When I first joined this site ~ I witnessed all these frail atheists bashing God lovers and other spiritualists. There was no one to protect us. We spiritualists were immensely helpless.
But now ~ after 2 months of my active participation ~ I'm confident to say that the 'religion and philosophy' forums have been reconfigured and that spirituality is on the rise here. This might even impact the world, and we might start to experience some real changes in the world because of this takeover here.
Thank you, comrades and well-wisher!
Good work! I noticed you're a fine debater. But I won't waste my time on all the egoistic shortsighted fools on Hubpages' forums.
Yes, in just a few months you have single handedly changed the universe. All hail God shet!!!!
"There was no one to protect us."
I don't understand. In every other religious "war" (or non-religious, for that matter), God has always fought on the side of the believer, even though that usually meant fighting on both sides at once or that there were two gods fighting the battle. Did you need more protection that what God could give? Was the god of the evil atheist, Reason, stronger than your god?
(Sorry. The picture of the evil atheist, flailing wildly about with the great Club of Reason that God gave them, and bashing all the believers in sight was too much to resist. Maybe God fought on the side of those that used what He has given them this time.)
"There was no one to protect us."
~ You've misunderstood what I have said (or wanted to say). It is not any 'intellectual' discussion that anyone seeks any protection from. The problem is that some people (atheists) manipulate certain 'weak points' to repeatedly harass spiritual people.
Al-least, that's what they used to do when I first arrived here.
Although I DO think that some DO "harass" others (I refrain from calling them "spiritual") I also think that the large majority are more concerned with teaching others to think. To reason, to analyze, cerebrate, cogitate, study, deduce, examine, etc. rather than make up supposed "facts" from a subjective, emotional standpoint that merely makes them feel good. The "weak point" you reference is using "belief" as "knowledge", and yes, it is an anathema to the atheist.
Not to say at all that "belief" is always bad: we "believe" our baby is beautiful, that our kids are smart and that there is an ET out there that loves us and does good things for us. It only becomes bad when we try to convince others it is knowledge or when the belief is forced onto others against their will. And, perhaps, when we depend on that ET to give us the things we want without us having to do the work.
Very often it becomes more important how something has been done ~ rather than what has been done.
Very true, and the crux of the communication problem. Seems to me that the question by the atheist is never "What do you believe" but rather "How and why do you come to that belief". When the answer comes back "I believe because I believe" the atheist is unsatisfied and says so, while the believer is astounded that his belief is not immediately taken as truth. And the fight goes on.
I understand that. I didn't really have you in mind when I mentioned 'spirituality bashers'. I'm not saying that you haven't done anything like that ~ but you always seem to maintain a certain level of general civility during conversations.
What it really comes down to ~ is 'understanding'. I appreciate the fact that none of us is 'perfect'. None of us knows everything. It is quite difficult to understand even an atom to its final depth. That's where we are. And all of us need to grow and connect ~ more positively.
Perhaps we are the only ones who can do it ~ in the whole of the material universe.
Thank you. And while I don't go out to "bash" believers, I DO have a tendency to reply in kind after a while. To make foolish statements that I know won't be accepted because that is what the believer insists on doing. Wrong, I know, and I do try to curb the impulse but do give in to in on occasion.
But the need to grow and communicate effectively absolutely is needed. To understand not only what the speaker is saying, but why. To understand where the speaker is coming from. And the believer, if anything, is even more guilty of not trying than the atheist - the "bashing" goes both ways when the believer starts quoting scripture that they already know the speaker won't accept for instance.
Maybe you don't understand that you put rules and regulations on us that are not put on you.
For instance: You say to us basically, "You may defend your faith, but don't be preachy. You may say why you believe what you believe, but you may not use your foundation, the Bible. If you mention salvation, you may never mention salvation from what." And of course the qualifications go on and on. It does appear that what you would prefer is to bash our faith and have us go weak at the knees. Maybe if there were a written contract...
And the fight goes on. No, I'm not interested in being "preached" at - a list of what you believe is irrelevant to the question of "why". And I'm not interested in what an unknown author from millenia ago (that does not give any reason why they believe) has to say. So no, while you can use the bible as a reference source, albeit a poor one, for a poorly researched history, you cannot use it for spiritual guidance and expect me to take it at face value. And doubly so because few believers accept the words but only their interpretations.
You see, IMHO, the word of god is either useful without change or of little value. When every person has to decide for themselves what the words mean (and no way of knowing of they're right) it becomes useless. The NT can be useful as a moral guide (and the OT as a guide of how NOT to behave), and the OT as a history written by the victor (always suspect) but that's about it. As truth, with authors unknown, compilers (and translators/interpreters) mostly political hacks with an axe to grind and a power base to protect---well, it just doesn't make it.
As I said... some kind of written constitution might be helpful. Let us know what we can say.
A general similarity between two or more consciousness (es).
These kinds of posts seem to be a little to vague to form into meaningful conversation. Maybe I am just not intelligent enough to fit the pieces together... or possibly too lazy. I'm sorry.
Well, two people can be said to be of the same frequency if both of them have had similar experiences ~ and thus they have a very similar understanding of life in this world.
For say, I can not have a successful conversation on the issue of homelessness, with a child. The child might not comprehend the fundamental logic of homelessness: "Why don't we just provide them a shelter?' - he/she may say. They don't know how the world really runs. They belong to a different frequency. Their fundamental understanding is very different from ours.
Likewise, artists, mathematicians, doctors etc - all these groups are of the same frequency, as they have a very similar understanding and awareness of being in this world. We pay them for their services. But they know the inner dynamism of their professions.
I see, and I'm pretty sure I understand your meaning... I do think it's a shame that we skipped that whole, "Speaking clearly" step though. I'm all for cutting out the middle man and finding out the price of the car. Do you need me to decipher that for you?
No, it's more than that. I will try to explain.
Take two people that have just had a hurricane pass through and tear off the roof of their house. Person 1 says "God has punished me - I must do better", replaces his roof, quits drinking and exhorts others to do the same. Person 2 sifts through the rubble and researches modern construction methods. He finds that the destruction began in a corner where there was insufficient strength and once started the rest of the roof followed. He reinforces the corners, replaces the roof and exhorts others to do the same with diagrams and specific instructions on what he thinks will prevent future roof removal.
It is a basic difference between belief and knowledge. Person 2 may not have solved the problem, but he has reasoned his way to a potential solution. Person 1 made a conclusion based on belief, and taken steps, but steps that have nothing to do with roofs. Just belief.
Looking past the crude example to the underlying thought process, this is why communication so often fails. Person 2 isn't interested in hearing how stopping drinking will prevent roof removal, and Person 1 isn't interested in learning how to build a more solid roof. Both have found an answer that satisfies them - answers which are totally ignored by the other as irrelevant. Although the experience was identical, the thought processes and conclusions the experience produced are worlds apart and will remain that way.
And then there is the third person...
They will stop drinking and do better AND research and build a better roof. To them, both parts are relevant and they get sick and tired of hearing which is more important than the other and how one reaction makes sense and the other doesn't. This person operates both with faith and knowledge and doesn't understand why people can't get that both exist and have importance.
Say someone gets a rare, and statistically incurable, cancer. Say one that only 20 or so people have survived. Yet she lives through it and emerges cancer-free. That person can be thankful to God and her surgeon at the same time. She can attempt to be a better person with the second chance she has been given. She can also have PET scans every 3 months and submit herself to the scrutiny of a team of doctors that are so intrusive that she might as well live with them and learn everything she can about her cancer. Both reactions are important to her.
Understood and agree that both parts are reasonable to those people. But the part with God is not reasonable to others, not without some evidence that a god played a part. In the roof, it was a hurricane and no amount of rhetoric is going to convince a non-believer that it was a god that sent it. Ditto for the recovery - the patient can claim all they want that god healed them but without evidence no non-believer will accept that. They can believe with all their heart, soul and mind but can produce nothing but belief and that just isn't good enough. It not only isn't good enough, the non-believer can't understand why anyone would think it is.
The man with the roof reconstructed the failure through hard work and learning, not with a simple claim that it was God, and that is what the non-believer wants. Something they can understand and work with, something they can point to and say "See? Here is where the failure started, when these short nails pulled out - it needed more support and better attachment". Not "God did it because I think He did".
Belief plays no part in the world of the non-believer. That world is ruled by evidence and reason, not belief, but that's all the believer needs for themselves and when they try to communicate that their belief is true and factual it is not met with acceptance. And they don't understand why - it's as obvious as the nose on their face! Which, after all, is pretty much what you said.
And as long as that third person isn't trying to convince anyone else of the truth of their beliefs, there's not a problem. I can see why that would frustrate others that don't believe if the person was trying to make them believe.
HOWEVER, on the other hand if that person enters a conversation with someone asking "Why do you believe this" or some such, then those persons reasons should be respected even if they aren't shared. You (universal) asked why, I gave an answer. If that answer is unacceptable to you, it's not my problem. If you feel my answer is illogical, that is also not my problem.
I see "your beliefs are unreasonable" and the same thing as "you are going to hell for not believing." Both are attempts to convince another they are wrong. That being said, there is also a difference between pointing out the flaws in logic in a believers beliefs (which I never really gave a crap about anyway) and insisting that they are blind to what you are saying. I think that sometimes, frequently even, the measure of how open others are to "new ideas" is largely reliant on whether they agree with them. That's ridiculous. I hear new ideas all the time. I ponder them, give them weight and then form a conclusion. If I form the conclusion that I don't agree with the new idea, it doesn't mean I didn't consider it or wasn't open to it in the first place.
It seems to me on both sides that is the case, the other side is unreasonable. Unreasonable is defined as not agreeing with the speaker.
"It seems to me on both sides that is the case, the other side is unreasonable. "
Which is exactly what I've been saying. YOU are able to grasp that without going on into your beliefs - others aren't.
"Unreasonable is defined as not agreeing with the speaker."
Almost. Change the not agreeing with the speaker to not agreeing with the reasoning and thought behind the conclusions and you've got it. Because the problem isn't the conclusion, it's the process taken to get to that conclusion that causes the lack of communication. The "why" behind the conclusion is simply foreign to both sides. Although, oddly, the non-believer always has their own beliefs and the believer is quite capable of reasoning through problems but won't when it comes to religious matters.
I think the main problem is admitting that something is not logical is the same, in both sides minds, as saying it is stupid.
No one, ever, has scored off of me by saying that I am illogical. Logic may pay my bills, but irrationality provides me the joy that makes my life worth living. Men, in particular, for some reason equate irrationality with negative, emotional (dare I say it? Womanly) behavior.
I have been blessed with critical thinking skills, intelligence and a bend for logical thinking. It's nice to play with, I guess. It gives me some understanding yada yada yada... but if I had to give up my completely rational and universally understood logic in favor of my completely irrational, illogical incomprehensible intuition, I would do it in a second. Every bad decision I've ever made in my life has been completely logical, every good decision has been intuitive.
So, yeah after that digression... Calling someones beliefs illogical or irrational is an insult and equates with stupidity. The believers know that and the non-believer who try to score points know that the believers know that. The believers are too proud to admit to such a thing as *gasp* emotional thinking and non-believers are too mean-spirited to approach the conversation another way... so round and round.
My funniest moments with rampant Atheists (and they do exist, and tend to attack me based solely on the crucifix around my neck) have come when they scream "illogical" with the same vehemence and disgust as 16th century Christians screamed "Witch." I say yes, my religion is illogical... So? And they are left looking dumbfounded and confused. Mainly because there is nothing after that. They somehow manage to puff themselves up in their confusion as if they've won some great argument, but the fact is there is no "so". Nothing comes after that.
Oh, I think there is absolutely a time and place for illogical thinking. Most decisions involve emotions ("do I like this or not") and logic plays no part there. It may play a part in "Can I afford what I like?", though, and that, too is a part in most decisions one way or another.
And some decisions are strictly logic, or should be. "Shall I jack the car up before removing the wheel nuts?" has only one reasonable answer.
So there is nothing wrong with being illogical sometimes. The "wrongness" comes into play when the illogical belief is stated as fact. "Katrina was God's warning that America is evil: go forth and live right!" is wrong, just as wrong as "You should never believe in a god because you can't prove it". The first is opinion stated as fact, the second ignores that belief may well be far more important than the truth of that belief. That we think babies are cute and beautiful (in spite of the reverse being clearly true) may be what keeps the human race alive!
I see the problem there but I'm not sure it has as much to do with religion as it does with asshattery. There are two billion or so, give or take, Christians on this planet. The fact that maybe a handful agree with the Katrina thing and less than that would have actually said it points more towards the speaker being a D-bag than any Christian motives. Now, I'm not saying he wasn't a Christian, I'm sure he was... so he is our D-bag, but I'm fairly sure he would have been such even as an atheist/Muslim/Buddhist. I would love to find a way to end asshattedness in all faiths and will join you happily if you ever figure out how. I am forced to agree, on some level, that the faith that you join can change your personality... somewhat. I kind of had to change my viewpoint on that just a bit... I'm still on the fence about whether it is social acceptance among your denomination or actual text but I digress... The point I'm making is that an ass is likely going to be an ass, regardless of his religious justification ( An example: A homophobe is going to be a homophobe regardless of faith, I believe, and is drawn to religion for the affirmation that his views are right rather than believing that because God said) . In this case, I'm sure the motive was more attention-seeking than faith-based... (As I believe it almost is with idiots that make hugely stupid and controversial statements like that)
Don't get me wrong, I believe religion can cause a whole host of problems, but this one I think is a personal, individual problem.
And my babies were cute... at least two of them were. I'll never say which two though
Don't get too wound up with the Katrina example of God's wrath; it was an extreme one purely to make a point. That being that the speaker had absolutely no (logical ) reason for making the statement and could in no manner back it up. Just a bold, bare statement presented as factual when, at absolute best, it could only be opinion. That's all, and with no indication that asshatnedness is limited to believers; there is plenty of that to go around in every belief (or none), society and culture.
Babies - if you had two that were cute you must be really exceptional (or the dad was!). I've seen maybe two in my life I could honestly call cute (oddly enough both from my genetic line) - the rest were uglier than an octopus. Now give them a couple of months and it's a different story - can't put them down.
My daughter, bless her heart, was so ugly as a baby that I actually cried about it. She actually got uglier every day for the first two months. Then she kinda came back from it. Because I'm a mom... the first one is at 24 hours, the second one at three weeks. I told you, it got REALLY bad.
I don't think the second one is that bad! Take away the spots on her face and she looks like any other baby. My grandson had eczema real bad and it really looked horrible for a long time - much, much worse than that.
But something like that could make it really hard to bond, couldn't it (that the child is ugly)? My daughter-in-law had a real hard time with her third, a boy. Not because of looks, but because the child made it extremely obvious that he would rather be with any male than with his mom. All she had to offer was food, while he really wanted the attention of men. I walk into the room and he'd cry to leave Mom and come to me, and it went on for a couple of years. It's changed now - while he wants time with me (at 7 years), when he gets hurt or wants comfort it's Mom. Not even Dad, but Mom.
I suppose it probably could for some people. I never had a problem with ugly being unlovable, but I was worried about her when she grew up. She's my only blond and I think that's what threw me more than anything... her eyebrows and lashes were so pale it didn't look like she had any. The skin was a combination of eczema for her and scratching. I couldn't keep her nails short enough and she wouldn't leave the mittens on. Her being born so soon after Kaine died was more problematic, but I went the other direction, I hyper-bonded. Took months of therapy before I would let her more than three feet from me. To this day she has no concept of personal space because she didn't experience it until she was into toddler-hood. One of many mommy-screw ups.
Oh your poor daughter though, I think that would have broken my heart. Seriously, I want to find her and hug her. I'm glad they got through it. My 15 year old is way closer with his dad than with me and it still stings a bit. I cant imagine it so little.
She's mostly over it, but still has some feeling that she could have bonded better if he'd have let her. It was kind of flattering, and is probably a part of why he and I are so close, but I sure felt bad for the Mom at the time. Now that I think of it, my kids and all but one grandkid were very blond when born, and just as you say the eyebrows and lashes were all but invisible so it looks quite normal to me.
Kids can sure be funny, can't they? My little 5 year old grand daughter is completely buffaloed by me. Anyone else give her orders she doesn't like and she'll put up a huge fight - If I so much look at her she'll immediately shut up and go do as she was told. She's been the best little girl...for me. For anyone else she's a handful - really headstrong and stubborn - but for me she's a jewel. Loves to cuddle and play with me, so she's not scared of me, but just a look with a little frown and she's straightened right out every time.
Your problem comes in thinking that belief is based on nothing.
I'm not a Christian, but I am Jewish, and I've been helped many times by God.
including God in everything we do, is a way of life for the Jewish person
And the examples given was not based on anything I have done, or believe, or any action I would take
I live by evidence too, I am a Nurse with my MSN...that takes six years. My undergraduate is in biology.
I believe in both a Creator and Evolution..But I also have evidence for God. Don't tell me to prove it, you know I can't because of the nature of that evidence.
I could show you things in the Jewish bible they knew, and were correct about before science knew it, but I won't
If you don't believe that's your choice
You're a nurse, and so will understand how to reason and look for answers. When you try to diagnose an illness do you look at symptoms and compare to what known diseases show? Do you take blood (or other) tests to find a pathogen? If you can't find a disease, do you (very carefully) prescribe drugs to treat diseases with similar symptoms? Or do you go to healing books 2,000 years old and follow their directions without question? (And yes, I know you're not a doctor, but you will get the gist of this).
Why not apply that same care, tests and thought process to religious matters? When you were shown proof of your god, did you look (hard!) for other causes? Did you try to reproduce what you saw? Did you make tests to verify what happened, or just take someone's word (including your own)?
Or did you just say "Gee, that was unusual and I don't know what might have happened or why. Must have been a god." Because that's about all there is to do; an undetectable god that does not produce miracles, does not speak and has never been proven to exist is hard to show and even harder to show someone else.
God isn't undetectable, you see him in Nature, Cycles, Science, Creation. and Life.
He is everywhere you look, unless you're blind.
He may not speak to you but he has, and does speak to me, and others in the past, present, and he will speak to some in the future
God sees no reason to prove himself to those who deny his existence.
He performs miracles, healing, and answers prayer.
No, your fine. It what makes him almost impossible to converse with. But from what I gather he somehow thinks he's single handedly fixed hp and in doing so the entire world.
The old testament is a teaching on judgement. The new testament is a teaching on grace. That is who God is. He is judgement, He is grace. It is a perfect picture, and Jesus completes it.
Maybe a little 'quarrel' now and then is healthy for a 'productive' communication? We might freeze, otherwise, out of courtesy!
God himself, is Objective, not Subjective
It appears you are not going to respond? We must be able to discuss issues as long as we are not being attacked and though I did offer criticism, I hope it is not harsh.
I feel that there is so much wrong with your opening. "No one to protect us?"!!! What of God? Who is our sword and our shield? Certainly it is the word of God and His very spirit... His righteousness and mercy that aides us. You would not submit that your efforts nullify our need for Him?
Second, and forgive me, because this is where I make a personal observation which makes it opinion and not necessarily fact, but your threads seem to me to be fluff pieces, created to give you something to do, not efforts to reach a lost and dying world or even to ignite dynamic discussion.
I have not been a great supporter of your threads for this reason, but that doesn't mean I am against you... Saying I do not support an aspect of your posting doesn't mean I support your opponents. I believe, no matter which side we are on, we are accountable to each other for what we say. And Believers are accountable first and foremost, to God. I don't know your belief system, but I can tell you that creating threads for the purpose of rabble rousing isn't something God has called any of us to do. We share the truth as we know it. We love as Christ would love. That is our purpose.
What I don't understand is the antagonism. It serves no purpose that Christ would have approved of. I don't see what there is such a great need to make it us vs. them. That doesn't encourage dialogue and gives the completely wrong impression about what I believe Christianity should be.
I'm not sure what is gained for Christ by alienating people in his name. That has been the source of much of my frustration with these forums, and the reason I "side" so often with the atheists.
I agree with you, though as I said, I don't think of it as choosing sides. I believe the verse that says, 'Let God be true and everyman a liar.' So if a Christian is in the wrong, I will say so. If an Atheist is wrong, I will say so, but with that being said, we have to let a WHOLE lot go. I disagree with most of what the Atheist says, obviously, but I don't want to be here bashing him/her over the head all day. As far as the Christian, I wont agree with everyone's pov, but if overall I feel they are trying to do good, then who am I to nitpick? Besides the fact that, being human, I am going to flub up a lot and am also going to hope others give me grace.
But I agree that some seem to just want to incite their adversaries and this benefits no one. Jesus never backed down from telling the truth, but neither did he pick a schoolyard fight. His aim was to win souls, to teach truth, to love, to save that which was lost.
That's why I put the "side" in quotations. In all honesty, I am harder on Christians on the bickering thing than I am on Atheists just because of that whole Am I my brother's keeper? thing. Christians are supposed to represent Christ. Cruelty, nastiness, bullying etc shouldn't be done in Christ's name. Christ's name also shouldn't be used to press an agenda, which I also see a lot. It pisses me off, quite honestly.
For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Great choice of scripture. I'm agreeing with you again.
Isn't there an old proverb around 'scriptures', and its citation purposes?
Speak clearly, please, so that we may have true communication.
I don't know, is there? What is it? And how does it apply here?
I don't know about a proverb, but there is lots of scripture about the use of the word. Generally, it is commanded that a believer use it to guide and teach, and sometimes even rebuke, brethren that are acting contrary to what we are taught. It does warn that if the scripture is ineffective for teaching, we should get away from that person so as not to be corrupted by them.
"It does warn that if the scripture is ineffective for teaching, we should get away from that person so as not to be corrupted by them."
Question: do you find this rather problematical? If one insists on being gay, or questioning the creation story or that the world was flooded should we really put them out of our lives or should we listen to what they have to say? If one has a different (honest) interpretation of scripture, should we push them aside and ignore them? Or should we welcome them into our circle in the hopes of learning and growing?
I know a handful of believers that do just that; absolutely refuse to read or discuss anything contrary to their interpretation of scripture so as not to be corrupted or lose their faith, and it always seems counter-productive. How do you grow spiritually if you already know everything there is to know? If you have zero misconceptions or errors in your "database" of spiritual knowledge?
(And no, God shet, I'm not "bashing the spiritual" - an honest request for understanding is never that)
Honestly, those scriptures are intended on giving instruction/rebuke to brothers and sisters in faith. They don't really apply to those outside the faith, they serve another master Just to cover that aspect.
They also mainly apply to sinning. Having questions is not sinning, having doubts is also not sinning.
Now with those justifications, I'm going to go ahead and add that it is also completely subjective. There are certain behaviors that my conscience screams loudly are just wrong. I'm sure some would label it the holy spirit and discernment, but it's honestly just a sense of behavior being wrong that it shouldn't be allowed to continue without at least someone speaking up. Would I avoid that person forever because of it or never let them speak again? It depends on exactly what it was, but for most things no. However if the person consistently showed several behaviors that all were wrong, I would. A difference in beliefs doesn't mean a person will "corrupt" but an entire personality of behaviors that trigger that conscience scream does.
*Edit: I saw the gay reference and specifically chose to not address it because we all know where THAT would go.
I understand, I think, although I'm not sure that "brothers and sisters in faith" has much to do with it.
I would not be interested, for instance, in having a serial child molester or rapist in my circle. Not because I think I might be contaminated and do the same thing, but because the behavior is so disgusting that I want nothing to do with the person.
This I can understand, but the person that will never hear other ideas or interpretations for fear of losing their faith I can't.
The scriptures specifically say "brethren" which I take to mean as people of the same faith, i.e. brothers and sisters in Christ (or fellow Christians in this case, if the lexicon throws you... that's another discussion)
The scripture also kind of gives some leeway in what corruption really means. It's also subjective. I can hear different arguments all day without fear of losing my faith. Different opinions just aren't a threat to me. However being around nasty, bullying people is. The overwhelming desire to slap someone upside the head is a definite threat to my Christianity. I guess for others, exposure to new ideas acts the same way.What each person sees as a threat depends on that person, I guess is what I'm saying.
I had a situation where another person was claiming to be a prophet. I perceived this as a threat because the Bible specifically says to get away from such people. This person continued to follow me and I felt soiled after each interaction. Other Christians were fine with it. See, subjective. Faith often is.
Yep, I got it, and on the first try, too! I should get a medal.
Still don't think that "fellow Christians" have anything to do with it, though. The few that I've barred from my life weren't my brethren (outside of being human and in some cases I wonder about that, too). They're just jerks that I would, as you say, like to slap along the head.
I agree with you on this.
Because I am Jewish, and believe differently from the other religions, people call me a false prophet,,!?? Yet the bible was written in Hebrew, and a few verses in Aramaic.
The four Gospels translated into English, was written in Greek, yet Yahshua spoke Hebrew.
But people reject the Hebrew meaning of scripture's
I take back my above answer, I guess there really are several proverbs about it.
Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.
Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose
~ I didn't mean that you are a 'devil' or something like that. But when you - who have displayed your dislike for scriptures (Bible, and the rest) so many times - stamps your favorable approval on one piece of writing that belongs to it - generates a feeling that resembles that proverb above.
Maybe day this will not be a forum where we are excited to genuinely learn about each others beliefs rather than just playing mutual whack-a-mole.
God shet, I don't mind your confidence. Carry on. Someone has to do it!
Now, is there anyone to protect Atheists, agnostics, and seculars from harassment to people who prefer religion? I stopped coming to these forums mainly because it seems both sides were attacking each other non-stop and both sides were being jerks.
I mean Atheists don't have a moral high ground outside of reason (and a reasonable man should know right from wrong), but the religious side has giant books telling it's believers to not judge one another, to turn the other cheek, to forgive seven times seventy times, to love others as their deity has loved them, and to take care of the poor and broken. So religious guys, what's your excuse?
I mean, I have a spiritual leaning, but often get pushed away from expressing it, because frankly, both sides - religious AND nonreligious - just seem to strike me as being jerks.
Well, if I have ever been a jerk (which is altogether possible), I do apologize. I think most ppl have good intentions. It is a hot topic and it pushes a lot of buttons on both sides, but we choose to enter these specific threads, so we have some idea what to expect. The typical reader, but non-participant might not.
I'm afraid the feeling could be mutual, they may see you as the jerk...especially if you call anyone else one
by mishpat2 years ago
I have enjoyed many "debates" with folks here on the Hub, but in the long run, its seems those that believe still believe and those that don't still don't. Why is this?Could it be, Christians, that we...
by charlie10 hours ago
Gen 1:1-4 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ...
by Jefsaid6 years ago
With discoveries at a sub-atomic physics level showing correlation with the views of some Spiritualists who identify the reality as an eternal energy flow and our genetic codes seemingly mapped out, are we simply part...
by fierycj7 years ago
I have a whole bunch of them, so here I'm gonna say you're allowed to post as many as you like (from any Holy book, except the Satanic Bible, obviously) . Here's one of mine..."And I looked, and there was none to...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.