Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:

In article <cb4385$le5$02$1@news.t-online.com>,

Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:

In article <cb220j$mcv$04$1@news.t-online.com>,

-Hector- wrote:

It is my firm belief, Bernhard, that the Scriptures, whether
those of the Old Testament or the New are inspired by God. I
personally see a dichotomy only between the Old and the New in the
fulfillment of the promise that God had for a means for man to
reconcile himself in righteousness with his Lord. The essential and
quintessential precepts are coherent and consistent between the two.
An example of this consistency is in the admonition of Daniel in the
selected scriptures above to Nebuchadnezzer to tend to the poor. This
attitude is shared in the New Testament.
I was introducing into the discussion, as an interlocutor, a
perspective that provides some qualification to Wheatherwax's singular
focus on the stricture of Paul's that Christians (the set of which I
am a member) are to defer to their governing authorities. Though that
focus was deliberately narrow, it is one that may apply to any
circumstance in which one is subject to the authority of any superior,
e.g. the employee - employer relationship or the student - teacher
relationship. In this case however, the provided anecdotes illustrate
how the Bible portrays the Lord's attitude towards the tyrannical
abuse of power. Also, these same qualify the stricture in that God's
law is to obeyed above all other law, even if it runs the risk of
repercussion from earthly authorities, one implication being that
those that serve God should accede to earthly consequence. There are
other nuances that could be addressed, though I think this will do.

Studying Usenet law,
Hector

Ok. After some research, here's some "unbiased" material I
have found about the "historical" Nebuchadnezzar (II.):

About Babylonian history in Daniel's times (nice site):
<http://joseph_berrigan.tripod.com/ancientbabylon/id23.html><http://josep

The Law of Hammurabi (1780 B.C. - also see the laws in the
bible, written down much later):


About "virgin birth" of Nebuchadnezzar II. (genuine text):


All ancient stories used picturesque language to underline
the importance of outstanding individuals. The Jews were a
very small and unimportant kingdom between "heavy weights"
in the Middle East. The knowledge and philosophies of them
influenced the Jewish culture on a large scale and offered
many "models" for the Jewish religion. This Jewish kingdom
was under occupation most of the time it existed, it's not
that absurd to assume the assimilation of the thoughts and
customs of their various occupying powers.

There's a lot of knowledge and wisdom in ancient texts, we
should bow our heads to show our respect. It's astonishing
what our forefathers achieved with most simple instruments
and the abilities of their brain. We should learn from the
immense knowledge they left for us - but we should be able
to separate ancient wisdom from ancient beliefs.

This is what I can see in the stories I have seen for some
hours now. It also is the only stuff we can discuss about.
It doesn't make any sense to discuss our beliefs, they are
a genuine part of our "internal base" and shouldn't be the
topics of a discussion.

You have to discuss your beliefs to see if your own conclusions
are true or along the right path or not.
To simply say - oh, we can read what's down in history in OK, but
to discuss what you actually 'think' about it, is wrong.

In general: Yes. In this special case: No. (A kind of
"Gentlemen Agreement".)

I distinguish between the beliefs of a person and the
opinion stated in a discussion. I always will give my
arguments pro or contra the opinion, but before I be-
gin to discuss the beliefs of the person - I will ask
if that is what the person really wants to do.

You cannot prove another person's thinking or conclusion is wrong,
all you can say - is that it doesn't fit within a logical framework,
when you take this and this into consideration. Haven't you looked
into this data/logic/belief system or believe accounts of people who
have experienced this? (Not in ancient times but in our present day
and age).

If something is genuine and truthful, it is still going on today.
People have had strange and mystical experiences (on par to what is
written in the bible) which is part of reality.
Do you place your faith and trust in a document that was written
2000 or more years ago - and do not believe what people may be
experiencing en masse, in modern times?

It always will come down to one point: If something's
the opinion of a person, then I'm able to analyse the
arguments given and can state my opinion. But I never
will be able to say something about the beliefs - nor
will I attack beliefs or give arguments about them. I
can show a person flaws in her/his logical building -
but I can't destroy the logical building and assemble
a new one on top of the rubble. It is up to the other
person to use my aguments or reject them. My policies
are - give food for thought - a conclusion only is of
worth if it's the result of own thinking. If the step
of cognition (= gnosis) is left out, it is useless to
store the result. It's of no worth, learned by heart,
without understanding "why" (the nature of Nature)...

My main argument is about the 'establishment' and established ideas
and beliefs versus actual 'reality' - how, there is a resistance to
explain the unexplained - because the bible and christianity is suppose
to explain these things (and doesn't).
How when something becomes 'established' it becomes set in stone,
and not able to take into account new information/data/etc.

Times are different. We have access to far more information than in
previous times, so why not take advantage of all the information we have
available - and not just a select few documents, you approve of.
There are also many other documents around, which record other things.

This is exactly what I am thinking (probably you have
seen my last reply meanwhile). It's the same thing if
we still would use some ancient, geo-centric formulas
to calculate the path of the missions to Mars (cannot
work, even if we have the best intentions).

Mankind gathered so much knowledge since the death of
Rabbi Yoshua, the old message can't be taken as valid
rules today. It needs an update. IMO, the new message
might come down to humanism (the old message had many
humanitarian - Essene - thoughts). All this religious
"crap" and picturesque language only were "wrappers",
"eye-catchers" to sell the message inside. Unwrapping
the package discovers a few basic principles...

The term "established" speaks for itself, I think. If
something becomes "established", it is dead. Only the
things which are practised every day are alive. It is
up to us. We should practise, not preach hollow words
which are miles away from reality.


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

I honestly think that when Jesus appeared, same with
Mohammed - it was with the intention of correcting
everything to a new true standard - but shortly after
they disappeared from the scene - the teachings became
distorted (much like it has ALWAYS happened).
The priests held power beforehand - and afterwards the
new priests likewise wanted power and to hold onto that
new power to them.
Likewise with anyone in any high position of office -
power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,
unfortunately all humans are subsceptible to this, to our
present day. If they think they can get away with anything,
they try. Like Clinton tried...

Rabbi Yoshua was a revolutionary, not a missionary.

There were followers of the political parts of his message, and
followers of the more spiritual parts - the first one's died in
the various revolts against the Romans. The latter one's survi-
ved the struggles and could immigrate to Rome, where they began
to create a new credo, based on the spiritual parts of Yoshua's
message (this part was neccessary to convince the orthodox Jews
to stand up and fight). This credo had to follow several rules,
which had to be fulfilled by the young Church if they wanted to
survive and win followers. The rest of this story is known from
the prior postings...

The model of the "pyramid of might" always bears the risk to be
abused. It's interesting that this model exists for a couple of
millenia now, but never was changed. We resist to learn...

I think establishment of 'truth' can be done - with the
knowledge that this is not set in stone, but changes due
to our changing understanding of truth, like with our
accumulation of knowledge - it changes.

This kind of truth exists - it is called science.

re: religion - faith alone is not enough. We need proof that
such and such religion is along truthful lines.
Some beliefs, do of course, have their own evidence and proof
that they are along truthful interpretations - such as eastern
(or far eastern) in which they do meditations or get into states
which allows them access to other realms or abilities.
Shamanism does that.

I personally think we are at a time, in which we can look
subjectively at religions and investigate them thoroughly
and logically - and show what is false about them, and recorrect
them appropriately.
Of course this will inevitably offend a large number of people,
but I think it needs to be done - if religion is to survive.
This kind of process has been going on anyway, but it has been
neglectful of late - that's why Mormons and JWs started up,
and others over 100 years ago.

Bhuddism is not a religion - it's a philosophy, dedicating your
life to a special goal. Bhuddism has no God, but believing in a
God isn't excluded. Actually: You may believe in God, Yahwe and
Allah at the same time and are a Bhuddist. No religion would be
that tolerant. This is the main reason, why China and Japan are
"diaspora" for Christianity. Jesus is one of many of their pri-
vate house-gods - the cross might be found between a Bhudda and
a Dragon (fortune) statue...

We should talk with those who believe, if they are open for the
discussion about their beliefs. But there is no way to change a
Church. You will never be able to convince someone who partici-
pates in the benefits of a rank (giving him power to rule other
people) to give up this position...


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak