Vernied and I were talking about the story of Jesus and the money changers. He said in another thread (Vernied I hope you don't mind but I thought it was good) "I've also wondered about that story of Jesus overturning the tables. Anger in and of itself isn't wrong--it can sometimes be the fuel we need to work against injustice. If Jesus were truly human, he must have experienced human emotions. I guess what we do with these emotions is the important thing.
"Sin" is a hard word for me, and I don't use it much. But that too is a topic for a whole other post!"
This passage has always been one of my favorite ones in the Bible as I see Jesus as so strong. He see a wrong and instead of doing what is expected of him - that being following the rules and perhaps speaking to the elders and asking if things could be different (working within the rules) - he is enraged by what he sees and changes things right there. Obviously he is naive about this (perhaps?) as the authorities are notified and the noose starts to tighten. But just think how spectacular it must have been for those who had been downtrodden for years to finally see someone come in and stand up for them.
I saw an interview with a female Rabbi (sorry can't remember her name) a while back and she talked about how we have to remember that Jesus is not just the "Mommy Jesus". He is not just the "Lamb of God" meekly being lead to the slaughter - blonde eyed beauty glazing lovingly upwards as heathens are brutalizing him. Jesus was also a leader of men and women who were out to change a society. He came with the sword not just the plowshare.
Sin - now there is a word. Did Jesus sin when he lost his temper and took a whip to the money changers and drove them out of the the temple. I mean we do not countenance violence even for the best of reasons. It gets a bit iffy at that stage as you get into suicide bombers etc if one is to argue the use of violence in order to further religious goals.
Hi, thought I would introduce myself as I'm new to this comm. Name: Lucinda Age: 24 Location: United Kingdom Religion: Mainly Buddhist. However I have spent most of my life looking for some kind of universal approach to religion/spirituality; some sort of truth at the root of all religions. My beliefs are therefore quite fluid, and whilst Buddhism is currently the religion I practice, I am interested in and open minded to all. Denomination/Sect: I go to an FWBO Buddhist Centre. Conservative/Moderate/Liberal: Moderate. Introductory Statement: I have recently set up this journal as a sort of spiritual blog, and thought I would join this community due to the open and universal approach to religion and spirituality it seems to have. However since my journal is sparklingly new I'm also on the look out for LJ friends - so if my approach to spirituality appeals to you, add me :)
10:39 AM 2/7/10 · The problem with being a polytheist is so many get on your case for not having God in your life. That's actually the beauty of it, you do! Still, I sometimes try to explain a possibility in the whole multi·God theorum to others as simply as possible.
Maybe there's not actually multiple Gods.
Maybe it's just the one pantheon and it's just God & Co.
Take an apple. A relatively simple fruit (detached from the Adam & Eve myth) to most anybody. Across the face of the globe though, different people would describe it in different ways. The name of it sounds different in a multitude of languages, even if many still simply say 'apple' the accents make it sound different.
Different people, different cultures, all going on about the same thing.
God is in Heaven (or Club Med) and is surrounded by a host of Angels. God occasionally spawns (we only know of the One) children with human mothers. This follows the general structure of a pantheon, from the Greek Gods to the Norse Gods to the Egyptian Gods, insofar as it's generally perceived worldwide.
A father God and many other Gods that follow him.
Now I get many do not see an Angel as a God but take it for what it is. A non·human being of immense power. Angels can level cities, they're tactical nukes with limbs! If you did not know anything of God and were presented with an Angel in all of its majesty you'd think it was a God.
So, it's possible that polytheists have seen God and Heaven and the Angels and just given them different names and viewed them a little differently than Christians would have it be. Keep in mind, Christianity is essentially a different branch of Judaism and back in the day even the Jews were polytheists.
As I said, I don't really buy this line of thought but it is interesting. Ultimately it falls before one particular moment in Biblical lore.
When asking Pharoh to free his people, Moses got into a mystical duel (which nowadays would've made a neato Vegas act) with Pharoh's high priest. Both representing their Gods, Moses the one and the priest the many, they turned their sticks into snakes and had them fight it out...
...and if they were truly, however unknowingly, representing the same pantheon then the fight would never have started...
...although it is yet another good example of the Bible showing there's more than one God.
It seems appropriate to discuss the movie Avatar given the nature of goddess worship, one-ness of nature and spirits depicted in the movie along with various community and other themes.
Frankly, I was preparing myself to be disappointed having read briefly a few newspaper reviews. Instead, I was blown away by the depictions, thought and history that was taken into account writing the screenplay alone. It is obvious James Cameron (writer, director et al.) studied Joseph Campbell's "Power of Myth" and anthropology along with history while creating this gorgeous work of visual art. Yes, other things could have been done differently but WOW, this is a HUGE commercial, massive work bringing so many different concepts and contexts to the world masses. How other to do it beyond in a Sci-Fi or some kind of Fantasy work? It certainly wouldn't receive the recognition sadly, if transmitted via other channels from history to documentary, biography to even science.
Basic question - why the hell isn't anybody talking about it/this, this way in the spiritual realm? Is it just another grave omission of the media purposely ignoring major stories? All i'm seeing in the mainstream media is the discussion of how much money it is making, ($1.6B current worldwide count) people becoming depressed and getting headaches due to the 3D effects and of course, a brief mention in my political blogs (not in the MSM) about the obvious parallels of the USA in multiple foreign wars. (Ask the Iraqi's if they still want us there and most of Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Japan now who is trying to force the US military bases to close getting off it's native land!)
So for anyone who has seen the film - thoughts/opinions/likes/dislikes? intelligent discussion preferred please. My only concern is that the goddess was depicted as ONE god = monotheist. There were spirits but only one god.
Bonus points that it/she was at least female. Yahoo Gaia! ;-)
8:27 PM 1/7/10 · I'm more than a little annoyed at Christmas. Not so much the holiday itself, it is the most wonderful time of the year after all, as for what it is currently representing...
Christmas is supposed to be Christ's Mass. This is the part that bothers me because it gives people the mistaken idea that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. Those much more learned on the subject than I would say that the actual date of birth for him was somewhere roundabout March...but the masses in general do not know this. The Church, having taken over and co·opted a Pagan holiday, a pair of them technically (see subject line) because they needed a day and they liked what they were celebrating.
Interestingly enough, part of the confusion of Jesus' birthday is the fact that the ancient Christians, ironically enough, believed that the celebration of anyone's birthday was a Pagan act in and of itself. So, they didn't celebrate anyone's birthday or really track the passage of time insofar as a person's age. There may've been a head nod or something but there were no birthday cakes nor were there any giftings or anything that we attribute to birthdays these days.
While Christians of old didn't celebrate birthdays the modern ones most certainly do. Still not fond of Pagans, or anyone that doesn't worship their God, but birthdays are now hunky dory. Still you'd think that maybe they could've tried to pick the guy's actual birthday to celebrate it on, right?
Why did they pick the date they did? It's the Winter Solstice, which isn't so much Pagan in and of itself, but the date it was celebrated on isn't the same one we know of it being on today. Much as with the old Christians, the calendar system wasn't entirely the same as it is now. The Winter Solstice by the old calendar fell on the 25th of that month. When it got updated the Solstice was moved to the 18th and, for whatever reason, Christmas was left on the 25th. As to why that day, it's what it represented that caught the Christians eyes.
Sol Invictus was celebrated on the Winter Solstice. It was a Pagan holiday where the worship of Sun Gods, the day was referred to as having to do with 'The Birthday of the Unconquered Sun', was shared among multiple faiths. Most notably the Gods Elah·Gabal (Syrian) & Sol (the God of Emperor Aurelian) & Mithras (a soldier's God from Persia)...
...being the 'birthday of the unconquered' the Christians deemed it should be for Jesus as who could be more deserving of the title than him?
Saturnalia I don't know so much about. Regardless, the Christians in their usual way of stamping out Paganism (which often involved a lot of persecution and torture vack in the day) stamped out the other religions and celebrations celebrated on that day to claim it in the name of Jesus.
Oh, de humanity. The hypocrisy.
Don't you think that if Jesus' birthday is to be celebrated by the masses in general it should be actually done on the day of his actual birth and not borrowing on, or really stealing, the holidays of other faiths?
Personally I don't understand the whole concept of suicide bombing at all. Still, at least with the Al·Qeda (however you spell it) version I've a bit of confusion in 2 parts:
1) What's the appeal of this reward? Supposedly they die and in the afterlife they will receive 50 to 100 (number is really not important) virgins. Personally I'd think a large number of highly skilled sluts would be more pleasurable...but what's so great about a flock (bushel?) of virgins?
2) Lots of different faiths in the world but they all pretty much seem to agree that in the afterlife things are not grounded in physicality, nothing is solid. So, you're in the Next and you've got your large number of virgins. What good does that do you if you can't actually touch them and none of you have skin?