I've ever read. It's pretty straightforward on what's righteous, punishable, or evil. Righteousness, damnation, destroying all idolatry, killing sinners, "Purging" the earth from all the works of men, to uphold Godliness and "righteousness"...

-Apocalypse of Peter was removed because God told Peter a "secret" that hell is not really eternal.

A highly contentious section which explains that in the end God will save all sinners from their plight in Hell:

"My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, ... It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men... "[1][2][3]

Thus, sinners will finally be saved by the prayers of those in heaven. Peter then orders his son Clement not to speak of this revelation since God had told Peter to keep it secret:

[and God said]"... thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin."

-Their is a gospel, I believe it is the Secret gnostic gospel of mark, which their is a few passages in which Jesus is baptizing a young man, but it is sort of infered or implied that it was more then that, which lead some to think it was a homosexual act by the son of god.

I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you mean by that...

How much is "godly" inspired or of external influence vs man-made mumbo jumbo.

Their is no first hand accounts of Jesus life that was fresh. Most historians believe the events surrounding Jesus were written 30-50 years after his death. But most of it was spread word of mouth.

Their is no first hand accounts of Jesus life that was fresh. Most historians believe the events surrounding Jesus were written 30-50 years after his death. But most of it was spread word of mouth.

Actually, from what I have read elsewhere, the accounts were hidden 30-50 years later due to the punishment for having them in your possession. They were written (historically saying) as they were happening, or shortly thereafter. From what I have read, most of it was written as letters to other "countries", while Jesus was still alive.

The scrolls were hidden after he was killed to protect them and to hide them.