?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Discussing Spirituality's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends]

Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Discussing Spirituality's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]
Monday, April 2nd, 2007
9:56 am
[evilgrins]
possibly the most ridiculous religious question ever
10:14 AM 3/11/07 · When you think about it, there's kind of a disturbing similarity. I refer to the circumstances upon which Jesus' mother got (how to put this delicately?) knocked up. She's lying there in bed one night when she finds herself very aware of a presence, enveloped in an all encompassing bright light, and after an indeterminable amount of time she wakes to find she'd been left with a (if you will) implant.

This resulted in a very healthy child with a number of unusual abilities who we all know and love. Well, all of us know and some of us love...those rather tight in their masculinity just like him bunches and give him proper respect.

However, let us take the circumstances of the impregnation that brought Jesus about.

Is it just me or does this seem remotely similar to any number of alien abduction scenarios?

Then there's all the mythos/conspiracy theories regarding a human/alien hybrid.

So, would you say this is the most ridiculous religious notion you've ever heard?

Current Mood: weird
Friday, March 16th, 2007
8:20 am
[evilgrins]
Casper the Holy Ghost...
...the holiest ghost you'll know...

11:45 PM 3/15/07 · I have no idea why this is such an issue for me. You can place me into a discussion on any religion or mythology, really kinda the same thing actually, and I do okay but this one thing continues to elude me. Probably why I bop it around so much...

...hoping for a little enlightenment.

So, the reigning popular view is that Jesus & God weren't so much child & father so much as the same being in two forms. While God was Jesus, walking around Earth and doing his thing, God was also up in Heaven doing whatever it was It does up there on a daily basis; probably playing ping pong with Itself. Jesus kicks the bucket, with more than a little help from the Roman Empire, and is back up in Heaven all tight with daddy again.

Yeah, mostly a very silly and grossly innaccurate accounting but work with me. I'm feeling this out and I'm working a bout with insomnia to boot.

The principe explanation for God & Jesus being one and the same being, least so far as the one that keeps getting bopped over my head anytime someone finds I don't accept this, is that Heaven is ruled by a kind of Trinity: Father, Son, & Holy Ghost. Personally, that really doesn't make anything clear to me, really just confuses the matter further, but I get it on so many fronts that clearly it makes sense to a number of folks.

My principle problem with it has always been that while Jesus was still in the process of being executed, he looks up to the skies and screams out "Father, why have you forsaken me?"...

...or so it goes. I mean, I'm fairly certain that's not a direct Bible quote...just as I know that Jesus didn't actually speak English so he literally never said that. Something to that effect in whatever language he spoke way back when was said and it's made it into the literature, not to mention dramatic effect in some movies, and folks know he said it.

The reason that always bugged me was because it basically means he was calling out to himself and wondering why he'd betrayed/abandoned himself.

Call me funny, you wouldn't be the first, but the thought of an all powerful being suffering from multiple personality disorder does not comfort me late at night when I can't sleep. Or really any other time...

...feel free to touch on that though it's not the main question of this post.

So...Father and Son and Holy Ghost. First one is presumedly God, which means that the Son is likely Jesus. This leaves the Holy Ghost and a bit of confusion I've not really addressed. While I'm fairly certain the nature of it will come down to God in some other format...

...would someone explain to me who or what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be?

Current Mood: determined
Monday, March 12th, 2007
8:09 am
[evilgrins]
footsteps on the path
Whatever your spiritual/religious belief system is, when the time comes that you pass from this Existance and go into the Next, how do you think you'll feel when you discover whatever it is you think you know as the Truth turns out not to be?

Current Mood: awake
Tuesday, February 27th, 2007
8:04 am
[evilgrins]
There's much of the Torah in the Bible...
...but I think they left some stuff out.

8:13 PM 2/26/07 · Those more learned than I can probably reflect on this and bring it into clearer focus. Then again, one such type person actually got me onto this line of thought about 5 months back when he revealed to me that something a lot of Christians are aware of isn't actually mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Keeping in mind that not all of the faith actually believe in a Devil or Hell for that matter, this still seems kinda odd for me.

Actually, I'm a bit confused how the faith can exist without a bad place really. Isn't that the dividing line? Lead what is deemed the ideal life and go onto Heaven but if you're bad you're gonna burn...

The story that many know goes that the Devil was once an angel by the name of Lucifer and was among God's favorites. There was some disagreement, I've heard various versions of what it may've been about, and it was of such magnitude that Lucifer was booted out of Heaven and locked in the basement; a cute colorful reference I've heard used for Hell sometimes. Other angels were likewise knocked down there, guess Lucifer had a gang, and that was about that.

This story is not in the Bible in any variation that I am aware of...yet many of the faithful know it. After I learned it wasn't in the Bible I chatted with what few friends I have that like that sort of thing, even those that just label it as Christian mythology. All were as surprised as me that it's not in there.

The thought occurs to me that a lot of what is in the Bible is drawn from the Torah, as Christianity was literally spawned from Judaism. As much as the really religious like to slam Dan Brown there are things he's gone on about that tracks with other religious history I've heard; and by heard I mean from you guys. When the Bible was first being put into print, or I suppose inscribed might be more accurate, there was a great council/committee assembled to undergo the task. There was much debating among them about what should go into the Bible and what should not. Stuff like the Gospel of Judas Escariot was definitely out for understanable reasons...

...although how a guy can be deemed a traitor before he even had the thought of betraying anyone escapes me...

...so what I'm wondering is if the story regarding the fall of Lucifer and his rebirth as the Devil might've been in the Torah and just not made the cut for getting into the Bible. Makes me wonder what other things weren't included.

There's another tale I'm familiar with, of so called Christian mythology, that I'm fairly positive isn't in the Bible...but I could be wrong; let me know. It goes along the lines that Adam & Eve were not the first two humans...or more precisely Eve wasn't the first woman. God created a man and a woman and dubbed them Adam & Lilith and they were equal. Apparently upon their first coupling Adam had a major problem with the fact that Lilith wished to be on top, complained to God...and thus Eve was created from a part of Adam.

I've always had a problem with this story, not the least of which is I'm not sure of its authenticity. I know it's a truly ancient tale, and it would go a long way to fitting the timeframe's belief in woman are meant to be inferior to men as was the custom at the time. Not the least of which that I didn't think any coupling was going on in the Garden of Eden, thought that didn't come up as the fun activity we all know and love until much after the expulsion from paradise...

...and not to get too personal, possibly worthy of a different type of community, that's actually a favorite position of mine. Adam clearly had issues!

Regardless, I don't recall any mention of Lilith in the Bible, as the first woman or otherwise. Although history has seen fit to make most mentionings of her as some form of demon.

My question is are these tales, and others I'm not aware of, accurate? Were they originally in the Torah and not included in the Bible for some reason? Is it possible they were just of the oral tradition and deemed unnecessary to be included in the Bible?

Better still, do you know either of these two stories and where do you know them from?

Current Mood: enthralled
Friday, February 16th, 2007
11:39 am
[evilgrins]
it's all kinda basic really
Maybe it's my whole acknowledging more than one God thing but when you come right down to it there's a little something funny in the water here. I mean the Greeks had the god Zeus and his extended family to worshipm the Norse had Odin and his extended family to worship, the Wiccans have Gaea, the Egyptians...you get the idea. It's pretty much a deity and his or her bretheren guarding over a specific group of people.

When Moses popped up with his whole "Let my people go!" riff he was a representative of their god (who is generally just known as 'God'; it;'s all about the capital G wth this one). The Egyptians did not discredit the existance of this deity but simply labelled It has was appropriate from their point of view; God of the Jews.

Time goes on, things change, a nice wholesome virgin girl gives birth to Jesus/Yeshua/whatever name you choose to refer to him by; the son of God (big G). For the longest time I didn't wholly buy that the Christians, as a whole, believed Jesus was actually God given flesh and not just the son of...but a post I made to that effect a couple weeks back has shown otherwise. However, this does represent a mildly odd problem when you think about it...

...least when I do.

The Jews worship God.

The Christians worship Jesus.

While it can be argued, and it is by many of them, that the Christians acknowledge that Jesus is in fact God (little g)...the Jews do not share this opinion. Seeing as it was their God (big G) first then it stands to reason they should be the authority on this.

So which way do we look here?

Jesus and God are different beings, said so by the different people that worship them. The Chrisitians can toss up that "Holy Trinity" bit as much as they like but without the faith that God originated from backing the concept (an oddly polytheistic "3 as 1" concept no matter how you slice it) then it can not be used as an irrefutable fact.

Thoughts?

Current Mood: productive
Friday, January 19th, 2007
3:47 pm
[evilgrins]
this kinda stuff comes to me when I'm on the toilet
Preamble: So far as I remember God never appeared in human form to anybody. I'm not one that believes Jesus was God in human form but even if that were the case that would be God as Jesus but not God as God. God appeared to people as a burning bush and a ray of light and possibly some animal representation in one form or another. I'm sure there were many others...but God as God never appears to people as a person.

Question: If God never appeared to people as a person then why is it that it was so long the viewpoint of many to picture God as a very old man with a long flowing beard?

Current Mood: I'm a little acidic
Friday, January 12th, 2007
4:39 pm
[evilgrins]
Personally I say yes!
Was having one of my usual odd religious chats, sparked by my always bizarre religious posts, when this came up. Because of it, rather that going on into an extensively lengthy post (preamble is my family's genetic curse), I have one simple question for you.

Can God be sexy?

Current Mood: weird
Monday, January 8th, 2007
10:43 am
[evilgrins]
a couple other posts of mine inspired this one
9:48 PM 1/7/07 · I'm rather well known for a number of things. There's the fact I tend to ask direct and blatantly raw questions, oftimes none that anyone thought to put forth before. There's also the fact I'm something of a big goofball. Together they aren't a deadly combo but one should be wary nonetheless.

While I don't post every bizarre religious query to every single religious comm I'm a member of...I do post stuff across the board quite a bit. The responses I tend to view as holy wars...not just because I find the sudden outpouring of information to be happy inducing, evn the stuff I don't necessarily agree with, but because of the number of arguments/debates that erupt in the threads of each of these communities. Course, I get a number of people that end their comments with "I'll pray for you" which is nice and all but kinda gives the impression that because I came up with the initial post there's something worrisome or wrong with me.

Not so sure I'm thrilled about that but I'll take what support I can get.

A stretch back I put a list together of a bunch of random thoughts regarding Jesus, one of which was that I kinda hoped he at least knew the pleasure of a woman sometime before his crucifixtion. It was not intended to be sacriligious, nor as an insult to his image in any way...I just thought it would've been nice. It's kind of the beauty of random thoughts.

That whole random element thingamabob.

Last week I put up a post wondering what is it about a rabbi that they can have sex and marry but a priest cannot. The answers were very helpful in that but it brought up an interesting point which kinda reminded me on that little bit from my list. The defining point was that a priest and a rabbi aren't exactly the same thing...that a rabbi is more of a teacher than a religious officiary. Also that it is one of the guiding principles, from the Torah and by extension the Bible, that we should be fruitful and multiply. Hence...rabbis are bit with the multipliying.

You know, there could be a good pun in there for the similarity between rabbi and rabbit seeing as bunnies are all about multiplication.

Now while the people that followed the teachings of Jesus, a hundred or so years after his passing, are Christians he was not. Jesus was Jewish and a simple man...once you get passed that whole Son of God bit. I've never bought into the whole Lord & Savior bit because while I do accept the latter the former is quite askew to me. He wasn't a lord, the man never wanted special treatment and set it aside when it was offered. He was very charismatic and insightful and, above all else, a teacher.

Jewish...

Religious...

Teacher...

...I say Jesus was a rabbi.

Besides the teaching and other things that go with the title...there's that whole "fruitful & multiply" clause.

There's been a lotta debate since his time to now that Jesus might've had siblings, that Joseph & Mary had other children. Wouldn't it be even more interesting if Jesus himself had children. Be it with the ever controversial Mary Magdelyne or some other nice lady that made that special connection with the guy...I for one find the concept that Jesus may've had his own family and children to be a beautiful thing.

So, why is it that so many seem to find the concept of Jesus going to the happy place (having sex) being a bad thing/sacriligious/an affront to God? I mean he has a wife, they do the deed, there's children...

...what a concept to have the descendents of God wandering around the world to this day.

Current Mood: such a headache
Friday, December 22nd, 2006
11:15 am
[evilgrins]
Happy Holidays!
In my continued quest to come up with a question that no one can quote scripture at me for...

Let's say, hypothetically, God pops up in front of you and asks for a cookie. What kind would you get?

Obviously there's no wrong answer to this but feel free to explain your response.

Current Mood: silly
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006
5:07 pm
[evilgrins]
What's in a name anyway?
This is kinda touching on a post I made last night about taking God's name in vain, though not entirely. The thing of it is that when you come right down to it no one really takes God's name in vain because "God" isn't a name.

It's a title.

It's a position of status.

It's the sign you'd see on God's cubicle...if God were the type of deity to sit in a cubicle.

I've never quite understood why it is no one refers to God by an actual name, instead going with the title. This is not a problem you get with polytheists...although that might be that since you're dealing with a multitude of gods in those instances it would be a little confusing to refer to each one as simply "God". Suppose if it were the title and the field of expertise that might work but really...

...names are much simpler.

A stretch back I figured Islam had the leading edge on the whole use of name thing...until someone explained to me that "Allah" is just "God" in another language.

Oh well.

The name in vain post popped up the possible reason that it used to be very bad mojo (for wont of a better word) to actually refer to God by a name. Sadly I was kinda floating on fumes of caffine at the time and don't remember why that is so let's stick with the essentials; maybe that same person will revisit that response and remind me.

Near as I know, from a Judeo/Christian perspective, God has two perfectly decent names to work with...maybe just one because I heard there was something of a scandal on one of them; no, I don't remember what. Those names are Jehovah (scandalized one) and Yaweh. These are two really nice, happy, easy to remember names.

Why doesn't anybody use them? Why is it all about the title and not the name?

Current Mood: full
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006
4:39 pm
[evilgrins]
using the name in vain
This post has been edited by multiple evil LJ·cuts to spare the innocent!

9:14 PM 11/7/06 · I was watching something with a lot of priests in it and I got rather fixated on this. When something really bad happens or whatever they have this tendency to cross themselves, grab some beads and rub them, and say something along the lines of "Great God" or "By all that is Holy" or any number of other things. So, I'm wondering if it's not having beads or not crossing yourself that makes it bad if you belt out a whopping profanityCollapse ) or something like that. I mean the Holy implies a certain level of godliness but to the best of my knowledge no one worships wasteCollapse ).

Granted, most folks mean things a bit more harsh than this sorta thing. More like vainCollapse ) Now I've really never understood why that one's taking the name in vain at all. First off, it's the guy's name...or more a name and title association sorta deal. Still though, where's the harm? It's not like he's peeking down from on High and getting his nose all scrunched up whenever his name is uttered by someone as an exclamation that doesn't happen to have one of those tasteful little white collars.

Let's try a particularly baddie. Some folks are rather fond, for the littlest thing, of shouting out with much anger pestilanceCollapse ) which admittedly is pretty bad but more from a potty mouth perspective than in trying to get the Big Guy peeved at us. There are those that go the extra mile and toss in the far famed "F" word to make profanityCollapse ) which is just ever so lovely.

Does it really make that much difference for an officiary of the church to say this kinda stuff what with the crossing themselves and the beads and the rest of the accoutraments? I mean, such a person is probably not ever going to say profanityCollapse ) but if they did would it be better for them to do so than Joe Schmoe after he stubbed his toe?

Why is this so bad?

Current Mood: mischievous
Thursday, November 16th, 2006
9:06 am
[evilgrins]
Why Jesus for God's sake?
12:05 PM 11/12/06 · It's so interesting how the littlest thing can cause conflict. Christianity is, more or less, Judaism with just the tiniest difference in opinion regarding who the Messiah is. I've even heard it said that there are those that think the fact that the heads of the Hebrew faith, back then...not now, were backing the Roman Empire in executing Jesus might also be a fair point of contention.

Let's ignore most of that for just a sec.

The Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah, sometimes referred to as Jesus H. Christ even though I'm fairly certain that is not the family name that Mary & Joseph ever used, but his own people don't...

...or didn't...

...pick a tense.

So, what I'd like to know is what is it the Hebrew faith, and the Jewish people since it seems even the unfaithful were looking forward to the arrival, thought Jesus was lacking so as to not be the Messiah. Religions, regardless of what form they take, are really big with signs and omens and qualities. It seems likely that there were supposed to be a number of events, qualities in the person, sigils, and God knows what else so that when the Messiah popped up everybody would know.

Only everybody didn't know.

So, that brings us to some interesting questions:
  • Does anyone know how the Messiah was supposed to be known prior to Jesus popping up?

  • How long was Jesus alive before the Messiah tag was attached?

  • When Jesus was established as the Messiah what was it about him that made some of the faithful disbelieve this?

  • On the offchance they make another movie, and you know they will, who do you think should play Jesus?

Okay, maybe not so much that last one.

Not that I necessarily think Jesus was the Messiah...frankly I don't care one way or the other. He was a very great guy who had some very important things to say and that's good enough for me.

Current Mood: crazy
Monday, October 30th, 2006
9:46 am
[evilgrins]
Hey...maybe we're all right!
4:32 PM 10/29/06 · While I still think that a literal interpretation of the 10 Commandments, the words as they are and not by what people can infer they might mean, I'd like to share a side theory of mine. Skipping over the first little bit of commandment #1, the second bit goes Do not worship any other gods besides me. Now, taken literally this would seem to imply there's more than one singular deity and a whole slew of them. Still, there are many that would like to say that there's just the one and this is more directed towards false idols.

Then again, one would assume if the Big Guy had meant that It simply would've said "do not worship false idols" but then maybe I'm giving God too much credit. Or maybe that is what was said originally and something was lost in the translation. Who can say for sure?

I seem to have gotten a bit off topic but that's okay because it's all in my head until I type it.

I've often looked at the polytheistic model, of the multitude of older religions that are usually viewed as mythologies these days, as more of a slightly askew view of the Kingdom of Heaven. Most of them (Greeks, Norse, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc.) have one all powerful deity, generally the father figure, and a whole bunch of minor godlings that are nearly all powerful but not as much as the Big Guy.

Technically, the Kingdom of Heaven follows this model...at a stretch admittedly but work with me for a bit here. There's God and then there's a whole slew of angels. It's interesting about the angels, how they seem to be broken up into various categories and only some of them do the same thing while others do different things. From a human perspective an angel is a god.

Okay, not to Christian or Hebrew humans but keep in mind that back in the day the planet was a lot bigger than it is now given that modes of transportation weren't what they are today. Nowadays you can hop on a plane and fly anywhere within a matter of hours. Same distance, way back when, we're talking months upon months for the same location to location hop. The faith had much further to stretch and before it even got going there were religions all over the place.

My thought, kooky little theory, is that maybe God sent angels down (or whatever direction) to Earth long before the Bible makes a note of and the angels were believed to be gods by the people they encountered. It's not that far a stretch when you think about it. evn if you don't buy into them actually having wings on their backs you're still talking about beings that each have the power to level a city with the wave of a hand, fly, and are so beautiful to look upon the mind can scarcely accept it. Immortal, seemingly all powerful, emissaries of an even more powerful being.

Now, I don't entirely believe this but I can see a lot of ways it might work. God created the entire planet, not just that little bit that the Bible largely covers. It seems highly unlikely that God would've just centered all It's attention in that one general space. Being around since the beginning of forever it seems likely that God may've made numerous contact with people all over the globe. That they all interpreted God and the angels differently than the people living roundabout the geographical region where the Bible largely focuses on is hardly surprising.

Do you have any idea how many different words there are for apple? Yes, that was a random choice...didn't occur to me how odd that particular fruit was to use in this context till the sentence was on the screen. Different people, different cultures, different languages; so many different views of so many things is it any wonder that there are so many different religions? Quite a number of them monotheistic but even more that're polytheistic.

What if everyone is worshipping the same God? Even if some of them are offering prayers to the angels that's not so unusual. Despite the protestations to the contrary, I know Christians that worship angels, pray and make offerings to.

So, that's my theory.

Thoughts?

Current Mood: okay
Wednesday, October 18th, 2006
9:32 am
[evilgrins]
need a translator here
5:29 AM 10/18/06 · In one of the many religious comms I post to, there was this guy that wanted me to read this passage in order to drive his point home. Asked me to read it and get back to him so I followed the link, printed the page, and haven't touched it in months. Still have his message in my e·mail box because I fully intend to get back to him when I eventually fully read it.

It's this first part that I'm taking an issue with. As I understand it...the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God (Father) is also known as the Word (I thought until a minute ago).

John 1
The Eternal Word

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...


etc. etc. etc.

Call me funny (you wouldn't be the first) but this hearkens to my polytheistic understandings as though the Wordm while being a part of God, is another deity or spirit or something or other; could be Mickey Mouse for all I know...which while weird would certainly explain the wonder that is the Magic Kingdom. Of course this could be a combination of how ye olde English, combined with any number of glitches in the translations given that the original text wasn't in English and most things don't translate exactly...

...which I'm going to have a little fun with. My friend Beauty&apos;s DestructionMalice (journal's filled with NWS material so don't peek if you're around kids or the workplace) has been going nuts over this Italian guy she's been chatting with. Because of this I've been using this translator program to send her messages in Italian, cuz I'm just odd that way & she can't read them, but the other day one of translation looked funny so I translated it back into English and it didn't look anything like what I'd originally typed.

The original version may not look exactly as most of us have come to know it. Does anyone actually have the original in the language it was written? If you translate it word for word, keeping the exact order it was written, what does it literally say?

Current Mood: restless
Tuesday, October 17th, 2006
9:21 am
[evilgrins]
Heard the oddest thing on the news this morning
5:00 AM 10/5/06 · Missed the beginning of the report but I'm assuming it had to do with the premature death of children considering the part I heard. It said that Catholics belive that when babies die their souls goto Limbo. It is additionally believed that all of the souls of the people that died prior to the birth of Jesus are there as well.

I've asked on this before, the whole where did people go before salvation by the Messiah was an option, but I'd always been reassured that they had all been saved retroactively. So which version is true? Has anybody heard about this Limbo thing before?

Current Mood: confused
Monday, October 9th, 2006
10:38 am
[evilgrins]
God made me goofy
Do you suppose Jesus was a cat person or a dog person?

Why do you feel this way?

Current Mood: curious
Thursday, October 5th, 2006
11:08 am
[evilgrins]
Thoughts on God
Figured this was as good a day for this as any seeing as, for some reason beyond the ken of man, livejournal posts hit an all·time low on Thursdays.

before you look under here keep in mind that God made me this wayCollapse )

Current Mood: stressed
Wednesday, September 6th, 2006
1:40 pm
[evilgrins]
Fear de evil dat is me!
Somewhere around the end of 2004 and the beginning of 2005 I put up a truly bizarre post. It was a continuation of an "Aliens vs Predator" thing I was doing...where I basically listed a whole bunch of random things for them to fight instead of each other. Like Godzilla, the Gummi Bears, NeoPets, Dragon Ball Z...

...which are about as unfair as you can get.

Somewhere in the initial writing of it I put up Jesus and then swiftly removed it. Not because I felt it violated any religious standard (basically a "no no") but because I felt that deserved a post all its own. It was a lot of fun to make and as I posted it widely the range of answers were very giggle worthy. Sure, some of it was preachy but overall it was a blast.

Think it's that time again.

On the offchance some of you are not familiar with the players here:

Predator: a hunting species with a brutal warriors code. While it is true they have strict rules against fighting the unarmed or those deemed not a threat I think that might be cast aside in order to make a trophy out of a guy that can walk on water, raise the dead, heal the sick with but a touch, and replicate food from next to nothing. Predators might not buy into the whole "Son of God" bit but that other stuff would make him all that more highly prized.

Aliens: a biomechanical hive type creature; (Acheronsis Linguefoda). The species lives on 3 fundamental drives; to kill, to breed, and to survive. Curious life cycle from egg to mobile embryo implanter (facehugger) to embryo to fully grown killing machine. They implant their embryos in living hosts which then explode out of that being's chest. Opinions vary but offspring sometimes take on attributes of that host. No specific intelligence but highly cunning and has molecular acid for blood.

While highly unlikely this one doesn't ring a bell...just in case:

Jesus of Nazareth: to those of the Christian faith this is the Messiah and Son of God. All around nice guy, very wise, likes helping people, a number of miraculous abilities, and he may even have been a carpenter in his own right.

So, the question I put to you is who do you think would win?

Alien vs Jesus: ???
Predator vs Jesus: ???

Depending on responses, I may put up another post in a month's time with the best answers.

Current Mood: silly
Thursday, August 31st, 2006
8:20 am
[evilgrins]
from whence did the name come?
7:48 PM 8/29/06 · One of the things I like about most of my religious posts, other than the truly wonky nature of the things I go on about, is the responses. They range from the people that want to discuss whatever it is I put forth, those that outright condemn me for it, a few that pray that I will one day be shown the way from on High, and the seemingly holy war that erupts among the commenters when they discover they don't quite see things eye to eye. More than that, as I learned via my previous main account, even though the initial outpouring of comments may go on from days to weeks...sometimes I will be pleasntly surprised by someone who decides to get their 2¢ in as far as a year after the fact.

By the by, to those that hope God will show me the way someday...did you ever stop to consider maybe that already happened? Not saying it did, suspect I'd know it less than anybody else, but it is an interesting thought.

Moving right along...

...preamble seems to be the genetic curse of my family line.

I seem to go on about Jesus quite a bit which mainly stems from the fact I find him to be an endlessly interesting guy. Moreso the fact that nobody seems to get his name right, I only actually use Jesus because otherwise no one would know who I was talking about. From numerous posts and discussions, like I went on about in that first paragraph, the consensus opinion from those as or more learned than I is that his name was Yeshua. The last major Jesus posting I did I actually learned the reason why most folks refer to him by the "J" name...

...in the King James Bible, named for a certain King James who started this particular mess, he decided that Jesus was to be called that so as his name wouldn't be confused with another man in there that is currently listed by the name they both shared.

I've often felt the fact that no one in the Bible has a last name was a miraculously ongoing typo.

Wow.

Kinda scary.

Went through all of that just to lead up to one question.

Preamble...it's a curse on us all.

Traditionally children are named by their parents and I'm sure there was no exception when little Jesus came kicking and screaming into the world. Only problem is that he had 3 parents: Mary (Mom) & Jospeph (Stepdad) & the Big Guy (Dad)...

...do not covet thy neighbor's wife my ass! I suspect this was where the phrase do as I say and not as I do was invented...

...but I digress.

Whatever that original name might've been...who do you suppose it was that named him?

Current Mood: relaxed
Monday, August 7th, 2006
10:03 am
[ash346]
Hi,
I have never been religious but now am trying to learn more about religion, especially Christianity.
I have a question that friends of mine couldn't answer: why does Jesus help only those who accept Him?
[ << Previous 20 ]
About LiveJournal.com