More Than One "god", More Than One Path...

[bmb144]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1358986' date='Aug 15 2007, 02:07 PM']1) I know what you post, and it is anti-Christian nonsense.
2) My major is History, and having attended a solidly Catholic college, I know what I'm talking about better than you do.
3) The gruesome Aztec human mass-sacrifices in Mexico, the baby-sacrificing cult of Baal practiced in North Africa, the genocides committed by atheistic Communist regimes in the U.S.S.R., China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, various African genocides, to give just a few examples.
4) Dr. Warren H. Carroll, [i]The Glory of Christendom[/i], pp. 607-609, citing numerous scholarly sources - more than I have time to list (though I made a mistake - the number referred specifically to Ferdinand and Isabella's reign - though according to Wikipedia (hardly a Catholic source - the estimate was around 5000 from 1400s to the 1800s). Not to defend the inquisition, but the numbers are quite small when compared to total people executed by secular courts during this time. Most tried were released, and people would balspheme at hearings or pretend to be heretics to be tried by the inquisition rather than a secular court.
5) Not Christian, Jewish, or Islamic (though I'd say Islam has strongly pagan elements, but that's another topic). Kingdoms ruled by pagans, so defined.
6) Simple - refuting your claim that Christianity was responsible for the worst slaughters in history. Over 100 million were killed under Communism and Nazism, which were far from Christian.
7) I wrote a paper on the roots of the Crusades, and I've used Runciman as a source. I stand by my word.
8) I find the claim that the Jews simply made up one of the most important parts of their history patently absurd and unbeleivable. I've seen such "modernist" claims, and they're ludicrous, and bad history. We might as well reject eveything written in ancient times, then. Your myths of "Ma'at" cannot be proven.
And all serious historians, even the most secular, will tell you that ancient Egypt was ruled by "god-kings" with absolute power, and depended on massive slave-labor.

You can go ahead and deny and trash Christianity all you want - you've still given not one convincing reason for why "Ma'at" is truly Lord and God, while the Judaeo-Christian God is not. All you've given is emotional rants.
There can only be God - one Creator Almighty.
To say that conflicting and contradictory dieties can both be real is illogical nonsense.

And why should "Ma'at" be worshipped rather than Odin, Thor, Freyr, Pan, Venus, Saturn, Baal, Huitzilopochtli, or any other of the countless pagan gods?
To say they are all equally valid ("many paths") is nonsensical. That would in essence deny the reality of any god - "choose the imaginary buddy of your choice."[/quote]

1) I'm not even going to touch this one as your lack of respect is evident!
2) Your bias is showing here.

You still have not defined pagan *shakes head* Sighting the Aztec as pagan is one of the most strange things I've seen yet

Any good Biblical scholar can quite bluntly say that the Exodus is doubtful. Again see my reference.

Who says I worship Ma'at? Kindly point out where I say that? Ma'at is a goddess and a concept. The central being in Kemetic faith as taught by the Temple I am a member of is neither male or female and Names such as Ma'at are part of that central being.

Why shouldn't a person who wishes to worship Odin worship Odin. What's wrong with it?

[bmb144]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1359039' date='Aug 15 2007, 03:05 PM']Slight The thing I don't understand about the worship of Ma'at is that the [b]authentic [/b]religion of ancient Egypt was very much tied to geography. Like many old faith systems, it seems to have been developed to "explain" natural occurrences. My understanding is that the whole point of maintaining ma'at was to keep the Nile flooding at the proper times. A failure to to do would result in drought and famine. From what I have studied, that was the reason behind Egypt's complex social relationships - the Pharaoh, the priests, etc etc. The need to keep "right order" was deeply political, not merely interpersonal.

Modern, trendy iterations of ancient religions tend to take the more palatable aspects - the need for right relationships, etc - and drop the more primitive elements. Do modern worshipers of Ma'at still attribute the flow of the Nile to the proper maintaining of ma'at, or do they accept what modern science tells us about cycles and seasons? How do they get by without a pharaoh, which was a vital part of the cosmic order for the ancient Egyptians? It seems impossible for the ancient religion to exist in the modern world while still preserving its integrity. I hope this does not come off offensive...[/quote]

Ma'at as I say in another answer is both a concept and a goddess, but Ma'at is only part of being Kemetic. Yes the land is still important also and many people from the Temple I am in, travel there yearly including our Pharoah [and yes I said Pharoah] to renew that connection. Our liturgical calendar is stilled tied to the land and the seasons of the land.

Yes, we have a Pharoah.

And no your not offensive at all. Feel free to ask any questions you wish.

[Socrates]

[quote name='In His Light' post='1368700' date='Aug 23 2007, 04:24 AM']1) I'm not even going to touch this one as your lack of respect is evident![/quote]
Well, I've got to hand it to you - you've certainly got stones to come in here and insult our Faith and blaspheme our God, then demand we respect your false "religion."

[quote]2) Your bias is showing here.

You still have not defined pagan *shakes head* Sighting the Aztec as pagan is one of the most strange things I've seen yet [/quote]
Well, I gave my definition earlier. Since you've ignored it, here's Merrian-Webster:
[quote]Main Entry: pa·gan
Pronunciation: 'pA-g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin paganus, from Latin, civilian, country dweller, from pagus country district; akin to Latin pangere to fix -- more at PACT
[b]1 : HEATHEN 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion[/b] (as in ancient Rome)
2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person
3 : NEO-PAGAN[/quote]
Definition 1 certainly describes the Aztec religion, which was indeed heathen and polytheistic. They worshipped a number of gods, some of which demanded mass human sacrifices. (And human sacrifice to some degree is common in pagan religions, though most did not practice it to the extent of the Aztecs.)
What is [i]your[/i] definition? Claiming the Aztecs were not pagan is one of the most strange things I've seen yet.
Or are you saying the Aztecs were obviously not pagan because [i]real[/i] pagans are nice and peaceful and would [i]never[/i] offer human sacrifices?

[quote]Any good Biblical scholar can quite bluntly say that the Exodus is doubtful. Again see my reference.[/quote]
Of course atheistic "modernist" "Bible scholars" will deny Exodus as they deny basically everything else in the Bible, as they refuse to accept as true anything involving God or the supernatural.
But there is no sound basis for denying at a truthful basis for Exodus.

And to claim the Hebrews were never enslaved by the Egyptians, as you seem to imply, is just absurd.
Think about it; if the Jews just made up the events of Exodus as you claim, [i]why[/i] would they claim to be [i]enslaved[/i] by anybody?? That is simply not the stuff of tribal or national myth - if the Hebrews wanted to create a mythical history about themselves to show their greatness, they would never admit that they could be enslaved by anybody!

And my initial point in bringing up the events of Exodus was to show the absurd hypocrisy of you accusing the Christian God of being a "God of slavery" while you claim to be a follower of the religion of the Pharoahs.
You have still yet to refute the fact that the ancient Egyptians practiced slavery.

And any good theologian will bluntly say that belief in "Ma'at" is carp.

[quote]Who says I worship Ma'at? Kindly point out where I say that? Ma'at is a goddess and a concept. The central being in Kemetic faith as taught by the Temple I am a member of is neither male or female and Names such as Ma'at are part of that central being.[/quote]
Ok -[quote]I question those principles each day when I kneel to pray to my Divine Mum. I look at my life and how I live it to see if what I have done will bring light and life to this world and uphold Ma'at. I know when I fall short of Ma'at, but each day is a new day and a new chance to do better.[/quote]

[quote]Why shouldn't a person who wishes to worship Odin worship Odin. What's wrong with it?[/quote]
Well, for starters:[quote][b]I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt not have strange gods before me[/b].[/quote](Ex. 20:2-3)
Obviously, you reject this, but that's your choice, not mine.

I believe one should worship the One True God, who alone is Lord. Odin is a false God (much as, being 1/8 Norske, I do have a soft spot for the Vikings). Religion should reflect [b]truth[/b]. There cannot be many true gods, but One, who does not lie or contradict Himself.

And you might note that the pagan Norse would terrorize Christian Europe with their Viking raids, killing, pillaging, and raping (none of this was prohibited by the Norse religion). Christian churches and monastaries were popular targets for Viking plunder. A popular prayer of the time was "from the fury of the Norsemen, Lord deliver us!"
The conversion of the Norsemen to the Christian faith led to the Scandinavians becoming considerably more peaceful, though this was a slow process. The Christianization of northern Europe was probably the most important process in ending the constant violence and barbarism of the Dark Ages.
Once again, the p.c. idea of "peaceful pagans vs. nasty, warmongering Christians" is shown to be complete baloney.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Socrates

[eperez874]

LOL nice try socrates now what is those other gods? satan and his comarades i would consider them bad spirits now there is only one God but the rest gods are false how would you answer to this only one of those places is heaven one is hell and the other limbo