Read Carl Jung, But yes, there are truths to astro-theology... You must be stuck in your own contexts, cause all of it is going over your head...
I hate fiction personally. So, post up your evidence of the gawds answering prayers and compare your imaginary gawd to someone else's in order that we can compare and contrast which of the gawds man has determined worthy of his worship. There is one truth for all the gawds, thy are made by man for his solace and convenience. Not a single writing exists by any gawd. no evidence of any said gawd, none, not one. That is the truth. Remember when you make a claim it is on you to prove it. I have proven my claim as we know it now. I am willing to admit being wrong, so far that day has not come in the last 50 years I have been alive.
I am still waiting for your list of which prayers the gawds have answered and the ones unanswered so we can compare those ridiculous claims. Since you are likely not to accept the real truth and show us anything other than circular evidence free proclamations of devotion passed down to you through indoctrination and social programming, I will humor you. i have proven that everything about any of the gawds are man conceived, man written, man selected, man approved with zero evidence of any divine collaboration. hence, the premise that the gawds are nothing more than one of man's ancient tribal inventions, possibly one of our worse inventions because of the false hopes to satisfy man's fear of doing what the rest of nature does, die and transform into other forms of energy to feed the earth in a continuous natural cycle. Fear mongering upon the selfishness of humanity, nothing is more selfish than wanting to live forever and claiming some weird advantage over eternity because of one of the 1000s of gawds you selected (another man made choice).
Whoops. I thought you were the one who spoke about the gawds answering prayers. My bad. Long ass weekend. It would not be the first time I have screwed that up bouncing around threads. I apologize if I mixed you up.
The ironic thing about this thread is that the op is wrong about so many things. Truth isn't so apperent Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
By the title I assumed this was an anti Christian/Catholic thread, or at least a thread about how Mary's Immaculate conception was a deception. But it appears as though an ass has been made of me. I remember reading that what has been translated as the "virgin Mary" should have been translated as " the young girl Mary". Any thoughts? Sent from my HTCONE using Grasscity Forum mobile app
The idea of knowledge being a sin is the basis of the Judeo-Christian lie, and has done more harm to the human race than any other idea.
This works with my definition of truth. Truth is the meaning of a thing. The meaning is almost always evident, without the knowledge.
Well, that is true. I'm just going off the top of my head here in case any specifics are wrong, but I don't think they will be. The 'virgin birth' is supposed to be a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14, commonly translated: 'Behold! The virgin shall conceive...' The word translated 'virgin' is 'almah,' which means young girl. I'm pretty sure there is a section in the bible which refers to an almah who is a prostitute, thus disproving the translation 'virgin.' But yes, almah just means young girl...she MAY be a virgin, as she's a young girl, but the word used just literally means young girl.
Wasn't the problem with the translation the fact that it was translated from a translation? Sent from my HTCONE using Grasscity Forum mobile app
What I take from what you were saying...is that the greatest deception is that truth is something which can be known, as some specific knowledge. That it's something to be held onto, with everything being related to it. Instead, truth is simple actuality, before any 'knowledge' is even put into words by the mind. It is simply what is, without any words. Before words, the simple actuality. And that is what is implied by the 'sin of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' That's what I took from it, anyways.
Yea, basically. Good catch, a lot of people don't seem to understand that. The whole Christian bible is really based on the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. And apparently the Septuagint used a word which primarily meant virgin. Now, it's a bit complicated. Because the Septuagint was supposedly supposed to be a really closely watched and authorized translation. What we now consider to be the original Hebrew bible is based on the wording and vowel markings given to it by, well I can't remember the name, but it basically means 'the traditional writing.' And I think this actually has its origins something like 1,000 years ago, more recent then the Septuagint. But it's also complicated the other way again, lol, because Hebrew is a language which consists entirely of consonants. Originally, vowels were not written at all, and there weren't even spaces between words. It really was just an understood oral tradition of how to read it, and what the words were and how it was all vocalized. Markings representing the vowels weren't even created for quite a long time. So, the fact that the 'traditional' reading of the Hebrew scriptures wasn't written until quite late, doesn't tell us much. So anyways, the accepted Hebrew of it clearly says 'young girl,' and the idea of it saying 'virgin' really stems from the Greek Septuagint, though some Christians will argue that's the most reliable source.
Imho .. Truth is learned ie experience. Knowledge, on your other hand, is what is known without being given proof of said knowledge. The latter leaves no room for doubt, whereas the former has margin for error. My .02
Lol, then how do you know that your idea of 'truth' is not a product of what you've learned... and yet, you concede that you what learn, in experience, has margin for error. So, how are you sure your knowledge on 'truth' isn't erroneous? If one really digs into the inferences of your post, one is sure to find themself in a self-contained web of arbitrary defintions; and this occurs, this tautological web, because one needs to understand that truth is a frame of reference that encompasses the subject, and not vice versa.