I am only filling in this box because I am required to. I think that people are closer, while a person's conclusive actions best display his/her spirituality by way of an action itself, per say, such as chasing a squirrel from the road instead of it getting hit and injured. If the suggestive attitude agrees w/ a form of resolve close to self-admiration, the feeling and the action may very well be dismissed, unless of course it is selfless. This is the contradictory question.
The church is only a building while the people are the body of Christ. Without people, a church means nothing.
Who represent God, or Jesus for that matter is very old question. Until 18th century it was thought Church represented the Lord. But now people think good people represent the Lord.
I couldn't tell you the exact words but I know in the bible somewhere it mentions that Jesus calls a church any place where 2 people meet to talk of the lord. It does not have to be a building and the advent of creating churches in a building form and making people to believe they must attend them to properly worship is the biggest scam our world has ever known and will continue to know.
Love that answer man, really. Talk of the Lord- cool! I suppose in theology one could say just the reading and the writing of texts is like two people, so an arguement there could be 'is the one who wrote the Bible the other?' Hmmm lol. Here's another premise- what if animals were here and we were extinct? Would that mean that (for the believers) the innocents were a frog and a possom and a squirrel? It's interesting stuff- thanks man!!!
No one needs to, but people do. The "church"? Is all about control of and over the masses.
The "church" has purposely used "religion" for purely selfish reasons, preaches it's own hypocrisy and expects a consciously active individual to buy into it.
It purposely shows people it is a "do as I say, not as I do" model, which no longer works, as any type of authority. It brings chaos to the world, instead of ridding the world of it.
The first two paragraphs- off topic altogether. That's like saying the first church was created to 'take-over' the masses, which I assume is logically incorrect. World domination, not in the beginning.
The third part is a debate- do as I say... Okay, well human interpretation had led you to conclude that it is wrong, and so it must be a book with some interest in being biased, right? That sorta makes sense, only the interpretation is more likely to be biased because it is what was concluded, if that makes sense. Knowing fire is hot without addressing it is the closest thing to asking a question, or being the actual writer of a book, as opposed to being a reader, where an opinion is developed. Even if an opinion is stated in a text, holy or otherwise, our conclusion follows, thus making it more important (we've seen a million revisions of many holy and spiritual texts, like a game of telephone...)
You've conclude it is an authority. I have heard this one before and it's interesting. I think we limit ourselves, even when jailed or ridiculed. It's our thoughts and feelings that rotate the world's axis, and give influence to power and all surrounding the human mind and its conclusions. If it is an authority, it is because you have concluded it is, whcih is an opinion, blahblahblah.
Off topic, Cagsil, don't you just HATE governments where the religion is the governing and dictating power lol? Basically, is has been interpreted, yes interpreted, as an authority and a ruler.
Actually, I wasn't off topic. Nothing in my statement is off topic.
I answered your "Does 'church' represent the Lord, or do people", question. If you don't like the answer, then don't ask questions you are unwilling to accept answers to.
It's not saying that at all. What would be the best way to dominate another person? It would be to make them think they are inferior and must answer to a high authority.
The book, if it's religion based and written, then it is biased and it promotes "do as I say, not as I do". Not only does the "church" encourage that specific statement, it's people live it. If it's not "God's word" or "God's Will", then it is wrong. It promotes people become separated from others and it even tells you, those who are not with you, in your belief, then they are against you.
And, your point? If there is one.(and you talk about me being off topic?)
You making a point?
What is an authority? The only authority I concede is my own authority over myself. There cannot be a higher authority. It's irrational to say so.
Know thy self and You are you're own worse enemy, are two sayings that best fit humans.
Wrong again as it seems. But, to answer your question- religion brought politics. Government is just another layer of controlling the masses. Since the "church" knows "god" is a joke, it must protect the species and installed man-made governments and laws.
I think you need to get out more.
the curb + I: the art of the homeless on amazon.com lol
an arguement or debate must has two sides to it, and posted earlier there is comment claiming that the first churches were built for two people to discuss the Lord, so that establishes that a church is a place for discussion
second, if the good book has inspired discussion, it is open to arguement and debate, therefore open to interpretation...
null and void- the concept (originally, as is in my own opinion) was to provide a discussion, whereby churches were originally created---
this idea that the Bible or Torah was made as an authority or a world-domination scheme is outlandish and discerning, basically, I get out plenty!
Do you think, atheist or otherwise, that the Lord would consider this conversation to be a great discussion, or that it is our interpretive plot to lead us to conquer the world?
It's an opinion, and it is, so far, arguementative and justly incorrect-
New Englanders, like myself, are the liberal version (usually) of what the Bible-telephone game has become. I find it saddening that there are educated people out there with a ranking score such as my own. I guess you have to be sort of a loser to really increase your HubScore, and answer questions with little or no interest to really get involved.
Kind sir, and I am assuming you are a man, I find you quite impulsive. You have not stuck to the topic and ranted like a drunken fool. The debate at hand has been treated far too lightly from your side, and your conclusions are as far off as a stranded sailor. You think the Bible is a device, when it is a book, and not one to be disrespected. I have had plenty of good conversations w/ non-believers and have never been insulted. I do not understand your point, only that (it seems) your values are that of a communist german soldier from the early forties w/ the intent to dominate everything, and this expressed opinion, from my side, of course, takes that pathetic stance and tramples on it.
I find you to be somewhat socialist, not educated, boring and outspoken to top it off right. A debate has two equal sides to it, with each other side eschanging thoughts and ideas. I have not found that at all in your answers, and hope your ideas of world-domination work out for you. I, on the other hand, am going to have some iced cream (not 'ice cream lol).
Enjoy, whatever your name was. Maybe you need some too...
here's a spoon- 'dig' in
Really? It sounds like your OP to begin with.
Sounds like you have bigger issues to work through than finding me impulsive.
You must have a comprehension problem. Good to know for future communications.
Conclusions? You seem to love making assumptions more than gather answers.
Really? Not to be disrespected. Yes, it IS a book and YES, it IS a device. The book itself doesn't EARN respect, it EXPECTS it.
YOU don't get respect automatically. It is EARNED on an individual level, when YOU associate with others.
I'm sure that's untrue as well. But, apparently you have no problem attempting to insult others.
And, like I said. Apparently, you have a comprehension problem.
Why am I not surprised by your statement.
That's nice. I don't debate things. I already see clearly from an objective point of view I learned to create for myself, so I wouldn't be normally viewing things subjectively.
I am able to evaluate both sides and follow the path which is best, to it's end. I don't think your mind works that well, but you could at least try it once in a while, just to expand your mind.
Johnathan, it's not world domination I seek. And, for you to think that is absurd and shows your reading comprehension is worse than mine.
It would be great if God, being omnipotent and all, could just represent HIMSELF. But that would be asking religion to come out of the Dark Ages.
by Jerad Maplethorpe7 years ago
What we forget so quickly is our past. Our past leads us to the present and the present is not good.This article isn't posted by me but gives a very good look back through the United States struggle with debt. I'd like...
by wtf-piz7 years ago
look this group up or watch Tru TV conspiracy theory-secret society. Then say WTF. All the elite around the world that control the :media,gov,medicine, food and water are killing us. no denial whether...
by Jack Lee3 months ago
In discussion here on hubpages, we hear some accuses religion people of being judgemental and more over accuses religious people of forcing their believes and policies on the American people through laws...That is not...
by JKeiser5 years ago
We have a church in our town that has me worried. It is non-denominational, its targeted audience is families -- particularly with teenagers. The sermon is a pre-taped sermon from somewhere else. There is a worship team...
by Mustafa Khursheed2 years ago
Your first statement should probably be a definition of Islam: is it what the terrorists, using religion for an excuse for jihad, worship or is it what the more peaceful people worship. Or somewhere in between?
by Mark Johann3 years ago
Sight your pleasant views about it.
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.