Celtic Heroes

Im not religious, Think how many other religions where so led on that theirs was real... What gives Christians proof that God is real? The Incas worshiped the sun.. You can clearly visibly see the sun.... Thats proof that the sun is real. Maybe there is a god but hes just not what he is assumed to be.

That's easy he makes u dance and gives blessings

Robert... in future, when you cut and paste verbatim from another site, you should provide a link or tell people that your are doing so. Instead, what you have done is plagiarize from someone else, passing it off as your own.

I was going to take you to task about the inaccuracies of your work, and tell you that your sources were garbage... then it dawned on me that the writing was overly flowery. A web check found this: http://wakethefuckup.wordpress.com/fun- ... istianity/

If you are the author of that site then I apologize... but I don't think you are.

Vatican
From the Latin vaticanus, meaning place of the sorcerers

Yeah.... I've heard this before, and it is bunk. Check your sources [oops... the original writer should check his sources]. Truth is the source of the word is lost, but it isn't "place of the sorcerers," as you claim.

Most accepted is that it is a borrowed Etruscan word linked to a previous place, but certainly not a combination of "vates/vatis" (soothsayer/oracle) and "can" (snake/serpent).

Amen

As Christians finish their prayers, which they send through the “son of God”, they say “amen”, which I learned in church meant “so be it”. A little study shows something slightly different. The word derives from an ancient Egyptian god, Amen-Ra or Amun-Ra. Amun was an old god, but as his cult grew larger, he became associated with Ra-Herakhty (Ra + Horus, the gods of the “sun”-worshipers) who sent their prayers through the “sun of god”, Amen-Ra.

I think Spirit did a decent job in his reply about this, but just to clarify, "Amen" has absolutely nothing to do with anything Egyptian.

Israel

What is Israel? Is this a real place? The country we refer to as Israel is very recent. Many people assume this is what is spoken of in the Bible, but it was not called Israel. It was part of a territory called “Canaan” which included modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and parts of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. A brief look into the etymology of the word reveals something interesting.

Isis was part of the Egyptian trinity with her husband and brother Osiris and their son, Horus, literally the sun and son of god. (In the later merging of sun-cults, Horus was combined with Ra and was known as Ra-Herakhty).

Ra is an ancient Egyptian sun god, mostly associated with the midday sun, but of which all other gods were a form.

El means “god” or “God” in Hebrew and other Semitic languages (plural “elohim”), but was also the father god of the Canaanites.

As you can see from the pattern, when two sun-worshiping cults merged, they merged the names of their gods, as in Ra + Horus = Ra-Herakhty and Amun + Ra-Herakhty = Amun-Ra. Isn’t it interesting that Isis + Ra + El = Israel?

Israel was a term for the merging of the cults in the land of Canaan, and armed with this knowledge, you can decode some of the mysteries of the Torah and the Bible.

Ridiculous. Simply because there are words that have similar sounds means nothing, and ignores fact. I could claim that Canada is a transliteration of the Japanese "kana da," meaning the existence of writing... therefore Canada is the place of text. Absolutely no truth to it, however, and it ignores the true history of the word.

Egyptian gods and the term Israel have nothing to do with each other.

The only thing you [oops... the original writer] have correct is that "el" came from the term god, but the beginning is untrue. It comes from the Hebrew "yisra'el," or to strive with god.

I don't have the patience to debunk whatever else you cut and pasted.

Roman records have proof of Jesus birth and existence ...

Well, not exactly.

There are no records of his birth, nor would any have ever existed.

All the writing about the historical Jesus, and early Christianity was written well after the death of Jesus. The original records regarding his death etc. have been lost, but it is generally accepted that the records still existed when Roman historians were writing half a century later.

The actual birth of Jesus is not known. No birth records would have existed (not for the poor, at least). The closest thing that can be done is ballpark... but the discrepancies in the Bible make it difficult to nail down a year. Hard to even nail down a decade, actually.

Roman records have proof of Jesus birth and existence ...

Well, not exactly.

There are no records of his birth, nor would any have ever existed.

All the writing about the historical Jesus, and early Christianity was written well after the death of Jesus. The original records regarding his death etc. have been lost, but it is generally accepted that the records still existed when Roman historians were writing half a century later.

The actual birth of Jesus is not known. No birth records would have existed (not for the poor, at least). The closest thing that can be done is ballpark... but the discrepancies in the Bible make it difficult to nail down a year. Hard to even nail down a decade, actually.

I think if we had the actual Birth Record of Jesus it would probably be worth more than the Mona Lisa To provide further explanation: christian holidays are representations of the events, Christmas, Easter, etc to form the Liturgical Calendar. They are not exact timelines of when things happened. They never claimed to be. But people love to say nonsense like: "Jesus was born in the summer not the winter!!" and use these statements as some kind of Anti-Christian proof. The truth is no one really knows for sure when certain events took place (other than private revelation).

May you elaborate on Jesus Christ as the bridge?

Sorry I took so long to reply. I've been thinking of the best way to respond specifically to this topic.

To recap your initial comment:

Where is the bridge between godly and human thoughts and values?

First know that Humans can not have thoughts or values without God. God is the very reason for these things. When man commited Original Sin we seperated ourselves from God without any way to get back. There was nothing we could ever do to pay this debt because we would have to be perfect in order to pay it and due to sin we were imperfect. Enter Jesus. God who became man so as to pay the debt for us. A debt that he could pay because he was perfect and yet a debt that he himself did not need to pay. But he came for so much more than that. He came to show us how to live. How to love one another as he loves us and (very importantly) that he could now relate to us. We can no longer say something like "How can God know what it feels like to suffer as I do?" because he DOES know. He is the true bridge between us and the heavenly Father. A bridge that closed the chasm that we created through our own free-will.

We must be careful here not to use this as an excuse to do whatever we want in life or misinterpret the scripture verse: "Saved by Faith Alone and not Works". It is very true that Faith is a gift and no work you do can earn it however if I gave you a Ferrari chances are you could never pay me back for it but you sure could drive off a cliff.

Now we will never know what it is like to be God. We can never be him. But though Jesus we can enter into a state of union with God. We can be true children of God.

This is really the best I can do here. I am not a Theologian and this is a very complex question but there are way better answers. I would (again) highly recommend reading this: http://goo.gl/lgW9gx Its $7 and a very fast read.

I suppose I write these vague responses hinting to one way and you perceive it in a different way, which is completely fine. In the past, science and religion were really the same which does lead to many innovations of science with roots in religion.

Not really. Even as far back as Plato, Archimedes, Euclid etc. There was a clear distinction.

It is more in the recent era where you will find Science v. God which may be in part due to the fact that science changes and religion, for the most part, does not.

I would actually argue the opposite. I think the issue here especially in the last 100 years is that science has become LIKE a God.

Science is (from the dictionary):

:: The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms

This never changes. Not ever. Not even one iota. Our knowledge of the sciences change. We progress in our ability to measure and understand our observations but science is science. It does the same thing now as its ever done. It has no place in the study of God. God is Meta-Physical which means he is not a matter for science.

Religion on the other hand changes quite a bit. I mean look at the differences between the old and new teastement.

Now God himself does not change in his nature this is true. There are actually things that God can not do. Changing is one of them. He must remain immutable. This is why the whole Life Force : God is the universe idea is nonsense. The universe changes quite a bit.

I also feel the need to point out other things that seem to be common ideas with religion. Why does God have to be male?

God is neither male nor female. He does not have a gender as he is Spirit. Jesus Christ (who is God) was male and he confirmed that we should address God as Father. I know confusing right? God isnt male but his son is who is also God. It can mess with your brain. Like: How can God have a mother? I'm afriad these points of Theology are simply to complex to get into on this forum. I can give you some reading suggestions if you would like a better understanding of these things.

Why choose a side when you can attempt to solve a dispute with logic and diplomacy, therefore, saving all of the creations and not just o

Im not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Are you refering to heaven and hell?

Even when one follows the idea that God's limited interference is due to the acceptance of human free-will, there are humans out there that have the will to be better. People dying and suffering do have the will to survive and make the best of it. Why not provide at least some help? :/

God provides lots of help in the form of Grace. Sometimes he even interfears more directly. Regarding the amount of help: If you had a huge bucket the size of your house and every moment a drop of water landed in the bucket. At the end of your life the bucket would hardly be able to contain the amount of water given to you.

Every moment God is helping. In fact God has YOU in mind at every single moment of your life. He has to. He is the reason for your very existance. He maintains you IN existance every single moment. If he turned away from you even for a second you would cease to exist. In the eyes of God you are unique, precious and unrepeatable. I know there is suffering and sometimes quite frankly it completely overwhealms me. Remeber though that God thought free-will was worth it. He thought what happens in the end for those who love him was WORTH IT and we dont have a better idea than God.

God Bless

Now God himself does not change in his nature this is true. There are actually things that God can not do. Changing is one of them. He must remain immutable. This is why the whole Life Force : God is the universe idea is nonsense. The universe changes quite a bit.

Don't confuse yourselves, though. God can create different forms of himself, such as Jesus, his flesh form.

God is neither male nor female. He does not have a gender as he is Spirit. Jesus Christ (who is God) was male and he confirmed that we should address God as Father. I know confusing right? God isnt male but his son is who is also God. It can mess with your brain. Like: How can God have a mother? I'm afriad these points of Theology are simply to complex to get into on this forum. I can give you some reading suggestions if you would like a better understanding of these things.

I believe God is a male. He is not the author of confusion, and being told to call him a male when he is not would be absolutely confusing.

Why choose a side when you can attempt to solve a dispute with logic and diplomacy, therefore, saving all of the creations and not just o

Im not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Are you refering to heaven and hell?

What it sounds he is saying is: why doesn't God make us love him? When a dictator makes the people he governs over love him, do they, really? They do not. God gives us all Free Will so that we can choose to love him if we please and also express how much we love him.

Don't confuse yourselves, though. God can create different forms of himself, such as Jesus, his flesh form.

Thats why I said 'in his nature'

I believe God is a male. He is not the author of confusion, and being told to call him a male when he is not would be absolutely confusing.

God is trinity, the father, the son & the holy spirit. 3 distinct persons in one God. To a great many people this is very very confusing. It doesn't mean that God is the author of confusion. That would be like saying there cant be Evil because God is not the author of Evil. There is Evil. There is confusion.
Jesus is a man. God is spirit who is the head or the Fatherly figure.

Why choose a side when you can attempt to solve a dispute with logic and diplomacy, therefore, saving all of the creations and not just o

What it sounds he is saying is: why doesn't God make us love him? When a dictator makes the people he governs over love him, do they, really? They do not. God gives us all Free Will so that we can choose to love him if we please and also express how much we love him.

Yep. God does not compel but he sure can persuade As I previously stated the only true love is tested love. God did not want to create automata

I believe God is a male. He is not the author of confusion, and being told to call him a male when he is not would be absolutely confusing.

God is trinity, the father, the son & the holy spirit. 3 distinct persons in one God. To a great many people this is very very confusing. It doesn't mean that God is the author of confusion. That would be like saying there cant be Evil because God is not the author of Evil. There is Evil. There is confusion.
Jesus is a man. God is spirit who is the head or the Fatherly figure.

He also explained in the Bible that the church is His bride. That would be very confusing in human sexuality and I doubt he intended for it to be that way.

I believe God is a male. He is not the author of confusion, and being told to call him a male when he is not would be absolutely confusing.

God is trinity, the father, the son & the holy spirit. 3 distinct persons in one God. To a great many people this is very very confusing. It doesn't mean that God is the author of confusion. That would be like saying there cant be Evil because God is not the author of Evil. There is Evil. There is confusion.
Jesus is a man. God is spirit who is the head or the Fatherly figure.

He also explained in the Bible that the church is His bride. That would be very confusing in human sexuality and I doubt he intended for it to be that way.

The "Bride of Christ" who is a man.

When I say God (the first person) is not a man I mean he does not have male genitalia but he does have a masculine nature.

This is good reading:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/NOTMOTHR.HTM

I honestly typed a huge response to everything but safari crashed and everything disappeared.

Lots of stuff seem like nonsense but I guess if I studied more religion I may understand your perspective. I will offer some counter argumentative questions and responses to a few of your points.

First know that Humans can not have thoughts or values without God.

If all thoughts and values are not our own but rather God's, where do malicious thoughts originate. By this logic, they would originate from God which does not sound very nice. I assume I am missing something though so I await your explanation.

Not really. Even as far back as Plato, Archimedes, Euclid etc. There was a clear distinction.

They and they alone made it a distinction. At the time, however, they were seen to be just investigating the specific things that God supposedly does. Mathematics and science was just a way to explain miracles, at least to the majority of people.

I would actually argue the opposite. I think the issue here especially in the last 100 years is that science has become LIKE a God.[...]

This intrigued me greatly. However, religion is given a book or set of books with knowledge for which people interpret differently. Interpretations change but at a much slower paste and usually to match science in the modern era. When I said science, I was referring to the general idea of what you actually so nicely stated: "Our knowledge of the sciences change. We progress in our ability to measure and understand our observations." It is more like you are given the universe to interpret and that process seems to occur at a much faster pace than religion.

What it sounds he is saying is: why doesn't God make us love him? When a dictator makes the people he governs over love him, do they, really? They do not. God gives us all Free Will so that we can choose to love him if we please and also express how much we love him.

No no no, I am so sorry. I did not phrase that well and that is not what I meant.

Here is what I meant: Why does God "pick a side' and not offer to solve a dispute with logic and diplomacy, therefore, saving all of the creations and not just one part? It just seems that in many stories, he picks a specific person or group of people to favour instead of offering some awe inspiring way to save everyone.

Thanks for the nice discussion guys. I appreciate hearing the different views in a nice manner and having a fairly logical discussion without any having any hate. 'Tis a rare occurrence.