PDA

View Full Version : The Jehovah God part of it



tnerb
June 22nd, 2016, 01:49 AM
So a majority of us to state this first, even have it as my title.... People do not sometimes admit this topic. I guess this is because I have just left an atheist forum, which was not able to admit my views. But this strays far from the topic, I suppose. No, not so much I think. When we are in discussion of generalities of paganism we usually will wish to verify some particular subset of these, God issues. Is this true? You may not understand me yet so I will go on. Paganism is often times considered a carrying over of God's message, at least in some sense. In this practice/religion, call it what you will, the most common aspect is what is amusing me. You find that people know, in their deepest wishes that Jesus Christ is a savior of the sacrificed, in pagan practice, their belief. We have Jehovah God who is commonly abused by way of example as the wicker man, I have seen numerous examples which display a wicker man that is Jehovah God. Some may know what I am talking about. But prepare yourself for what you are to hear next. Some may not agree. Well please be patient then.

We are aware some of us, but in reality if I were to explain it properly, all of us are aware. We are aware of the fact that there is possibly more to the discussion of the savior, (Jesus Christ) and the wicker man, Jehovah God. So I say this first concealing my true intention of debate. To prepare you, perhaps, in your responses, or your judgement. Be aware the sacrifice is to be saved by God. But he is in fact so, in some cases people speak of taking him to hell.I have just deleted a sentence attempting to describe the process of the sacrifice. But we are aware, that this process I will say this bluntly by the way - it is not just taken by Jesus Christ alone, and not to mention Jehovah God. This is the common trend, but it is easily proved incorrect. You state to me now though, how is that possible! But I ask this on a pagan forum my dear sirs. You take a process to destroy a life, this process has many other processes. For instance Jesus Christ has only one, another process is Jehovah God's process.

Man is pre-eminently designed to understand the nature of himself, created in the image of God. One other task is the proper manner of execution, I will call this, our task, but it is something that we can here ponder or think about FOR ONE REASON. We do not wish to be cruel I stress this. But man is like God, he wishes to sometimes exercise his God behavior. He wishes to destroy the victem. In this case there is also a process for this act, where the victem is finished in one other sense. Please take caution I do not mean to be cruel!

We have stated three prcesses but in truth there are 5. You will now see this as proof!

Another process is the "switch" itself, where this what I am calling, a switch, is pulled, and the persons life is taken. That is another.

There is anther process, where the person is caged. And trapped or whatever. This is a fourth. Note that each of these acts as I describe them are all fundamental to the victem. Not in a cruel way, once again! If you can finish this thread, you will be amazed with that which I am going to clarify.

There is a fifth, which is the final, death, the actual death of the sacrafice. It is where he as a man, is on his right leg without any hope, and the actual act of his death is another setting of salvation. From hell, or whatever, by God, yes.

I have not described Jesus' act, because this thread was started fr a purpose particularly to advoid discussion of Jesus alone. But that is not my point. Jesus also saves the victem in a certain way. We are aware of this are we not? Then, I ask, why does Jesus have the conviction by some, to be the only saving act? Is it not obvious: he is considered to be the only son of God. Yes you are getting it, this is controversial in the greatest degree! My point in this thread is to clarify that the actor is named Euripides, the person who acts out gods gift in public, yes, we all wish to use our powers of God, there is a man who can do this, amazingly, and his name is Euripides, he is anther son of God.

There is Aristphanes, who is the person that puts the sacrafice on his leg and takes him finally. That is anther son of God.

There is Aeschylus, a man with a name of Killingsworth (I believe). He is called "the killer" by victems of pagan societys, and perhaps he is worshipped in pagan societys etc, which although however, Aeschylus is a holy man, and anther son of Jehovah God.

There is Sophocles, the trapper. This is the final son. So we have Jesus Christ, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes. I have written about this topic and plan to think about it, maybe a little more though I am convinced this is proof enough for any debate to arrive at conclusions. We are aware that, as a fact, we must have these 5 total acts, not including the act # 6 which is the wicker man himself and is Jehovah God. Note each of these acts are individual, each describe a salvation of some particular sort, I believe. But this is not just pure belief! We pagans should be aware that we are worshipping God and doing his will, when we do our activitys! The world itself can become healed by pagans who spread the word of Jehovah God perhaps,however simply intending by their practices or beliefs, not that I am being closed minded, but t spread rational and perhaps open mindedness towards God. This is one possibility, although I do not believe in the act of pagan worship. Sorry.

So we say, there are 5 sons of Jehovah God. I will ask your opinion in that each of these sons are taken seriously, or that they are not believed in at all? And what is your opinion on the topic.

thx,
Brent (aka Tnerb (brent t n e r b spell that backwards please?) ;)

Cassie
June 22nd, 2016, 08:51 AM
It would probably have been better for me not to be the first person to answer this post because, well, sometimes I'm just not nice. But anyway...
Backwards Brent (how clever and enigmatic-not); if you want actual discussion speak clearly and ask questions. If you just want to seem self important by writing gobbledygook which requires you to translate it for lesser mortals, you are probably wasting your time here. We are not so easily fooled.

favabean
June 22nd, 2016, 09:38 AM
I agree Cass,I had a VERY hard time understanding the rambling text. I had also a hard time even following the concepts or path of it. Sort of seems like this writer equates Jesus with almost every figure in historic myth.

favabean
June 22nd, 2016, 10:54 AM
there is nothing obvious in your post,it seems more an incoherent ramble,bringing up names of Greek writers in what seems your vision of connection between Abrahamic and other myth figures that if one studies religious history have no connection at all.

favabean
June 22nd, 2016, 12:45 PM
Not at all clear what you are trying to project here.

But I found this very interesting chart,in my search of religious history..I think other members might find interesting.

http://i2.wp.com/ultraculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/timeline-myth-religion.jpg

favabean
June 22nd, 2016, 12:51 PM
I believe its origin is perhaps from this site,though it has other place it can be found.

Site (http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/christianity/evolutionary-tree-religion-map-simon-e-davies)

Kittyraces
June 22nd, 2016, 01:29 PM
Okay. So, I've read this twice now. Once, as written, then walked away. Because what? Then, a second time, inserting (what I believe) to be correct punctuation etc.

What I'M taking away from this ... Word vomit is that you believe that pagans do the will of this "Jehovah God" and that these "Five Sons" represent different types/stages of "death" that everyone (or just Pagans?) will experience.

I'm also getting that you feel all of these "people" are what Pagans work with/for as "Gods/Goddesses". Jesus/Jehovah God masked as them.

You phrase things as "us pagans", but give off a very "you guys" tone/vibe. This comes across as very much wanting to incite discord or arguing vs debate. Especially considering your attempts as "sounding smart" with circular writing and your critisism that "if you can't understand it, you didn't read it/too bad".

I'm pretty sure I'm wrong in the wording of my assessment, mostly because I'm on mobile and can't refer back/look things up easily. I'm also dealing with a toddler post-doctor's appointment, so I've lost my personal thread of thought at least twice now. But, I *feel* like I know what you're getting at, you're just executing it very poorly. Whether that's on purpose or not, I don't know.

Cassie
June 22nd, 2016, 03:28 PM
Not at all clear what you are trying to project here.

But I found this very interesting chart,in my search of religious history..I think other members might find interesting.

http://i2.wp.com/ultraculture.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/timeline-myth-religion.jpg
Yes actually that is very interesting. When I have time I will have a more detailed look at it. I'm not really sure how accurate it is but it is fascinating to work out how ideas evolved.

favabean
June 22nd, 2016, 04:01 PM
It is a lot to take in,and if I remember they have poster of it..I do not think I have ever seen anything quite like it.

Kittyraces
June 22nd, 2016, 09:12 PM
If I am not clear perhaps well people do NOT WISH to debate it.

I don't think that it's "people do not wish to debate", but more, and I'm really trying to be polite here, your post reads like someone typed up a huge diatribe in English, Google translated it into another one, then RE-translated it back to English.

I feel like I'm getting snippets of what you're trying to say here, but, again, your circular way of speaking is not only barely understandable, but it comes across as very condescending. Plus, your writing "style" is more "stream of consciousness"/personal journaling than "clear, concise, and logical to others".

So, until you make sense, you're not going to get the "debate" you seem to desperately be looking for.

tnerb
June 22nd, 2016, 09:15 PM
Can you at least tell me how you feel about there being more than one son of God?

tnerb
June 22nd, 2016, 09:27 PM
I don't think that it's "people do not wish to debate", but more, and I'm really trying to be polite here, your post reads like someone typed up a huge diatribe in English, Google translated it into another one, then RE-translated it back to English.

I feel like I'm getting snippets of what you're trying to say here, but, again, your circular way of speaking is not only barely understandable, but it comes across as very condescending. Plus, your writing "style" is more "stream of consciousness"/personal journaling than "clear, concise, and logical to others".

So, until you make sense, you're not going to get the "debate" you seem to desperately be looking for.
Thank yu for your kindness. But failing to respond with any attempt to understand the post you quoted, is really asking for a lesson to be learned. Yeah, being told you simply do not understand what is being said, you know, by more advanced pagans. I mean you no offense. But the post you quoted is SCREAMING to be heard by somebody who understands it. Can you not hear me?

favabean
June 22nd, 2016, 09:34 PM
Thank yu for your kindness. But failing to respond with any attempt to understand the post you quoted, is really asking for a lesson to be learned. Yeah, being told you simply do not understand what is being said, you know, by more advanced pagans. I mean you no offense. But the post you quoted is SCREAMING to be heard by somebody who understands it. Can you not hear me?

It seems to suggest that"Caging a person",and I had to really try and shift your statement,and sacrificing seems to imply taking the life of another. How could you imagine that as an act of an advanced Pagan?

As Kitty mentioned it does indeed resemble a post translated into another language on google,and then translated back to English..also a statement that was gibberish to begin with.

tnerb
June 22nd, 2016, 09:38 PM
Hi favabean. People in pagan practice take it as common knowledge that of the act of the victem to be sacraficed. There is great tasks taken even around just this act. I presume you are somewhat aware of this?

So, caging a sacrafice is common to pagans. It is also common that the people of the world have their rat traps (reminds me of Rescuers Down Under, the disney movie, that man with the caged truck ;) ) but yes we do "use God's knowledge" as men, when we take up the notions of our rat traps our our particular cage dutys (at least as people). I feel you are simply misunderstanding my POV, if not entirely simply absolutely.

We need people here who can communite about the practices f pagans, if there is t be any hope of understanding them. (Or anything else that they might suggest to us).

Cassie
June 23rd, 2016, 11:41 AM
I will give you the best hint to understand it as I know how (man I must be REALLY GOOD when it comes to pagan practice ;) )

LOL! No you are not. And now I have to apologise, I am on the road and the quote feature isn't working properly on my tablet so I will have to use quotation marks for the rest . All quotes from the same post by tnerb.

"What I am stating is extremely advanced paganism."
No it isn't. And nobody here is fooled. There are in fact some very advanced pagans who frequent this site. You are not one of them.

"It is meant to be read specifically by advanced ( ) pagans who know their stuff."
Blah, blah blah... You do like to big yourself up don't you. But in fact you are just making yourself look silly... Or worse.

" It can be explained to in any sense, as long as one is willing to debate it, and understands at least the very essentials for how to respond to it. No offense, not complications, no difficulty understanding it, all I ask is a simple response to the topic which is easy to deal with, to read, etc.
I have prepared for this thread for a while that may have something to do with it. But it is readily available to any knowledgable pagan or person who understands the finer points of spiritual practice (maybem just in paganism?). "

Gobbledygook. As Kitty said this looks like a badly translated google translate effort. As a language teacher I see plenty of those. As a little hint of one mistake, there is no such word as maybem.

"thanks for your tries kitty. "

Kitty treated your post with more respect than it deserved and went to some effort to understand what you meant and open the thread up to real debate and all she gets from you in return is condescension.
I say enough is enough.

The frustrating thing about trolls (and that is what you are) is that there is often a hint of something real and worthwhile to discuss in the midst of their grandstanding and confused reasoning; but because they can't stop trolling, any chance of meaningful discussion is lost.

favabean
June 23rd, 2016, 03:35 PM
Well Cass,should you not be able to see how the mind of an advanced Pagan works?(and yes Cass,I am being kind of a hipster(NOT) by being ironic,I am way to old for that kind of trip) I was when younger a Beat of the first water..so break out the bongos and lets all feel the cool trip,and dig everything.

Glad you jumped in,that guy? was starting to make me twitch...

tnerb
June 25th, 2016, 10:17 PM
Cassie I take it you understand something about the opening post? You sure come across as if you do. :hyper:

Btw I had planned a few days ago to try another way of presenting this issue. I may do so in the future. This one is obviously wayyyy over peoples heads. Yep.

But still there are simple facts that define the op. The sacrafice is a life presuit. That is one recurring theme throughout this thread. Ie. we understand of the purpose of pagan practice by self knowledge, wisdom, self preservation. Nobody here has understood that I am asking directly about the topic of the sacrafice, and presenting it as even in your face proof that there are sons of God. Cassie sure doesn't understand the OP. That is very clear. Her comments (about it) are 100% superficial. Would you expect her to understand any of it? We have no room in this thread for trolls. Kitty was well on the mark of a troll, but cassie may be somewhat too. We do not expect complete nubs to understand a topic so simple that it hits them in the face.

Yes cassie I expect if anybody who know themselves very well and understood a thing or true about true wisdm or knowledge they would, without hesitating comment in confirmation of the message (that there are multiple sons of God), this is reached via a "proof" which is presented from understanding the story of the sacrafice, all litterally proven facts indeed.

But here we should not discuss any further, is that you guys understanding? Or can you continue to throw around loose insults in the hopes of hurting somebody or of making yourself feel even worse. You are doing a good job at both.

Cassie
June 26th, 2016, 10:26 AM
Not sure which of the 2 above posts is silliest. At least the spam one will be removed soon. Quite colourful though.
Oh in case the Chinese sweets get removed, I was not referring to Favabean's post. *gets bongos out*

favabean
June 26th, 2016, 02:39 PM
Cass,bongos be oh so cool,but not sure I would trust the candy or our very advanced pagan scholar who it seems is so advanced his(her) mind seems to have melted from the heat generated..May need a water based cooling solution(Ice pack on head.

http://image1.masterfile.com/em_t/02/48/97/838-02489799t.jpg

tnerb
June 28th, 2016, 12:30 AM
*all rest assured Cassie has no clue how to respond to topics of the sacrafice*

And then go to bed.

By the way, we were talking about a simple subject, yes? I see no reason to remove the notion in the sacrafice's ultimate spiritual meaning. Afterall, nobody gets it.

tnerb
June 28th, 2016, 12:41 AM
Just our of curiousity. And because I may not return to this very obviously biased thread. For a while. I wish to tell you readers something you might be interested in. Not sure if it shocks your sleeve. But I am pretty confident it will make you *think again* before you post any more (obvious) stupiditys. We have no room for that.

I am I believe the man with the name Killingsworth that the people in the pagan societys refer to. You may have heard about this guy btw, not sure. Can't be confident.... But it is easy to know there are as you will say many "contradictions" to this (fact). There are many Killingsworths, you say (ignorantly). But yes, and there are no more Killingsworths to criticize, because not one of them is the true Aeschylus. It's pretty obvious somebody might take interest in these little posts. But I am more confident about the proofs given for the existence of the other gods. How is that not debatable? By people who cannot debate? Worthless people. Still it is no shock that I am experiencing the existence of this proclaimed "known God" and his life in my own. I even have some pretty wicked experiences thinking about all of the stuff that happens in my life. Ever heard something that sounds like a frog in your room? But is no frog? What if I told you I believe it is one of the dead/undead etc that god is attending to? Crazy stuff... Hope I don't freak you out.

Just keep in mind if you wish to be insultive you will be ignored.

tnerb
June 28th, 2016, 01:22 AM
I have edited my posts. (They) should be easier to understand now. Thanks.