See, your problem here is that you have the wrong Buddha.


This is Hotei. Hotei is the god of contentment, one of the Seven Lucky Gods of Japan in the amalgam faith which makes up their existence. He hails from China originally, where he is supposedly derived from a real Zen priest who worked to help the poor and needy. He is considered to be an incarnation of *A* Buddha, namely Maitreya Bodhisattva - the prophesied Buddha who will bring about the restoration of mankind's dwindling goodness over 5 million years after the original Buddha's death, when his teachings have been corrupted and forgotten.

Not all sects believe that Hotei is a Buddha's incarnation, however. Indeed, not all sects believe in the Three Ages of Man - from which the Maitreya Bodhisattva originates.


All of them believe in this Buddha, however. Siddhartha Gautama, the first Buddha. This guy's the big one, as he started this whole mess.

=+=

Here's the thing - Buddhism is NOT uniform, orderly, or easily-explained in any comprehensive sense. This is because Oriental culture was and is very open to the incorporation and assimilation of new philosophies into their social order. Proper social process was extremely important to many ancient Asian cultures, to the point that accepting a few new concepts into your religious pantheon was a better option than civil war over a rapidly-expanding new religion (though that's not to say that there were no Buddhist wars - there were, and they were bloody).

You must also remember that Buddha proclaimed to know the way to enlightenment. He is not God. Depending on your sect, he may be close to God. He may even have some godlike forces at his disposal, or have the powers of advisor to the gods. But he's not God. Who is God, or whether there are one or many of them, is not entirely part-and-parcel of enlightenment itself. Again, your mileage may vary depending on sect. Some apply Buddhism to other deities, some consider it a quasi-mystical philosophy, and others consider it just a good idea. Many consider the universe to be cyclical, and lacking in a grand creator or overseer, with enlightenment the only way to transcend the continuing incarnations of existence.

In any case, one of the chief tenets of Buddhism is respect. Everything is, and it's hardly in the rights of any follower of the faith to give himself the ability to declare what should or should not be. If a spirit protects you, aids you, or guides you... thank that spirit. Whether it is "right" or not, it nevertheless is - and has done you a service. Presuming its error, or even presuming its nonexistence, is an unwise judgement. You are what you are, and you follow your rules. It follows its own, and what is true for your rules may not be so for its own. In the area where those intersect, patience and polite tolerance will insure that you are following your own path while allowing it to follow its own. In that way, everyone can benefit and grow.

(The preceding paragraph probably made no sense. Such is life...)

What I mean to say is, Buddhism has spread in cooperation with local faiths and deities. By adopting the wisdoms of those who watch over a people, one can share one's own wisdom with them - and all are improved. So Buddhism has evolved with area-specific cultures, and split and developed alongside them. It's hardly fair to make broad critical statements over the entire faith, when the information one uses to criticize is incomplete at best.

This is a decent primer, as is the Wikipedia listing on Buddhism.

Thank you for your understanding.

Hmm, actually, 'everything in moderation' is stolen from Judaism.

Apologies, but I fail to see your point. Many faiths have similar truisms, but their aphorisms hardly contain their distinctions.

"Be Good" is the only commandment in Pantheism.
I haven't seen that idea taken up by any organised religion yet
Nor do i expect to

Judaism was around first.

...And? I still fail to understand exactly how this relates to the grand picture. Truisms are just that, and while they make good quotables they still don't distinguish any particular faith. The overall interplay between one's universal understanding of how things seem to work and one's individual understanding of how one's own thoughts and philosophies function... that tends to be what defines a faith overall.

Facinating...
Actually, native spirituality was around long before the white man came along and screwed it up.

One, Hebrews aren't anglo-saxons, and are therefore not what is now considered 'white', however, why you bring race into this at all baffles me. Is that a weak que to get people to agree with a minority? Minorities can't fight minorities, because neither has a case, and quite frankly the whole 'white man destroyed the world' thing is getting old. You want to stop racism, simple, DON'T BE RACIST, from EITHER ide of the fence. Egyptians were one of the original tyrants, and they were neither black nor white, and now people consider them objects of worship and amazement.

And I have much evidence that Judiasm, especially the angels talked about therein WERE around long before any branch off of spirituality.

And on top of that, I know about Buddhism, my mother tried it out when I was a kid (though she did still believe in God, Jesus etc). It's more a of way of life than belief in 'gods'. Some things I can agree with, like the part about not killing life, animals, etc. Jesus went to alot of countries, Asia also, and some of them have adapted what was taught to their culture, just like the Greeks adapted the Enoch story.

That however, does not make Krishna, Jesus.

Everything in moderation is stolen from Judaism

Where did you learn this information Ashley? I don't mean to be a pest but Drakenmaw brought up a very good point, where does this fit into the big picture?

The patent for an idea like everything in moderation surely doesn't exsist. And it is entirely feasible that any one individual could have had this idea before early recorded Judaism, isn't it?


Budha also teaches not to worship Budha but to look after yourself and those around you, this the budhist way to (for want of a better term) honour God. Not that they actually believe in Deity worship.
So the Buddhists see that everything should be taken in moderation even worship of a deity, that's hardly arguable as originally being a Jewish concept, is it?

It's a Judaic law. You can do just about anything in moderation. I say 'stolen from' as the Judaic system predates Buddhism.

It could very well be coincidence, but if Jesus taught in Asia, and Buddhism is largely in Asia, I could say that it's quite possible that's where it originated from.

It could very well be coincidence, but if Jesus taught in Asia, and Buddhism is largely in Asia, I could say that it's quite possible that's where it originated from.

Yes, quite possible but not a difinative arguement. Using the same logic, then perhaps Jesus not only taught this in Asia but learnt it there also.
The argument here is only proof that, when we put enough perhaps's and if's into a statement we can make anything probable.

No, I wouldn't put an 'if' into Jesus learning it there as Jesus, being Jewish, already followed Judiasm, and therfore would already know about it.

So when was Judaism defined. Before Jesus was, or while Jesus lived? And where does it fit into Budhism and the teachings of Budha?

My previous post never suggested that you would have put an 'if' into Jesus's learning this concept in India. It was meant to point out that I would , and that it was possible to make a statement of the same validity as , If Jesus taught in Asia, which is where your if was used.

I put an 'if' in for the sake of speech, not 'if' as an uncertainty.

Judiasm, or more specifally, the the texts which started it, originated on paper about 8000 years ago. It was already being practiced before it was written about. It does outdate Buddhism.

I was talking about that specific part of it (i.e. everything in moderation). But, like I said before, respect for life - even animal life, was already part of the Hebrew belief system.

Now, whether these two share similarities simply through coincidence or not, is a IF, but like I said, (and I'll re-phrase) seeing as Jesus taught there, and was already following Judaism, the 'if' of coincidence is less than likely.

I apreciate the rephrasing, it makes the comment more of a statement of implied fact. That is much more comfortable for me, and thank you.

So Judaeism originated on Paper 8000 years ago. This implies that it is far older than this, doesn't it.

The Celts believed that all information should be passed on orrally and so did some Native Americans, The Aboriginal people of Australia are highly secretive about all the aspects of there life including the spiritual and would never dream of leaving evidence around that could be used against them. A very similar belief to the Wiccan belief of never leaving physical pieces of yourself laying around, eg. Nail clippings hair strands. And none of these religions have proof that there religion is either older or younger than Judeaism.

How long have the aboriginal people of Australia exsisted? I can't give acurate dates but I once heard an estimate of 40,000 years. I know they where definately in the running for being one of the oldest races in the world. And yet still today alot of there culture is kept secret. Perhaps Judaeism was based on something else before it was commited to paper.

Ahh yes, nail clippings and hair strands being left around are ALSO a Jewish thing. These are NOT to be left around in case a person practicing magic should use them - power over a person can come from hair/nails - and therefore MUST be burnt as this is the only disposal which cannot be re-used.

Aboriginal cultures, it has been found, actually originated from the Egyptians, which, and a cave has been found here with Egyptian heiroglyphs of them being stranded having sailed from Egypt and landed on this strange island.

But yes, oral tranditions were around in alot of cultures before they were put to paper.

The Cosmic Christ Father of all Gods"
and its degradation.

THE Sanctum Sanctorum of the Ancients, i.e., that recess on the Western side of the Temple which was enclosed on three sides by blank walls and had its only aperture or door hung over with a curtain -- also called the Adytum -- was common to all ancient nations.

Nevertheless, a great difference is found between the secret meanings of this symbolical place, in the esotericism of the Pagans and that of later Jews; though the symbology of it was originally identical throughout the ancient Races and Nations. The Gentiles (ARYANS), by placing in the Adytum a sarcophagus, or a tomb (taphos), and the solar-god to whom the temple was consecrated, held it, as Pantheists, in the greatest veneration. They regarded it -- in its esoteric meaning -- as the symbol of resurrection, cosmic, solar (or diurnal), and human. It embraced the wide range of periodical and (in time) punctual, Manvantaras, or the re-awakenings of Kosmos, Earth, and Man to new existences; the sun being the most poetical and also the most grandiose symbol of the same in heaven, and man -- in his re-incarnations -- on Earth.

The Jews -- whose realism, if judged by the dead letter, was as practical and gross in the days of Moses as it is now* --



in the course of their estrangement from the gods of their pagan neighbours, consummated a national and levitical polity, by the device of setting forth their Holy of Holies as the most solemn sign of their Monotheism -- exoterically; while seeing in it but a universal phallic symbol -- esoterically. While the Kabalists knew but Ain-Soph and the "gods" of the Mysteries, the Levites had no tomb, no god in their adytum but the "Sacred" Ark of the Covenant -- their "Holy of Holies."

When the esoteric meaning of this recess is made clear, however, the profane will be better able to understand why David danced "uncovered" before the ark of the Covenant, and was so anxious to appear vile for the sake of his "Lord," and base in his own sight. (See 2 Samuel vi. 16-22.)

The ark is the navi-form Argha of the Mysteries. Parkhurst, who has a long dissertation upon it in his Greek dictionary, and who never breathes a word about it in the Hebrew lexicon, explains it thus: -- "[[Arche]] in this application answers to the Hebrew rasit or wisdom . . . . a word which had the meaning of the emblem of the female generative power, the Arg or Arca, in which the germ of all nature was supposed to float or brood on the great abyss during the interval which took place after every mundane cycle." Quite so; and the Jewish ark of the Covenant had precisely the same significance; with the supplementary addition that, instead of a beautiful and chaste sarcophagus (the symbol of the matrix of Nature and resurrection) as in the Sanctum sanctorum of the pagans, they had the ark made still more realistic in its construction by the two cherubs set up on the coffer or ark of the covenant, facing each other, with their wings spread in such a manner as to form a perfect yoni (as now seen in India). Besides which, this generative symbol had its significance enforced by the four mystic letters of Jehovah's name, namely, ; or meaning Jod (membrum Virile, see Kabala); (the womb); (Vau, a crook or a hook, a nail), and again, meaning also "an opening"; the whole forming the perfect bisexual emblem or symbol or Y (e) H (o) V (a) H, the male and female symbol.

Perhaps also, when people realise the true meaning of the office and title of the Kadesh Kadeshim, "the holy ones," or "the consecrated to the temple of the Lord," the "Holy of Holies" of the latter may assume an aspect far from edifying.

Iacchus again is Iao or Jehovah; and Baal or Adon, like Bacchus, was a phallic god. "Who shall ascend into the hill (the high place) of the Lord?" asks the holy king David, "who shall stand in the place of his Kadushu ?" (Psalms xxiv. 3). Kadesh may mean in one sense to devote, hallow, sanctify, and even to initiate or to set apart; but it also means the ministry of lascivious rites (the Venus-worship) and the true interpretation of the word Kadesh is bluntly rendered in Deuteronomy xxiii. 17; Hosea iv. 14; and Genesis xxxvii. from verses 15 to 22. The "holy" Kadeshuth of the Bible were identical, as to the duties of their office, with the Nautch-girls of the later Hindu pagodas. The Hebrew Kadeshim, or galli, lived "by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove," or the bust of Venus-Astarte, says verse the seventh in the twenty-third chapter of 2 Kings.

The dance performed by David round the ark was the "circle-dance." said to have been prescribed by the Amazons for the Mysteries. Such was the dance of the daughters of Shiloh (Judges xxi. 21, 23 et passim), and the leaping of the prophets of Baal (I Kings xviii. 26). It was simply a characteristic of the Sabean worship, for it denoted the motion of the planets round the sun. That the dance was a Bacchic frenzy is apparent. Sistra were used on the occasion, and the taunt of Michal and the King's reply are very expressive. Isis Unveiled, Vol. II., p. 49.

H.P.B.

Actually they both date to somewhere around 600 BCE (and please don't throw your mythology at me, it means nothing, proves nothing as it has nothing to back it up ).

First of all, I was not referring to hebrews, in particular, so I ask you one more time to QUIT putting words into my mouth.
My point, if you even care, was that as far as I know the first settlers that came to the new world, brough with them their own form of religion.
Jesus did not visit Ontario during his pilgramage did he?
How do you know then that your chosen form of worship predates mine?
Ashley, please connect the dots on how my one line became an arguement for racism?
You speek often about the death camps, and the slaughter of the jews during world war 2.
I agree this is deplorable, but how different was that compared to how the settlers came to the new world and slaughtered the indians?
Savages was their famous buzz word.
I think you need a few history lessons.

She needs more than that, believe me!

Flawed logic. Judaism predates Buddhism thats true, but Buddhism predates Christianity. Its more likely that Buddha came up wtih the teaching which is in fact a standard part of most eastern teachings. Taoism also teaches moderation to give just one example and Taoism is also a fairly old system of belief.

The concept of acting in moderation I think is just a universal truth. Any one who spends any length of time examining the world will quickly realize that excess causes a lot of our problems. Its more obvious then today but its always been true of our species. Animals on the other hand act based on need. If they need food they take what they need and no more, if they need to fight or even kill to survive they kill what they must. Excess in the animal world is an abberation not the natural order.

Loge do us all a big favor please. Go buy a bible, a bagavad gita, books of Buddha's teachings, a Tao Te Ching, a Hebrew Bible, a Koran, the Talmud, and some kabbalaistic texts. Sit down and read all of it through beginning to end, study it and do every thing you can to understand it. When your done come back and share youre oppinions. If you won't do that try taking a Religion 101 class so you have some idea what on earth your talking about. This nonsense your spouting shows such a profound ignorance its insulting.

I have all of them plus the Popol Vuh, all of the Apocrypha including the Genesis of Enoch.

My Bible is written in HEBREW and Greek, it is call "The Interlinear Bible"

I have also the PISTIS SOPHIA or GNOSTIC BIBLE that was dictated by Jesus and written by his apostles, and many other Alchemical Books, not to mention the Zohar (Kabbalah), etc.

So, if what I post insults your ignorance, PLEASE do me a favor, DO NOT read my posts! That will fix your problem!

Thank you!

You really have all that and you still don't no any thing about any of those belief systems? Why do I find that hard to believe.

OF course if you actually take the Gnostic heresys seriously it owuld explain a lot. The latest of the four gospels was written by the end of the 1st century. The Gnostic texts are all from the first and second centuries. Thats why no main stream christian sect has ever taken them seriously in the last two thousand years. The early church fathers didn't, Paul didn't. Only the naive do.

8000 years ago was the first time it was written on paper. Before that it was an oral tradition. This was the first time humanity could write, as a whole, coinciding with the Egyptians, ALSO influenced by this train of throught through the angels.[i]

QUOTE

First of all, I was not referring to hebrews, in particular, so I ask you one more time to QUIT putting words into my mouth.
My point, if you even care, was that as far as I know the first settlers that came to the new world, brough with them their own form of religion.
Jesus did not visit Ontario during his pilgramage did he?
How do you know then that your chosen form of worship predates mine?
Ashley, please connect the dots on how my one line became an arguement for racism?
You speek often about the death camps, and the slaughter of the jews during world war 2.
I agree this is deplorable, but how different was that compared to how the settlers came to the new world and slaughtered the indians?
Savages was their famous buzz word.
I think you need a few history lessons.

NOW look whose putting words into MY mouth. I NEVER talk about WW2 death camps, etc. I find it a digusting subjuect, and therefore do not talk about it unless I really must. Don't bring world history into this. Indians weren't even the first settlers in America, either Aborigines or the Chinese were - this has recently been found. What did THEY to to the original settlers? And on and on it goes. WW2 had othing to do with settlers in a country, it was about a complete extermination of a race in EVERY country supposedly for economical reasons in Germany, and some maniacal idiot who thought he'd rule the entire world. No comparison.

QUOTE

Flawed logic. Judaism predates Buddhism thats true, but Buddhism predates Christianity. Its more likely that Buddha came up wtih the teaching which is in fact a standard part of most eastern teachings. Taoism also teaches moderation to give just one example and Taoism is also a fairly old system of belief.

The concept of acting in moderation I think is just a universal truth. Any one who spends any length of time examining the world will quickly realize that excess causes a lot of our problems. Its more obvious then today but its always been true of our species. Animals on the other hand act based on need. If they need food they take what they need and no more, if they need to fight or even kill to survive they kill what they must. Excess in the animal world is an abberation not the natural order.

It is NOT flawed logic. Jesus was a JEW. He PRACTICIED JUDAISM He [i]changed Judaism, but Christianity is just that changed and extended version from Judaism. This is why it's called JUDEO-CHRISTIAN. He did NOT learn it in Asia, HE ALREADY PRACTICED IT FROM HIS OWN COUNTRY/HERITAGE.



GNOSTICISM IS A LOAD OF CRAP. And my word is NOT in line with either Judaism OR Christianity. It is a branch off, like all these 'New Age' Christian branch offs of the original Bible, created by MAN. Yes, there wereboth Christian AND Jewish Gnostics, and BOTH were wrong. The religions you mash together no NOT connect, at all. They have taken parts of it and re-created it to suit themselves. Judaism and Christianity, whilst at odds, STILL believe in the same one and only God, Gnostics, do not.

All religions cam from the one, but that does not mean they are all right. You start throwing in man-made opinions and different cultures, and it takes the original concept and distorts it.

Since Gnostic studies have substantially progressed in recent years, no one would make the naive mistake — as in the past — of ascribing the Gnostic teachings to an exclusive spiritual tendency.

Although we must certainly take into account the Hellenistic, Oriental elements of any
Gnostic system, and the ones coming from Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, India, Palestine, Egypt, etc., we cannot ignore the Gnostic principles present in the sublime religious cults of the Nahuas, Toltecs, Aztecs, Zapotecs, Mayans, Chibchas, Incas, Quechuas, and others, in Pre-Columbian America.

Frankly speaking, let us say that Gnosis is a very natural function of the Consciousness; it is a philosophia perennis et universalis.

Gnosis is certainly the knowledge of divine mysteries that illuminates and this is reserved to an elite.

The word Gnosticism conveys, in its grammatical structure, the idea related to systems or currents dedicated to the study of Gnosis.

Gnosticism implies a set of clear, coherent and precise elements, which can be verified by means of mystical direct experience: the curse from a scientific and philosophical viewpoint; Adam and Eve of the Hebrew Genesis; the original sin and the departure from Paradise; the mystery of the Nahua Lucifer; the psychological death of the self; the creative powers; the essence of the Salvator Salvandus; the sexual mysteries; the Inner Christ; the Igneous Serpent of our magical powers; the descent to the infernos; the return to Eden, and the power of Mephistopheles.

Only the Gnostic doctrines that comprise the ontological, theological and anthropological foundations cited above, are part of authentic Gnosticism.

Pre-Gnostic is the system that, in a concrete, specific and evident way, presents features that can be found in Gnostic systems; it is rooted in a concept that is in toto foreign to Revolutionary Gnosticism. This thought, nevertheless, is, and is not Gnostic.

Any Gnostic system in an incipient and germinal state is Proto-Gnostic; its dynamics is similar to the one that characterizes definite Gnostic currents.

The adjective Gnostic may be wisely applied to concepts that, in one way or another, relate to Gnosis or to Gnosticism.

The meaning of the term Gnosticizing is close to Pre Gnostic. Indeed, this expression
“strictu sensu” relates to intrinsic aspects that are somehow similar to universal Gnosticism; they make up, however, a tendency not defined as Gnosis.

Once these semantic clarifications are done, let us accurately define the term Gnosticism.

We would like to make clear here that Gnosticism is a religious process that is inner, natural and profound.

It is authentic and profound esotericism that develops from instant to instant with very vivid mystical experiences, its own doctrine and ritual.

It is an extraordinary doctrine, which fundamentally adopts mythical and, sometimes, mythological forms.

It is ineffable and magical liturgy, which provides vivid information to the superlative consciousness of the Being.

Gnostic knowledge, unquestionably, always avoids the usual analysis of subjective reasoning.

The innermost feeling of the person or the Being correlates this knowledge.

The reason for the Being to be, is to be the very same Being. Only the Being can know himself.

The Being, therefore, knows himself in Gnosis.

The Being — when he redeems and knows himself — is Auto-Gnosis. The latter, in and of itself, is Gnosis.

The Being’s self-knowledge is supra-rational dynamics; it relies on him and has nothing to do with the intellect.

The abyss that exists between the Being and the “I” is impassable. This is why the
Pneuma, the Spirit, recognizes itself, and this recognition is an autonomous act for which the intellectual mammal’s subjective reasoning becomes inefficient, insufficient and terribly poor.

The urgent and un-delayable work of the annihilation of the “I” precedes the acquisition of self-knowledge or Auto-Gnosis.

The ego or “I” is composed of additions and subtractions of subjective, inhuman and bestial elements that have a beginning and an end.

The Essence, the Consciousness, which is enclosed, bottled up, imprisoned painfully within the diverse elements that make up the myself, the ego, unfortunately acts by way of its own conditioning.

When the ‘I’ is dissolved, the Essence, the Consciousness, awakens, acquires illumination and frees itself. Then, as a consequence, self-knowledge or Auto-Gnosis is acquired.

Authentic revelation has irrefutable foundations in Auto Gnosis.

Gnostic revelation is always immediate, direct and intuitive. It excludes — radically — all intellectual operations of a subjective kind. It has nothing to do with the experience or with any set of fundamentally sensorial data.

Although the intelligence or Nous, in its Gnoseological denotation can be the foundation of illuminated intellectualizing, it categorically rejects backsliding into the mere intellect.
The ontological and pneumatic or spiritual features of Nous (intelligence) are evident and manifest.

In the name of truth, I solemnly declare that the Being is the only that has real existence.
Before his ineffable and tremendously divine purity, that which we call the “I “ or ego, the myself or self, is merely outer darkness, cries and gnashing of teeth.

in YOUR opinion Ashley, have a little respect for those people that DO believe it, I'm sure you'd have something to say if someone posted that about your beliefs.

Well, it's happened before. And yes, that's my opinion, and a majority opinion of most people involved in Judeo-Christian texts.

Edit: And on top of that. What came first here, the chicken or the egg? Hebrew texts outdate Gnosticism and gnosticism takes from the Hebrew religion. It is an alternate and flawed view of God, and everything that pertain to those original texts.

Hi Ashley-Star*Child

As you have failed to answer my question twice before, ill now ask again.

Wasn’t it a while ago on another post that you where rightfully complaining about someone insulting Jesus and your religion? well may I ask, do you think that 2 wrongs make a right ?

All the best
Faeden

I already answered you.

What is your point with this question anyway. What are you getting at? I am doing nothing wrong, I am answering questions/adding historical origins to posts, there is NO wrong in that, whether people happen to like it or not. I didn't say don't believe in it. Go ahead, be my guest.

And if you don't agree to that then you are knocking MY religion. So, tell me, do two wrongs make a right???

Hi Ashley-Star*Child

If I missed it, I am sorry, can you answer it again or Quote it ?

All the best
Faeden

I explained it another post about a page back.

Hi Ashley-Star*Child

I am trying to make a statement and point that getting offended by someone because they insulted your religion is right, but then you going and doing the same to someone else's religion by calling it crap, is just a strange mentality to have. So ill ask again.


Wasn’t it a while ago on another post that you where rightfully complaining about someone insulting Jesus and your religion? well may I ask, do you think that 2 wrongs make a right ?

That is the last time ill ask, if you dont want to give me a straight answer, then I think I have proven my point.

All the best
Faeden

Ashley it is an alternate view. Calling it flawed is only rewording the term crap. As you have been asked allready to please show respect for other religious beliefs, this second post is less of a request and more of an insistance.

I can't stress enough that if you feel someone has been disrespectful toward you, report the post confidentially to a mod or admin. Do not use not reporting the offensive posts as an excuse to post similar comments to others.

So Ashley you are Australian, well so am I perhaps we have met before.
The Hieroglyphs you are talking about are the ones that show an Egyptian ruler being bitten twice by a snake. I have heard about these they where written in an egyptian style which is very old, but they have never been dated or proven to be real and not fraudulent. Also I have never heard that Aboriginal people where Egyptian in origin. can you find me a source for this information it sounds very interesting.

The Hyroglyphs where apparently written by a small fleet of traders that sailed across the ocean, on a trip that ended quite tragically, they also encountered aboriginal people who were already in Australia. So it wasn't them that foundered the aboriginal religious and spiritual beliefs.

The Dream Time stories helps one to understand this greatly.

Kismet,



Maybe, you never know.


I did not report this post. I've yet to do so, but if I DO, I'd like to hope it's not fogged off as an 'excuse'. I'm a straightforward person.I don't make excuses.


Second, I shall provide a link for what you are asking.

http://www.pip.com.au/~paceman/ANCIENT%20E...TRALIA%201.html

http://www.pip.com.au/~paceman/ANCIENT%20E...TRALIA%202.html

It has been said elsewhere also. I didn't say Aborigines WERE Egyptian, I said their religion was influenced by the Egyptians.

Hi all

I might be wrong here, but there is evidence to say that the native Australian aborigines are the oldest known humans to have a belief in a higher being, I dont know the name of it, but the oldest known cave paintings depicting gods or higher beings are from Australia in some cave in what is now known as the outback, and that was way before the ancient Egyptians came about. Pagan religions go back 10s of thousands of years, and the aborigines are one of, if not the oldest.

All the best
Faeden

Dating methods have been found to be wrong. Compare radio-metric to carbon. Radio-metric finds dinosaur fossil to be 19,000 years old.

?

Carbon 14 dating is a form of radiometric dating...



On certain occasions, not on most.



Which dating? What fossil sample? How many fossil samples? Source?

Radio-carbon, Radio-metric...

Link is here:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

I though radio carbon testing was.. unreliable?

Oh yes, everything's unebelievable when it's got something new to offer. I have a whole article on the scientists who are anti-darwin, and yet, aren't Creationists either. I'll post it if requested.

Every test they did to prove Darwin's theory yeilded no results (most were prior Dawrnists).

No.. I just find it funny that when something that is carbon dated can prove christianity wrong, it's faulty.

However, if it's used to prove your point, it's usable and accurate.

Your double standards are laughable.

And before you even start, I'm not saying it's wrong or not. Just amazed at your braizen use of twisting things about.

You can see it whatever way you want, I'm not bothered by it.

A brief mention? Thats it?

I'd like to know why they thought they should carbon date it in the first place. Its funny how the site uses a misuse of carbon dating to claim that carbondating is unreliable.

It's not a misuse, I'd found this being used to counteract regular carbon dating on alot of sites. I did search elsewhere when I found this. I DO cross-reference.

It is a misuse. Carbon dating is used to date objects younger than 50 000 years. You cant test an object that's millions of years old using carbon dating and then say that carbon dating is wrong because of the wrong results.



Huh? to counteract regular carbon dating? Is there some sort of special carbon dating?