Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Sooyeah on 19/11/2008 10:12:19
-
The Jesus Package.
Chastity= The refusal to be dominated combined with the refusal to dominate. Chastity is dominions opposite.
Jacob, wrestled with the angel of God, and refused to be dominated, and so was given a blessing. On this day the boy became a man.
Moses, brought the the people out of the house of slavery.
Both are examples of Chastity.
Jesus' life, was a life of complete chastity, He came wearing the colours Blue and Red. Red, God, God is Love. Blue Humanity, God made man free, Freedom-chastity respect for that.
For with love you keep all the commandments. With Chastity you stay out of the house of slavery and you don't put others in either.
Chastity and Love, Blue and Red.
Now Jesus does not wear Yellow, Why? I suggest Yellow often represents Wisdom or knowledge. So you could argue that Jesus embodies Wisdom and truth. But I see something else too, that maybe Jesus is saying that we should except that we could never know it all. For infact to try and know it all is to try to be like God.
'Your God is a Jealous God', you could also argue that by being Jealous people are trying to be like God.
Suffering, Jesus' crown, the crown of thorns, is a crown of suffering. In some ways it is to say that 'you will suffer for my name', that by following Jesus the world will give you problems, the light others wish to snuff out. But there is more. For suffering is unavoidable.
God gave man freedom, and with freedom comes choice and consequence, and so suffering, but without freedom you are not alive, without freedom you're a robot. Which is why God gave freedom, I believe.
So I suggest that Jesus is saying except that, you can't live without it. JOB "If we take happiness from Gods hands should we not take suffering as well".
There are of course many forms of suffering, as many as there are people, I believe the Godly are called to help reduce the suffering of others, in the end they are certainly not called to increase it.
So the Jesus Package I see as this.
Chastity and love, acceptance that we could never know it all, and acceptance of suffering.
Love, respect and consideration for our fellow children of God, which we all are.
As a final note:
The MATRIX, makes a good analogy to Jesus.
Jesus would be Neo, the Father would be the source and the Holy Sprite would be the code.
How does Neo see the Matrix? The source is in Neo, in a way it is not in the others.
'She permeates all things'. Two lines of code one for the living and one for stuff.
But it is a simple analogy and should stop there.
Maybe you could see Smith and the Architect representing 'The most stupid'. One wants everyone to be like him, the other wants everyone to fit the maths, Domination as always.
Yours with love...
-
I didn't get a cake at the party...
She said "no"....
I came second.....
I thought I was right....
I make a mistake....
Why am I not like that?...
I didn't realise....
Why don't they like me?....
He didn't say "hello"...
I didn't get the job...
"Rosebud" "Rosebud"
-------------------------
It's OK. You are not alone, and God does Love you.
The price of freedom.
It is in the end a blessing, a robot knows no different.
For all the pain, there is also joy, love and happiness.
One day up, one day down, and it can be very hard.
But, don't let the bad stuff, stop you enjoying the good stuff.
The roller coaster of love, sometimes we fall off, but the thing about humans is, we always seem to get back up and keep on trucking.
'Faith, hope and love and the greatest of these is love'
Yours with all three
Sooyeah
-
'Gather ye rose buds while ye may'.....
Maybe you would like to listen to this:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=JWVshkVF0SY
[:)]
-
Lets all be like Jacob and refuse to be dominated by God.
Moses was a liar and murderer who "struck" down a guard (killed and hid the body) and then needed help to escape, safety in numbers.
Dont believe in those colours you see in the Hollywood films as most never existed at the time of Jesus. Read up on dyes and Liturgical colours. You will find that the colours red and purple were reserved for only those in high office such as Emperors or Kings. A tradition carried over to Catholic times when it became a symbol of wealth and religious status. It was very expensive to produce and commoners were severely punished if caught wearing them. Most colours at the time were drab blue/black, mixed browns and greys because of the limitations of the dyes. If I remember yellow is a fairly modern colour and I doubt if it existed at the time of Jesus.
BTW. If you check you will find that The Matrix (films) was based on Revelations. Funny as you stated a while ago that no one knows what Revelations means and anyone that does is a liar.
Sorry Sooyeah but each time you go on a religious rant, yes rant as this is no new theory, I feel it my duty as an agnostic to reply with like.
-
The Jesus Package.
Chastity= The refusal to be dominated combined with the refusal to dominate. Chastity is dominions opposite.
I can find no definition of chastity that relates to dominion, domination or other forms of compulsion. All the definitions of chastity that I am aware of and can find relate it to self denial, primarily of sexual activity.
Why is religion so preoccupied sex anyway?
-
Lets all be like Jacob and refuse to be dominated by God.
Are you a professional comic? Or did you just completely miss what he was getting at? Maybe you should read it again.
Moses was a liar and murderer who "struck" down a guard (killed and hid the body) and then needed help to escape, safety in numbers.
Dont believe in those colours you see in the Hollywood films as most never existed at the time of Jesus. Read up on dyes and Liturgical colours. You will find that the colours red and purple were reserved for only those in high office such as Emperors or Kings. A tradition carried over to Catholic times when it became a symbol of wealth and religious status. It was very expensive to produce and commoners were severely punished if caught wearing them. Most colours at the time were drab blue/black, mixed browns and greys because of the limitations of the dyes. If I remember yellow is a fairly modern colour and I doubt if it existed at the time of Jesus.
BTW. If you check you will find that The Matrix (films) was based on Revelations. Funny as you stated a while ago that no one knows what Revelations means and anyone that does is a liar.
Sorry Sooyeah but each time you go on a religious rant, yes rant as this is no new theory, I feel it my duty as an agnostic to reply with like.
I think I'll leave that, for you two to discuss. But You look like your Ranting to be honest.
The Jesus Package.
Chastity= The refusal to be dominated combined with the refusal to dominate. Chastity is dominions opposite.
I can find no definition of chastity that relates to dominion, domination or other forms of compulsion. All the definitions of chastity that I am aware of and can find relate it to self denial, primarily of sexual activity.
Why is religion so preoccupied sex anyway?
I can't either, but isn't the point of a 'chastity belt', to stop a woman being dominated by a man sexually?
Maybe the definitions just changed over time. Typical 21st century everything is about sex; so I completely agree there.
-
"Why is religion so preoccupied sex anyway?"
Because religion is interested in power and controling things that people want to do is one way to weild power.
"I can't either, but isn't the point of a 'chastity belt', to stop a woman being dominated by a man sexually? "
It depends on who has the key.
If some bloke has the key then that's domination by him.
Does any of this have anything to do with science? Does it put forward any meaningful theory?
-
"Why is religion so preoccupied sex anyway?"
Because religion is interested in power and controling things that people want to do is one way to weild power.
I agree, and I would argue, as I no doubt Sooyeah does, that that would be wrong. It is one thing to try and protect people, quite another to try to control them.
"I can't either, but isn't the point of a 'chastity belt', to stop a woman being dominated by a man sexually? "
It depends on who has the key.
If some bloke has the key then that's domination by him.
[;D] Totally, but I think the significance is still there, often was it not the parents that used to put one on their daughters, to protect them?
True is in a way an act of domination, but the reference, the name 'chastity belt' still I believe relates to not being dominated by men. It was a virginity protector wasn't it?
Does any of this have anything to do with science? Does it put forward any meaningful theory?
Well maybe not, but it does offer an answer to some questions. What is science? 'The search for truth', so maybe in some small way it is.
-
Didn't miss the point about Jacob, just interpreted it differently.
Moses was a murderer, it says so in Genesis hence the quote.
The point about colours in history is correct.
A lot of the ideas and symbolism in the Matrix films was borrowed from Revelations and other sources.
Non science or Fiction vs fact!
You seem to misunderstand, Chastity belts WAS about domination over the female and not about stopping male domination.
-
...but isn't the point of a 'chastity belt', to stop a woman being dominated by a man sexually?
No - you're still equating sex with women being dominated. A bit of news for you - women enjoy sex too - domination doesn't come in to it.
-
Didn't miss the point about Jacob, just interpreted it differently.
Still don't get it. You have not misinterpreted, you have misunderstood.
Moses was a murderer, it says so in Genesis hence the quote.
The point about colours in history is correct.
A lot of the ideas and symbolism in the Matrix films was borrowed from Revelations and other sources.
Non science or Fiction vs fact!
You seem to misunderstand, Chastity belts WAS about domination over the female and not about stopping male domination.
As always a matter of interpretation, on one side yes it could have been used by husbands or parents to dominate a womans sexual activity. But if the women agreed to wear it, could also be used to stop a man dominating her. A young woman could for example refuse a mans advances, but could also succumb; the belt makes that an impossibility- and so stops her being dominated.
Kinda like women that don't shave their legs when they go on a first date, they set out saying "I am not having sex today" and know if their legs were shaved they might succumb.
...but isn't the point of a 'chastity belt', to stop a woman being dominated by a man sexually?
No - you're still equating sex with women being dominated. A bit of news for you - women enjoy sex too - domination doesn't come in to it.
Well of course they do, but since when does that mean they want to have sex with just anyone?
P.s I would ask that you were a bit more respectful, to Moses.
-
...but isn't the point of a 'chastity belt', to stop a woman being dominated by a man sexually?
No - you're still equating sex with women being dominated. A bit of news for you - women enjoy sex too - domination doesn't come in to it.
Well of course they do, but since when does that mean they want to have sex with just anyone?
Huh? Who said that they want to have sex with just anyone? I don't follow your logic/reasoning here.
-
...but isn't the point of a 'chastity belt', to stop a woman being dominated by a man sexually?
No - you're still equating sex with women being dominated. A bit of news for you - women enjoy sex too - domination doesn't come in to it.
Well of course they do, but since when does that mean they want to have sex with just anyone?
Huh? Who said that they want to have sex with just anyone? I don't follow your logic/reasoning here.
Well who said I wanted you to? [:D]
I think on reflection I was just making a point that it should be about more than just sex. Maybe now you can see the link.
-
@ the grouve
Its not about being disrespectful to Moses as I have NO respect for him (fictional character) but if he was proven to be real then the situation could change. It is generally accepted but conveniently forgotten that Moss struck down and killed a guard then hid the body and escaped with others (safety in numbers). It seems odd to me that God should chose a murderer to lead his people out of Egypt.
You need to read about what Moses got up to in the name of God and how he change Gods laws to suit or benefit himself, introducing a "tithe" was one. God also punished him by not allowing him to enter the promised land and God then chose another leader Joshua, a warrior.
Even Christ when questioned about Moses changing Gods laws stated he (Moses) did what he did despite Gods words.
-
Was going to say "keep digging", but you need a responce, so...
@ the grouve
Its not about being disrespectful to Moses as I have NO respect for him (fictional character) but if he was proven to be real then the situation could change. It is generally accepted but conveniently forgotten that Moss struck down and killed a guard then hid the body and escaped with others (safety in numbers). It seems odd to me that God should chose a murderer to lead his people out of Egypt.
Who are you to judge?
You need to read about what Moses got up to in the name of God and how he change Gods laws to suit or benefit himself, introducing a "tithe" was one. God also punished him by not allowing him to enter the promised land and God then chose another leader Joshua, a warrior.
Even Christ when questioned about Moses changing Gods laws stated he (Moses) did what he did despite Gods words.
I tell you what, rather than again asking you to show a little bit more respect for Moses, how about you show some respect for the Millions of Jews, Christians and Muslims who do not share your views?
You are of course free to voice them, which I will respect, even if I do completely disagree. I just feel there are nicer ways to do so- some may argue that there are not, that which ever way you say what you have, will be unacceptable, but you could tone it differently and so cause a bit less offence.
You never made a mistake? You know better than God?
Just trying to help....
-
If someone says "it seems odd to me that.." then they are the only one who is in a position to judge.
Can you tell what seems odd to me? Of course not; I'm the only one who knows.
Does it not seem odd to you that God chose someone who, so far as they are documeted to exist, is documented to be a murderer?
If pointing this out upsets peoiple why is that?
Are they not comfortable with their choice of role model?
If that's the case then "shooting the messenger" isn't the answer.
That, according to the books, Moses killed isn't an opinion. That's what the books say. Why shouldn't someone point out what they say?
In short, if people are offended by their own scriptures' story then that is their problem.
-
PS. This is a science forum so you should expect scientific evidence not theological dogma or fiction. I respect the living not the dead as the dead don't need any respect.
I am also of Jewish descent, hold no religious beliefs and go by what I have read. I don't just blindly follow without question as the faithful do. If you are unhappy by what is said then I am sorry but, not for what I have written as it is what is also written in the Holy books.
So, can we now have some science on this new theory, if not the perhaps it should be moved to "just chat"?
-
PS. This is a science forum so you should expect scientific evidence not theological dogma or fiction. I respect the living not the dead as the dead don't need any respect.
"He is God, not of the dead, but of the living. You are very much mistaken". Mark 12.27
So can I also take it from that comment that you have no respect for any scientists that are now long gone?
I am also of Jewish descent, hold no religious beliefs and go by what I have read. I don't just blindly follow without question as the faithful do. If you are unhappy by what is said then I am sorry but, not for what I have written as it is what is also written in the Holy books.
Sorry but no where in the Bible is Moses called some of the things you called him.
Besides this quote of yours "Moses was a murderer, it says so in Genesis hence the quote"
Moses is not even in Genesis, His story starts in Exodus.
So, can we now have some science on this new theory, if not the perhaps it should be moved to "just chat"?
If you were so against it, why did you post in the first place? There are new things here, but either way it's not our decision.
But you can keep going if you want to, please know I have no desire to; I'm not your enemy, trying to be a friend [:)]
For everyone else and even that mad mad, how about a tune: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jVO8keNJ_Q0