I'm sorry, did not see that question. They must be interested cause they have come to a "GENERAL" religious forum. If they were not interested in other people's beliefs, they would only discuss in a forum that pertains to their religious views.

That's exactly the point.

To Cowboy,...

If you truly believe that all views are indeed on equal faith-based footing, then when I tell you that I believe that the Old Testament is nothing more than Zeus-like fables, and that Jesus was most likely a Mahayana Buddhist, and that the New Testament is most likely superstitious religious propaganda,....

Then you should say to me,....

Well, that's as valid a view as any other view.

~~~~~

In fact, this is all I have ever asked from you since we met on these forums.

Just acknowledge that my views have just as much credibility and are on just as equal footing with all other views.

Evidently you've already just done that without even realizing it anyway.

Yep all views are valid views according to Cowboy. That's nice to know.

And I'm not really interested in most people's views.

??? What are you talking about Abra? I've never once said your views were not as credible as any other. I've never once said you believe a pack of lies, I've never once said anything about your beliefs. Only expressed my beliefs on the subject at hand, as this is what this forum is for. It is for religious discussion. It is in a community of people with multiple different religious views. Again, if you wish to discuss with people that have only your beliefs, then I'm sure you can find a forum for that. Not in any way trying to run you off either, only a suggestion. In a general religion forum one person says this pertaining to this belief, then someone else will say this or that pertaining to that belief. They may or may not agree with one another and that is fine. We're all here just discussing and sharing our own personal beliefs.

Then let me ask you this, if you're not interested in other people's religious views, why are you in a GENERAL religion forum? Would seem to me if you only wished to discuss with people of your beliefs, you would go to that type of forum and again not a GENERAL religion forum.

Getting to know one another on a deeper level then "Hi my name is _____"

Really?

Unlike YOU, I don't believe that all beliefs are totally "faith based."

I am willing to ask for and offer evidence to support statements and claims that are purported to be facts.

Also, although I claim to be basically a pantheist, I don't know anyone or any church (or forum) that believes what I believe. My beliefs are constantly changing as I keep an open mind so that I can evaluate new information.

Prove to me the world is circular and not flat then. And that this "fact" is not taken on pure faith.

And on a spiritual level, prove to me without a doubt 100% positively true of any one particular religious belief.

Because of your peculiar idea that nothing can be proven, to offer evidence to you for anything in an effort to prove anything to you would be foolish and a waste of time as you have already stated your views on "proof."

I'm not either. With emphasis on the word "most".

However, I am quite interested in the views of some. I specifically find the views of atheists to be quite interesting. But we don't see a whole lot of that here.

There are also the standard "orthodox" views. Which I have no interest in at all. Often times I see atheists giving what I consider to be "standard atheistic views" which I don't find impressive.



She didn't say that she isn't interested in other people's views. She said she isn't interested in most people's views. The interesting views are rare.

Speaking of standard orthodox views and explanations Cowboy, I would definitely lump your views into that category. I never saw you post a view that I would recognize as being original. Every argument you make sounds like a recording from a typical orthodox Christian Evangelistic camp. So how can that be interesting? It's just the same old stuff being rehashed over and over again. I've already evaluated all of those arguments and explanations and found them to be lacking in reason.

~~~~

Note to Slowhand,....

Speaking about ancient myths and religions it's quite possible that if there is any truth to any of them, then their may very well be some truth in all of them.

In other words, if the Greeks were convinced that some supernatural entity was involved in creating a storm that destroyed an entire navy, and the Hebrews were convinced that some supernatural entity freed them from slavery, they could both be referring to precisely the same supernatural entity.

The fact that one culture called this entity "Poseidon" and the other called it "Yahweh" is really totally irrelevant.

To renounce a "God" simple because one culture gave it a name that isn't being recognized by another culture would be rather silly don't you think?

If there is a supernatural entity or "god" that intervenes in human affairs, then probably all the myths of interventions by a "god" are true. Why limit them by the names people chose to give them?

Also if some supernatural entity or consciousness was communicating with the ancient Hebrews via visions, dreams, burning bushes, or speaking from clouds, then why not accept that this same spiritual consciousness was also communicating with the ancient Greeks, the Celts, the Eastern Mystics, the American Indians, etc.

Why would the creator of all humanity limit himself to becoming exclusively obsessed with the Hebrews? Based on the biblical stores the Hebrews themselves were not so great.

In fact, King David, was supposedly an adulterer and murderer according to the Christian Bible. Gee whiz, that's not good.

I think even Islam tossed that part out when they created the Quran. They weren't about to accept that God would be supportive of King who had blatantly committed adultery and murder in the name of lust for a woman.

So even according to the biblical stories, this King David wasn't so righteous anyway. Why should some supernatural entity even bother with him? Much less make him a king and promise to offer his future descendant (i.e. supposedly Jesus ) his throne?

That part of Christian prophecy was clearly never fulfilled anyway.

Jesus was never awarded the throne of King David by God.

I think the story of Joshua and Moses is of course, also pure fiction along with the evil King David and Abraham.

If you take all of these "not so nice" characters out of the Bible and leave Christ in, you might have a great religion.

Absolutely. Why are you even asking for "proof" of anything Cowboy when you just got done proclaiming that everything is faith-based hearsay?



I feel much the same way. In fact, I would even hesitate to say that I actually 'believe' anything. I simply see where some things appear to have more credibility than others, or simply make more sense to me than others.

My spiritual views are not orthodox. There is no "religion" that reflects my spiritual views precisely in details. Certainly not Buddhism, although it's far closer than many other religions. Taoism would be even closer to my views.

Wicca is also a very abstract spiritual system that does not even support a dogmatic approach to spirituality. Although I study a lot of aspects of "Wicca" and more accurately of "Witchcraft and Shamanism", my own personal views concerning these topics are definitely unique. There can be no question about it. I've designed it that way on purpose. That was the whole point to it.

I view "Wicca" not as a "religion" but as a collection of rituals, practices, information, etc., from which I can draw upon for insight and spiritual growth and creativity.

These kinds of highly abstract spiritual views are difficult for people who depend upon very concrete dogmatic approach such as, "The Lord said this,....", and therefore you either do THIS or you are disobeying "The Lord".

I don't believe in that approach to spirituality. That's a very dogmatic approach to religion, and IMHO, it's not even a healthy form of spirituality.

Hi James

Come on now James...there is a world of difference between the one
God of the Muslims, Jews and Christians and the polytheistic Peyton
Place of the Greek Gods. Don't be ridiculous.

In many places in the bible the Abrahamic God is described as being
only one, un-named and un-nameable, infinite, non-human and beyond
our full understanding but everywhere and eternal and comprised of
all knowledge.

This is about as far from the soap-opera styled Greek mythology as
you can get.

The bible stories were of real people who of course had real failings. So I absolutely think your saying that the historically
more accurate parts of the bible are equivalent to complete fairy
tale fabrications really nonsense.

Of course the bible is not about God's preoccupation with David.
I view it as a parable about how God supports repentance and how
people can rise abover their errors and transgressions as well as
a negative example even among the elite.

There is a great amount of historical detail in the bible which
appears to be reasonably accurate including some of the biographical
narratives. If the rise and fall of various cultures is described
in a reasonably good historical way in the bible then many of the
human characters are likely to have lived as well. There certainly
is evidence of a Jewish Kingdom and succession of Kings in
Israel and Jerusalem as well as the Egyptian culture and likely
Jewish enslavement etc. Just because the descriptions of the lives
of Moses, Joseph, David etc. may not be perfectly accurate that
does not imply they never lived.



Even modern biographers have been known to be less than perfectly
accurate describing modern historical figures.



Each of the stories has to be assessed on its own merits. But
clearly the Greek mythologies are fables and the bible is not
in the same class. That does not mean that there are not good
lessons taught in Greek mythology. There are. But it is not about
real people and the bible certainly is about real people and
could have a good bit of truth in its descriptions although not
literally accurate in all instances.

Ditto.
My term "believe" is understood to be temporary until new evidence appears, I will hold one thin as making more sense that others.

Exactly.

When I say that I "believe" something I don't mean that I'm closed minded about it and could never be convinced to believe otherwise. That attitude right there is one that I see as being rather confined and unproductive.

Also there are things that don't require "belief". Cowboy used the idea that 2+2=4 as an example of something someone might "believe". That's not a belief. That's simply the result of a logical formalism. Change the definitions and rules of the formalism and obviously that result is going to change as well. In the meantime, as long as the formalism retains it's current rules and definitions then there's nothing to "believe" it's just a fact that 2+2=4 under those rules and definitions.

Getting into something far more abstract as to whether or not there is some form of spiritual consciousness associated with human existence is a totally different matter. Trying to put that into a concrete box like 2+2=4 is truly an oversimplification of the concept.

Talk about putting God in a BOX!

God would need to be truly mundane and limited to fit into a rigid mundane box like that.

That's totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

So you have one culture who views "god" as being multifaceted and taking on many different personas.

And then you have another culture that has created an extremely jealous egotistical view of god.

From my perspective this only tells me that these two cultures were wildly different in the way they decided to view the supernatural.

I don't buy into the whole idea of a single jealous godhead who won't tolerate any other images of god anyway. As far as I can see that was just the Hebrew's way of trying to gain a "Copyright" on God. Only their view of "god" is valid, and all other views of god are "false".

That's clearly a sign of a man-made religious propaganda to me.

This is why I much prefer the Eastern Mystical views of "god". They typically did not personify "god". Although this most certainly isn't true of all Eastern Religions. But it's true of Buddhism. It's quite false to think that Buddhists view the Buddha as a "god". They view Buddha as a mortal man who had become spiritually enlightened.

Taoism stays as far away from personifying "god" as is possible. And that is my own personal preference. (not necessarily Taoism, but the idea that "god" should not be personified or made into an idol image of any kind physical or mental)

The ultimate concept being that "god" is unknowable.

Wicca uses a concept of "gods" and "goddesses", but this is different. The "God" in Wicca is not the ultimate creator of everything. Neither is the "Goddess". They are both viewed as psychic manifestations of "god". The actual "god" remains unknowable just like in Taoism.

It would be grossly wrong to think that Wicca is polytheistic. It's not. I don't personally think that Greek Mythology was polytheistic either really. They recognized ZEUS as the "God of Gods". So they did personified the main Godhead, but all the other gods and goddesses after that were clearly not the "Main God". How could they be if Zeus is the "God of Gods".

Zeus would be equivalent to Yahweh in that sense. You might even think of all the other "gods and goddesses" in Greek mythology as being more like "Angels".

Even Christianity has their fair share of angels, archangels, saints, demons, and whatnot. It's hardly "monotheistic" either really. Yahweh is truly nothing more than the "God of Gods" in that religion too. Even he had a demigod son in Jesus born of a mortal Earthy human woman.

So in spite of you efforts to proclaim that the Greeks and Hebrews were far apart in their religious views, I disagree. They just used different terminology, etc. But the basic concepts were the same, right down to a main God who is appeased by BLOOD SACRIFICES.

How ironic would it be that the "real creator" of the universe should just coincidentally happen to deal in blood sacrifices, having a demigod son, and everything else that is so closely related to Greek Mythology.

So I'm supposed to believe that the Greeks made up a bunch of fairy tales that just accidentally happened to be almost identical to describing the behavior and character traits of the "real biblical god"?

Wow! Imagine that!

I don't think so. It's far more reasonable to recognize that all of these ancient fables are just very similar superstitions being created by mortal cultures.

Also why would the "Real God" ignore the Greeks?

That makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

How is that "being ridiculous?" What is the "world of difference?"

Actually the Greeks had a monotheistic view of God really. They viewed Zeus only, as the "God of Gods". All other gods and goddesses would necessarily be secondary to that. So really how is that any less monotheistic than the Hebrew religion that claims that a single Godhead proclaims that no other gods should be placed "before" him?

Both Zeus and Yahweh were recognized to be the "God of Gods".

They could both be referring to precisely the same God as far as I can see.

Both of these Gods were associated with being appeased by blood sacrifices being made in their honor.

Both of these Gods were associated with having "sons" that came to help people get to God. In the case of Zeus that son was Apollo who himself was a God (i.e. Born from a union of Zeus and Leto who was herself a Goddess, not a mortal woman). In the case of Yahweh it was Jesus who as a demigod (born of a virgin human female that had been miraculously impregnated by Yahweh)

Both of these Gods were associated with giving birth to demigods. In the case of Yahweh it was Jesus (as I just mentioned), in the case of Zeus it was Hercules, who had a different mission from Apollo).

Now compare both of these religions with things like Eastern Mysticism, Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca (or the ancient beliefs of the Celts), and even the American Indian's Wanka Tanka.

All of a sudden Greek mythology and Hebrew mythology almost look identical.