Posts from God... Truth or fiction?

Jews do not have the concept of the Trinity of God. For them, the trinity is something else; it is three angels who came to Abraham. Therefore, the quote from the Old Testament that I cited cannot be attributed to the Trinity. And how would you react to this quote from the Bible: "...then Rachel stole the household gods that were her father's." (Genesis 31:19).

Jews have no concept of the Trinity of God. For them, the trinity is something else—three angels who came to Abraham. Therefore, the phrase I quoted from the Old Testament regarding the trinity cannot be dismissed. And how would you react to such a quote from the Bible: "...then Rachel stole the idols that were her father's." (Genesis 31-19).

True, this is a quote from the Old Testament. But paganism was not present among the Jews from the beginning. It all started when Abraham married a pagan woman, and this pagan woman (a model of respect for non-believers;)) along with her sisters began carrying their idols wherever they pleased, imposing their faith, albeit not by force. Thus, paganism became grafted onto the Jewish people rather than dominating them from the start.

There is no need to make claims that are not based on facts. The facts show that the paganism of the Jews predates Judaism. They still retain remnants of paganism (such as the New Year for Trees, for example).

Do you know when this new year of trees started?:) No one knows and can prove it; it's best to rely on assumptions. We both agreed that the Jews were pagans, but the scriptures show that they didn't become pagans immediately or permanently. Is that logical? You do love logic, don't you?;)

Officially, when the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, they began to revive the SACRED groves. This is how the New Year of Trees came about. But the fact that the groves are SACRED indicates worship of plants.

Officially, when the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity, they began to revive the SACRED groves. That's where the New Year of Trees comes from. But the fact that the groves are SACRED suggests worship of plants.

Why immediately worship? Christians have sacred lands, but we don't worship them, do we?:) Or, again, a sacred plant - myrrh.

Let's start with the fact that Judaism is not the original religion of the Jews. Before Judaism, the Jews were just like the surrounding tribes, practicing paganism. The adoption of a single faith can be attributed to the time of Kings David and Solomon. There are mentions of things from the preceding period that contradict monotheism. For example: the quote I already provided, that "Man has become like us," mentions of Abraham's sacred grove, Moses' burning bush, and the golden calf.
So, it's foolish to say that Judaism is the original faith of the Jews. They simply eradicated most of their pagan customs (but not all).
And therefore, paganism can be considered a much older religion.
As for the non-violence of the Orthodox Church, read the history of Siberia, the period from the late 19th to early 20th centuries. There was forced conversion of indigenous people to Orthodoxy. And what about the struggle against the Old Believers? And the intolerance towards other religions?

Aha, AlexeyPank, you're a scary guy!:smile24:
Yes, first I want to apologize for not being on the forum for so long... First, the internet broke, then I was in England, then I had a lot of things to do, etc....

But on the topic:
1 - paganism is definitely much older, and this is a well-known fact (initially, Yahweh, if I'm not mistaken, was just the god of some mountain, a local god)
2 - "Man has become like us" and something else from the Old Testament (for example, the seven plagues of Egypt, which God sent down, solely to glorify himself, confusing the mind of the pharaoh and ordering him to refuse Moses - I don't really want to worship a god with such an obvious inferiority complex:confused:) also confused me a lot... I decided for myself that the Old Testament is a completely separate part, and it's best for a non-priest to stick to the New Testament
3 - regarding Orthodoxy. Aggression and intolerance are NOT inherent in the dogmas of Orthodoxy; the ideal of any Christian - Christ - was EXTREMELY tolerant and merciful to everyone without exception; and if some Orthodox people are intolerant and justify it with their faith, then this is not the fault of the faith, but of themselves

No religion inherently requires the killing of all those who disagree. This is distorted by the followers of the faith.
And the fact that the Old Testament and the New Testament are books that are not related (even the gods are different) was stated back in the early days of our era.
One should read everything, but not just read, but try to analyze.

No religion inherently requires the killing of all those who disagree...

...except for Islam. The dogma of jihad is not a joke or American propaganda; it is the absolute truth. Of course, there are different types of jihad, and the jihad of the sword is embedded in the very core of this faith.

You need to read everything, but not just read, but try to analyze.

I agree:) I support that:)

Christ also has such sayings (if the Gospels are to be believed):
"Whoever comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" and "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. No, I have come to bring division. I will turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a wife against her husband..."
In context, this may not necessarily create a negative impression, but the words themselves are far from loyal. It is a clear call to struggle, perhaps in the soul, but whoever wants to hear a call to action will hear it, and the action can be different.

Well, outside of context, you can do a lot of interesting things... Especially if you take something out of context, skip some parts, and then write a different phrase. For example, you could easily make it seem like Pierre considers Andrei an idiot in "War and Peace" – after all, he does characterize Andrei in some way, and there's probably a word like "idiot" used somewhere in the text after that...

From something written by someone once upon a time, one can highlight anything and interpret it however they wish. The letter is not a mirror; it reflects not what is, but what one wants to see. If something torn from context contradicts a person's beliefs, they will point out that it is torn from context; but if it aligns with their beliefs, they won't even notice it is torn from context. The letter itself is nothing—the person perceiving the letter makes it meaningful and objective within the reality of their own actions.
Here is another example of something "torn from context": "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand..."
Thus, the letter calls for an action—to repent—because another action has occurred: the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.
Since, apparently—in fact—we observe no such "drawing near of the heavenly kingdom"—the sky remains likely as it was millennia ago—these words became a kind of tool for earthly "kingdoms" to obtain all sorts of benefits. After all, one can repent in different ways—again, depending on the understanding of different people.
The true meaning of repentance is the realization of one's mistakes, remorse that they were committed, and the forgiveness of oneself and the "unjust" world that "led" to these mistakes; but THIS happens without any summons, because a person has a conscience—everyone does, no matter how diligently they try to shut it out—and conscience itself points the right way.
In our case with the "letter," however, the act of repentance stems from something entirely different, as a specific catalyst is identified—the approach of the "kingdom." That is, it is no longer the person's conscience—a gift from nature—but some LETTER that arouses this "repentance" within them. And the more a person trusts the letter, the more manageable they become. And there have always been plenty of hunters eager to manage people. And where, in the end, does this notorious "repentance" lead?
Since the "kingdom of heaven" has drawn near, but is de facto invisible, all sorts of "guides" appear—visible adepts of this "kingdom"—who take it upon themselves to "care" for the proper "repentance" of the person who believed the letter. Thus, unnoticed, the person becomes, in turn, an adept of these "guides," upon whom the truth or falsehood of the performed "repentance" depends. And that is when, as the person begins to think they have found the path to freedom (from real mistakes that oppress the soul), they drift into the deepest thickets of dependence on "sins" that "prevent" them from obtaining a worthy place in the "approaching kingdom." It is appropriate here to tear another phrase from context: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." So, who do we need? Precisely, people who have made many follies, mistakes, and even crimes in life—unfortunate souls who failed to make peace with the world and with themselves! They will readily accept this call as "liberation" from oppressive remorses of conscience. Whether he is righteous or a sinner, a person can say quite objectively about himself—not aloud, but "to himself" (within). And, of course, it would be unwise to miss the opportunity to be freed from a dark "past" that continues to oppress. But what is the price of this "liberation"? This is where the unpredictable, sometimes terrifying and cruel denouement begins.
One could mention the signing over of apartments to "guides," resulting in elderly parents ending up on the streets; the cruel insults and humiliation of parents by their children due to the parents' lack of faith; the betrayals of loved ones for the sake of one's own "purity of repentance"; the murder of millions of people throughout history for the sake of the "approaching kingdom," and much more (about which I shall perhaps remain silent). And in all these cases, as a rule, the words I mentioned in my previous post—"torn from context by omission"—were and are cited. Because it is better to find support in the letter and bend the world to one's "repentance" than to make peace with oneself and the world (since God breathes in both us and the world). "God is not in the word, but in the truth," and a person can obtain true liberation only by themselves, by FORGIVING themselves and the world—that is, essentially forgiving GOD—not by the "word," but by the "truth."

:) Ganymede, I'm very glad to meet a colleague—someone who believes that all people have a conscience :) But I think you went a bit too far on something... Those tormented by their conscience will indeed respond to a call for repentance, but in my opinion, it is far from always the case that those who actually did something dirty are tormented by it...
Generally, I almost entirely support this text, which is obviously directed against manipulative machinations often justified by religion and playing on religious feelings (actually, only the primitive literal interpretation of the phrase "kingdom of heaven" bothers me).

An interesting point, by the way—since we're talking about it—the call "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is not morally superior in itself, as it appeals to the selfish side of a person, thereby reinforcing it...

I agree.

The thing is, I'm not interpreting anything :) ; I am simply presenting the "letter" as it is. The word "kingdom" is clear, and the word "heavenly" is also clear. Letters are very concrete and non-metaphysical things. In a metaphysical sense, this phrase has been interpreted in every possible way, each person according to their own intelligence and theological talent. However, on a subconscious level, a person still perceives the material essence of what is written. If there is a "heavenly kingdom," and it has its own hierarchy, as in any kingdom—then one should try to grab a warmer spot for oneself, by analogy with the real world, right? That is why this acquisitiveness arises for the sake of a future place under the sun, and people will stop at nothing for it. Moreover, in my humble opinion, there is more typical consumerism here than faith in its own true sense.

I am also glad that you've returned; I hope you are own well and full of strength and achievements :smile12:

I'm also glad you're back, I hope you're feeling refreshed and full of energy and ready for new achievements:smile12:

Thank you very much:)

Regarding the issue of language and subconscious understanding – this is a very big problem. In psychology – and, as far as I understand, in philosophy as well – this is the biggest problem: the ambiguity of interpretations and terminology, and this ambiguity is largely due to the fact that words from everyday language are used as terms (for example, "personality" or "justice"), but everyone understands what they mean slightly differently. As a result, it often happens that different psychologists argue with each other, having the same thought but using different words to express it:(

And regarding the heavenly hierarchy that mirrors the earthly one – the most striking example is Chinese mythology. I recently read the book "Notes on the Search for Spirits" – I was literally rolling with laughter at times, reading about how spirits and gods ask for promotions:D. It turned out that the world of spirits completely mirrors the bureaucratic organization of the Celestial Empire...
That's how it can be!
However, as far as I know, no one abused this as much as the Catholic Church:mad: (just remember indulgences!).

Regarding the consumerist attitude instead of faith – I think you are absolutely right! It's really astonishing at times...