Let me be clear. I'm not mentioning this because my personal beliefs side more along Que's, but rather, I'm not happy with the posts being made in this section. I would like to address an issue I see occurring as well as explain some of my own thoughts thereafter for those of you willing to read a small novel.
Guys, stop jumping on Que this
instant. He's being polite and trying to explain his thoughts with you guys as clearly as he can. He is NOT COPYING AND PASTING. I've had 4-5 hour long in-depth discussions with Que regarding religion, politics, current events etc. and personally I'm insulted when I see someone demean him in that nature so I would expect that he is offended in his own right to a certain extent. Object, but to not objectify.
I think many of you are
trying not to pay attention and pass off what Que says as entire misinterpretation on his part simply for the reason that
you disagree with it. I'm
not saying that as an insult, so hear me out. I object with Christianity
personally but I can actively examine someone's interpretation of a passage of scripture in The Bible and accurately determine if their interpretation is as-intended, far off, or say close but "maybe it means this" and go on to cite other examples. Almost nobody here has cited scripture or events in modern times or brought forth any other viable methods of reasoning for discussion or debate to tackle what Que is politely sharing with you guys. Instead, I see a lot of people bashing on one person and that's unacceptable no matter what he believes. He would not do that to you guys so please do not to that to him.
On a more on-par note, almost every post in response to what Que brings up
screams with misunderstanding in regards to what he's actually trying to discuss and instead I feel most of you are
choosing not to cite whether his examples are unfounded or not - and I don't know why. When scripture is brought up, most Christians and even non-Christians discuss that scripture and analyze it with others from the same book.
Que, instead, is only pointing out that there are entirely similar scenarios, words, numbers, depictions, names, ideals, relationships, and underlying principles behind most religions that mankind has uncovered from ancient times or written in record otherwise and is bringing forth questions and "food for thought" as to "why this is".
ace_012 wrote:But I will go ahead and say that I completely agree with Tyler, and what others said about them being similar but not the same. You can twist words all you want, but that doesn't change the authors original intent of the word.
Ace, I 100% agree with you. I also believe that Que 100% agrees with you and perhaps most of the members that read and post in this thread. The question that underlies everything written in the same nature is this:
"Why are all of these themes reappearing in all of these 'religious' texts dating back into ancient history and following through into modern religion?"
People of Ancient Greece didn't call "Greek Mythology" by simply "mythology", in their tongue. What was the popular belief about the world around them was
their way of life. Almost any reputable scholar who has studied Greek Mythology understands that the Greek Gods, Deities, and their relationships with one another were all part of an elaborate way in which to educate others about the world they lived in. But what did those people in ancient times know about the world around them almost better than anything else? They knew of the Earth. They knew of solar eclipses, equinoxes/ solstices, how tides behaved and how animals migrated. They understood and researched deeply about these things. So then the next question arises:
"How did these people learn about such advanced things and when they would happen if they had such incredibly crude instruments to measure and investigate with?"
They knew those things because they followed
Astrology and studied the stars in relation to the position of the Earth in alignment with the Sun and our Moon. From these studies, many existing before Greek times and extending far after, we come to understand that the constellations typically depicted in the
Zodiac (Calendar of the Zodiac) are seen interpreted in 'religious' texts as well as various different forms of 'mythological' stories and are
used to tell stories regarding the situations according to real-world events which corresponded to the Earth's natural alignment with constellations and seasons recognized on Earth. This recognition spawns the next curious question:
"Why are these examples repeated in Christianity as well as other religions?"
The reason, in my opinion, is almost entirely astrological and requires FAR too much text needed to explain in this post, although I can elaborate in pieces later on.
"What is the point I'm trying to make?"
I want people to understand what Que is trying to say, and this is what Que is trying to say paraphrased into my own words.
"Why, after knowing that similarities exist heavily between different religions regarding important themes such as similar scenarios, words, numbers, depictions, names, ideals, relationships, and underlying principles do we see so many people outwardly denying and scorning
ONE religion as
FALSE while choosing to ignore the similarities in favor of
THEIR preference and assume that nearly the same topics of interest listed above are
TRUE for
THEIR religion and
UNTRUE of others without ever stopping to consider that
ALMOST ALL RELIGIONS make amazing sense when viewed from an
astrological perspective?"
If I'm wrong, Que, please highlight why and where, but for the most part, although loosely arranged, I think I'm one of the only people who actually understands or is willing to attempt to understand the point of your posts without discarding you for a looney talking about fruit.
-DarkPacMan77-
, therefore, I read them. However, whenever someone sees a fundamental, and basic, flaw or potential problem within a view point, they tend to discredit and/or view the view point as illegitimate. A perfect and everyday example would be an algebraic problem: If you have a multi-step problem, and you make a mistake on a beginning part, generally, the output is going to be wrong because you've been working with false information. I believe that Que, sometimes, suffers this issue and because of that, I don't address the output, and instead, I address the fundamental errors. As with math, without knowing how to do the proper beginning steps of an equation, you will keep making the same mistakes again. I believe that this is in some way relative to Que's ideology. The reason I've been repetitive with my rebuttals is because I believe that he is making the same mistake over and over. I believe that this is why others are echoing their viewpoints and reading this thread from the most recent 10 pages, I'd say it would seem like we're being a tad harsh to him because we keep saying the same thing over and over as if we're not even reading his posts.