Resignation of Benedict XVI and the new Pope Francis

[sen-no-sen]

Religions, including atheism, are packaging with different designations according to the languages ​​(codes) used, but it is the "I am" that matters.

Absolutely, but the way her reporting things changes absolutely everything.
There is only one reality (in the absolute), it can manifest in a multitude of forms and can be interpreted in many ways.
The problem is that "the man in the street" often limits his questions - when they are asked - to the strict minimum. It is for this reason that it is necessary to use the terms well in order to avoid them. deceptive analogies, otherwise we fall into indoctrination.

Yet another "anti-religious" confusion drawn from the pagan-Christian religions that are Catholicism / Protestantism in our culture. God does not have to be served (why for that matter?) And punishment / reward, elect and damned are concepts foreign to the revelation that are the "sacred" books.

Sorry, but this anti-religious confusion is based only on facts.
If we talk about lord it's not for nothing! the lord is the one to be served.
The notion of paradise for the righteous / hell for the damned is very present in the current cults.
Basic Christianity is long gone, supplanted by Catholic and other "churches"!

The salvation is not really by itself or in itself since otherwise it would be necessary to know all the necessary parameters which is not within human reach.

Salvation is not a mere technical knowledge, it is not a mechanism, so everyone can reach it.

the human is not, either, destined to serve God (as an idol), but his neighbor through rules conducive to this action. After humans take it into account or not (it's the famous "relative freedom of choice")

This is not the interpretation of the dominant model!

according to which culture, there too!

The notion of the unique god (a god) has been popularized since Abrahambut the design of God One is to be attributed to Moise (Regarding the religions of the Book, because there are many other religions!).
Out of respect for tradition (?) The Abrahamic vision has continued until our day.

monotheism is also unable to define what god is

Simply attributing to God a unique character is already a first step towards definition.

God is holy, God is right, God is love
Our Lord is great, powerful by His strength, His intelligence has no limit.

He who does not love does not know God, because God is love. The love of God has been manifested to us in that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we may live through him.
It's drawing from the Bible ... it's still a certain way of defining god ...

If you abstract from the SEL (which should be defined exactly, but according to what is eternal and infinite, unthinkable and incalculable, of a nature impossible to explain impossible) the rest is applicable to the monotheistic notion of god.

Absolutely!
The problem is that as I mentioned above, monotheism is based on a lack of interpretation.
For someone very pious that does not change anything, for the man in the street, the consequences of this vision can lead to terrible disappointments.

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

Absolutely, but the way her reporting things changes absolutely everything.
There is only one reality (in the absolute), it can manifest in a multitude of forms and can be interpreted in many ways.

There agree!

The problem is that "the man in the street" often limits his questions - when they are asked - to the strict minimum.

Always okay !

For this reason it is necessary to use the terms well to avoid misleading analogies, otherwise we fall into indoctrination.

Still agree, but I would say rather that each one chooses his indoctrination according to his lived, his culture (example Michel Onfray, the cantor of the atheism, which became atheist and especially anti religious, after having been fiddled by a priest when he was in a Jesuit school) which he himself claimed in an interview.

Quote:
Yet another "anti-religious" confusion drawn from the pagan-Christian religions that are Catholicism / Protestantism in our culture. God does not have to be served (why for that matter?) And punishment / reward, elect and damned are concepts foreign to the revelation that are the "sacred" books.

Sorry, but this anti-religious confusion is based only on facts.

I'm not saying it's not based on historical realitieson the contrary, but the confusion comes from the fact that (to take an image) we take for reference a rotten car, which smokes like a locomotive, which pisses the oil, and thus the brakes are dead; rather than the new, sparkling car just out of production lines and that the builder did not conceive to become a dangerous wreck. However, the manufacturer is held responsible for the misuse of his product and the garage owners for unimportant money-makers.

If we talk about lord it's not for nothing! the lord is the one to be served.

The term lord is used as a comparison (in the sense given to it by Jewishness), that is, one who dispenses justice with equity. You could say that our current judges are also lords. Now god, as such, does not need to be served, but to incite humans to mutual service: "love eachother!"1 John 4:20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar, because he who does not love his brother, whom he sees, can not love God, whom he do not see.

The notion of paradise for the righteous / hell for the damned is very present in the current cults.

Of course but as a reference to the rotten car of earlier (sorry for the "pagan-Christian" who might feel targeted, I'm not talking about individuals but systems)

Basic Christianity is long gone, supplanted by Catholic and other "churches"!

Still true, but either we look at the degradation produced and say that we must do well with or try to go back and find the right use of the product. (This is one of the challenges of ecology now that wants to believe that it is not too late and seeks to return to a healthier management of the earth). The religious reform movements (despite their many flaws or clumsiness) are trying this reform in their field. Jesus the sage said, " In the beginning, it was not so because it is because of the hardness of your heart that Moses gave you ... »

Quote:
The salvation is not really by itself or in itself since otherwise it would be necessary to know all the necessary parameters which is not within human reach.

Salvation is not a mere technical knowledge, it is not a mechanism, so everyone can reach it.

We can always dream !

This is not the interpretation of the dominant model!

Similarly, rotten apples can not serve as a model, even if the tree is abundantly supplied.

Quote:
according to which culture, there too!

The notion of the unique god (a god) has been popularized since Abraham,

Not really, for Abraham it is about an awareness of the materialism of idolatry attributing occult powers to objects, it is an internal revelation that opens the door to an ultra-sensitive perception that is the dialogue with God.

but the conception of God One is attributed to Moses (as regards the religions of the Book, because there are many other religions!).

Not really either! Until Moses the spiritual and material laws were verbal and therefore subject to fluctuations in individual interpretations, more or less influenced by neighboring idolatrous cults. From Moses these laws (not all) become written (the famous "words fly away, writings remain"which are familiar to us.) and begin with the famous ten words of the tables of the law, a brief summary of all those which will follow and which Jesus the wise will take up in his speech.
So Moses intervenes as the coder of the laws, but not as a definer of a god who is indeed Abrahamic.

Out of respect for tradition (?) The Abrahamic vision has continued until our day.

Like many traditions that endure, fade, and become deformed over the centuries, it is the human race that expresses itself there. But in Judaism, there is no fixed and definitive interpretation unlike other religions of the book, two exegetes can have a different reading and interpretation without this creating a dogmatic opposition, on the one hand because the structure of the language does not allow any other possibility and also because it is a state of mind which has blurred in the "pagan-Christianities" by interests of castes and powers.

Quote:
monotheism is also unable to define what god is

Simply attributing to God a unique character is already a first step towards definition.
God is holy, God is right, God is love
Our Lord is great, powerful by His strength, His intelligence has no limit.

Always by analogy with what the human can perceive of a dimension inaccessible and so who finds expression with words and images of men.
Thus when it is written "god is holy", it is more correct to say god is holiness, justice, love as being abstract values ​​that humans must seek to integrate into their experience and not see him as a humanized entity (even if it is necessary for its understanding by all).
God is Love, or God is Love is always and always human concepts limited to our perception of the imperceptible or to take Ramana Maharshi one of the greatest sages, spoke about the SOI,eternal and infinite, unthinkable and incalculable, of a nature impossible to explain

It's drawing from the Bible ... it's still a certain way of defining god ...

Of course, but by images, comparisons, by default other ways of expressing the inexpressible.

Quote:
If you ignore the SEL (which should be defined exactly, but according to what is eternal and infinite, unthinkable and incalculable, of a nature impossible to explain) the rest is applicable to the monotheistic notion of god.

Absolutely!
The problem is that as I mentioned above, monotheism is based on a lack of interpretation.
For someone very pious that does not change anything, for the man in the street, the consequences of this vision can lead to terrible disappointments.

That is true ! But on one side there are those who do not care about it so do not feel concerned, at least directly. Then there is the multitude of others who are in intuitive perception, like Ramana, and who does not necessarily go through a religious system that is framed, restrictive (some of whom need it) but who feel the same values: love of neighbor, truth, justice (even through the different cultures that have permeated our civilizations).
It's like food: in the beginning god establishes the VGL as a food rule (so an ideal) then humans have made "at their head" and have paid dearly for hundreds of generations by diseases and suffering that would have could be avoided easily.

[sen-no-sen]

Not really, for Abraham it is about an awareness of the materialism of idolatry attributing to objects of the powers You will not covet the house of your neighbor, you will not covet his wife, his servant, nor his servant, neither her ox, nor her donkey, nor anything that belongs to her. Occult, it is an internal revelation that opens the door to an ultra-sensitive perception that is the dialogue with God.

Allow me to doubt it.
For several reasons, if we look more closely, most religions are pragmatic rather than spiritual.
Monotheism aimed precisely at a certain simplification in worship in order to establish a less empirical and more humane model of society. (Read more animal)
Indeed the natural principles are opposed to intra-specific killing of the human sacrifice type, something common at the time.

The 10 commandments are neither more nor less than the foundations of a society in balance and respects the main animal rituals ... for spirituality it will be necessary to return.

A reminder of the Ten Commandments:
They are composed of two tables according to tradition, the first is related to cults to god, the second of the rules of life in society:

Honor your father and your mother to enjoy a long life in the land that the LORD your God gives you Ritual of territory, transposed to the family case.

You will not commit murder. Respect for the mental barrier prohibiting intra-specific killing.

You will not commit adultery Respect of the ritual of seduction, aiming at limiting the permanent confrontation between male.

You will not commit a robbery A small novelty of homo sapiens that creates the notion of property basis of materialism ...

You will not bear false witness against your neighbor
The goal is to avoid the ritual of confrontation ...

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, neither covet his wife, nor his servant, nor his servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his.

Once again the notion of property, human improvement of the ritual of territory transposed to its material "acquisitions" ....

Spirituality?

To return to Abraham, contrary to Moses or Christ, there is almost no valid information about his historical existence.
For a number of historians, it would be a mythological character.
In addition, “pure juice” monotheism only really appeared at the time of Moses ... and again!
Until then, the Hebrews venerated two divinities: one male (Yahweh) and the other female (Ashera).
We always notice that it is very difficult to make a clean sweep of the old religions.

In short, the "Abrahamic" period saw the emergence of a concept of simplification of worship focused on a limited number of divinity (male / female) as old as the world and tinged with anthropomorphism.
The notion of God One ""I am that I am", corresponding to Moise's vision of the mountain, yet this concept, certainly too advanced for the time, was "mixed" with different beliefs to give a simplifying monotheism that continues to this day.

[Janic]

Allow me to doubt it.
For several reasons, if we look more closely, most religions are pragmatic rather than spiritual.
Monotheism aimed precisely at a certain simplification in worship in order to establish a less empirical and more humane model of society. (Read more animal)
Indeed the natural principles are opposed to intra-specific killing of the human sacrifice type, something common at the time.

The 10 commandments are neither more nor less than the foundations of a society in balance and respects the main animal rituals ... for spirituality it will be necessary to return.

A reminder of the Ten Commandments:
They are composed of two tables according to tradition, the first is related to cults to god,

It is not a cult in the usual sense of the word. Already it is not 10 commandments in the authoritative sense of the word, but 10 words that follow a request for choice (no obligation)
The 1 ° word being: « I am the Lord ton God (and not a god among others) who brought you out of bondage. From here:
2° you will not have any god other than me (paternity recognition) you will not make an idol of images ... and you will not bow down to them to worship them (end of materialistic idolatry) because I am a jealous god, etc. (claiming paternal authority)
3° you will not invoke the name of god for support of the lie (claim of moral identity)
4° For six days you will work and the seventh you will rest (breaking of the continuous cycle of typical activity of slaves)
It is the relation between the temporal and the timeless, between the material and the immaterial, between the finite and the infinite that expresses itself in humanity. from where :

This is where
the second of the rules of life in society:
Spirituality?

It is the relationship between matter and spirit that governs the actions of men.

To return to Abraham, contrary to Moses or Christ, there is almost no valid information about his historical existence.

This can be said of any character in the history not recognized as civil or religious authorities.
Abraham is only the leader of a small tribe of a few individuals and is not likely to find a place in the history of historians.
Moses, too, is the leader of a community of slaves, and never has a leader of slaves in need of liberation made one of the historic tablets of slavers.
Ditto for Christ, he is accompanied by only a few disciples and constantly moves from Judea to Galilee, the story does not keep track of a small minority group that has not even noticed by feats of arms like some of his contemporaries. So it is important only on a very local and unknown plan of the Roman authorities.
John the Baptist (non-violent babacool) is better known than Christ himself.

For a number of historians, it would be a mythological character.

which historians? The story of Abraham, an insignificant figure for the authorities at the time, does not deserve to be considered a mythological figure. His life is unspecified, he marries, has children, does breeding, not enough to mark history ... historians.
Good of our History characters could also be cataloged as mythological by historians from other countries since their traces are almost nil. Even for Vercingetorix the speculations are going well. Did he only exist?
The Bible is the history book of Judaism, not another civilization, and relates its history in its own way according to its own criteria that link the social and the spiritual. What would one say if the Chinese gave their opinion on the history of France as with "our ancestors the Gauls" taught in Africa? !

In addition, “pure juice” monotheism only really appeared at the time of Moses ... and again!

Still inaccurate (as far as biblical monotheism is concerned), monotheism is not unique to the Hebrews and also runs throughout history, what makes the difference is that this god is not the object of any representation that can lead to idolatry. " the true worshipers of God are in spirit and in truth »

Until then, the Hebrews venerated two divinities: one male (Yahweh) and the other female (Ashera).

Again this mixture between pure and hard monotheism and idolatry, which is like a hydra, the more heads are cut off and the more they repel. Now the god of Abraham, of Moses, of Jesus rejects all idolatry.

We always notice that it is very difficult to make a clean sweep of the old religions.

This is the least we can say, but that does not justify the confusion.

In short, the "Abrahamic" period saw the emergence of a concept of simplification of worship focused on a limited number of divinity (male / female) as old as the world and tinged with anthropomorphism.

This is not a simplification, it is a complete revolution insofar as this new divinity is unrepresentable and therefore can not be the object of any worship whatsoever.

The notion of the One God "" I am that I am ", corresponding to the vision of Moses on the mountain, however this concept, certainly too advanced for the time to been" mixed "with the various beliefs to give a simplifying monotheism lasting until 'nowadays.

Unfortunately, it's like anything and everything; anyone can do what they want and use a screwdriver to drive the nails, but it is not for this purpose that it exists. Hence, once again, we must make a clean sweep of idolatries, superstitions, deviant cultures and return to the source: " in the beginning, it was not so ... »
This is what Biblical exegesis serves!

[sen-no-sen]

It is not a cult in the usual sense of the word. Already it is not 10 commandments in the authoritative sense of the word, but 10 words that follow a request for choice (no obligation)

No need to be a great sage to understand that his commands come out of a man's head ....

you will not have other gods than me (recognition of paternity) you will not make you an idol of images ... and you will not prostrate before them to adore them (end of the materialistic idolatry) because I am a jealous god, etc.

A jealous god ... if it's not anthropomorphism!

It is the relation between the temporal and the timeless, between the material and the immaterial, between the finite and the infinite that expresses itself in humanity.

What poetry!
I do not see any relationship between the temporal and the timeless, just basic rules in society, nothing more.

Abraham is only the leader of a small tribe of a few individuals and is not likely to find a place in the history of historians.
Moses, too, is the leader of a community of slaves, and never has a leader of slaves in need of liberation made one of the historic tablets of slavers.
Ditto for Christ, he is accompanied by only a few disciples and constantly moves from Judea to Galilee, (...)

Certainly the other two are semi-mythological characters.

The story of Abraham, an insignificant figure for the authorities at the time, does not deserve to be considered a mythological figure.

A myth is a narrative featuring an imaginary character allegorically.
The case of Abraham can therefore very well be considered as such.

monotheism is not unique to the Hebrews and also runs throughout history,

And what are the other previous monotheism?
Before we see rather the monolatrism, not monotheism.
This says in passing, God, his archangels, angels, seraphim and cherubim and on the other side Satan and his demons is a true monolatrism.

This is not a simplification, it is a complete revolution insofar as this new divinity is unrepresentable and therefore can not be the object of any worship whatsoever.

Really?
Mass is not a cult?
The sacrifice of the sheep, either?

[gegyx]

Photo without special effects.

[Christophe]

What's on the table? The Ark of the Covenant?

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

No need to be a great sage to understand that his commands come out of a man's head ....

Just like the water comes out of the tap and the tap believes it is the source.

A jealous god ... if it's not anthropomorphism!

Yes, of course ! How to express the inexpressible other than by words and images of men. When " Ramana Maharshi, one of the greatest sages, spoke of self, eternal and infinite, unthinkable and incalculable, of a nature impossible to explain "Speaks of the self, he does it with words of men while recognizing that they are powerless to describe this self in question while considering it as a reality.
In the biblical discourse addressed to the wise as to the ignorant, strong images are needed to establish a correspondence between the inexpressible and what is desired to be expressed. It's squaring the circle!

Quote:
It is the relation between the temporal and the timeless, between the material and the immaterial, between the finite and the infinite that expresses itself in humanity.

What poetry!
I do not see any relationship between the temporal and the timeless, just basic rules in society, nothing more.

Bravo, how sagacious! When a manufacturer invents a product, it comes with a user manual and strangely it concerns the invented object. Basic rules, nothing more! But, you will have noticed some people never read the instructions and the machine is not used to the best of its ability, just as some move without maps or compasses, which is only possible for roads already marked (basic rules) but it no longer works in deserted areas. One often confuses a system that has been operating on itself since distant times and whose source has become indistinct and the beginning of its operation. Men are able to build robots that themselves can build other robots indefinitely, but the first robot did not build itself and did not give itself its own rules of operation.
10 lyrics are a reminder (and not an innovation) of the operating rules of a company, but related to the initial designer of these.

Certainly the other two are semi-mythological characters.

This is the first time I have read such a statement! And on what basis? None of the three is to be favored over others.

A myth is a narrative featuring an imaginary character allegorically.
The case of Abraham can therefore very well be considered as such.

Indeed, it can be considered as such in another culture than that of Judaism; this one holds Abraham for a character HISTORY and not mythical or legendary. This is due to the genealogical tree kept permanently in each family: Dupont, son of, son of, son of ... and this by thousands, millions of families "Jewish" where these trees overlap (unlike 'tree of evolution which is only an imaginative work creating links and filiation where they do not exist, that's mythical!). It is as if Vrecingetorix is ​​considered a mythical character and Charlemnagne as François first of the semi-myths. This will be a shake-up in our school books and libraries.

Quote:
monotheism is not unique to the Hebrews and also runs throughout history,

And what are the other previous monotheism?

A monotheism (from the Greek [monos], "single, unique" and [theos], "god") is a religion that affirms the existence of a single God and the transcendence of God, creator of the world.
In this exclusive sense, the history of religions follows a precise definition. "To the extent that one understands monotheism in the strict sense (not only as a belief in one God, but as an explicit denial of all other gods), there are for the history of religions only four great religions monotheists: the religion of Israel, the religion of Zarathustra (Mazdaism), Christianity and Islam "
Previously, as early as the 14th century BC AD, the reign of Akhenaten is the setting for a brief, strict monotheistic revolution based on the solar cult of Aton and rejection of other deities previous Egyptian, a cult that according to some historians would have been followed in a diligent way only by the pharaoh, his family and the ruling elite.
wikipedia

Before we see rather monolatrism, not monotheism.

This is true of form because actually worshiping a created object like the sun or other product is monolatrism, but eliminates any other deity. It's a kind of return incomplete at the source, even if the notion of worship in spirit only is difficult to integrate into cultures (if only because a large number of religious of all kinds live idolatry)

That said in passing, God, his archangels, angels, seraphim and cherubim and on the other side Satan and his demons is a true monolatrism.

Bad understanding of texts These entities have no role of divinity, they are "employees" in the service of .... as the deputy director, the chief of staff or the salesman are deputies and not the boss. The biblical requirement is for them to be considered as such (messengers now seem to be factors) whose role is to keep the business running. Unfortunately, indeed, idolatry has hard skin and more or less quickly individuals need a concrete representation, visible, measurable, touchable of the invisible, the untouchable, etc ... hence the fast idolatry in which fell pagan-Christianity.

Apocalypse 1- 2 I know your works, your work, and your perseverance. I know you can not stand the bad guys; that you have tested those who call themselves apostles and who are not, and that you have found them to be liars;
3 that you have of perseverance, that you suffered because of my name, and that you did not get tired.
4 But what I have against you is that you gave up your first love.

Really?
Mass is not a cult?
The sacrifice of the sheep, either?

These are deviances (the rotten crate I mentioned earlier), nowhere will you find any incentive to mass or sheep sacrifices in the Bible (although some texts give the impression, but there it is a thorough exegesis of the texts and this subject would not suffice and I think that Christophe would close it, already that it deviates from its object.)
So except to create a dedicated topic that has no place in this site, I think, I'm left there!

[Christophe]

One that will not please Janic ... to take with humor huh ...

[sen-no-sen]

Sen no sen hello

No need to be a great sage to understand that his commands come out of a man's head ....

Just like the water comes out of the tap and the tap believes it is the source.

Doubtful analogy ...
If we summarize the renault clio is the work of God .... there will be copyright issues
Ditto for GMOs! A wonderful way to make people eat it!

When "Ramana Maharshi one of the greatest sages, spoke of the SELF, eternal and infinite, unthinkable and incalculable, of an impossible nature to explain" speaks of the self, he does it with words of men while recognizing that those - They are powerless to describe this self in question while considering it as a reality.

The astronomical difference between the Self and the monotheist vision is that the Self does not refer to an anthropomorphic concept, and that changes everything ...

The 10 words are a reminder (and not an innovation) of the operating rules of a company, but in relation to the initial designer of these

I do not share this opinion at all.
There are many other models of very old societies with taboos.
The command on the flight concerns only a materialistic society where the notion of ownership is anchored in the socio-culture.
For many people this notion simply does not make sense ...
Rather than speaking of divine intervention, I would rather speak of respecting the ritual values ​​specific to our species and transposed to materialistic civilization in appearance.
Moreover, the 10 commandments were only for the Hebrew.

This is the first time I have read such a statement! And on what basis? None of the three is to be favored over others.

econology is not intended to be a site on religion, so I'll make it short.
It is commonly accepted that most biblical facts have been greatly exaggerated.
Theological studies have shown that Moses did not use the Red Sea ... but took advantage of the waters of the lake Tanis withdraws to escape the pharaoh.
We are therefore very far from the myth (thank you Hollywood) of the waters opening as if by magic to let the "righteous" pass.

For Christ, the gap between the writing of the Dead Sea and the Gnostic text describes a character completely different from the biblical superman who raises the dead and distributes the loaves.
Hellenic culture has a lot to do with it, to convert as many people as possible the history of Christ has been largely modified in order to fit with the worship of the time such as that of Hercules, Mitra, Appolon etc ...

Many "believers" have faith only in the fact that such or such a character was endowed with "superpowers".
If tomorrow it was said that Christ was simply a sage, and that the supernatural character of his coming into the world was an allegory, I wonder if the faithful would be so numerous?