Realize that gossip changes with repetition, I say yellow today, 300 years later it gets written down that I said orange.
The early times of the 'Bible' were mouth to mouth. The Bibles were penned in Rome Italy 300 years after the death of Christ. The people that penned them were flawed Human Beings. The people in the Bibles are to us cavemen, as are those that penned them. We have evolved to a greater understanding than the one they had. We see a clearer view of the universe, of God, of each other and of Linguistics. We have to re-exam how we look at the Bibles, and not treat them as absolute. If we treated medical books like we treat the Bibles, where would we be?
You want an everytime answer to a specific question. There aren't any. You have to make a unique decision (that may be the same) for each situation. Based on the problem, based on all new facts, based on why you think it is a contradiction, If it is a contradiction. You have to examine the linguistics of who said it, who wrote, what era was it written in...
If You and Christ are standing in the same room as me. You say the sky is pink, Christ says it is blue. I would look up and see what color I thought the sky was. If you said this is the way some unprovable thing is, and Christ said the opposite. I would believe whoever I thought had the better reasoning. I would be influenced by expertise in the field discussed, of both you and Christ. I would then form my own Opinion.
If you and I were standing alone in this same room, and Christ's words were being represented by a 2000 year old document, written by people that had a caveman's level of understanding, 300 years after the event, based on accounts from people that only knew of it through gossip, I would believe whoever I thought had the better reasoning. I would be influenced by expertise in the field discussed, of both you and Christ. I would then form my own Opinion.
When two toddlers are communicating (in baby talk) do you really think their parents have a choice as to the professional form of communication the toddlers use? The parents correct the toddlers as they can, in a manner they(the toddlers) can understand, when they are capable of understanding the corrections. So does God. The mode of communication that humanity had at that time was what was used. I'm sure that if they had the technology we have today, it would have been used.
But wouldn't it be simpler if God just appeared today and talked directly to us in our advanced forms of communication, instead of having us get this important knowledge from primitive sheep herders. That creates an unnecessary barrier, and is not very indicative of a supreme being.
Do you think we've progressed that far? We may not be cavemen anymore, but I bet to God we are. Just because to us it is the most advanced, doesn't make us on a level with God. I believe we may be as old as kindergardens now...maybe not even that far...Remember 2000 years ago they (the writers of the Bibles) were the epitomy of modern civilization. The best and smartest, God inspired... 2000 years from now people will look back at us and think "What a bunch or primitive bull crap they thought back then, they didn't even know how to telepathically send picture images to each other..."
Most likely wrong about everything...NO... most likely expressing the truth in the very best 'primitive' way they knew of...Yes... the confusion today, we have new meanings applied to the words they used. What they visualized a word to mean isn't what we visualize it to mean.
Believing in God, because of my own logic, not because of theirs. My conclusions to my logic and feelings are my own. That they are simular to those of the cavemen in the Bibles, simply reinforces my own belief. I accept the 'truths' that I can, on my own, and I reject the things that we have learned in the last 2000 years to be untrue. Just because some of the things I believe to be true are also agreed to in the bible, doesn't mean that I have come to my belief based on 'because it says so in the Bible'. I keep this in mind always:
Humanities view and opinion of God will Always be possibly flawed, until the day comes when we can look at, touch and communicate with God at God's level. Many, many, many moons from today.
Their is no logic in believing in the invisible and undetectable.
Of course they are, but not to the extent you believe.
They are similar because the bible is where you learned them.
No, you were indoctrinated into a cult. Anyone can see that.
But, you do and you did. Again, anyone can see that.
Ah yes, it's always the people in the future and people in the past that get to experience god first hand, while the present populace must endure the viciousness of and cruelty of the invisible and undetectable.
Mikel G Roberts wrote: Believing in God, because of my own logic, not because of theirs.
Q: Their is no logic in believing in the invisible and undetectable. (My logic takes me to where the proof ends, my faith takes it from there. Therefore logic is involved even if it isn't the only tool I use to get there.)
My conclusions to my logic and feelings are my own.
Q: Of course they are, but not to the extent you believe. (and to what extent do I believe?)
That they are simular to those of the cavemen in the Bibles, simply reinforces my own belief.
Q: They are similar because the bible is where you learned them. (I didn't have any involvement with any religion at all until after I was 13 years old. I didn't read any bible until after I was a grown man. Most of my conclusions were already my beliefs before I ever read a bible.)
I accept the 'truths' that I can, on my own, accept, and I reject the things that we have learned in the 2000 years to be untrue.
Q: No, you were indoctrinated into a cult. Anyone can see that.
(the atheists cry of PROOF, "anyone can see that." the religionists cry of PROOF "anyone can see that"... I am not a member of any church or religious group, I was baptized in the catholic faith when I was 13, I soon discovered that the Catholic church wasn't about God but about money, control and power. Though physically forced to attend 'services' mentally and emotionally I was not present.)
Just because some of the things I believe to be true are also agreed to in the bible, doesn't mean that I have come to my belief based on 'because it says so in the Bible'.
Q: But, you do and you did. Again, anyone can see that.
(again the heralding cry of the Atheists and Religionists, "anyone can see that..." the phrase "anyone can see that" proves nothing, proof on your part is required to change MY beliefs.)
Humanities view and opinion of God will Always be possibly flawed, until the day comes when we can look at, touch and communicate with God at God's level. Mnay many many moons from today.
Q: Ah yes, it's always the people in the future and people in the past that get to experience god first hand, while the present populace must endure the viciousness of and cruelty of the invisible and undetectable.
(I thought you didn't believe God existed? Yet you blame an entity that doesn't exist for the wrongs in the world?)
Uh fyi, logic is a system of reasoning, not a system of propping up baseless assertions.
To the extent of where exactly your beliefs originated. You appear to believe they sprung into your head and were then confirmed by the bible, correct me if I'm wrong here?
Isn't that placing the cart before the horse?
Unless you were living in a cave that entire 13 years of your life, you must have come in contact with many stories and versions of scriptures as most of our society is pervaded with them, how could you possibly not have had any involvement with religions?
I find that very difficult to swallow. Most likely, you heard a great many stories about religions when you were a child.
Then, I shall retract that statement. You are correct.
What religion isn't about money, control and power?
Such as what?
That is a fallacy. My reference to your god in these posts does not confirm or deny any beliefs on my part.
I could just as easily, for your convenience and dissuasion from using similar fallacies in the future, replace the word god with "that which has not been demonstrated to exist but is claimed to possess a great number of extraordinary characteristics including omnipotence, omniscience and the ability to perform physical law violating feats of magic and acts of unfathomable cruelty and destruction to anyone who doesn't worship and obey, and even some who do"
Are you talking to me? I have never given my name here.
One does not apply definitions to words that are already clearly defined. A hammer is a 'tool' also, but we don't use it to help understand the world around us just as we don't mistakenly use faith for understanding, either.
Yes, that is my point also.
Yes, you leap to conclusions of magic and mystery supported by the myths and superstitions of the bronze age when answers are not made readily available to you.
I have come to the same conclusions that reality offers, nothing more and nothing less. Your conclusions don't match reality. Sorry.
Isn't that placing the cart before the horse?
Well, it certainly isn't learning.
Nuff said, then.
You may very well believe the lies you've been told. That doesn't the preclude the fact they are lies.
It isn't logical or rational to believe in the invisible and undetectable, nor is it a belief that hasn't been shouted from the highest mountain tops and deepest valleys throughout the world for many centuries, and even through bedroom doors.
Which god? Zeus? Thor? Hendrix?
I try to understand rather than believe.
I have mountains of evidence, consistent results in my understanding and proof in my mathematics.
What has 'belief' offered?
The massive, centuries-old, never-ending, indoctrination machine we like to call 'The Abrahamic Religions'
Mankind has and always will suffer in the past, the present due to himself. When someone comes along to help people to "see" God, no one is interested. God has never come down and walked around among man. Except the way he still does, inside of people.
Actually the history of the 20th century disputes that thoroughly. Add the number of dead under, Stalin, Moa, Lennin, Pol Pot, etc. History has proven without a doubt. that man without a god kills far more and quicker than with a god..
History speaks the truth against that lie.
Godless atheism has killed more than any religion, tally the #s if you don't believe it. But stop propagating false facts.
Of course liberals cannot help but defend and heroicize dictators, communnists, socalists, and anything not Christian and not American.
define absurd, ...Mikelpedia: Absurd: creating a weapon capable of wiping out all life on the only planet that inventor has the ability to live on... and yet many learned scientists and governmental leaders believe in the Nuclear Bombs, and we would be hard pressed to get them to destroy the technology.
The inability of humanity to comprehend 'all' of what God is. We each understand a very small part and then claim that very small part to be the whole. Each groups small part/piece may be correct, but our inability to join the other small pieces together in a greater whole causes us to make the assumption that the other concept therefore has to be incorrect. Politics and people using religions to assert control over people is another problem.
Is this the ask Mark Knowles opinion, if you want it, forum... I'm not trying to convert you or anyone to my beliefs Mark, I'm just stating my beliefs. The Fact that the hub about my beliefs is full of my beliefs is confusing to you because? I'm not trying to 'Justify' my beliefs, I'm simply 'stating' my beliefs, and answering why I believe what I believe when asked. Conflicts are what my life is all about. I always was a fighter.
I don't know. I don't know that 'heaven' exists. I don't know what conditions may be revelent to admission to the place I don't know exists.
I Believe God created gay people, I believe God loves gay people. I believe humanity OVERrates the evilness/importance of human sexuality. I don't think wether a human has anal sex or not is on the top ten list of God's intrests.
correction (if i may). salvation has come to everyone. man has now the choice -as always- to accept that saving or reject it. It is no longer a question of having to be. It is a decision of wanting to be.
Dear Mike, Could you possibly give me some advice? I accidentally stood on my friend's blow up doll (sorry in all respect her name is Norma Jean) with the heel of my stilhetto. It was dark and at first I thought it must have been a snake as I heard a distinct sssssssssss noise. However when I flicked my lighter on after getting around the child lock feature on it(an hour later), I realised it was indeed Norma. She is going down fast and her skin is quite akin to the texture of a prune.
What should I do? Should I perhaps visit the local bike shop and purchase a puncture kit and do a quick repair? Should I confess to my friend? I am in a complete dither.... Your Faithfully but confused, Blondepoet.
Ok, the way this thread is going, it's clearly enough to discourage any new writer. It seems many are too interested in self-aggrandizement and self- entitlement to remember they were once new people, too.
I was hoping this would be helpful, but many want to merely increase ratings by posting nonsense.
You may be right, I don't know, I'm here to post what I've what I've posted. I'm not here for ratings or ego stroking. I'm a new writer myself, if you want to consider me that. Which I don't. I'm just a guy stating his opinion.
Oh, boy... I'll help you out. These guys are just having fun, actually, and its nice to see a nonrancorous and kinda funny thread in the religion forum for a change. You'll soon figure that out, a).
b), I'm a professional writer... And I just checked out your hub on how to find a job. I think it contains a lot of good information and is fairly easy to read. However--you could improve it by proof reading a bit more carefully, showing consistency in the punctuation of your sub-headlines, and definitely by including at least one or two photos or illustrations per article. You might also consider breaking up a few of your very long paragraphs into smaller units to further ease reading.
As far as SEO, it seems as if you included some valid keywords (did you do it throughout the article, too?). I would have said gear the article towards teens in your title and introductory material if you are writing for teens, but I thought you perhaps you made it broader and less specific with SEO in mind.
This is what I posted as a comment to your article...
What a beautiful experience... I am touched by it and wasn't even there.
Some people would say you were lucky, so many bad things could have happened. I think it was more than it appeared. My belief in something greater than our selves, just got stronger. I would call your experience a living work of art. There is something in this experience... like a feeling of angels...
as far as editing, if you still want that too, just ask.
Which leads me to the thought, if it is a belief system/religion then not having other opposing religious symbols displayed in government places (schools) could be deemed as supporting only Atheism. Therefore seperation of church and state laws would have to be amended. To whit: Having the religious symbols of Atheism, which are an abscence of references to an Almighty God, is unconstitutional as it violates the statues against the joining of religion and state... just a thought...
The way I see God is that God is Everything/Nothing, God is the coin, Everything and Nothing are the two sides of the coin. Atheists worship the Nothing side of God...oh wow... by doing nothing, by not praying, by not attending services, by not joining in communion with others and with God. They, like all Religions try to convince others that what they believe is true (so these attempts to 'convert' others to the non-belief might be deemed as a 'sin'?). It is made a Religion by the Dogma of professing a non-belief or by professing a Belief/Faith in the NON -existence of God. The religious symbols of this Religion are as I previously stated, the 'abscence' of symbols of a God.
Reported (to HubPages staff) and blocked from further postings in the thread...
Starme may not be on now and may not be back for hours, even if she comes back she may not read the postings she missed in this thread... to contact her I suggest you go to her profile and ask the question there, or from her profile see if you can send her an e-mail.
Mike, how do you let go? I mean emotionally whether anger or compassionate when the situation comes to a place of time to let go? I am struggling with messages that indicate a place I no longer want to share given the signals sent to me but I can't let go. It's like I am taunting myself when the other person could care less. Make any sense at all? Thank you.
A friendship is a relationship... break ups are never easy. Friendships are probably what I'm worst at. I have never had a large circle of friends, for whatever reason. My personality isn't one that most people like. I've stated that I'm an aquired taste. Something about my personality brings out the competitiveness of people and they seem to always have to prove themselves better than me, Not an easy task. In the competing, the friendship usually dies. So for me, personally, I deal with break-ups and lost friends using the old adage, practice, practice, practice...
Yes, it sucks. I have gotten used to it though. Now I can usually tell within 5 minutes of meeting someone whether it is going to be a competition or not, and if it is, I sever the emotional connection from the begining, and just enjoy the competition. Unless your like me and have basically lived a solitary life, my advice probably won't be of much help. I'm sorry for your loss, and I hope you keep your chin up. Things will get better, and you will find a new friend.
I was referring to lyricsingray's situation... I was reminder of a similar situation and may have gotten off track.The relationship she was speaking of just may not be all of what she is looking for. We may loose our hopes of a particular person fulfilling our needs/desires does not make them a bad person. It may be just the wrong time of place for this friendship to finish growing into something else. Keep the friend,can't have too many. Keep the eyes open, never know what we may see next.
The highlighted part to me sounds like someone that has suffered a great tragedy. Someone mad at either God or the World. Someone disappointed by the abscence of a magical miracle or resolution to some past event.
Part of something Mikel said: What ever definition you apply to the tool 'logic'. Doesn't change the fact that it is a 'tool'. The other 'tool' I use is [b] Faith.
Q or Mark or Jeffrey said: One does not apply definitions to words that are already clearly defined. A hammer is a 'tool' also, but we don't use it to help understand the world around us just as we don't mistakenly use faith for understanding, either.
Mikel: Without the entire text the context of what I said changes therefore it no longer makes sense...
In the original use of the text your using...You were changing what I said by calling something I said untrue do to my lack of understanding of what logic was. I was explaining to you that I understood what logic was and that you however didn't.
Mikel: Faith is the tool I use to as you say 'prop up baseless assertions', another way of saying that is 'support an unprovable idea/belief'.
Q or Mark or Jeffrey said: Yes, that is my point also.
Mikel: Faith in the NON-Belief or NON-Existence of God is just as unfounded as belief in the existence of God. Your still trying to use the lack of proof of the existence of God to be Proof of the NON existence of God. It doesn't work that way.
Lack of Proof does not prove the NON-Existence of God.
Part of what Mikel said: Learning what I believe from a bible... You say is brainwashing...
Q or Mark or Jeffrey: Well, it certainly isn't learning.
Mikel: It may not be learning what you want me to learn, but the processing of information is learnig. Even if it comes from a flawed source. What you learn from a flawed source may end up be incorrect, but the learning is learning.
Mikel: Your doubt to the integrity of my answers is obvious, therefore I choose to not take offense from being called a liar.
Q or Mark or Jeffrey: You may very well believe the lies you've been told. That doesn't the preclude the fact they are lies.
Mikel: I didn't say anything about someone else telling me anything. I said you were calling me a liar, and I was choosing to not be offended. Therefore your statement is about something completely unrelated.
Q or Mark or Jeffrey: It isn't logical or rational to believe in the invisible and undetectable, nor is it a belief that hasn't been shouted from the highest mountain tops and deepest valleys throughout the world for many centuries, and even through bedroom doors.
Mikel: Proof? (that it isn't logical or rational to believe in the unseen or unprovable?)
Saying that belief in God has been shouted all over the world, doesn't prove anything. Nor does it prove that I, as a child, was influenced by religious fanatics and I'm just a big fat liar now for saying that I wasn't. Again your unfounded and unprovable belief doesn't prove anything.
Mikel: To what do you lay the blame for all the evils in the world?
Q or Mark or Jeffrey: The massive, centuries-old, never-ending, indoctrination machine we like to call 'The Abrahamic Religions'
Mikel: I don't know what 'The Abrahamic Religions' are, but if your referencing the 'Ancient/Modern' churches as a big historical influence of violence, killing, and torture 'IN the Name of God' then on this point I agree.
The first bible of Christianity was written in Rome Italy 300 years after the death of Christ, because of the violence the people wanting it were doing.
Christianity grew by use of violence... Christianity was enforced using violence.
an example, A group of Atheists are mad and beat someone (possibly someone arguing for the existence of God) as the Atheists are beating this person one atheist says, and where is your God now?... (proving that, at least to the atheist, God doesn't exist.)
Personally I haven't researched it, but I'm sure however that the Police have records and statistics on such cases. And since I'm not trying to convince You of an existent God, and You are trying to convert me, the burden of proof lies firmly with you.
Isn't proving that someone is bald, proof, that hair exists? Not collecting stamps... I would say isn't a hobby. The prevention of others from collecting stamps as a hobby...could be deemed a hobby. So while I accept that my belief may be untrue/wrong, because it is unfounded. And I further state there is no proof to the existence of my God. Then why can't Atheists admit, that in a situation of an abscence of proof, anything may be possibly correct. Without proof to the contrary, it is possible that my God exists. Because that would mean Atheists admitting that it IS POSSIBLE, that my God does in fact exist. Which is contrary to their unfounded beliefs.
Mikel G Roberts wrote: But in answer, historically, knowing what didn't work (trial and error) has been a very effective way to learn what does.
Q or Mark or Jeffrey: Fair enough, but if you continue to follow that which doesn't work, how is that useful?
Mikel: Is this a round about way of saying a belief in God doesn't work? I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the concept of trial and error... That being the throwing out of that which has been Proven to be untrue. Proven being the important word in the sentence.
What have Atheists proven to be true? Why can't Atheists admit, that in a situation of an abscence of proof, anything may be possibly correct. Without proof to the contrary, it is possible that my God exists. Because that would mean Atheists admitting that it IS POSSIBLE, that my God does in fact exist. Which is contrary to their unfounded/unproven beliefs.
Science, on the other hand, has provided a great deal, in fact, everything you take for granted each and every day.
Anything IS possible, that's the point. However, by believing in the invisible and undetectable, we can conjure a great deal of entities from our imaginations. Are we to believe everything conjured from the mind?
Of course it is possible, just as it's possible leprechauns and unicorns exist, infinitesimally small possibility. The probabilities of a gods existence is even smaller.
If anyone states emphatically that your god does not exist, that there are no possibilities and no probabilities of his existence beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would tend to be on your side of that argument.
We can then both make the same argument for leprechauns and unicorns.
Lol, I always did see... And have stated many, many, many times that it is a 50/50 proposition. It is NOT more likely that God does not exist, it is NOT a 1 in infinity chance, it is a 50% chance.
Making a comment/comparison about leprechauns and unicorns is just a childish way of re-stating your unfounded belief that God doesn't exist. I understand your point, and your unprovable belief. Insulting me and my unprovable belief because it is different from your own, does you no credit at all.
Yet, there isn't any evidence to suggest gods exist or don't exist, both are equally evidence free in that regard.
No, it isn't. It is a simple comparison of the invisible and undetectable that both share evidence free characteristics. We can make other comparisons that are equally relevant.
For example, if your god exists, please tell me if you believe all gods ever to have been believed to exist actually do exist?
I understand your fallacy.
I have not insulted you. At best, I have criticized your belief system, but I do understand a theists belief system is a very personal and passionate characteristic of their worldview and mindset. I also understand theists have a difficult time separating this system from themselves when engaged in these types of discussions.
It's not really so much a matter of your belief system is different than mine. It isn't. We are very much alike. The only main difference is you chose to believe in the existence of one more god than me.
And I am willing to admit that I have a 50% chance of being incorrect. But I've now grown tired of this dance, so let's leave it at that. My opinion is there is a God. Your opinion is there isn't. Q or Mark or Jeffrey, I hope your belief brings you comfort and peace.
Honestly, because your choice of nickname becomes confusing in our discussions. People use the letter (Q) to denote questions in text such as this, it was a way of making sure other people later would reconize it as a name and not a symbol of a question.
Not a big deal, Mikel. All you have to do to avoid any confusion is the hit the 'quote' button and I'll see my userid there. I'm sure others will take note. Most people don't use parentheses around the Q to denote a question.
biblically speaking, pharisees have it pretty bad. Jesus continually scolded them for their self righteous behavior and/or the vicious words that they spoke. Bovine must have a better description of what they are, but he won't tell me. Also, I feel he thinks he is one.
anyway, that should catch you up. I think you are a genius by the way. many of us just speak in to few of words.
"The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men - robbers, evildoers, adulterers - or even like this tax collector, fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' Jesus Christ.
I am aware of your religion Deborah and accused you of no claim. Jesus Christ was murdered by the church. Your church. You are a pharisee, you are a hypocrite. If you have a different opinion on what the Pharisee is, get it out. Otherwise, perhaps you should consider getting back in your box.
If you want to see some truly faulty logic, torturous reasoning and mental gymnastics at work, confront a believer with a blatant Biblical contradiction, then sit back and watch them attempt to jump through the hoops of...
Every advance of science has been at a loss to superstition. Once humankind learned of the plague bacillus, the fear disappeared of the local witch bringing "the black death" by casting her evil eye on...
there are no evidence for the existence of jesus. all we have is some references to jesus written years after his supposed existence, but still christians say they have proof. are they deliberately misleading or is it...