[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Taxpayer Funded Censorship: How Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars To Silence Your Voice

"Terminator" Robot Dog Now Equipped With Amphibious Capabilities

Trump Plans To Use Impoundment To Cut Spending - What Is It?

Mass job losses as major factory owner moves business overseas

Israel kills IDF soldiers in Lebanon to prevent their kidnap

46% of those deaths were occurring on the day of vaccination or within two days

In 2002 the US signed the Hague Invasion Act into law

MUSK is going after WOKE DISNEY!!!

Bondi: Zuckerberg Colluded with Fauci So "They're Not Immune Anymore" from 1st Amendment Lawsuits

Ukrainian eyewitnesses claim factory was annihilated to dust by Putin's superweapon

FBI Director Wray and DHS Secretary Mayorkas have just refused to testify before the Senate...

Government adds 50K jobs monthly for two years. Half were Biden's attempt to mask a market collapse with debt.

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump

President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director

Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine

President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture

Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA

F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon

Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid

Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye

Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls

Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge

Jewish Land Grab

Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner

Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release

AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women

What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination

Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author

Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own.

Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room


Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Aristotle versus the Big Jew in the Sky
Source: Essay by Zoroaster
URL Source: [None]
Published: May 14, 2005
Author: Zoroaster
Post Date: 2005-05-14 08:25:42 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Aristotle, versus
Views: 691
Comments: 76

Aristotle’s Prime Mover evokes motion, not some big Jew in the sky. The commonly accepted model of the beginning of our universe, often referred to as the “Big Bang,” suggests that it began between 15 and 18 billion years ago in an infinitely compact and singular state, enclosing a space even smaller than an atomic particle. If Aristotle were alive today, he would say the Prime Mover caused the Big Bang, not the tribal war god of ancient Israel.

According to Aristotle the Prime Mover is the Prefect First Cause responsible for moving objects, which, in turn, move other objects: The Prime Mover is always at absolute rest, beyond time and space, motionless and changeless in perfection, omniscient and eternal, everywhere and nowhere.

Aristotle perceived God through motion. To my knowledge, he never claimed he understood or spoke to God. He was no different than the rest of humanity, pathetic creatures trapped in time and space, really, having only intuitive awareness of the Unknowable.

The conquests of Alexander, Aristotle’s pupil, brought Jews on the world stage. They brought with them, in contrast to the Prime Mover, Yahweh, the fiendish god of Jews, a kind of divine superiority soothing to their macerated egos because he chose them as his very own and set them above their betters, and they also brought with them their cunning in peddling their superstitions to cheat the unwary.

In the centuries between Aristotle and Constantine, the horrible Jewish god was to "make folly of the wisdom of this world," thus negating all learning, all culture, and repudiating reason itself. Yahweh and the radicals of an initially obscure Jewish sect promised to envy and malice that the rich and powerful would be tortured in Hell forever and forever, if they did not empty their pockets to the profit of ranting priests. To the dregs of the Empire that was Roman only in name, Christianity was what liquor is to alcoholics.

With Irenaeus the persecution of Gnostics and fierce, ecclesiastical intolerance to any other personal religious beliefs became the driving force of Christianity. Though Marcion (140 ce) sought to dump the Old Testament from Christianity because he felt Yahweh was incompatible with the Loving Father proclaimed by Jesus, he still attributed to Yahweh the status of a lesser, creative god, so there was some credence to Irenaeus’s charge of dualism.

If Marcion were alive today, I suspect he’d call Yahweh a gruesome Jewish fairytale and be done with it, thus avoiding Irenaeus’s complaints. Valentinus, on the other hand speaks of a God who is:

“(Root) of the All, the (Ineffable One who) dwells in the Monad (He dwells alone) in silence . . .since, after all (he was) a Monad, and no one was before him. . .”

A Valentinian Exposition ww.19-23, in NHL 436

Elaine Pagels writes in The Gnostic Gospels that according to a third Valentinian text, the Interpretation of Knowledge, Christ taught that “Your Father, who is in heaven, is one. No dualism in Valentinus. His concept of God was much like Aristotle’s Prime Mover, i.e., a Prefect God who does not play favorites.

If Constantine had not had his vision at Malvian Bridge (312 ce), Mithraism, not Christianity, might well have become the official religion of the Roman Empire. Based on the Iranian god of the sun, justice, contract and war, Mithraism was more popular than Christianity at the time. But Christianity prevailed, and it’s no coincidence that the brand of Christianity that the Fathers put over was one which lugged with it the "Old Testament" and identified Yahweh, the big Jew up in the sky, as the Christian god, or that the first concern of the fathers, as soon as they got their hands on governmental power, was to exterminate the Marconists, the Manichaeans, and all the other Christian sects that refused to accept as their god the fiend of the "Old Testament.”

The slaughter went on well into the Middle Ages. In 1209 Pope Innocence III sicced an army of some thirty thousand knights and foot soldiers on the Languedoc—the mountainous northeastern foothills of the Pyrenees in what is now southern France. These Christian soldiers put a whole population to the sword in what became known as Albigensian Crusade. The extermination was so vast and terrible that it may well constitute the first case of “genocide” in modern Europeans history. What awful crime had these peaceful Cathars committed? The heresy of dualism: they believed in a good god of love, and an evil one of the material world.

By the time of the Reformation, Gnostics were either exterminated or driven into hiding. The Protestant Churches, however, proved to be just as intolerant as the Catholic when it came to blind faith as opposed to inner revelation.

An increasing number of "Fundamental Christians" have recently felt the need to defend Christianity by trashing anyone who speaks out in any way against the Bible. What it all boils down to, folks, is not exclusively religious or political augments but who’s in charge, and it’s the same old crowd. You can see them every Sunday morning on one-eyed Jew, screaming “God of Israel!” again and again, till they’re blue in the face.

-Z-

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

#1. To: Zoroaster (#0)

He didn't do that, exactly..

In fact, quite the opposite in many cases.

He told them they weren't righteous, called them "stiff necked" and he levied on them many punishments.. killing even entire generations for their arrogance and rebellion.

And then, if you continue into the New Testament (Which they do not) he added their enemies to his Covenant and openly defied their religious leaders.

The Jewish God in the Bible really only respects men as individuals. Abraham V/S the Pharasees, Paul. All Jews, but by no means accorded the same level of respect or treatment by virtue of it.

The Jews don't acknowledge this, of course.. and that probably won't change anytime soon. The Pat Robertson's of the world are stuck in the Old Testament and are largely obsessed with Jewish land holdings. That probably won't change either.

Jhoffa_  posted on  2005-05-14   8:46:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Jhoffa_ (#1)

he added their enemies to his Covenant and openly defied their religious leaders.

To me that's always gone to prove his fallibility. Why didn't he get it right in his first covenant? He didn't know his "chosen" people would turn on him? And his remaining cognizant bipedal creations were hellbound until he decided, "nah you guys are cool too, as long as you hang out with my boy; Jesus. Sorry for any confusion".

It may be off the subject, but that's what happens when religious discussion comes up.

Dude Lebowski  posted on  2005-05-14   13:18:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Dude Lebowski (#42)

To me that's always gone to prove his fallibility. Why didn't he get it right in his first covenant? He didn't know his "chosen" people would turn on him?

The confusion is entirely ours. His first covenant was not superceded by a second. There is only one covenant, one law, one plan, and Christ was at the center of it from the beginning. Sectarian strife between Christians and Jews has resulted in the divide being exagerated and amplified between "old" testament and "new", as if the "old" was supplanted by the "new." In truth, there is neither old nor new. There is only one revelation of God to man, and if one is reading it in a way that contrives two contradictory messages/covenants/plans of God, then one is misconstruing the message of its singular and unchangable author.

Arator  posted on  2005-05-14   14:19:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Arator, Dude Lebowski (#44)

To me that's always gone to prove his fallibility. Why didn't he get it right in his first covenant? He didn't know his "chosen" people would turn on him?

Well.. we agree and disagree.. I do agree there is only one plan..one law..with Christ at the center.. from the begninning. But where we differ is in that what was the Abrahamic covenant based upon (other than God Himself).. it was Abraham's faith.. (Romans 4:9 "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.")..Romans 3:30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. Romans 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith... many more to list but faith is counted as righteousness.. God's people are those of faith.. whether they were in the OT or the New.. And this passage which was written to Christians: Romans 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith... and in Galations Paul defines WHO the sons of Abraham are: Ga 3:7 -Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham... It is not by blood or race or genes that determine who are God's people but those who are of faith.. and God's 'chosen' people have NOT turned on him for they are the people of God by faith and those who believed that Jesus was the son of the living God and those who believe today are the descendants of Abraham.. those who believe on Him.

Zipporah  posted on  2005-05-14   14:53:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Zipporah (#50)

It is not by blood or race or genes that determine who are God's people but those who are of faith.. and God's 'chosen' people have NOT turned on him for they are the people of God by faith and those who believed that Jesus was the son of the living God and those who believe today are the descendants of Abraham.. those who believe on Him.

Yes, all who believe are descendents of Abraham. Abraham is the father of Gentile nations as well as the Jewish nation. All who believe, be they Jew or Gentile, are Abrahams children.

But some promises God made were not to Abraham's children generally, but to his son Isaac, specifically, and Isaac's son Jacob/Israel after him, and Jacob's 12 sons after him, whose descendents are called Israel, after their father, or Jews, after Judah, the father of the tribe that holds the scepter.

Moreover, God made specific promises to the people in this line of descent, based on the faith of their fathers, and these promises will be kept on that basis, even if the descendents fall into unbelief for a time, even if they come under judgement, lose their promised land, and be scattered to the ends of the earth, their gifts and call, and God's love for them will not end, on account of the Patriarchs, says Paul.

So, while the faithful are indeed reconciled to God as Abraham was, be they Jews or Gentiles, the faith of the Patriarchs and the promises God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel continue to call out the descendents of Israel to a divinely appointed destiny, and that will be realized just as God foretold it would be. Their unfaith was all foreknown by God when he made these promises, as is their ultimate return to full faith yet to come.

Israel's called out purpose in God's plan does not contradict faith and God's grace, for it is the faith of the Patriarchs and God's grace towards them that is the very foundation of Israel's chosenness.

Arator  posted on  2005-05-14   15:52:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Arator (#54)

Israel's called out purpose in God's plan does not contradict faith and God's grace, for it is the faith of the Patriarchs and God's grace towards them that is the very foundation of Israel's chosenness.

Also earlier you said that the 'old' covenant was not obsolete .. but in Hebrews 8:7 8:7For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 8:13.. When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

On this we do part company.. as Israel's called out purpose was to carry the promise and that being the promise of the messiah Christ Jesus.. Ga 3:16 -the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ... None other.. and if those Israelites.. have left the faith.. that is rejecting the promise .. then they have made the choice.. not God.. they themselves have turned their backs upon the promise.. they as individuals can chose to return.. but unless all return to Him then there is no special place for them.. it's not geographical or by genealogy it's of the "heart"..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-05-14   16:18:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Zipporah (#55)

Also earlier you said that the 'old' covenant was not obsolete .. but in Hebrews 8:7 8:7For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 8:13.. When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

From my Jewish New Testament Commentary on this passage: "There are two words for "new" in Greek, kainos and neos. Neos means something that has never before existed, whereas kainos carries overtones of freshness and renewal of something which has existed. The word used in Hebrews Chapter 8 is kainos, and this is as it should be, because in a very real way, the New Covenant renews the Old Covenant -- even though the author dwells more on the contrasts than the similarities."

The very passage quoted from Jeremiah where God announces for the first time the coming of a "new covenent" says that its purpose is to "put God's laws in their mind and write them in their heart"! In that very same passage, God renews the promise he made to Israel at Sinai that "I will be their God, and they will be my people."

So, in what sense does the renewed Covenent differ from the original at Sinai? Has God's covenental promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's descendents been abrogated? No. Has God's Law given to them at Sinai been annulled? No. In fact, it's keeping is the very objective of the Covenant's renewal! The renewed Covenent differs from the original only with respect to the priesthood and cult sacrifice. That is the subject matter and focus of the passages you cite in Hebrews. The covenent at Sinai provided for a priesthood and High Priest descended from Levi. The renewed Covenent has a High Priest of an entirely different order, of the order of Melchizadek, who preceded Levi's kin in performing sacrificial rites, and served Abraham. This is new and better, surely, for our High Priest in the order of Melchizedek is none other than the Messiah himself (and also the Passover Lamb, who died in our stead, so that the faithful live). In this way, the Covenent has been renewed and made better. And it is this renewed Covenent that will prove able to return Israel to the faith of her fathers, but only when it is rightly understood not as the rejection of all that came before, but as its renewal and, unltimatley, its perfection.

Arator  posted on  2005-05-14   16:57:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 56.

#57. To: Arator (#56)

I agree that the covenant is inherited by Abrahams descendents.. and who are they? As I posted .. Ga 3:16 -the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ... his descendents are those who are of Christ..

Zipporah  posted on  2005-05-14 17:01:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 56.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]