The belief in God has caused more problems than it has solved!
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago
0That is in that same chapter. He was rejected at Nazareth because the people Were operating off of their memories of him. Jesus grew up as a carpenter and was around those same people. He left then returned speaking of a new way of living. The majority only looked at him with their memories of what he had done in the past and as such refused to accept that he had changed. As a result, Jesus could only truly help and perform miracles for those that believed. For those who didn't, He could do nothing for although he wanted to so he left them to the lives they chose. A Modern day example of that would be a former drug dealer or addict returning to his old crackhouse trying to help the same people he used to do drugs with. A majority of them will reject what he is saying because of his past, so he can only help those that that want to be helped and believe that he can help them.
It's the concept of agreeing to disagree. If anything I've said to you changed your beliefs and you wanted to learn more, I would be happy to keep explaining The Bible to you. I am happy discussing it with you now because you are still respectful in your disagreement. But if you still refuse to accept the information, I can still respect your point of view and continue along my way while still showing you kindness and respect when we speak as long as you continue to respect me. If you choose to personally attack me then I would still accept your point of view, but not deal with it.I'll give you respect and I'll accept it for the same reasons you've described.
I don't feel your modern day example is fair unless the entire population was strung out on opium. A modern day example would be someone coming into a hospital and healing everyone at once. Then to show he himself was responsible to goes to the next hospital and does the same. Nobody believes him so he his put on trial and killed, but a few days later he walks around the planet showing his wounds. And still no one believes? The only reasonable explanation would be that none of these events ever took place and were written after the fact.
It's the concept of agreeing to disagree. If anything I've said to you changed your beliefs and you wanted to learn more, I would be happy to keep explaining reality to you respectfully.
I've only changed one word in the sentence you wrote. I changed (the Bible) to (reality) and I've added respectfully. Interesting how it changes everything with just a few words.
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
Getitrite, Satan is only one of a number of names to describe the being commonly known as the devil. Lucifer was actually an angel that played music to usher in the appearance of God in heaven (so the story goes for the sake of humor). However, Lucifer Started to think that he had as much power as God and started rebelling against the system and as such was cast out of Heaven. In other words, He was deported for trying to overthrow the Government (If you will)
(**Note** I recognize that you are an atheist and have very strong feelings about what you believe, so in my responses I will strive to explain things as according to an everyday modern day principle to accomodate your beliefs. I have no intentions of insulting or attacking your posts or point of view and I ask you to show me that same regard. This is not saying that you have done it already, just asking in advance.. Thanks) - Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
Rad Man, the information I just gave getrite is a description for you as well of sorts. The devil rejected God's authority and as such almost goes past it (in a sense. This falls into a category that for me, cannot be fully and clearly explained). I know this next statement will have me raked over the coals, but here goes. Everything has to come to a balance otherwise there is a disturbance. For instance, If God saved everyone from death and being murdered, then there would be even more overcrowding. nobody could or would die and the ecosystem would be worse off than it already is. (from a baseline perspective). This idea would actually negate free will because then there would be no murder and as such no evil.. etc.. Again there is soooo much more to it than that that I honestly would not even try to give an answer for because it deals with a lot of hypotheticals. so I'm going to leave that alone. I will not run down that rabbit trail. lol
No offense, but this explanation leaves no real room for a devil, as it seems that you are asserting that this is the NECESSARY processes of nature, and that death and evil are natural, and not a construct of any devil.
We've all got to die sometime right. I get that, but babies and children, that I don't get. Imagine telling an 8 year old they are about to die a slow painful death. Where is God in that? I can tell you where nature and evolution is, but I don't see a loving God in a Child's painful death.
Seems like you expect a lot out of God. What can he do? He is invisible.
Now he's invisible without power. Please make up your mind. I'm constantly told God is all powerful and all knowing, and they you tell me I expect too much from an invisible spirit?
Power comes from energy... invisible, right? His energy has to travel through various types of conduits. Jesus healed the sick and dying with His/God's energy.
Some children have come to earth with imperfect bodies.( Law of Justice and karma is the actual reason for imperfect bodies. )
Jesus said, Know ye not that ye are gods?
If we knew we were gods, (beings made of (God's) energy,) We also could heal with Our/God's energy.
Just sharin' my view point.Karma, now you're saying children suffer because of something they did in another life. But they have no memory of that life, but it doesn't matter to you or your God that these children are suffering for something they don't even remember. What would you think the child would learn for the next life they don't remember by the suffering that had to do because of the part life? You are making no sense at all.
I have read that If someone kills himself in suicide, his karma will be a deformed body in the next life. This is to help that person appreciate having a healthy body (in his next life.) As I understand it, this is the law of justice. If someone kills by sword...in this or another lifetime, that person's karma is to die by the sword. (I wonder what the Karma for Hitler is. I believe his own conscience put him into a hellish life after death. Will he return to earth and pay the debt he incurred? I actually read that he perhaps earned the second death wherein he does die for good. My question is, is there a second death for some unredeemable souls, or do even they get a chance to come back and develop a love for Reality.) I do NOT believe in eternal darkness. It is impossible! I think I am off topic. sorry.
But to ramble on... If some one abuses another in this life time, they will receive that same treatment in another lifetime. It all comes back. Not only bad.
Good too. (Which is what that sitcom, My name is Earl, was about.)
BTW lessons are learned despite the absence of memory. I guess the light blueprint of the brain retains some sort of memory.
It is a good point you bring up, Mr. R. ManI don't see how reincarnation fits in with Christianity?
I see the concept of reincarnation as Hinduism's equivalent of sin and hell in Christism. I see both concepts as the tools with which humans judge and threaten other humans. The object in each case is to control by fear.
By disposing of the "life after death," or "next life," or "karma" ideas, I can free up myself to concentrate on THIS life and all of its joys, sadness, pleasures, disappointments, challenges, hopes and mysteries.
After my death, when my senses will have passed away, therefore no feelings or awareness or consciousness, I will not be able to experience anything of this life. So right now, what happens to my body, after my death, is not my concern. Whether or not there is an individual "spiritual" entity to my Being that continues to exist beyond my death, I cannot know. To believe in such is for others if they so choose. For me to worry about it is an absolute waste of time. Life continues in others because of my death: in the bacteria and smaller organisms (maybe even a lion or a crocodile) that devour the elements of my body. All in the "natural" course of things.
Karma? Wishful thinking in my book.That's exactly what I was thinking. I can see why people would like karma to be real in this life, but extending it to the next when the new person has no memory of the last life is a wast of time not to mention the guilt it causes the unlucky. If say someone is born with a birth defect they would think they did something wrong in the last life. Just a ridiculous concept.
Karma is the Law of Justice. With out the law of Justice operating on a metaphysical level, mankind would not learn anything from anything and there would be no rhyme or reason for living.
But there is!
This is addressed in the Bible, "Perfect Love casts out fear."
Fear is not the motivation, love is.reincarnation is address in the bible? Please show me where.
Dear Rad Man,
Yes, reincarnation is mentioned in the bible.
In the NT. "The disciples asked him, why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first." The following passage clearly indicates that Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist:
(Matthew 17: 11 through 13:)
Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.
But, I tell you, Elijah has a l r e a d y come and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they have wished. (In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.) Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist."Read it as "has come... and has attempted to restore all things "(since, restoring all things was indeed what John the Baptist's mission was.) Don't forget this is an old book that was originally passed down verbally and then written down in other languages. The disciples realized that he was referring to Elijah returning as John the Baptist. It is a direct explanation. They accepted it. They understood it in those days. Why can't we today!? This is not my opinion. This is the truth.
How do you know what they understood in those days? Sorry, it's just your opinion. You have no idea what happened a few thousand years ago.
(If I cannot believe in the bible, then NOTHING in life is true and I cannot live my life thinking NOTHING is true. I have tried it.)
To restate: It is true based upon what was recorded in that document.
It seems like if you wanted to, you could believe in reincarnation just as easily as not believe in it. Apparently, you are choosing not to believe in it. You are choosing to ignore the possibility.
It makes more sense to me that we all come back and to not come back makes no sense to me.
You are Choosing to believe that LIFE makes no sense. You are certainly encouraged by me to think for yourself, but
I just wonder why you think that way
How do you explain the manifestation of early and extreme talents, like say, in Mozart (writing compositions when he was 5 and the ability to play Clavinet and violin, achieving more than his fathers expectations at that age.)
BTW
(Irrelevant side note: I heard that Even President O wanted to be president around that age!)Oh dear. That doesn't make it true, sweetie. Just that you need to believe it.
You wonder why I choose reality over fairy tales?
The answer is of course honesty. I have to be honest to myself. And you are wrong about the choice. It's not a choice we make to believe or not. I've demonstrated this many times on Hubpages with a simple question. Can you choose to not believe?
How do I explain Mozart without a God? You're changing the subject here. Evolution explains Mozart and Einstein perfectly. I'm not sure how you can explain gifted people with God. It seems rather unfair to give some gifts and not others.
Obama wanted to be president? So what... so does every 6 year old American. The difference is evolution has given Obama some gifts that others don't share. The same can be said for Mozart and Einstein.
That is why it is explainable through reincarnation. We do keep the talents that we developed in our past lives! I was drawing when I was 4. I love to draw and paint and I am quite sure that I was drawing and painting in previous life times. (Whenever I see those cave paintings in books etc., they seem so familiar! LOL)
You sound pathetic. Empathy didn't work, now you are upset that I did as you asked and was blunt?
You don't have an explainable foundation for anything.
One thing I am convinced of? Gravity.
They did accept and understand it, but they also knew that God has given us to live once and to die once. There is not reincarnation in the Bible. And the Apostles would have flatly rejected such an interpretation.
I gave you proof, but you do not give me proof. Here is more: Revelations 3:12: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more." Going out means to take on another body and lifetime on Earth.
No it doesn't. Going out means going out side. There is no reincarnation in the bible. Resurrection, yes, but no reincarnation. That a completely different religion and concept.
Find me one verse in the Bible or any ancient Jewish writing that supports that esoteric view. Just one. Reincarnation was not a Jewish belief, but it was an Indian one. But the Bible did not happen in India, ever, at all.
So I'm still waiting for your actual proof.Since you're taking two different arguments that are working in two different ways and attempting to force them into a comparison that doesn't work, that word would be "foolish."
("Oh dear... sweetie.")
A little condescending don't you think?
Why have I inspired that attitude in you?
I could accept "Just that you need to believe it " (which I clearly stated already, anyway,) without that hint of self-righteousness!
BTW Whether you want to acknowledge the truth or not, Jesus was referring to Elijah when he mentioned John the Baptist in that passage! It is right there in the Bible!I thought I was being empathic. You seemed so pathetic I thought it would help.
(If I cannot believe in the bible, then NOTHING in life is true and I cannot live my life thinking NOTHING is true. I have tried it.)
Sorry. I won't bother again. not sure where you get the self righteousness from Emile.KH
(If I cannot believe in the bible, then NOTHING in life is true and I cannot live my life thinking NOTHING is true. I have tried it.)
You would have died if you were born in the Middle East if that were true.
Would the World be a better place, if we could find a middle grounds between Religion and Atheist. Of course we would have to give up the idea that there is only one true God amoung millions of Gods and prove that God dose not exist on the other extreme side of things(Never heard of Emiles! )
O.K. do I need to see you in person to judge self-righteousness. No.
"Sweetie" was the give away. And I do not believe you said it out of sympathy.
At all.I felt sorry for you. I thought it would make you feel less pathetic. As I said - my mistake. Being blunt is not helping either it seems. Oh well.
Dear Mr. Paloma,
That is why I was not born in the middle east! LOL.
I chose to be born with Scottish ancestry and relatives who fought against Britain in the Revolutionary war. I have always been a fighter for freedom for the individual. But, I also know quite well that freedom brings the responsibility of keeping boundaries... belief in God and Jesus gives us those boundaries as set forth in the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments.
I had a lifetime in Scotland during the Elizabethan era and before that, a lifetime in in Rome/ 200 AD. I also witnessed the sinking of Atlantis. I do not want America to sink. That is why I was devastated to hear the portion of the of the Pledge a Allegiance quoted today during the inauguration without the line referring to God. One nation, Indivisible, Under God.
Without God and Morals... not even Gravity will save us.Imagine that? All those lifetimes of wisdom and you can't figure out how to reply to the intended post?
I guess Kathryn is having fun here in these Hubs, but as religion is concerned, she appears to be "away with the fairies!"
Anyone who speaks first about "freedom," then immediately starts to limit it, does not gain credibility.Actually, I am talking about freedom for all within the boundaries of the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments. No one can have freedom without these boundaries. Now, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule are precepts which all religions could adopt. In other words, the basic precepts are for mankind in general, even for eastern religions. But, I really do not think other religions have to be abandoned. This is a touchy subject at this point. They could incorporate the teachings of Jesus, thats all.
I wisely chose to i g n o r e it. I have referenced my beliefs about his point many times. How often do I have to explain my belief in ONE GOD. The God in all religions is the same God of all religions. There is only one God! We devote ourselves to the same God in EVERY religion!
(I am having a blast responding to your great comments. Thank you!)
Also... as to how Atheists fit into the picture, I do not understand.the problem is that almost all other religions would disagree with you. If you believe in one god, you typically reject every other god claim out there. Muslims do not think that Jesus is god. Christians do not accept Allah. Neither of them accept the Greek or Roman Pantheon. You think that worshiping Zeus or Jupiter or Aphrodite is the same as worshiping the god of the bible - the same god that says "you shall have no other gods above me"
Then, they should listen and agree with Truth.
Jesus never meant what people think he meant.
He never meant that he Jesus, as a personal entity, was God.
Only his Consciousness.
Christ Consciousness is to be had through Self-Realization by A l l .
It is Within as it is Without.
Close you eyes and sense your actual essence.
aummmmmmmm.
All can hear it, through meditation.and that's your opinion - one that you cannot prove - and one that even other christians would vehemently disagree with.
No, it is the truth.
Depending on how vehemently they disagree, maybe it would be better if they were atheists!
False beliefs is
T h e P r o b l e m...
and the topic of this very pertinent forum.the problem is that your false belief is just the same as what you claim is their "false" belief. You're no closer to proving yours than they are proving theirs.
Matthew 23:23 8 through 11:
He was talking to not only the the disciples, but the the crowd as well. He explained, "You have only one Master and you are all brothers. So, do not call anyone on earth ''father,' for you have one Father and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called teacher, for you have one Teacher, t h e Christ."
He did not say, me, Jesus.
It seems to me that even (Some) Christians (not me) continue to try to crucify Him.
(He showed, however, that it was impossible.)KH
I wrote
Jesus, whoever believes in him shall not perish.
Kings conquer nations, and after they are conquered, people bow down to him. Whether it’s to save Satan or a King, we all can pray to Jesus for salvation. It’s all confusing, please forgive me for we do not know what we do
All this fighting and killing only adds up to greater fighting and killing and religious countries are the perdominate warlords of mankinds history. America will sink like Rome and like any other group throughout history that attempt to own the world fail to be Christlike or their ideal.
After the bobies die and turn to soil, I keep on making love, sometime on the grass or something natural and beatifulSometimes it is hard to understand you. Has anyone ever mentioned that to you? I presume it is because you speak in a Canadian form of French. Do you keyboard more clearly in your language? Can you bring your message here more clearly in English?
What are you saying?
Just wonderin'If you do not have the eyes to read, thats O.K. I am only sharing.
I'm giving you idea on how the bible sounds to me. Yes, I speck spanish more often and coupled with being a visual artist sometime dose clouded some.
O.K. What do you mean by "dose clouded." I have never heard that term. But, I know you are also a poet. (That's why we let you get away with your posting style)
Maybe in a perfect world, and for you fear might not be your motive, but speak to the organised religions of this world.... would they be able to exist without that lovely, juicy, controlling fear at their finger tips? And of course "organised religions" are made up of humans, just like you and me. The exercise of Control is our natural tendency.
Well, the truth is that we do expect too much out of that "invisible spirit". We call out to him to help us with things that actually he has empowered us to do for ourselves. A lot of Christians Pray for someone who is hungry when we have the power to feed that person. We pray for the sick when we have the power to get them to a treatment facility... and so on and so forth. Now of course this explanation can be dismissed as saying if we can do it ourselves, we don't need him, and as such he still doesn't exist. Exactly to the first one (we don't need him per se), depends on how you choose to believe (whether or not he exists). He doesn't interfere as much as a lot of Christians and atheists think he does. Again this is my opinion. This is where agnostics come in. They believe in a higher power, but cannot prove one exists and so they just go about their lives without being locked in one way or the other
If you close your eyes, and sense you actual essence, that essence is invisible. What is the essence of soul? energy! Where does it go at death? why can I not remember anything before I was born?
It is pretty darn subtle. as in beyond the intellect.
In my opinion.
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
Chris, Was that comment directed at me? If it is, then I'm not sure how many of my responses you have actually read. I have tried to provide an answer to questions based on what I personally believe while trying to be respectful of everyone elses's viewpoint. I don't think I attacked anyone here. If there is something that I've said that was an attack to you, please show me where and I can clarify my statements and ask you to accept my apology. If you are just stating that me discussing God (which is my personal belief) is an attack on you and thus offensive, then That is another matter altogether. In either Case, I am trying to be respectful and understanding of everyone's opinion stated here. I did not "demand" respect, It was simply a request that I fully intend to reciprocate. If there is anything in my statements that can be deemed disrespectful or a personal attack, then I will apologize and try to rephrase it without the implied attack.
Deepes - Go to the top right and change the threaded to chronological.
He was referring to getirite, who coincidentally getsitwrong........
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
Getitrite, There is a difference between telling the truth or lying and stating an opinion based on beliefs. A Lie is willfully speaking something that is opposite of what facts and evidence can prove. An opinion is formed based on A belief. Beliefs are not inherently true as they are. A belief is simply an understanding and opinion of information that is provided. I will be the first one to tell you that it is a lie if you believe in the bible exactly as it is written, word for word, because there are a lot of things in the bible that simply aren't true. As I mentioned earlier, The OT is full of parables that just offer a metaphorical explanation of something and as such I refuse to put a whole lot into it. The NT, on the other hand, More provides a guideline pattern of behavior. Sure there are other books that provide the same information. The things I tell you are the truth based on my beliefs of what I understand of the information I've read. That is not a lie. that is a belief. My belief is no more or no less valid than your own based off of the information that you were given. As such. I will not say that I am right and you are wrong. I will simply say that we are each entitled to what we feel and when we die, we die and whatever happens after that is that.
I try to be as objective in my responses, but I still have my beliefs. Do I think I'm right? I don't know fully and will not know until I reach the end. But for me I still live the best life I can possibly live for myself, not out of fear of God. I like the concept of a life after death, but I don't know for sure if there is. The bible states there is something better after we leave here and personally, it doesn't hurt me to strive for that continued better. If no such thing exists, then I still lived a life that I felt is best for me based on my personal outlook, not following what everyone else says. We won't ever know for sure until we pass on.Then, how in the world can you believe that the bible is the Word of God? It seems that the creator of the universe, with all of its intricacies, could do a much much better job of informing us about divine matters. Instead of omniscient, this seems downright feeble-minded.
I beg to differ. It is apparent that your beliefs are based on wishful thinking. Based on all of the scientific information we've been given, I think it is disingenuous to conclude that your belief are on parallel with reason.
You sound like you almost have the confidence to be agnostic. I understand just how strong indoctrination is. I was raised in a devout, black Christian home. My father was a Pentecostal minister. It takes a rigid commitment to honesty, reason, and intellect to defy my "heritage", as you probably know, it hasn't been easy....eternal life. as opposed to death. Actually this is all so subtle it is hard to talk about it. They say it is beyond intellectual comprehension.
Truth of the matter is that it isn't beyond intellectual comprehension. The issue at hand is that A lot of Christians hold on too tightly to an archaic book as the unequivocal truth of the existence of God and his work that they make it deeper than it really is which makes it easy for a lot of atheists to pick apart. On the flip side of the coin, a lot of atheists hold on so tightly to science and logic as to make it so easy to dismiss and deny the existence of God which then puts the burden of proof on Christians to prove what they are unable to prove because They (a lot of the organized ones) are holding to an outdated book. THere are three sides to every story. one side, the other side, and the truth. Both sides are so dug in to the certainty that their side is the correct side that they refuse (a lot of them anyway) to accept the possibility that the truth may just be a combination of each side... What a concept. It's a concept that both sides may and probably will jump on me for even bringing up
You are correct - it is not beyond intellectual comprehension.
The burden of proof is on you guys claiming the invisible entity. I am open to accepting your proof. Go!To be perfectly Honest with you Mark, I (as a Christian) have no way to prove in the modern day the existence of God that would make sense, because biblically I really am not supposed to. The "invisible entity" (as you chose to call him) actually gave us the power to do for ourselves what we expect him and call on him to do for us, so there is no reason or need for him to physically manifest himself to us in this day and age. Also a lot of trace evidence of him physically manifesting in the past have been wiped away. There is no specific way of showing where he manifested as to which would glaring say "God was standing right here" No more than there is proof of you standing anywhere. I could say that you were at Mcdonalds last tuesday, but if there is no visual proof of where you were standing (as in you were not in the line of sight of any recording devices) it could be dismissed that you were not there. But that doesn't mean that you don't exist. that just means that there is no recorded evidence of you standing where someone said you were standing. So if I said I saw you, the burden of proof would still be on me that you were standing where I say you were standing. Same principle as atheists trying to push on Christians to prove the existence of God without any visually recorded (since none exists) evidence.
Not the same principal at all. At least you admit there is no evidence of your god. Not sure why you felt the need to obscure that with this nonsense. Why not just admit there is no evidence?
I freely admit that there is no evidence. But that doesn't mean that he does not exist. That Just means there is no proof. Just like as I stated before If there is no evidence of you being somewhere that doesn't mean that you were never there. So the principle is still exactly the same. I think I was clear in my analogy and how the two correlate, but it would appear that in your apparently (to me) closed minded state you refuse to accept any ideal that has anything to do with God. Based on your response, I also further conclude that if proof could be provided that you would attempt to dismiss that proof as something else. As such, I will respectfully agree to disagree with you and not enter into a debate with you over something you will not accept the possibility of. You are perfectly entitled to your belief as am I and live as according to what works best for you. Your way is the right way as it relates to your life. I do not seek to change yours or anyone else's mind here. I only seek to exchange information and viewpoints. I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, but if my beliefs are working for me, then there is no need to change them. Same with you. I'm sure if at some point your opinions change then you will adjust your life as according to the new thoughts
Right - there is no proof. Not the same principal at all - it is possible to provide proof that I was at McDonald's.
Of course I accept the possibility - but as we both agree - there is no proof. It is also possible that an infinite number of other invisible entities exist. therefore your invisible entity is infinitely improbable - at best.
Odd - you say you are not trying to change my mind and at the same time accuse me of doing something I have not and would not do.
There is no proof. we agree - how can you then accuse me of dismissing proof if it was presented when you agree there is not any possibility of providing any? Why do you need to lie about me?
You also call me close minded. Why the need to attack me in that fashion? I do not believe you are here to exchange information and viewpoints as you 100% reject mine. You are here to share your opinion and dismiss all others - this is why your religion causes so many conflicts.
What information have you exchanged exactly - other than to accuse me of doing something that is not possible and call me close minded because I reject your ridiculous claims? How is that being close minded exactly? Do you accept that Zeus, Goblins and the Loch Ness monster exist? If not - surely you are being as close minded as I?You have attacked my points as well. Calling my beliefs ridiculous and nonsense is an attack in my opinion. All you had to clearly state is that you disagree and leave it at that. Instead, you insulted my point of view. To me that is close minded. I have not stated in any shape form or fashion that anything you have said was "stupid, ridiculous" or stopped to that level. All I've said is that it is different. Again it's about perspective..
You missed what I said.. I didn't say anything about there being proof or not of you BEING at Mc'Donalds. I said Specifically proof of you STANDING EXACTLY WHERE I SAID YOU WERE STANDING. (look back at the first mention of it).
I didn't say you dismissed proof because as we agree proof has not been provided. But I did state that If there was evidence that can be provided I feel that you would figure a way of dismissing that as proof of God.. I could provide a matching analogy, But we have differing viewpoints and based on how you dismissed my first point as nonsense I don't see the necessity as it would only lead to more attacks from you.. Have a good day
I accept the possibility that Zeus, Goblins, And the Loch Ness monster exist. Just because I have never seen proof of their existence doesn't mean that they don't (especially since people have different names for everything).. So your attempt to turn that ideal around on me.. sorry, you missed me with that one.See - still accusing me of something that I have not done. If there was evidence that could be provided - why accuse me of dismissing it when we both agree it is not possible to provide any?
Cool - you agree that Zeus exists in that case - which means your god is false. Yes? Great that there are an infinite number of possible gods also - yes? They must all exist in that case. Yes?
Yes - I attacked your stated beliefs - not you. If you propose nonsense - should I not tell you it is nonsense? Seeing as you asked for differing viewpoints - or at least that is what you claim to be asking for.I didn't attack you, Just what I have also seen as your point of view (much, from my perspective, as you said you attacked mine... perspective).
Just because I acknowledge the possibility that Zeus exists, Doesn't make my God false. It just means that he may not be the only one, but the one I choose to serve.
The rest of it.. You totally missed my point so I will not even remotely continue to try to explain it any further.
Sure you have doubt of the existence of God, fine and great. But just because you doubt that doesn't mean you have to attack any point of view. Just simply explain your own. It basically comes down to perspective and individual interpretation of information that has been provided. how about we just say we have a different opinion? I don't think your opinion or views are ridiculous. Please do not group me with other Christians that might. Your beliefs sustain you and the life you lead. You appear to be a very intelligent person and Your hubs are very insightful, That is why I am following you. You take careI understand your point jut fine. It makes no sense.
You say you would reject any evidence of me being at McDonalds.
But - this is not the same as there not being any evidence.
You keep contradicting yourself. You accept all other possible gods as well as yours now?
Glad to hear you reject what the bible says about non-believers. Do you reject all of the bible - or just some of it?
How is pointing out that your view makes no sense an attack exactly?From my perspective, for you to say that my beliefs "makes no sense, is rediculous.. etc" Is an attack as according to my beliefs much as in how you felt that me calling you close minded in your opinion is an attack to you. That's the best way I can explain it to you (given our exchange).. It's the equivalent of name calling. the difference is that you see yourself as name calling my views only, but not me. I see it as these are my beliefs. Therefore if you are name callling what I believe, you may as well be calling me personally the same thing because I choose to believe them. Based on what I just said, I apologize to you because I did in fact (from the point I just made) attack you.
Your question about me rejecting the Bible is a tricky one to answer because a lot of society takes a literal view of the bible as it was written. I do not reject ALL of the Bible. I reject SOME of it (You're going to LOVE this I know). The parts that I reject are the parts that Organized Christians push incorrectly (either for personal gain or from misunderstanding an interpretation of an interpretation). Before I begin let me state that these are only conclusions that I have drawn based on my interpretation and understanding of that was written. I didn't purely stick to the common versions of the Bible. I went back to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic versions. The common versions that most people cling to are translations of translations of these three versions. I also am not stating that I am right or that my answer is the best one. I know a lot of what I am about to say may make no sense to you because of your beliefs, but here goes:
1)The stories in the bible are just that.. STORIES. They provide a basic explanation of an idea that they had NO POSSIBLE WAY of knowing for sure the truth of at the time this was written. As a result and as a measure of expounding on the power of God, they exaggerated. The unfortunate by product of that is that the exaggerated story got passed on without any changes, which of course makes it easy to debunk by atheists and science. Because I know that there are three sides to every story (yours and mine, so to speak, as according to perspective, and the truth, which is a mixture of both sides) I explore the idea and possibly that science fills in the blanks that the original writers of the Bible could not explain (Both Organized Christians and atheists have blasted me for this because each side cling to their own beliefs with a death grip)
2) A lot of the laws in the OT only applied to the Hebrews and were no longer applicable once Christ was born, lived, then died. (Some Christians realize this, others do not)
3) THERE IS NO HELL!! (Yes, I said it). Nor is there any eternal Damnation. The original Bibles speak of a place of the dead, Sheol, and Gehenna, Where people who didn't believe (during that time) were thrown into a "lake of fire" (aka volcano). The concept of Hell was created with the King James Version which was used to scare people into believing.
The reality is that most atheists live lives that Christians are supposed to be living which is a life free of God. The only difference between the life that you lead and the life that I try to lead is that you don't believe in God. The fact of the matter is that most Christians Give God WAYYYYYYYYYY more credit than he should be getting. The Bible states that we were created in his image. A lot of Christians take that to mean we look exactly like him and that we have all power like him... FALSE (again yes, I said it). What that scripture means is that we were created to be a replica, not a duplicate. Based on my independent research and based on certain verses, I have come to 4 conclusions (once again my conclusions based on my interpretation):
1) God created us
2) God gave us the power to do for ourselves. We have similar powers as him, not the same way. We can create life (by sex), heal the sick(medicine) and even revive the dead (defibrulator) just not after three days.. A lot of the rest of that stuff... nobody can explain everything
3) God sent Christ down to show us the best way to live (kindness to others, feeding poor, etc...)
4) Gave us the free will to decide how to apply it all.
Once again, My conclusions are merely an idea I pieced together based on my own research of the bible and science books. I am not saying I am right because I don't know. I'm not saying my belief is the best or better than anyone else's. I'm saying it sounds good to me and has sustained me for this long. When it no longer sustains me, then I will change it.Awesome that you reject SOME of the bible. How do you decide what is garbage and what is not?
The fact that I think your beliefs are ridiculous does not make it an attack. Your beliefs are ridiculous and make no sense. And you claim to be asking for alternative perspectives.
Research?
Again, to you it may not be an attack, to me it is. Differing perspective. then add laughter to the fact that I read books and have drawn my conclusions (just like you've read books and drawn your conclusions) is mocking and as such another attack. You can and will continue to attack me all you wish to because you hold the idea that you are right and that is fine. we just have a difference of opinion. But I have endured enough attacks and will no longer entertain further conversation with you. Have a Good day Mark
Odd that you ask for perspectives and then accuse me of attacks because I point out that your beliefs are nonsense.
No - I laughed at "research" Please stop lying about me. Your invisible Entity will burn you for that.
Let's explore that possibility of you being able to provide proof that you were at McDonalds (Working under the supposition that There were no video recording devices). What proof could you provide that you were there? A receipt? You can find a Mcdonald's receipt anywhere. Your bank statement with your name on it? Someone could have used your credit card.. There you have it. There was no video proof of you being there and the only evidence you have is a receipt and a bank statement that can easily be dismissed as belonging to someone else...
BOOM.. based on that circumstantial evidence, I can still conclude that you were never at McDonald's.. Once again, same difference. There was no video surveillance equipment back then. All there is was eyewitness account. any evidence that can be found can be explained away. Defense attorneys do it all the time to create reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that the defendant didn't commit the crime, just that there is not enough evidence to support it.. You may not see it as the same thing, but obviously we will just have differing viewpoints and I'm leaving further discussion with you at thatWhy is there no video recording devices?
Is there evidence or not? You keep saying there is none and now you are saying there is. Just because you reject evidence and facts does not mean I will. No video surveillance back when?
Mark. just close you eyes! "You" are actually an invisible entity. A drop of energy in the immense ocean of energy. Literally. The eastern religions explain that If you concentrate (eyes closed) deeply enough over time, with devotion to Our Creator, one can see the light of His energy. How could one see it, if it wasn't within and without each of us and what each of us is created from?
What is really amazing (to me) is looking up at night. All those stars are like our sun. Not reflecting like the moon and the planets......They are shining, because they are burning balls of flame and heat....actually fusing gases of hydrogen and helium. Stars can burn for billions of years and are more than 120 trillion light years away! Our sun is considered to be a Dwarf. It is smaller than most stars. It is a main sequence star and will continue to burn for several billion more years.
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
Getitrite, You notice that I even prefaced my statement by saying that I knew i was going to get raked for this and that It was difficult for me to even explain...LOL, But thanks for your insight and your perspective. I really can take that into advisement and never try agan...LOL
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
I can accept that idea of wishful thinking. But that is the thing about belief. It doesn't always have to be parallel with reason. on the flip side, even scientific information is subject to the interpretation of the person studying it (similarly to religion). So it could be contended (although I'm not contending that myself. I'm still trying to remain objective) that by following information provided that is more recent but still is provided by the conclusions of the person studying it could be equally disingenuous.
Yeah, My ideals are more in line with agnosticism in several areas, because A lot of agnostics apply critical thinking skills and come to the conclusion of "Who knows.. Who cares". they IMO the neutral in the whole thing. But Agnostics idea says we have no way of knowing for sure, but there is something out there that is bigger than us. But in other areas, My personal beliefs are more in line with more of an individualized idea of Christianity. I've searched the information for myself as well as have had experiences that were totally unexplained and made my decision based on that. My decision (at this point in my life) Has nothing to do with outside teaching or what is accepted in the mainstream organization. Religion in itself is individualized despite the "mob mentality" ideal by people that cannot stand alone. I've met atheists and have atheistic friends that were part of atheist groups similar to churches that have the same mob mentality as a lot of Christians, muslims.. etcBut you implied that it, in fact, was parallel.
.
But scientific information is logical, whereas holy books are outlandish and whimsical. Does common sense at some point enter the equation?
Saying that "there is something out there that is bigger than us" only states the obvious, but does not equate to Goddunnit.
Again, unexplained experiences do not default to Goddunnit. This is purely conjecture, based upon a post indoctrinated command.
It seems apparent that it does have to do with outside teaching. This is comparable to a kid running away from home, but camping out in the back yard of his parents' house. You seem afraid to COMPLETELY let go of what you have been indoctrinated to view as sacred...although you have the perception to see the absurdity.He is so close to reality and yet so far. I applaud him for getting to where he is.
who is to say I am far from reality? There are three different realities.. Yours, mine and actual. Your reality and mine are based on individualized perspectives based on perceptions of what we have made on information that was given to us. So your reality, while valid to you, is no more valid than my reality is to me. For all we know, we could both be wrong
Funny how I've only ever heard atheists say to someone how they are glued in reality but the other person is not. A case of pointing fingers perhaps?
Pointing fingers works both ways (playing advocate here). A lot of atheists state clearly that they are rooted in reality and Christians are not, but a lot of Christians imply the same thing by stating that anyone with an opposing point of view will be sent to hell while they will go to heaven. The irony of that ideal is that by judging where non believers or people that believe differently are going is as much of a sin that will land a lot of so-called "Christians" in the same place.
Haven't learned to pull specific quotes yet, but here we go
If I implied any parallel between the two, it was unintentional.
Even logic doesn't explain everything. Logic is a lot more practical, but that does not make it any more correct considering the overall concept. Logic does not disprove the existence of God any more than The stories in the Bible prove the existence (that's based more on the interpretation of the reader and the resulting opinion that is formed by the reader). Therefore your question of "common sense" coming into play to a degree is irrelevant. What is the definition of common sense? And what is common sense based on by your standards?
And I agree with that.. Nor does it deny the existence thereof either.
Again I agree, nor does it deny it. It is a matter of what I choose to believe.
This comment implies the assumption that I actually grew up in the church and as such I was indoctrinated to conform to a certain belief system that I "view as sacred". If you really examine the concept of "outside teaching" then anything you read and choose to adopt can be considered "outside teaching" as it comes from an outside source, rather than your own mind. So it could be argued that you have been indoctrinated with your beliefs as well since the definition of indoctrinate is to instruct in a principle, doctrine, ideology.. etc, especially to imbue with a partisan or biased point of view... so who is to say which "outside teaching" is the correct one.
Throughout this entire discussion, I have attempted to elaborate and clarify my position as it regards to my beliefs as well as to offer information in answer to questions that have been raised. During my replies, I have not attempted to dismiss your views as invalid even though Your "logic" dictates that once something cannot be explained fully then the overall ideal or principle of a thing becomes invalid whereas your responses to me have been dismissive and derided as nonsensical but you have not offered any insight as to validate your own beliefs. Even if you were to offer your own ideas and explanations to why you are an atheist (other than the bible is stupid mindless drivel) that would only validate those beliefs to you while I can and still may have the option of respectfully disagreeing with your points. The truth of the matter is that on a basic fundamental scale your beliefs are no more or no less valid than mine. Your beliefs are your beliefs(opinions, philosophy..etc) and are no more rooted in the "facts" of logic and science than my beliefs are rooted in the principles contained in the Bible with the added option of wishful thinking and belief in a "God"
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
It's two sides of a coin. That's where again it comes down to what works best for individuals. Just giving the information and allowing the individual to believe as he or she deems fit without passing judgement on their decision
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
It's wordplay based on individual perspective and point of view.
I don't envision the 90% of people in this World who believe or think God exist will stop doing so. Yet already more people tell me they Spiritual sided rather than Religious and spiritual sided people will be the majority in the future.
Spiritual age is what's wroth looking forward to, in our lifetime rather than an "One world ReligionEast and West can unite to give the true explanation on all this. But sadly, no one wants to go there.
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
And for the record, I don't think any of those things about you that others have said about you
I appreciate that. And thanks for visiting my hub.
That's no problem. I enjoy reading a lot and try to maintain as open of a mind as possible. That hub was very good and encourages critical thinking (which is something that is lacking in both the religious and the secular world at times)
I don't believe you are really paying attention. Maybe, maybe, maybe you could felt put upon 50 years ago or after having a bad experience with a zealot at your door. Truth is, times have changed. It is now the Conservative Christian that is "Put upon." Look at how bad schools are. You ask,"Why can't Christians keep their beliefs out of politics and out of schools?" You and your associates got their wish already. The evidence speaks for itself. I have always found that the Utopia that Athiests chase is a myth. I have also found that they are poor students of history. No, in this day, we are being imposed on.
Rad Man wrote:
Would you raise your children to be less educated and weaker then yourself just incase they got our of control?
Excelent point. We are spirit beings which came down to the physical world. Born into bodies having no memory of who we really are cause if we remembered all that stuff we knew before. ..Well? We would just screw everything up 1,000,000 times quicker than we're doing anyway.
That is why there are so many religions to argue amongst themselves and racial discrimination, and political parties.
Causes us to focus on disharmony instead of figureing out what is really going on.
Cause nothing is as it apears to be. And it's gotta stay like that.Not sure what's the point of this thread.
Do you expect to hear an answer or just to engage in a debate? You know why religion will always exist? Because it was built on passion and emotions. We, human beings, like that.
Atheism is intellectually superior, but it doesn't offer anything spiritual-wise, which is also very important!In response to your post Chris Neal that hubpages wont let me post directly after your comment......
Interesting spin on this Chris; if we are supposed to treat others as we would wish to be treated, why do you think God will treat people in such an evil manner as to send them to hell? Is this how he would like to be treated? A leader (God) must lead by example.Good question n and spin on his spin.. Let me ask you something.. If you have kids and they disobey the rules that you have set out for them, what do you do?
I make them sit on the naughty chair until they are sorry. This is designed to promote a change in behaviour not punishment. I don't douse them in petrol and set them on fire.
And is this what you would want done to you if you disobeyed the rules?
But it's about more than simply a temporary change in behavior, which may or may not be accompanied by a change in attitude. Besides, what if making the kid sit in the naughty chair resulted in them yelling at you that you are mean and proceeding to destroy your property simply because you "aren't the boss of them?"
That's when creativity comes into play. Find out what they want and take it away. Last year I took a cell phone away from a 17 year old for a few weeks. He was much more respectful after that.
DH was applying the analogy to the Biblical ideas of Heaven and hell. God gets very creative. Believe me, I wouldn't be a Christian otherwise.
Think of it this way...God is the only source of light. If you reject Him, and He honors your decision to have nothing to do with Him, do you have a legitimate complaint for eternity in the dark?
After death there is eternal dark anyway, whether you like it or not. There is no way to avoid it. Yet you will not be aware of the darkness, because you do not exist. You that exists now benefit from your 5 basic senses which allow you to be aware of light. When you no longer exist, therefore your senses no longer give input to your person, then there can be no awareness of anything.
Jonny,
Disappearinghead's question I was responding to was a hypothetical regarding the behavior and rationale of God. My answer addressed that. Your response to me disregards the premise within which I responded. Why?From your reply to DPH I got the impression you making the presumption that god exists and that there is potential for us to experience eternal light. If I mistook your meaning, sorry for that.
My point was that no "light" can exist in eternity, i.e., for ever, for the human being, except if you understand, as I do, that "eternity" is in this moment, in the Now, and not some time in the future, either before or after our bodily death. My connection with "eternity" is right now, and in this sense "I" can have eternal light....complete awareness.
I hope this gives you further food for thought.Jonny,
Just to clarify, I am in no way denying my belief in God. I was just curious what prompted your response since I was in context of the question. I do understand your perspective. Thanks.The turritopsis nutricula species of jellyfish may be the only animal in the world to have truly discovered the fountain of youth. There may be no natural limit to its life span. Scientists say the hydrozoan jellyfish can regenerate its entire body over and over again, it is able to reverse its aging processes ...its 650 million years old, it travels it prays in all oceans and all depth of sea. It weighs up to 450 pounds. The jelly population is many times greater than humans. The man of God is the opposite of a jellyfish in almost every respect. The Religious man claims for each of their own over ego group, eternal life. They assumed a promise wail on earth and they honestly can not know until ones arrives into this great unknown Spiritual world
To decifer and decode Castlepaloma, (if he does not mind:)
Religious individuals assume a" promise while on earth."
"They honestly can't know (if this promise) will be granted, until the promise arrives, (in this great Spiritual world.)"
I interpret this to mean: Religious believers don't know if Jesus will come.
My comment:
Maybe they do!
He comes every time He is thought of.
Every time
Thus the promise IS granted...
Every time.I believe political promises more than I do pastor promises for us to arrive to heaven. Or I would have to believe the other 10,000 gods
We have learned (here in this forum via Brenda , scroll down) that focusing on Jesus/God, with devotion and love, gives one access to the " tree of life" within you. I like that.
Politicians cannot bring you the tree of life.
The perception of Heaven comes from within from your own awareness. I for one, like that info.The problem is that it's not just unBiblical, it's anti-Biblical. The Tree of Life is a literal tree, and the Kingdom of Heaven is where we will be with God when we die if we accept Jesus. If we rely on our own inner light, we will be in eternal darkness.
Uh oh. I thought I understood what Brenda was talking about.
Better listen to Mr. Neal, not me, or you'll end up in darkness.
So, never mind!!!
Please Do not Read what I wrote. I don't want to be responsible for putting anyone in darkness.
But, if anyone can explain what Jesus meant by " The kingdom of heaven is within."
or "if thine eye is single thy whole body will be full of light."
Let me know!
BTW
Can you explain the "tree of life," Mr. Neal?I hope he can, so that maybe you'll get a better understanding of it.
I'm sorry you seemed to take my explanation incorrectly.
Indeed, that "light within us" is not to be depended on, unless it is the Light meaning Jesus Christ, who is a very real Being, the Lord and Savior, the Tree of Life (not a literal tree, but the Tree of Life for all those who will repent and accept His gift of salvation.
I'll stop now, in case that isn't a clear explanation either.
Here's to hoping you gain much good knowledge and wisdom. But mostly, as I wish for all people, that you come to know the Lord Jesus Christ.For me, the better understanding of "The Kingdom of Heaven within" comes from Buddhist teachings.
The Centre of my Being, the infinite centre, where my whole life and existence connects with the intangible Eternity, is my connection to the Centre of Creation. (Getting a bit poetic here, I know, but the intangible is not easy to describe. That is why so much metaphor and analogy is used in religious writings and teachings.... trying to describe the in-describable.)
That "Christ" which you talk about is just this. The pure consciousness; the Total Awareness of all connection and oneness of this Creation.
All the time we think in terms of being right, being wrong, argument, division, we are missing the point. All the time we think in terms of "eternity" happening sometime in the future, or teachings of some obscure person in the past, we miss the essence of the Here and Now, this moment, centering on that Oneness.
This is "Heaven," which Jesus was talking about. Don't argue with me. Just meditate on this.
(Dear JC Lately. You have been arguing with me. You have stated your position as an atheist and now you come up with what I have been trying to say all along! How could it be that now you believe in Christ Consciousness? This does belief NOT make you an atheist!!!)
So, anyway at this point we agree! I am amazed!
Thanks for sticking it out to the end like this!
(I was liking your explanation of eternity as being more a connection to the here and now.) You don't mind if I agree do you?
And yeah, Meditate!
(as an encouraging suggestion, not a command...of course!)
I do believe that Jesus also spoke in terms of Christ Consciousness accessible to all. Knock on the door and it will be opened.
So, I bid you all farewell.
I can leave in peace now.Good work, J.C. Keep up the good meditating!
The Tree of Life appears twice in the Bible. The first time is in Genesis, where after Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God says He must cast them out before they eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal. The other time is in Revelation, where the Tree of Life is over a river that runs smack through the center of Heaven, delivering twelve different fruits, each in season. It will be the food source when the New Heaven and the New Earth are established by God at the End of Time.
Ms. Hill.
Thank You very much, Mr. Neal!
Is the End of Time when we do not buy into time... when we are beyond the influence of that which creates the seasons? When we are not identified with our bodies and matter?
Q. Paraphrasing Jesus: In my Fathers house, there are many mansions.
What does that mean?When we do not buy into time? What does that mean?
It means that in Heaven there are many rooms.-time is an illusion which we accept and agree to be a reality.
A mansion is a separate building that HAS many rooms. In "heaven," it houses souls of similar interests, inclinations and levels of consciousness. Who knows, maybe a galaxy is a mansion.Time is not an illusion. The earth spins, stars die, people age. These are not illusions. Time may be simply what we choose to call it and could just as easily call it "progression" or "forwardness" or "x minus one" but it's still real.
Concerning "Death:
We have light bodies that are the blueprints "we take with us" (or that we are) when our physical bodies give out. These blueprints include the light-brain, and light-heart etc. Therefore we are capable of awareness after death and are aware to the extent that we have energy in our higher energy centers. If the energy is in the lower energy centers we mostly sleep after death. Usually about 500 years. (Or less or more...depending on the law of justice) Then, we take on another body according to our desires.
When we are ready, (readiness happens gradually according to our spiritual progress,) to give up our bodies due to the love and yearning we have for the Reality of God, then we willingly become one with His great Energy. Our little drop of spirit, dissolves into His Ocean of Spirit. The amazing thing is... when we become One with God, we do not loose our sense of Self.
We embrace cosmic consciousness. It is a matter of focus and desire. It is a matter of conscious will and self-effort. When we make 25% of the effort, Omnipresent Spirit does the rest.
Jesus does hold the key for spiritual progress.Also, Mr. Lately, there is another way to sense things besides the 5 senses. Remember the the 6th sense? The intuition! The more you are able to perceive God directly through the third eye of intuition, (located at the center of the forehead between the eyebrows,) the more you are able to perceive God a f t e r you loose your bod.
That just makes so much sense to me that I feel like sharing it. If you do not think it makes sense, just never mind. Don't bother to argue with me. It will only hurt my feelings. I am not here to argue.
Just sharin'.
dear Jonnycomelately,
There will never be an e t e r n i t y in the dark. God loves and forgives us too much for that! He does believe in Justice, however. Justice= Karma according to eastern religions. Jesus said, "The kingdom of heaven (light) is within you. Light is not far away... or only outside of us.
It is i n s i d e and the source of our very being. It is That which Activates our Will.
Just sharin'.
Adam and Eve had everything they wanted in the paradise of Eden. They were devoted to God and He provided everything for them. They did not have to grow food or feel cold or heat. They had beautiful bodies and health. They had love in their hearts and an abundance of energy in their bodies. it was centered in the mind and they were very wise, very intelligent and very creative. They were intuitive and were able to sense the thoughts and intentions of each other. They were very innocent, playful and joyful, like children. This was the way God designed them to be. And He warned them: He said, "Do not be tempted to have sex... (They knew what that was because the animals were doing it.) They knew they were not supposed to. He said, "No no! If you do, you will loose your spiritual, God-given powers. The energy which is now centered in your higher energy centers will drop to lower energy centers and you will thus loose touch your true nature. However, Eve was tempted by her own Ego. (I think it was her lower nature which was inherent in being human, after all, humans are not angels.) She thought to herself, "You know, I am so beautiful, I bet I could get Adam to love me." She lost sight of her own spiritual nature and she forgot about God. The rest is history.
Nope. The temptation of Adam and Eve wasn't sex. A reading of Genesis 2: 24 tells us that Adam already knew there would be mothers and fathers on the earth eventually, and that was before the serpent tempted Eve. It's logical and quite clear that Adam knew that he and Eve would be the first set of parents! ha.
Yes, because they were joining together and creating other beings without sex. They had been given that much creative power. Adam and Eve cannot have been two people only. These names refer to the race of people living as the first race of "perfected" humans in the garden of Eden. How long do you think it took for this race to evolve, considering that its roots were prehistoric cave men????
A long time.
I think that light beings somehow infused themselves into this line of evolution.
Who knows.
I'm just writing creatively...
based on surmises... and a life time of thinking and reading about this stuff.
I enjoy reading other viewpoints.Yeah?
Hmm.
Well, what did that "joining together" entail, then? Do ya reckon they just joined their minds together and poof another human was formed? Or maybe they actually touched.....(Oh God forbid!) .......fingertips together or something? lolI have heard that it did happen via touch! But, the love was not infused with sexual desire. The being came out from the side of the woman. The couple could actually agree upon and discuss the characteristics of the desired child. What woman or man does not envision their ideal child before (or after) they conceive? I certainly did. Anyway I did read that ...somewhere, but I have no idea where I got it. It makes sense to me. Thats all.
Brenda, why do you finish with "ha?" I am not being a Know it All! I am interested in everyones input!
I guess because you're trying to combine the Holy Word of God with evolution/cave men theories.
Like oil and water, the two don't mix.
And you've said you're just "writing creatively".
Don't you mean theorizing based on imagination?I am not rigid. it's no fun. I have read a lot and I am not afraid to read. After all, the bible makes so little sense if you try to take it literally. Even Jesus had knowledge that the people could not understand at the time, since they had no concept of electromagnetic energy, atoms, molecules, electrons, protons. Science is the product of God and therefore proof of God.
The two DO mix in my understanding, thank goodness. Otherwise, I would just be an atheist with the best of them.
How did the cave men fit into all of this, then? I mean there is proof of the existence of prehistoric men through the discoveries of paleontologists!I didn't say science and the belief in God don't mix.
I said the theory of evolution doesn't mix with the word of God.
What you may not realize is that true science has been hijacked in an attempt to promote evolution, thus confusing anyone who might otherwise be able to join the two in the proper way. Included among those so-called facts are some of those so-called findings of paleontologists.
Much of the Bible, in particular Genesis, actually makes perfect sense if it's taken literally. Humans have human bodies just like Adam and Eve had! That doesn't require any knowledge of "electromagnetic energy" and such. It takes only common knowledge to know that a man's body and a woman's body are made to fit together in the act of sex, and that that act can produce a child, that the woman's mammary glands are made to produce milk to feed that child, etc..............
I think you're making things way too complicated for yourself in your journey. But whatever. I dunno where you're getting your ideas from, but it would be very informative if you'd read the Bible.........?Well, I know that you are comfortable accepting what you read. I think that is great. I wish I could.
BTW Can you explain what I asked blcurry? (scroll down...or refer to Genesis 3 24)
I would love to be able to understand that passage.
Other questions:
Does God look just like we do since we were "made in the image of God..." Do you take that literally?
Just wondering.Comfortable?
It's exciting! The word of God is exciting! The story of creation is exciting!
And as far as "comfortable" about the Bible as a whole, well........it's not a benign serenity. Christians see the seriousness of the whole thing. We are rarely comfortable about a world that's lost in sin! Our only comfort is that God provided the Way for us and everyone else to escape the eternal punishment for our sins. We have that assurance. Anyone, including you, can have that assurance.
Genesis 3: 24?
I believe God literally placed literal Cherubim and/or with a flaming sword to guard the Garden, specifically as it says to guard the tree of life. Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life literally, before they were banned from the Garden. They could've literally reached out and taken the fruit of it and eaten it and lived forever, literally. They didn't. They instead took of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I dunno why, except that the serpent tempted them to eat of the tree of knowledge first. Such are his wiles. Sly subtle one he was and is. He's still doing it to many today, symbolically/spiritually, and they take the bait.
As far as why in the east....
Jesus is spiritually the Tree of Life. He was born in the east, and will return in the east, according to the Bible. I see the placement of the sword guarding the east as this-------mankind can no longer literally reach out and partake of the tree of life, but they can reach out and receive the Tree of Life (Jesus) if they repent & acknowledge Him as Lord and Savior. After the fall in the Garden, no longer would spiritual Life be given to mankind effortlessly; it will be offered them, and they must make the choice to accept it or reject it, giving them/us the opportunity to live forever Spiritually although not literally/physically.Honestly, I dunno how God looks!
The Bible says He is Spirit.
So....I don't think He has a body that looks like a human, no. Although He did put His Spirit in a human body when the Holy Ghost placed Jesus inside Mary. So, for a while, God walked this earth in a human body.
I think the way that we're made in His image is that we're made with the capability of communing with Him. Part of our makeup is spiritual. As in.......we're different from the animals. We're given a conscience that's capable of discerning right from wrong, not just basic animal instinct, so we have many of the attributes that God has and are similar to Him in those ways.Animals also know right from wrong.
Image: A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
One that closely or exactly resembles another;
So what has communication got to do with image?Animals are are programmed by nature. It is a matter of behavior determined by genetic codes. They do not " know."
That's an interesting statement. Can you give an example of an animal knowing right from wrong? Sure, we can train a domesticated animal. That isn't the same thing as knowing right from wrong. Knowing implies an understanding of why. Domesticated animals know what will happen if they pee on the rug; but do they understand why it is wrong to pee on the rug? They know to not bite the kids. Do they understand why it is wrong?
Animals are smart, but to say they know right from wrong is a stretch. And, what is right and wrong to a wild animal? I don't think a wolf considers it wrong to kill. A deer doesn't ponder adultery while in rut . Do dolphins suffer remorse after gang rape?Does a dog know right from wrong? The dog learns what's wrong the same why children do. A dog natural instinct is to use their mouth like hands because they don't have hands. The first thing a dog learns is humans have sensitive skin. We show them that their teeth heart us, so they stop using their teeth on us. They stop because we say ouch, not because they get in trouble. Babies do the same thing. Every see a baby bite his mothers breast? The mother says ouch and the baby stops bitting. So like the baby the dog instinctively knows right from wrong, they just need to be taught the boundaries. Wild animals are no different except what is right or wrong to them may be different then it is for us because of the tools for survive that evolution has given them is different.
The Development of Classical Conditioning Theory
Based on his observations, Pavlov suggested that the salivation was a learned response. The dogs were responding to the sight of the research assistants' white lab coats, which the animals had come to associate with the presentation of food. Unlike the salivary response to the presentation of food, which is an unconditioned reflex, salivating to the expectation of food is a conditioned reflex.
Yahweh gave you everything, you pray each meal because your God gave you that food
Thank dog, being free is awesomeGood points. Many animal behaviorists go so far as to say that dogs don't love humans, they simply lick them because they smell food smells on them. I think that's a stretch, but I don't think that dogs can coneptualize that the peeing on the rug is wrong because destroying someone else's property is disrespectful, or that you can't simply replace something valuable and expensive.
Dogs do have awareness and curiosity, and they do love us. I know that. They are beings with limitations in how aware they can be. When they are ready for increased awareness they take on a higher evolutionary vehicle, say... a cat, LOL.
So our essence is the same right? if we were made in the image of God we are essentially spirit.
Can You explain what Jesus meant by, "if thine eye be single thy whole body will be full of light?"
And what did He mean by "The kingdom of heaven is within?"
Also Brenda... is it possible that we are casting pearls before swine, "lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you? "Matthew 7 6
PS the last thing I want to do is argue or talk anyone out of their beliefs. I am trying to get enlightened. Maybe you are right and I am trying too hard.On that one we somewhat agree. Our main (or most important anyway) essence is spirit. But we must deal with it in a human body, which is different from what God is. So we can't dismiss the human part of it.
The eye is associated with seeing, both literally and spiritually. If our eyes are healthy literally, we can see light. If our spiritual eyes are healthy, we can devote ourselves to a single purpose, focus on what's good and important (the Light, as opposed to darkness/evil).O.K. I'll take that. Thank you for sharing. I appreciate it.
@ Kathryn... I read a different account. Here's the one I read:
Genesis 3:1-7,
"Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings."
1 John 2:16 says,
"For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever."
And the rest is history................What about that shining sword guarding the way located in the east of Eden? What could that mean?
BTW Your story is the same one I told! The tree in the "midst' of the garden refers to the sense of sexual sensations, (the sixth of the five other senses including sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell.) The story of Adam and Eve is based on the SCIENCE which lies behind all religions.)Oh, I thought 1 John 2:16, explained the science of it......sorry....
Dear Blcurry,
I think John 2:16 does explain the science of all religions... For sure!
PS Do You have an answer to the following questions?
1.What is the shining or flaming sword in Genesis 3 24:
"After He drove the man out he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."
2. What does the "tree of life" refer to?
What is the purpose of the mentioned "cherubim"...(an angel of the highest order.)
3. Why was it placed in "the east?"
4. Why not the west?
5. Why was the way "guarded?"
Kathryn, Science requires a proposition, first (a hypothesis). Then experiment(s) to establish proof or otherwise. And all experiments must be repeatable; the results and conclusions must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
All that you have stated is belief. Which of course your are entitled to, and that is respected.
But it ain't science!
I didn't know we could just make up our own scripture and try to sell it to others. Cool, I'll give it a try.
Rad, Did you read My story of Adam and Eve?
Yes I did.. I also said that I didn't believe the story.
Oh, okay, I don't either, I just found her version so vastly different then the one I read that I thought perhaps we can just make our own scripture up.
My story is b a s e d on the story in Genesis. It is also based on the reality of the energy centers (chakras) that exist up and down the spine in the human form. It was used to show Rad Man how God did not make us weaker. We did.
Just sharing my chosen point of view. And since I can't go back in time to prove it ...Oh Well, good enough for me.
Is that in the original Hebrew? Because my Interlinear doesn't say that.
Explanations written in between the text. What Bible is that? You are lucky to have that version! Indeed, you should be able to help us out! Where have you been!
Busy.
An InterLinear has the original Hebrew and Greek. It's the Textus Receptus, so there's a bit of controversy there, but it's still useful.
I really think the bible, and everything the bible discusses, is b a s e d on provable science. (And what was written in the bible can't always be taken literally. Sometimes, yes. It is a matter of discrimination.)
It is all b a s e d on the truth and scientific proof of the existence of God. For instance, Jesus came and left, but where did he come from... where did he go and W h a t came and went?
I want to know w h a t is behind the human
w i l l ?
I think it is absolutely knowable!
1. I hypothesize that I exist.
2. I experiment: I pinch myself and I feel my pinch.
3. I conclude: I exist.
4. After repeating steps 1, 2 and 3, the results are the same.
My conclusion is this: I have a body. But there is something behind the body. It is mySelf. I close my eyes and sense that I am the force of my o w n willpower. That willpower is invisible, therefore the essence of myself is invisible. (As God is.) logical conclusion.In John2:16 the will of God is love.
Love is beyond belief. It is a provable force.
How?
Because I feel love.
Q. How can the belief in God cause more problems that it has solved?
A. Because God is not understood (or inwardly perceived) to be the (invisible) force of Love and Wisdom which is in all of us.Because it gives you the presumption that you have got it right, and everyone else who does not believe as you do has got it wrong.
Simple as that!
Kathryn, all that you have presented here as "proof" is only as good as it convinces you, yourself, that what you believe is right. It just is NOT proof to everyone, without question.
I have said, time after time, that what you believe for yourself is fully respected. I am not trying to change you to being atheist, to agree with my understanding of things. I can live with yours and the religious understandings of others, provided you allow me my freedom to reason as I see fit.
Where religious people have not allowed that freedom, down through the ages, you (yes You) have been the cause of conflict.
So, believe what you wish to believe. Have the moral strength to understand you do not have to proselytize everyone else in order to make your own beliefs valid.I was an atheist for awhile. I do not argue with you. My only intent is to share.
When I was an atheist I never felt I could NOT be an atheist! No one had any influence on me what-so-ever... why do you feel an influence? I have never claimed to have The answer. ( I do like creative writing, but my writing is based on sources other than the bible. Who knows if those other sources are true or not. But, of course, I have been convinced they are true according to my level of awareness. (No comments, please) I do not expect others to accept them without conferring with themselves. After all, it is "a given" that only one's S e l f can determine the validity of anything one hears or reads. That's why Jesus would add, " He who has ears to hear," after his spiritual teachings and discussions.) So, in all actuality, all anyone can do is
s h a r e.
Just like Christians. I think they are just trying to share, but others perceive some sort of tyranny.
Q.Why?
BTW
I totally respect that HubPages encourages friendly discussions and not tyrannical and argumentative preaching. I got kicked off for 17 hours for emotionally over-reacting on my keyboard... I learned my lesson. Thanks HPWhat you have described here is more reflective of the Organized definition dealing with the belief in God A.K.A the mob mentality. If you look at the definition of religion, the first definition of the word is actually more on an individualized idea of the concept. There are those (such as myself) who have simply come to conclusion based on information and have decided that it's what works best for them. They don't know if they are correct or not and don't see their views as better than anyone else's. I have a lot of respect for atheists and how passionate and concise their views are. That is what works best for you and your life choice. At the end of the day, I can recognize that even though we have differing points of view, we all still strive to do the right thing in our lives.
It seems you mean "mob mentality" in a demeaning way. But, If the mob devotes itself to God, (through the freewill devotion of each member,) the mob would certainly be blessed.
Just sharin'.I don't mean it to be demeaning. Even if a group is devoted to God then they are still fundamentally Good people. But then again, If a group believes an incorrect principle they are still Good, Just operating under a lack of understanding. A Vast majority of Christians follow the bible exactly as it was written word for word with a mutually agreed upon interpretation of the information that is presented. The issue with this idea is that there are some parts of the bible that aren't supposed to be taken literally
Dear Deepes Mind,
I agree with you. The problem is when they expect the rest of the world to go along with what they believe...blindly, without question, without personal motivation, personal agreement, acceptance and understanding.
Blind Obedience is never a good thing.
Ever.
We would all get along just fine if we realize that:
Free-will existing in the world is a given.
Love existing in the in the world is a given.
Respecting the free-will and love naturally inherent in others will cut down on the p r o b l e m s created by the
belief in God.
(In my opinion.)
- Deepes Mindposted 11 years ago0
Hub won't let me quote right now, but that was actually the answer I was looking for Rad Man. Now let me push that thought. you said that this is a way to teach that behavior is unacceptable, but what happens if time out doesn't work because this isn't how they learn? Adults have committed crimes, been given a "time out" gotten out and went right back to committing crimes. This is an example of what I meant by the flaw in the Golden rule being that it is taken literally. It often tries to apply a blanket concept to a specific individual end. But a blanket only can cover so much. What happens to those who are outside of the blanket's reach?
They hopefully eventually get locked up for life. That is a fair treatment for someone who is a danger to society.
Taking the prison reference out of it.. Think of any situation where someone takes a blanket approach to teaching anything. what happens to those who fall outside of that blanket?
I do know that as a parent all children learn differently. In terms of behaviour though adults have to be smarter then the children and have to be able to do the work. Spanking is easy, but it doesn't work. A child who is hit learns two things.
1. That behaviour causes pain if I get caught.
2. When you want others to do as you want them to hit them.
This I've seen with my own eyes.True and excellent points. I believe spanking as a discipline is a widely misused tool of correction. People take the statement of spare the rod,spoil the child and the scripture of "foolishness rests in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction casts it out"
More examples of scripture that was clearly written by mere people. A loving God or any God for that matter would have known better.
Right. It's like the three original versions never existed
rod of correction not being a literal rod....
It's interesting when people re-interprete the bible to their own liking.
its not re interpetation its the original one mate
The bible is very clear as to when and how to beat children as well as teaching parents to not show affection to children. Not a literal Rod, give me a break. Is there another meaning for Rod when referring to beating someone?
Well, you need to supply quotes to enlighten us all. or cite where these passages are. If it is O T, never mind. Jesus came with a new way! In the NT Jesus had amazing things to say about children. His love for them was made apparent. I have paraphrased
Luke 18: 16 and 17.
Let the little children come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God.
Furthermore, he added, Whoever receives the kingdom of God (eternal life) like a child will enter it. A child is innocent, loving and open to his parents.
Just sharin'.
(PS I am leery to discuss the bible with those who do not respect it, as I do respect it.)Yes, and didn't Jesus say he was to support the OT. Did Jesus at any point say we should not beat children?
YES. To paraphrase, he said, if anyone should hurt one of these little ones they might as well hang a millstone around their neck.
I take this to mean, If anyone hurts a child physically or psychologically...great suffering in the way of very bad Karma will be the result.
That passage is an example of what not to take literally. "Rod of correction" is not to be taken as hitting. It is to be taken as verbal instruction and focus on what is right. We must set boundaries by good instruction and example.
Just sharin'.
I would say, it isn 't the belief in God that causes more problems than it solves, but the multitude of differing concepts and interpretations of God
(and the insistence of how Others should behave and believe.)
Actually, after looking quickly through the books of the NT which come after the four gospels, (after Jesus ascended to heaven to be at the right hand of God,) it seems that the precepts of Christianity are evolving and aren't based on rigid doctrine at all. Christianity and all religions can be based on the essence of Jesus teachings which seems to loving God (with spirit/heart, mind and body,) Ourselves, Our children, and our Neighbors.
Therefore, the belief in God could help all people of all religions and all nations solve their problems. I believe Jesus did come, as he claimed he did, "with a sword" for fighting all that comes from negativity: depression, hatred, anger, unhappiness, possessiveness, restlessness, anxiety, fear, greed, pride arrogance, etc.
Hub won't let you quote right now? Really??? Why not?
Dear Deepes Mind,
Who is, specifically, "outside the blanket?" What is your message here?When I mean someone is outside the blanket, I mean simply someone that may not be able to grasp the concepts that are generally applied to the majority. For instance a teacher trying to teach a class full of students the same exact lesson but one student is dyslexic. That dyslexic student would be considered "outside the blannket" because he or she doesn't learn the same as the rest of the students
Oh. So we need to take the person we are correcting into consideration. I agree. Individualized instruction and correction is best.
exactly. This is the true meaning of the golden rule. We treat others as according to their values as we want them to treat us according to our own. But the flaw is that we treat others as according to our own values instead of their own
So, Kathryn, I take that to mean: "Only if I ask for it." Otherwise accept me 'just as I am,' without wishing or trying to change me, or my opinion, or address a need which you perceive within me. Of course, I must return similar respect and forbearance towards you.
You hit it on the head! I personally (as a Christian) enjoy having a discussion and sharing my personal views with all people, but it is not my intention to try to force my beliefs on others to change them to my way of thinking. This isn't what God wanted us to do. God wants us to spread his word to others and let them make up their own mind. Whether any of the atheists change their minds or not, I still did what I was called to do which is share the information. I still respect all people and do not have a "heaven" or a "hell" so to speak to place them in.
Yes, I agree with that, Deepes M. Jesus would add "He who has the ears to hear (the willingness), let him hear."
So, in these forums, whoever has the eyes to read, (willingness) let them read.
If Not... Off with their heads!
Just kidding.
Hitler was a firm advocate of Evolution, is it fair to say that Evolution was the cause of all of the horrible things that he did?
What kind of question is that? Here is another ridiculous question.
Hitler was a firm advocate of Christianity, is it fair to say that Christianity was the cause of all the horrible things that he did?The Old, Hitler is not Christian routine, so he must be an atheist
Hitler was born and died a Catholic and his aim was to stamp out gays, Jews and atheists as 20 million Russian were killed at war with Germany.
Too bad 90% of people in this World believe evolution exist, try calling them , all horrible.Hitler wanted to be as powerful as possible, to establish what HE wanted! That speed-addicted jerk was on the power trip of ten millenniums. Was any one in h i s t o r y as self-deluded and selfish as he? Did the people in those days think HE was the anti-christ? if he wasn't that, will the prophesied anti-christ be like him, or worse? (Atheists, never mind.)
Just wonderin'If you know anything about Hitler you know it's ridiculous to say that his aims were a result of his supposed Catholocism. I've always said Hitler was no Christian but I've NEVER said he was an atheist. History is a little more complex than most people want to make it, but one simple fact remains, Hitler hated, hated, hated Christianity and was actively implementing legislation to physically destroy churches at the end of the war.
Hitler ler ended up hating everything, including himself, when he shot himself.
He killed himself in an underground bunker in Berlin. Once Soviet troops had occupied most of Germany, they attacked the capital, Berlin. Hitler shot himself in the head once he knew that his only other choice was to be captured by those atheist.Granted, but that doesn't change what I said. He wasn't an atheist, he just wasn't a Christian. And his hatred of Christianity predates the end by a good number of years, possibly decades. So saying he wound up hating everything, which may or may not be true (I don't know) doesn't alter what I said at all.
Hitler used Christianity as tool as much as USA presidents use it as a tool to get elected too. Hitler shot himself, call it an extreme lack of love then.
Atheists don't believe in biblical prophesies.
BTW I did not mean that Hitler was an atheist. I just meant that Atheists cannot possibly have an opinion on whether Hitler was\has anything to do with being (either in the past or future), the antichrist, due to the fact that they do not believe in biblical teachings, or prophesies.
Satan believes in God, atheist do not believe in God, yet have more religious knowledge then the religious
Who is more the antichrist... Oprah?Why would you say Atheist can't have an opinion on Hitler's beliefs? We are aloud to have opinions on anything including Hitler's religious beliefs. Just because we don't believe something doesn't mean we have no opinion on it.
My opinion about myself is the most important opinion in the world. Why not, it's my opinion everyone are God also. Make an honest opinion about a Religion or even a sect of a Religion, their judgment call could turn you into an atheist, or worst an antichrist. People like Hitler, needs more love then anyone. They should have treated him in a mental illness hospital rather than allowing him to harm others. I so glad the average person today is smarter than Hitler or Moses or Adam.
Hitler was obviously a very smart man, that's what made him dangerous.
Smart is not the best word, Hitler was cunning, showing the skills in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion.
Hitler was a sly, crafty, clever and shrewd man . The Medical professional founded a new mental illness called megalomania from him. Megalomania is where the Universe revolves around yourself or the screaming me me’s. My ex wife had it and WG Bush
Intelligence would a far moral or ethics base to it than being cunning or a megalomaniaHitler was so un-smart that he countermanded the advice of his Generals. If he had heeded their advice insead, or if the people who tried to assassinate him had been successful, the Nazis would have won the war and we would all be speaking a different language.
Just as well for us all that he was so silly.Every race has had their turn at ruling the world throughout mankind history
GENGHIS KHAN /ALEXANDER THE GREAT and now American rich.
They have all tried and they have all failed in time because the true rulers are the 80% of the conscious of the people, who always change things for the better, after massive abuse has been done.When I was growing up the received wisdom on Hitler was that he was some kind of genius. That's since been revised but it's a mistake to dismiss him. He was definitely a megalomaniac and like many arrogant people he assumed he knew better than anyone else, but remember that he did bring about the death camps, the kristallnacht, a war that in the early days made Germany look unstoppable.
Yeah, too bad he was so silly. So much blood spilled.We also need to look at the evil people behind Hitler. They were weaving their horrific webs on society, using Hitler's charisma for their own egotistical objectives.
In a similar way, we need to look today at the people in the background of every so-called leader, and see if our support for that leader will be misused by the individuals in the background.
Democracy is all very well if applied with discretion and responsibility, but dangerous if not applied with intelligence.One of the shortcomings and dangers of posting in forums is that many of the nuances and other circumstances often seem to be overlooked when trying to argue one specific point. You are right that there were a lot of truly evil people behind Hitler. Hitler could not have accomplished what he did without them. But any reliable history of Hitler, Germany and/or Naziism makes clear that Hitler was the driving force, the man who kept pushing things when others were ready to give up or didn't think the time was right.
Hitler never, ever applied democracy. He subverted it until he could abolish it, but he never applied it. That doesn't mean you don't have a point, democracy does require people of good will and clear vision and good judgement. But Hitler was never on the side of democracy.JC Lately: I like your response. Those with the power need to be in a position of command. I just wonder how much our current president is in a position of command...
over himself.Speaking again as an outsider, as far as the USofA is concerned, yet very much interested from a World-influence point of view in relation to your President, I like the suggestion that "You will get the President You Deserve."
Just looking at the hurdles President Obama has to face: A darker-than-pink skin; a middle name that sounds like it's Islam-connected; an outwardly convincing ethical attitude as far as business and a "fair go" are concerned. The latter could be seen as a real threat to those greedy people trying to screw the system to their own advantage! Then you have a large body of opinion which supports anyone who is rich and therefore "successful," and knocks those individuals who find themselves down-on-their-luck, who see it as weak minded to support such unfortunates.....(anti-democracy would we call it?).....
All these obstacles, yet he is maintaining his Kool and trying to get on with the Job. Who knows anything about the people in his background, and those working for him in the Party Room? We can only know what we know via the mass-media, and that is often suspect in its bias.
The President obviously has had stage-education. Whenever he is addressing a crowd, he always swings his head from left to right, rarely addressing those in the middle-ground. So maybe he could brush up on technique a little.
However, on his abilities in general, I would see him as a very worthy person to be fulfilling that role for the next 4 years, hopefully his Team is also worthy of such support.
Only my opinion of course.Playing it safe, I see.
George Sorros is one of the Multi-Billionaires behind him. Look into what GS stands for. (What he r e a l l y stands for. Hint: He has to have it ALL)
So...1. President O payed G.S. back for his election contribution... with tax payer money.
2. 4 years ago President O shut down all offshore drilling in Untied States and the very next day President O gave G. S. One Hundred Thirty Four BBBillion in tax payer money to set up his own off-shore drilling in Brazil. (Brazil gets 0 % and G.S. gets 100%.)
3. Canada proposed an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas refineries. President O said NO.
(Instead, they are transporting their Oil to the Pacific coast where China picks it up in tankers and transports it to China.)
This project could have contributed to American jobs and a cheaper and more plentiful source of oil.
These are the facts as you probably recall them from the news in the past. However, His little half steps are not recognized as whole steps...
YET.
How long will it take to see the pattern?????I have just read through the Wikipedia account for George Soros http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros and would be reluctant to form an opinion based just upon your Post above.
It seems there is much more to him and his background story than you have put here.
Of course, if one has a biased point of view from the start, one will only read and digest what supports the bias. I am trying to remain unbiased..... yet there seems so much that is positive in the Wikipedia version.
I was impressed with George's efforts against GWB. Don't you think he has been vindicated in the light of events since that time?
Smoke and Mirrors, My dear man. I am glad you are not a voter here.
Look at what President O is cooking up! Look at the p a t t e r n!
The "powers that be" are doing everything they can to
W e a k e n u s
And G. S. is but one of those "powers! "
BTW speaking of voters...
In two years, we voters need to vote out all the democratic career politicians in the Senate like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and all those who voted for Obamacare without reading it... including Al Franken whose election was illegal. (The votes for Obamacare were so close that Al Franken's vote alone changed it. BTW 1100 felons were allowed to vote illegally for him. These are recorded facts.)
On what basis do you make any of those statements? The average person today may have access to information that they didn't have, but it's a bit arrogant to assume that we're in any way smarter than they were. Hitler did some pretty big things that the "average person today" can't or won't. Yet he wasn't as smart as we are?
And why do people insist Hitler was insane? Isn't it possible that he was truly evil, but that he knew right from wrong (the legal definition of insanity) and decided not to go by society's definition?I agree.
He should have been labeled for what he was.
Is evil So Hard to recognize????
- Lybrahposted 11 years ago0
As Christians, it is our responsibility to warm people of eternal damnation.
Really? Why is that? Do you tell little children they will be eternally damned if they put up Christmas trees or suffer sorceresses and homosexuals to live?
Is it then OK for me to make up my own story and declare that i have a responsibility to tell you about it every day or so? To demand that I teach it to your children, and put it's icons on our money?
If that is not OK, how do you reconcile your actions with the golden rule or does that apply to everyone except Chritians?and as an atheist, it is my job to love people for who they are - exactly who they are - without demanding that they submit to an imaginary evil dictator who would torture 2/3 of the population for eternity
Yes it is, Lybrah. How about earthly hell?
"Earthly Hell" would be if born-agains finally took charge in the United States. It would be like an anti-christ leading an anti-world war to hell.
Basic intelligence would have gone finally to the wall.
It might even happen.... but most likely not in my life time, at least I truly hope not.I see an earthly hell as any group forcing their personal belief on the masses. Be it religious, atheist or anything in between.. The loss of freedom of conscience would be devastating.
Furthermore, earthly hell would be the loss of any hope in the ability to fulfill
p e r s o n a l
hopes, dreams and decent ambitions
for
every
I n d i v i d u a l.
(Within the boundaries of the ten commandments, and the golden rule, of course.)Why not within the boundaries of being honest and not harming, the first four commandments, throw them out to start with
Oh!! NOW who is being safe in what they write, Kathryn? Who is giving lip-service to freedom, yet limiting that "freedom" to only the few? Contradictions! When you personally are strictly, unerringly following each and every one of the Ten Commandments, and applying that Golden Rule strictly, unerringly, in your own life, then you come back and start preaching it.
Don't give me that rubbish about "Jesus" saving you when you err. That is a convenient cop-out used by hypocrites.
It sounds to me like you are constructing your own religion, to suit yourself; using your own interpretations of the interpretations of others, just so it will fit your own ideas. Of course, when you get other people supporting what you say, that gives you false assurance.
You lose credibility in my estimation.Let me make it perfectly clear:
I do not restrict freedom to the few!
What few are you referring to? I wasn't referring to the few
at all.
BTW If I ever had credibility any, I am quite surprised!
I do not care about credibility, obviously the way I write. LOL
Take it, leave it...
I certainly could care less.
You'll figure it out. I have faith in that.Perhaps you're not aware of the contradictions in your previous statement that Jonny is referring to?
Essentially you said freedom for all, unless your not Christian.All religions and all people can i n c o r p o r a t e the (true) teachings of Jesus. As soon as they do there will be peace. They don't have to give up their traditions or styles of worship.
It makes sense to me.Interesting that other religions say the same thing. What if the muslims are right?
O.K. Lets party.
I am now an atheist. I do not believe in God.
It is a relief! I only believe in gravity and the turning of the earth. I only believe in what I see in front of me. I will not believe in anything that can't be proved.
Kind of a blast.When I believed in the unprovable,
I believed that all religions led to the same God. I believed that all paths set forth by the love of God would surely lead there.
Not any more.
So don't bug me.If Muslims truly follow God, they too will find heaven within.
But if Muslims are right you won't find your way into heaven.
Actually, I would still because Muslims (whether they agree or not) serve and follow the same God. THey just call him something different.
No, sorry it's not the same God. The Christian God is made up of the holy trinity and therefore is not the same as Allah.
Allah is Arabic for God. It is one of the Abrahamic religions that is rooted in a belief of God. As for the holy trinity, Who said I believed in the holy trinity of God the father, son, and holy ghost?
Nobody said you do, but Christians do. It's right in their name.
A bit general, don't you think? If you frown on being generalized then why do it? I am offended that you would lump me like that!!! (Ok, I can't hold on to that indignation like that...LOL). But I'd like to hear where you got the information that all Christians believe in the trinity.
I'm in no way attempting to insult. The fact is if you don't believe that Jesus is God then you're not a Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
"The Trinity is an essential doctrine of mainstream Christianity. "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" represents both the immanence and transcendence of God. God is believed to be infinite and God's presence may be perceived through the actions of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit."Operative term, MAINSTREAM.. a.k.a Organized.. aka mob mentality.. I thought I had demonstrated before that I don't believe the same as others.. I know you weren't being insulting. I know you respect me just like I respect you
Also If you read the whole thing it stated that those that believed are called trinitarians. This article also notes that there are Christians that do not believe in the trinity.
And there is nothing noted in the bible that is specific in the Godhead. But thanks for providing the source of your information
Yes, I read that but it didn't state that there were any organized groups presently. Why not just explain your thoughts.
The Unitarians are pretty organized. They have been for a while. (Since the late 1500's)
The Unitarian church was among the first established in the United States... in fact it was John Adams that helped establish it.I guess your right, but there is much debate as to wether Unitarians are Christians. They have views identical to muslims in regards to Jesus. They think Jesus was just a prophet as do muslims. I do suppose we could label people christians if they follow the teachings of Jesus, but do we then include muslims under the Christian label?
For me, denominations are organized. and also trinitarians and unitarians. All of these (in my opinion) fall under what I call organized.
As I stated before, Muslims could in their own way fall under that label in some ways because the islamic faith is one of the Abrahamic religions and as such almost a sibling religion to Christianity.
As far as the name thing goes, the only thing that a "Christian" could be thought to believe by adopting the name is that Jesus was the Messiah. Biblical Jews interpreted prophecy of the Messiah to mean many different things.
True - in part. Muslims and Jews are monotheistic and believe that Christians who believe in the Trinity are in error.
There are, however, Christians who do not believe in the Trinitarian God...Unitarians, for example.
People believe so many different things within a certain 'group' that it's quite difficult to put any sort of label on anyone based on what another person says regarding their own beliefs.
Exactly the same as Chicken Little, I suppose.
"The world is going to end... aughhhhhhhhh!"
vs
Look out, earthly hell is inevitable,
1. When the majority of people in a republic allow themselves to do as they please without considering the wellbeing of others.
2. When a democratic government in a republic is allowed, by the people, to take away their Life, Liberty and Ability to live in personal pursuit of their own, (and their loved ones',) happiness.
(bottom line being the ability to s u r v i v e.)
BTW There IS such a thing as abuse of freedom. Some people have to spend some time in jail...of one type or another... depending on the crime.
It is always important that we do not put ourselves in a jail of your own making by not discerning what the Truth is (and what the half steps are leading up to.)Checked about 5 world's happiest countries sites
Happiness generally means food to eat, being healthy, having enough money and good times with family and friends. A good home, clothing, ...
Latin and northern Europe countries were most ranked in the top 10,
USA ranked from 12th to 42nd happiest countryHappiness comes when the pursuit of it is a l l o w e d. Were any of those countries entirely socialistic or communistic?
Why would you assume that they would be socialist or communist? They of course are not, but the fact remains that the U.S. is far down the list.
Rad Man, Why are the socialist or communist countries NOT on that list? and you mentioned, "they of course are not,"
Why not?I don't think you know much about Satanists. They don't actually worship the devil. They're anarchists.
They actually worship themselves. I did not see anything about a belief in anarchy when I peeked into a Satan Site.
"worshiping" yourself with a complete disregard for rules, consequences or rewards is anarchy.
I just went to the Church of Satanism site: I discovered that they worship Themselves. I did not read anything about the belief in Anarchy.
It 's a non-recognition of authority.
Interesting!
Thank You, Ms. McFarland!
This might lead somewhere, after all!Thank You again, JMcFarland.
She saved me from becoming both an atheist and a satanist. I realized I really love God and all the benefits of believing in Him! One of the benefits of believing (and following) God is having His Authority and therefore His Order, Peace and Love. As Jesus explained, The Kingdom of Heaven is within. That's where I feel all these benefits:
Within me.
Just sharin'Is not Satanist, a co-spirit with Yahweh. I must belong to the lone wolf society because of not belong to any group.
It's so awesome being free.
I have to answer myself. Socialist and communist countries are not happy nations because the people are not allowed the f r e e d o m to pursue happiness.
(BTW to answer Mr. Radman: We were a pretty happy country during the late 50's and 60's. Some say this was our Golden Age. There was less regulation of business and commerce, less money printing and less vote-buying political agendas and policies.)
Some think we are not headed toward socialism today.
However, what if Obamacare eventually puts people in FEMA camps when they don't buy insurance, and can't pay the subsequent fines/income tax... (Not to mention that there are 3000 pages of regulations for every type of business in the country indicating, "YOU SHALL" )....can we pursue happiness living in, or God forbid, locked up in FederalEmergencyManagementAgency camps? NO!
Belief in God helps us avoid socialistic campaigns and helps us recognize evil when we see it.
Evil vs livE.
What do we choose?Kathryn, who exactly brain-washed you? Was it a right-wing politician or evangelist? Could be both, of course, but it does not sound like it was a socialist or atheist.
God brainwashed me. Thank God.
and thank God you do not vote here.
My ancestors fought in the American Revolution.
I am carrying on in that tradition. It is in my genetic code.
I can't help it.
I have a mission:
Our Country
Our Freedom
Our Independence: which is Our path to Heaven Within and God.I think I've picked the representative person who's vote I'm proud to cancel out.
You'll see, and you'll eventually agree.
No... really I won't.
I refuse to live my life believing that bad things are going to happen to me because I don't agree with people like you.
So far only good things have come from not agreeing with people like you.
wow! how the hell did God just get tied into Obama, obamacare or taxes? wtf? i just don't get it....Evil vs Live....whateva!? I choose Evil I guess...whateva!....where's the luv? don't the 'true' teachings encourgage sumthin about luvin each other etc etc etc......the post seems to spew some crap that makes absolutely no spiritual sense at all.............rather the post encourages a negative response that doesn't fit within the 'true' teachings based on a skewed, screwed up interpretation that pulls in personal political beliefs...yuk!
How about when Jamie Foxx called obama, "our lord and saviour"!
(especially when he is exactly the opposite. Yikes. now I'm in for it.)
In Canada where the banks are regulated more and better then in the U.S. the banks were unaffected by the credit crunch. Greed is what caused the credit crunch and because banks are publicly traded companies they behave like social paths and making money in number one. Having a few rules in place makes everyone happier. Canada is also ahead of the U.S. on the happy scale with all it's regulations and universal health care.
Would you like to sponsor a Canadian immigrant, Rad?
Yes, very good friends of ours are Americans. He told me a funny story about the first time he went to a doctor up here. He kept looking around from someone to pay.
That alone would motivate me to move to Canada. Only thing that's keeping us is there isn't any place there that's warm.
Sigh.Vancouver and Victoria get the same weather as Seattle. Cold weather sucks if you don't ski. It's been -4 fahrenheit here last last few days. I vacation as much as I can in Florida, but I have to get my medical insurance before I go.
My husband has health issues that are seriously aggravated by the cold weather. I just hate the cold...lol We met in NE Florida, and moved to the Midwest shortly after. He wasn't sick yet. We've considered moving back there, but are trying to find something a bit more moderate than the NE coast. I dream of Lakeland...lol...where the Detroit Tigers do their spring training, and where the weather is quite moderate, even by Florida standards.
We're soon to be taking guardianship of the teenager we've been caring for since October. Then we'll sit down and seriously discuss moving. We've mentioned it to her and she just says she wants to go anywhere that isn't Michigan and that's warm...so specific, she is.
Sorry, folks, didn't mean to hijack the thread.I love south florida in winter, but have been told it's no place to be the summer. We call retired Canadians that spend winters in florida snow birds. They can also be called lucky and smart.
How nice of you two to take on a teenager. I have three teenage boys in my house now that we are hoping to raise well.
If we all learned to live without clothes, we would learn to accept the cold..... now there's a thought
We would all be reduced to the same level, ugly and beautiful at the same time; no secrets; no Invisibility Cloak to hide behind. I wonder where religion and politics would come into it. What sort of badge would we need to wear?
I'll move to Canada to but only if I can go to Quebec.
From one obstrepeous region to another...
Got to say it is extremely funny watching a couple of religionists arguing over "proof."
Thanks for validating the OP.
No, I am providing proof.
Also, I am just sharing, not arguing.
I guess I'll stop trying to show you there is proof of reincarnation in the NT.
Who am I anyway?
Peace.OK - sharing - not arguing.
Thanks for validating the OP. I think you might want to consider a different dictionary though.It is the nature of a Forum: Discussing, offering and sharing (exchanging) differing viewpoints.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
is there a way to stop getting notifications of specific threads?
unfollow the thread and anyone that posts to the thread
haha, yeah... that's what I'd like to do. How do you do that?
detrimental human emotional expressions create a false jealously where irrational people attack others for their belief in the existence of God. Man is a sinner by nature and so will always sin - small and large based on their fanatical emotions concerning God. The path to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on moral principles being employed by all individuals in society. However, through both mental and physical abuse of others the differing cultures of the world continue to battle each other for the power to rule. This is nothing more than immoral lust of the worst kind. Currently this immoral lust is being orchestrated by all nations as they struggle through the economic woes created by evil people roaming the earth. The belief in God has not caused more problems, but the mental and physical attack on those who believe in God has. This is due to those who wish to destroy the moral society so they may rule over the masses. God has predicted that when the world is ruled by the immoral, it will be destroyed. Our current society is more immoral than at any time previous, so the path is being taken today.
Do you take that evil destructive path or do you try to correct the path of destruction?Can you back this if with facts or do we just have to take your word for it?
Would correcting the path of destruction and sin involve construction through morality and values?
I think so.
The fact is, God gives us morals and values. (Because God loves us.)
But, no one can be or is forced to accept this Love. (And this is one of the reasons God is invisible. Just a thought.)Wow... you in no way answered his question. Your answer isn't even VAGUELY related.
That's awesome.I was answering the question taburkett had asked at the end of his post.
what would you answer as far as HIS last question?
Let's let him answer for himself, as far as my answer! (and I hope you will, Mr. Taburkett)Well I suppose I would answer his question.
Do you have any proof that "Our current society is more immoral than at any time previous"?
Before you answer though... Think about it really really hard.
Remember that we don't stone women or own slaves. Remember that sisters marrying brothers is illegal... as is fathers having children with their own daughters.
Remember that people aren't being beaten to death for minor crimes for the entertainment of the masses...
He's going to bring all of this up and more. He's going to quote specific verses from the bible that- if you are a literalist- that society was much more immoral... and it was often condoned and/or encouraged by the holy men in the bible.
It's going to end badly for you... but I doubt you'll acknowledge it. He is going to be completely right. Instead you are going to likely quote some verses out of context... ignore everything factual he says... and do everything in your power to make the rest of Christians look like... well... you.
If you had a stronger faith you would have a more open mind. Defensiveness and denying the obvious are tools of those who know their position is weak.Dear Ms. Barrett,
Huh? What is your true complaint with me? How do I show a weakness in faith? How do I show defensiveness? How do I deny the obvious? How do you think I am getting it wrong? I am an unusual Christian.(some...most... would say not even.) I believe that east, west and all religions come together and lead to the same place.
Heaven is within.
aum, peace, amen.
PS I am really curious as to why you are so agitated by "people like me!" I think you are jumping to unfounded conclusions. I never said anything bad was going to happen. I am revealing the way to insure freedom!
Thats all.
Freedom and discipline (boundaries) are the two sides of the same coin.
What is there to be afraid of?
Today our leaders are not following the boundaries set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
These documents set forth proper boundaries to safeguard us from too much government interference. We are allowing our government to get away with breaking boundaries. (Allowing the Federal reserve to overprint money is just one example.) I am not talking so much about individuals. (Although the loss of morals was one of the causes of the fall of the Roman empire.)(I really regret using my real name.)
Dear jonnycomelately,
What is your problem with my mentality? Could you explain -very specifically- so "people like me" will know?"
signed,
Wouldnever HurtaFly.You should rembember, that when others slander or attack, it is because they cannot overcome the truth.
When you are in conversation with those who cannot comprehend truth, you will find that they broadcast their own faults when attacking.
Many Americans are slaves to the government.
Many Americans are slaves to material objects.
Many Americans blame others for their own failures.
Many Americans believe that it is someone elses responsibility to provide for them.
Many Americans choose to restrict others because they want to justify their immoral and evil ways.
Many Americans wish to give up their God given right to freedom.
Many Americans do not follow the moral principles of society.
Many Americans have expressed hero worship of the nations leadership.
More than 51% believe it is right to murder a life through abortion.You think that:
All this is worse than fathering children on their own daughters?
All this is worse than being put in chains and beaten?
All this is worse than being stoned to death?
All this is worse than being dismembered on a rack?
All this is worse than being burned because you don't believe in a certain religion?
And yet you expect me to believe in your definition of morals?
Wow.Many Americans are slaves to self-righteousness.
Many Americans do not understand the truth of what Mr.Taburkett speaks.
But they could, if they become aware of their true selves and how much God loves them. That's why God gave us this Country through the founding fathers. Read their quotes from:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotesThanks for that Kathryn, the first quote that appealed to me was this:
"When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left, and could say, 'I used everything you gave me'.
Erma Bombeck"
I will not be standing before anyone, but you might find this useful.My favorite religious quote is:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
~Mahatma GandhiThat's my favourite as well. I use it every chance I get.
My mom used to use that frequently. Another thing she always told me (and I attribute it to her solely because she was brilliant...it may indeed have come from elsewhere) was this: Human beings were made in God's image, and we've been trying to return the favor ever since.
Yes - I have proof that the society is more immoral today than at any other time.
1) 870 million people in the world do not have enough to eat. (Source:State of Food Insecurity in the World,FAO, 2012)
2) The vast majority of hungry people (98 percent) live in developing countries, where almost 15% of the population is undernourished.
(Source:State of Food Insecurity in the World,FAO, 2012)
It was indeed worse...just before Jesus came.
you will find all answers at:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? … man_rights
“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.
........
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law.
The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.
.......
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
.......
The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.
.......
To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.
......
Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals—and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government—as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.
.......
A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency—so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated “rights” that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these “printing-press rights” negate authentic rights.
Therefore - USA is more immoral today.This is an example of what a truly "awesome" post is.
Thank You, very much, Mr. Taburkett, for returning and clarifying.
And correcting me.Taburkett, you state in your profile that you are: ".....a defender of individual rights," against interference by any government or political association.
My bigger question of you is how do you defend MY individual rights? I am not christian. I am not heterosexual in my preference. I am not capitalist in my politics. Are you willing to allow me my total freedom to enjoy my life as I see fit, providing I do not infringe upon the freedom of yourself and anyone else?
OR - will you insist that I need to be christian; need to be heterosexual; need to be capitalist?
I am just hoping you have not been copying and pasting the writings of others as empty words.Your question, " My bigger question of you is how do you defend MY individual rights?" is not a bigger question at all. It is a smaller one.( I guess not in your mind. he he.)
No one is insisting that you not follow the guidance of your own self. We have freedom in America to follow any religion we want. We have freedom to be transgender if we so choose. If anyone wants to live under a communist or socialist regime, there is certainly no one preventing anyone from moving to a communist or socialistic country. Just go there.
But, you don't live in USA according to a post of yours in this forum, anyway, so what the heck are you complaining about?
??
Why so bitter?Not bitter at all Kathryn. The United States of America says it has these in-built freedoms within it's constitution.... so you say. But I ask you the same questions as I asked Taburkett.... would you, as a christian person, be able to live beside me as a neighbour?
I am free to comment in this Hub as you are. There are no national boundaries here in the Internet.Hell... I've got a couple spare bedrooms... When should I expect you?
A lot of my time is spent talking about and setting up composting loos for people. It can make an interesting chat subject at dinner table, but heck! someone has to do the shitty jobs around town!
So if I can be of any help in that area, just invite me!
(You began with the word Hell. Is that the address?)
Big hug to you Melissa.LMAO... you probably would do well financially around here. Is the address in Hell? Hmmm... Rural WV... In some ways it's the Armpit of America. In other ways it's one of the most beautiful places I've ever been.
So... likely not Hell... maybe purgatory.
@ Mr. Lately:
"Many Americans are slaves to Self righteousness."
Thanks for Nothing.I could live next to you as long as the fence is high.
Kathryn, I have looked into that brainquotes site, and at some of the quotes, not so much from the "Founding Fathers" per see, but from Republican Party members. It seems to me they are concentrated on selfishness and nothing else. I don't see anything resembling self-less-ness.
Do you think that could be part of the reason for the evil which you perceive happening in the USA?
Incidentally, even if there was no fence at all between you and me, you would be in absolutely no danger from me or my activities. Honest. Trust me.I couldn't live next to ANYONE without a high enough fence! Don't take it personally.
That might be hard for you... (to not take it personally.)
I have accepted the purest belief of Christianity.
For me - this means that others may choose to be sinners under the rules and principles outlined by God.
I understand that I cannot save someone else; because, everyone must save themselves.
God has proclaimed that it is a personal choice.
I live a Godly life; because through it I live a fruitful righteous life filled with much love and great happiness.
Through my personal efforts I have abundance with God's favor to take care of many who cannot take care of themselves.
People seek me because I live through God's teachings.
Those who wish to remain evil do not normally stay around me long because they do not feel comfortable around a person of God.
Those who see my life of health and wealth learn to live through the same principles and rules that God has proclaimed.
I protect those who cannot protect themselves - this includes everyone's freedom to choose.
When you walk the path of truth, you are not required to remember the false teachings you may have quoted.
Thank you for protecting my freedom to choose. That means if I lived as your neighbour in the same street, you would protect me from the anti-gay bashers.
However, if all your righteousness means you are likely to be sitting on the right hand of your god when my time comes to leave this planet, I will ask for a different drafting - I could not live with you in the room for eternity. Hell would be much more to my liking.
Thank you again.You know, jonny, I've seen a lot of you in these forums, and we've interacted on occasion. I believe in God and Jesus and live my life to the best of my ability in a way that shows that. If you want my personal opinion, if what I believe is true and if what I have come to know of my God is true, then you will share a heaven with me. And I will be honored to be there with you.
*Edit - Just as honored as I'd be to be your neighbor.I have unfortunately seen the damage gay-bashers do first hand. Back in the late 80's I worked in a downtown design studio where about half the place was gay. Frequently someone would come to work after being beaten up for just being gay. One of my friends was beaten up coming out of a building where he volunteered to help people who have been diagnosed with AID's. Jonny, I'd be happy to have you as my neighbour. Your sexual orientation matters not to me. I'm not sure you'll like the suburbs though.
I am not worthy......maybe we could convert this Site to HugPages, Motown.
Hey, my friend, I have an endless supply of those. And I am never stingy with them!
(((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))Ha, stupid dyslexic brain. I read jonny's post a few times and didn't understand it. Then I was even more confused by yours, so I went back and looked at jonny's a few time until I say the "g" in hugpages.
Very clever jonny. I just kept on reading hubpages over and over. Stupid dyslexic brain.It happens Rad. sometimes we are so conditioned by what we look at regularly that we anticipate the words before we actually read it.. lol
Ya I know, this this kind of thing happens to me all the time. I reread what I've type two times before posting and make sure there are no warning signs by my OS, post it and find errors. Fix the errors and then when I read what I've said the next day because of a reply I'm baffled as to how I missed such a glaring error. Anyhow thanks.
Stop beating yourself up over that, darn it! We've all done stuff like that. At least you have a reasonable excuse...lol The rest of just do it because we're occasionally dumb.
Ha, occasionally dumb. I had to copy the word "occasionally" and was wondering why the word dumb had a b.
If we can't laugh at ourselves we'll cry.Rad, Motown, all this is great lightening stuff..... that "many a slip," Freudian and otherwise, is just great for having a laugh. Thanks everyone for your feedback.... now, how do I learn to get into a really frantic, punch-punch argument? Because that is what's missing in my life. Learning how to be totall wrong and live through it.
Anyway, keep it up, everyone.
Wait a minute!!! Jonny, you're not hetersexual??/ OMG!!! (please note sarcasm here). I have been paying attention to you too. Not only would I be your neighbor, I'd invite you to dinner with me and my family. You are a good person from what I've seen and read of you and your hubs. Your sexual orientation is the furthest thing I look at.
Jonny, you are invited to dinner too, if you get to Western Canada.
A few gays have told me I'm A Metro Sexual, that is a person who enjoys many of the same things gays enjoy, except actually sex with a man.
This post is absolutely appalling to me as a believer in the teachings of Christ. I'll address each point and tell you why. I in no way mean to offend you, but I hope that you may see a little truth in what I have to say and maybe address some of it before you've gone too far to turn back. I apologize to everyone in advance for the length of this post. There's just way too much here to let go.
"I understand that I cannot save someone else; because, everyone must save themselves.
God has proclaimed that it is a personal choice."
No one on earth has the power, according to our God, to save themselves. Salvation and grace are a free gift bestowed upon us. We have a choice as to whether or not to accept that gift, but there is not one thing that we can do to earn it. We don't deserve it. God gives it to us because HE loves us and wants us, not just because we decide we want it. You can not only not save someone else, but you cannot save yourself. You can simply accept the salvation God offers to you.
"I live a Godly life; because through it I live a fruitful righteous life filled with much love and great happiness.
Through my personal efforts I have abundance with God's favor to take care of many who cannot take care of themselves."
You live a Godly life....through your personal efforts?!?!!?!? Wow. Once again, if you are living a Godly life, it is because His grace allows you to do so. I guarantee that though you are saved, you still stumble. You still sin. You still do things wrong from time to time. And those things continue to happen because you are human. I've no doubt that you make a personal effort to seek God's face every moment, but the minute you forget that all goodness in you and in your life comes from Him, you take that first step into the street with the shouting Pharisees that Jesus censured quite passionately. Also, I'm going to point out that you contradict yourself quite beautifully in another statement you make later.
"People seek me because I live through God's teachings.
Those who wish to remain evil do not normally stay around me long because they do not feel comfortable around a person of God."
Can't have it both ways. Either people seek you out because you're a Godly person, or you drive them away because of it. Which is it? Evildoers sought out Jesus Christ because He was compassionate, not judgmental. He didn't rejoice when someone left Him because they found His teachings hard to swallow. He certainly didn't boast about it. He mourned for those people. Take a look at John, Chapter 6. Some of His followers left because they could not accept the teaching. It didn't make Him proud. It broke His heart. The fact that you revel in the fact that people don't want to be around you because you're a person of God is evidence that maybe you need to keep working to become more like Him, rather than just excelling at following His rules.
"Those who see my life of health and wealth learn to live through the same principles and rules that God has proclaimed."
A lot of people just flat out don't give a damn about your health and wealth. They're quite content with what they have, and may even be suffering lack while still being committed to the Christian life. Jesus was not wealthy and he died at 33. Oh...and He most definitely lived according to Godly principles. If you hand out to people that your health and wealth come from being a Godly person, a lot of folks will simply shake their heads and walk away.
"I protect those who cannot protect themselves - this includes everyone's freedom to choose."
You should have just left out the second half of this statement. It comes off as condescending. Another thing Jesus was not. Ever.Personality disorder - check. I've seen enough to recognize what the problem is and believe your efforts are unfortunately futile.
They probably are, but I have to hope not, Rad.
I just wish that more of us who believe understood that to say we live according to the teachings of Christ means that we have to behave as He did, to try to think as He did, and most importantly have to be as humble as He was. He did not boast of His holiness...He lived it. If we did the same, people would flock to us in droves. Instead, we push others away at every opportunity because we think we're better than they are. We seem to forget all the saints who were pretty rotten before they accepted the grace of God, and never forgot that fact for one single minute while they pursued more of His love and grace to become more like Him.
It ain't easy. I'm terrible at it. But that's because far too often, I rely on my own 'personal efforts' and not on His grace.
Sigh.After rereading my post I realize I may have failed to properly articulate my message. Sorry if that's the case, I'll try to fix it. Stupid dyslexia!
I don't believe your efforts are alway futile, just in this particular case. A fair number of his comments indicate a personality type that will not listen to reason or anyone attempting show his errors. He will never do what I've done in the above paragraph and admit my errors. I could be wrong, but I've seen it enough times to recognize the patterns.No worries. I knew exactly what you meant. We're simpatico like that, you and me...lol Plus, I read fluent typo and dyslexia.
Just breaks my heart to see that kind of stuff and then hear people wonder aloud why Christians are so 'persecuted.' We're not persecuted. We're disliked. Because of crap like that.
I have no shame admitting my beliefs to anyone, but my prayer is that I'll only ever have to if they ask, because otherwise they'll be able to tell right away through how I treat them and talk to them.
I'm a Franciscan, you know...and St. Francis said it best, I think. "Preach the Gospel always. If necessary, use words."Do you think Christians are more disliked then Jews or Muslims? I know Catholics are disliked, but not by non-christians but by other Christians.
Hmmm...disliked more than Jews or Muslims? I don't think so. I still think there's a lot more hatred directed toward Jews and Muslims than is ever directed toward Christians. People don't like us, but in the end, I think they look at us and pity us. Unlike Jews and Muslims, we read the New Testament of our Scriptures and then act like assholes. At least the Jews and Muslims live in fidelity to their holy books. We act stupid - like we can't comprehend what we've read about how to behave and how to treat us. Maybe they really don't dislike us so much as they pity us. Of course, I'm completely aware of the dislike that most Protestants have for Catholics. In truth, I think the hatred and dislike within the "Christian" church in general is far more destructive than anything that will ever come from outside of it. Jesus said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, but He didn't say that the Church itself might wind up doing herself in.
WOW - what emotion in motion.
I live as the son of God lived while on this earth.
I am of my God, because I have accepted Him as my light.
Philippians 2:13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purposeHang on a moment, Sir.... you have not stuck by your beliefs long enough to be crucified yet.
Please tell me how you would have acted in this scenario, if it had ever (or may might sometime) happened:
You are one of the people directing that I, because of people's accusations and ignorant prejudice, am about to be put into a gas oven. You and I are present because of something which neither of us can change in our lives. You have come through indoctrination. I have come through personal torment.
You might consider yourself a christian. Do you at this moment ignore any conscience that you might have and give me a shove? Do you judge me at that point and say "It's his own fault."
Finally, do you expect your god to forgive you? Totally, just because you call on the name of Jesus? Would you find sufficient love in your own heart to forgive me? Totally? Unconditionally? (If indeed you were entitled to make such a judgment - which you ain't!)I am not anything like you sir -
you try to insinuate that I or someone else would do anything to harm you when you are not attacking me directly.
I am a moral creature and do not judge others. I simply assist others in their quest to be moral and ethical.
I am prepared for my resurrection because I do suffer continuously at the hands of people who wish to attack me for my beliefs.
Many have tried to disuade me, but none have been successful because my God is stronger than anyone or a combination of individuals who attack me.
John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."Funny, you claim to not judge others in one sentence and then in the very next sentence you claim that others are not as moral or ethical as yourself. Isn't that a judgment?
I think he was meaning that for those that may want to know about morals he can help those that may feel that they struggle...I think..
you continue to question all meaning regardless of words used because you wish to deny that anyone on this earth could simply live as a moral being continually seeking only to help those who wish to be helped.
if I were a doctor, I would help those who were sick.
Since I am a morals doctor, I assist those who wish to be moral.
Those who seek me always find a moral person providing path support for them.
Everyone has a choice - some choose moral, others choose immoral
Matthew 5:19
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.And see Kathryn... that would be a perfect example of what turns people off about Christianity.
Is it not the devil's work to repel people from Christ?
Mo was actually doing Christians a favor by expressing that even among ourselves we don't like that kind of behavior. It gives other Christians a bad reputation.You are entitled to your position, of course.
"Since I am a morals doctor, I assist those who wish to be moral."
Oh my goodness! One of them! taburkett, don't fall for the mistake of self-diagnosis. I suggest you see a real doctor. If your desire is to help those who feel lost in their search for salvation, then work on you own misconceptions first. Your first-hand experience will then be invaluable when counseling others.Oh my Gosh! what is your point?
what is your point?
Obviously he is working for the light and passes on the light to those who have a wick to light. He merely extends his lit candle which he works diligently to keep lit.
Who are YOU to advise him.
WHO?He is a fellow human being. He deserves that respect. Why are you not concerned about his feeling as you insult him?
Who am I? Just one person who has been through the mill of christian-ism looking for good, down-to-earth guidance when I most needed it. I got nothing of substance. The morals and outlook on life now do not come because of my experiences within the christian church, but despite them. I still search and seek enlightenment, and find a lot from outside of the dogma and beliefs of christian-ism.
I also reject anything from fellow humans who presume they speak for Jesus or God or any other "power up there." Those who speak to me on a level ground, without presuming to judge me, are the ones who can and do help me most. I feel that I can smell falsehood, but even in that I can be mistaken.I had to come back to this post because I found it disturbing.
Based on your question,
"Who are YOU to advise him.
WHO?"
I have to ask, Who are YOU to judge him unworthy of advising anyone? WHO?Someone who stands for justice. It is unjust to come down so hard on someone who diligently strives to keeps his candle lit.
So, for the sake of those who agree with him,
tread a little more lightly!All of us struggle diligently to keep our candles lit, Kathryn. Sometimes the wind blows pretty hard and they go out. Thankfully, another brother or sister stands beside us and offers us their flame to relight it.
No one is trying to belittle or berate taburkett or attack his motives. Sheesh. You're a zillion times more frantic about it than he seems to be.Kathryn, There is a difference between trying to keep your candle lit to serve as a beacon to draw people to you willingly if their candles may be low or out for themselves and keeping your candle lit, trying to blow someone else's out, then saying "Your candle isn't lit right, come here and let me light your candle"
Each of us, from Mo, to Melissa, to me, to you (in your own way), to rad, Mark, Jonny... etc have expressed our views in a respectful manner to one another. tburknett started out that way (IMO) then went left when people disagreed with him.
Then he called himself a Morals Doctor. If diagnosing who has morals or not, he misdiagnosed a lot of people. I'd sue him for malpractice. His actions are a prime example of why people shun christianity or rather Christians. If he is representing the collective then who would want to be part of that?
okay. good. I feel protective over him, because I sense his sincerity. I do not sense anything else. People can get so down on those who believe in God. But it is their right to believe in God in any way they want. I would never criticize any of you!(except in stopping what I see as injustice) I only state what I believe and what makes sense to me!
I notice you didn't address my question and you assume I don't think anyone can live a moral, ethical life. Why would I think anyone can't be moral? Are you passing judgment on me?
You consider yourself a moral doctor which gives you a position to look down on others. I'm willing to bet you have skeletons in your closets.
I'm willing to bet you think you never make mistakes and and feel all those around you love and adore you. I wonder if you dismiss those who question you and have a rather hard time with long term relationships?
Do you get bored listening to others talk about themselves and therefore prefer talking about yourself just as you are doing now?Jesus would say, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. This means whoever has the willingness to hear, let him hear. For the others they
do not have to listen or
R E A D.
He has the right to post his beliefs. Why not just let him?
?No one is stopping him.
We also have the right to post OUR opinions.
See how that works?Did I attempt to stop him? Do I not have the right to point out that he looks down on others and thinks he's special? Not very Christian of you two. Moral Doctor, what a joke?
Mean spiritedness is what I am witnessing. I see it more and more. I will never get used to it.
BFN
He does indeed have the right to post what he believes. And not a single one of us has the ability or desire to stop him from doing so.
But we all reserve that right as well, along with the right to respond to him, whether in agreement or not.You rudely called him condescending. You have not apologized. I think you owe it to him... or at least avoid being rude and inconsiderate in the future.
Good night.You need a good night-cap after all this excitement, Kathryn. Sleep well.
I have apologized to him - and to you. I owe neither of you an apology, because I was not wrong. But out of a sense of diplomacy, I have offered one.
Please re-read my posts, if you actually read any of them to begin with.
Goodnight, Kathryn. I hope you're able to find some sort of peace and rest tonight.You are so much better at this than me.
I immediately thought "get bent"LOL. Funny I learned "Get Bent" from MY mother.
Well...as far as UN-diplomatic phrases that I learned from my mother...they are not publishable. She was terrific, but she was far from perfect.
But, she had a gift that I've heard described as Irish Diplomacy - the ability to tell someone to go to hell and make them look forward to the trip.My mother had the gift for "Italian Diplomacy"
She could tell someone to go to hell- they would not only listen... they would make sure they ran the entire way.LMAO!!
I got my Italian from Dad's side. My mother had a great deal of British ... decorum about her.My mother never swore, never said anything bad about anyone, loved to laugh, never even burped or tooted, then I met my mother in-law, I was always happy that my mom didn't understand Italian because every second word was a little gem, but swearing always sound so nice in Italian.
Rad - that is SO funny! My dad used to swear only in Italian when I was very young. I always thought what he was saying sounded so pretty...LOL
I appreciate that all of you were able to see what I was trying to say. Like I mentioned earlier to Rad, for a second I thought I was losing my reading comprehension skills...lol
You are not her mother nor her moral doctor.
Hmmm. Well, you keep telling yourself that.
Ghandi advised us to believe a man. Why comment negatively on that? Why?
Why comment negatively on what taburkett said? Because it was in response to my post to him and it completely missed the point. ??
You really should show him more respect. Your arguing and one upping is not that helpful.
Let him post as he wishes! it 's a free country!I was very respectful in my post to him. As I would be with anyone. He's showing quite a different attitude than the one of the Savior he claims to follow. I made those points very respectfully. His response indicated that he either didn't read a word I said or doesn't care. I chose to end my side of the discussion. If my language seems dismissive or disrespectful, both you and he have my apologies. I, as you mention he does, have a right to post anywhere I choose as well. Are you responding perhaps to something someone else said? My words don't seem to merit this type of response, IMO.
Arguing and one-upping weren't my goals. My goal was discussion, which taburkett ended immediately.To me, it is not showing respect to someone who is living what he believes and is sharing it with others who he feels could benefit. There are "others" reading these posts, besides those who post, you know.
*Shrugs* To me it was condescending. Maybe Mo's remark will convince "others" to not be condescending.
As condescending and holier than though are two of the big turn-offs for Christianity then maybe "others" will see that they aren't necessarily traits of Christianity but of individuals who take the label Christian on and assume they represent the whole faith.
In the first place, no one can force another listen to them.
Secondly, We all recognize when another is acting snobby, superior, disdainful, disgusted and showing a feeling of patronizing superiority when we see it!
Thirdly, It is so easy to misread or misinterpret keyboarded words!Yes WE might recognize it in others but rarely does one recognize it in themselves. Mo just loved him enough to mentioned it to him.
I did not call him condescending. I said the second half of his final statement sounded that way. I was trying to leave room for him to maybe say he hadn't meant to come across that way. Sometimes what people perceive in a statement is different from what is intended.
I simply wasn't rude or negative. Again, I apologize if you interpreted my words as such.You implied he was condescending by comparing him to Jesus and saying Jesus never was condescending. Wouldn't you feel hurt by this comment? He has a heart and works for love. He is a fellow Christian and deserves respect because he has led a long and hard life. He has experienced things we have never experienced.
Our elders have learned a lot and they like to share their wisdom.
They really do care about life and people and are trying to be helpful. See his posts in the spirit he means them.
-merely to be helpful.
It is not wise to doubt this.None of that hard life qualifies him to work on the morals of other people. That would be arrogance.
If it is as you say, Kathryn, how did you come by this knowledge? If a person comes to taburkett asking for help, then of course he would be in a good position to counsel. But you can't go out to people with the presumption that you are superior to them and therefore able to "help" them. That is a common blunder of many evangelical christians. I was one once!As a Christian, I might indeed feel hurt if someone told me that I was behaving in a manner contrary to the way Christ Himself behaved. After all, as a Christian, my desire and my goal should be to become as much like Jesus as possible. That's why I would want a brother or sister in Christ to point out when I am behaving in a less than Christlike manner. Period.
And trust me, I'd rather have a brother or sister in Christ point it out to me in love than have someone else do so, who might approach Christ but chooses not to because of my words or behavior. While he may have meant well, and I think he did, he spoke in an arrogant tone and in a manner that many may have found condescending. If his goal is to draw others to Christ through His words, he might want to choose them more carefully.
We all have to do it every day. None of us is perfect.
And actually, regardless of age, everyone deserves respect. We are harped on all of our lives to respect our elders. It's just as important to respect our peers. Despite a person's age, however, people tend to return the respect they're given. There are young people who have been through many difficult experiences. They deserve our respect as well.
I'm not going to address this particular point again. If I spoke out of turn, I am certain that I will be held accountable for it. There is no need to continue to apologize and explain myself.Wow... guilt.... Nope sorry don't feel any.
No... he does not deserve respect because he is a fellow Christian. He would deserve respect if he behaved in a way that didn't alienate people and serve to "rise above" others.
He is not a moral doctor. He is a human being. No special privileges have been granted to him and for him to assume that he is more godly than others goes against the humility that Jesus taught.
All of us have lived hard lives in one way or another. My struggles in no way shape or form entitle me to respect and I wouldn't be so presumptuous to think they would. "Elder" means nothing... It just means you are old... not necessarily right.
His words aren't conveying helpfulness... they are conveying a complete lack of humility. He has swollen up in his pride.
The kindest thing another Christian can do is point that out to him.Interesting you are concerned about his feelings, but not Mo's?
I feel sorry for you and I now bow out of this sad conversation.
Well, thank you for your pity. That's not something people offer me very often. I'm sorry you find the conversation sad. So far, at least for me, it's been incredibly enlightening.
She's upset because something deep down inside knows she's wrong and it's causing inner conflict. At least it should be.
It is enlightening... and it gives me hope.
Now for a joke... A Catholic A Unitarian An Atheist and a Gay Man walk into an Evangelical Church.
Funny eh?Funny as hell! Pardon the expression.
Too bad they don't have holy water fonts in evangelical churches....I could see them bubbling the instant we all crossed the threshold!!
LMAOHa, instead lets walk into a bar and have a drink instead. I don't like being looked down upon by anyone especially a narcissistic moral doctor.
In that case, we're all going back to the Catholic Church. They have wine there. If we can find it, it's free!
Ha, I'm never fond of drinking from a glass after 400 or 500 other people. I don't care if they tell me it's blessed.
About three weeks ago (about the last time my wife dragged us to mass) the priest dropped one host onto the carpet by his feet where everyone walks all the time with there shoes. He didn't set it aside or give it to himself, but placed it into the mouth of one of the servers. My wife and I just looked at each other and I think that incident has giving us a few months of Sunday morning sleep in. Thank Jesus. LOL.Hmmm. It should have been set aside and disposed of in the sacrarium in the vestry. I might have paused a bit at that myself...lol Enjoy your Sunday morning slumbers.
Rad Man, I can go one better than that! So there!
I used to serve in the high anglican church where I was brought up. After everyone had received communion, the vicar did the "mopping up." His fingers had to be rinsed with water into the chalice. If I overdid the water, instead of the wine, he got quite uppity with me!
HA! First, I love the word "uppity" and get a giggle whenever I see it worked into a conversation. Second...yup. Sometimes the priests want to make sure they get really, really blessed at Communion time.
Ha, well now that the moral doctor and his supporter are gone I'll wish you guys a good night. Unfortunately we can't win a fight with a narcissist.
I'll be the designated driver... A glass of wine a year is about my limit.
.....and they all hugged together, yet there was not one evangelical to be seen!
In my opinion, morality today in America is more important than in any time in the past because we have
More To Loose.
I really hope people will start to understand and realize the b e n e f i t of boundaries (Moral boundaries for the people, Constitutional boundaries for the government leaders and politicians)... especially for the Federal Government.
Boundaries are good, not bad!!!!!
For instance: (The following is information given in a Hub by a fellow hubber. Am I allowed to state who this hubber is or mention his excellent hubs regarding the founding fathers?)
We were not supposed to have a private bank. The Federal Reserve is private, and therefore ends up being for Profit. The Federal Reserve prints our money, not the U.S. treasury, which is a violation of article 1 section 8 of our Constitution.
Article 1 - "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect taxes Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the Untied States."
Section 8 - "To coin money, regulate thereof, and of foreign coin and fix the standard of Weights and Measures..." Constitutionally the legislative Branch is supposed to determine the value of our currency. Our politicians handed over that responsibility to the Federal reserve which prints worthless paper money which devalues the dollar. The Federal Reserve loans the federal government money, plus interest.
The result?
Our tax dollars are used to repay the federal reserve loan and the interest!
John Adams explained: "Banks have done more injury to religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or ever will do good."
John Adams quotes can be located at http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca quotes by john+adams.
The United State Constitution:: http://uscontitution.net/const.html#A1Sec 6BTW Consider the advice by Thomas Jefferson:
"Never spend your money before you have earned it."
He also explained, "I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/author/t/thomas jefferson.html
How does this relate to the topic? Consider that anarchy occurs when there is no authority.
No authority= no rules, no common boundaries. The result?
Think about it.
Therefore, the belief in God gives us His authority, and the guidelines He wants us to have for our own Good.
Just like the founding fathers researched and came up with the boundaries most conducive to bringing forth Liberty and true power to the People.
Right?You quote a man who took a razor blade to a bible in the same paragraph you say "God gives us His authority".
Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.You wish to throw the baby out with the bath water to prove what?
That the belief in God has caused more problems than it has solved?
The belief in God can also s o l v e mankind's problems. All problems are caused by our lack of understanding of He Who Created Us.
PS You and I know there is a lot in that old book that is not understandable!
A lot!
I certainly do not dis agree there.
But when you comprehend that Jesus's message was that Heaven can be found Within us, you become relieved.
George Washington would go to a different church every Sunday to hear the differing sermons.
All religions lead to the same path.
The Kingdom of Heaven is perceived within us through the third eye of intuition.
We can perceive God
as Omnipresent Spirit, or Light, as Jesus mentioned), directly.
Direct, intuitive perception of God is ultimately where all religions lead,
(whether they know it or not.
LOL!)
Just sharin'*Sighs* Yes... on a societal level I believe the belief in God has caused more problems than it has solved. On a personal level I believe that religion can help tremendously. I believe it's a great tool for self betterment.
However large groups of people with the same religious belief tend to develop a mob mentality. They seem to think that if something has given them comfort that everybody should believe it for their own good.
Historically... I doubt that the small -or even profound- changes in many individual's lives do not in the least make up for the amount of harm done in the name of God.
This leads me to believe that if forced to keep religion on an individual scale it might help. When religion/religious ideals are placed on a population at large then it isn't worth it. It does more harm than good.
*edit: From the sources I've read Washington did not attend church regularly and when he did he was drug there by his wife.No no and lol. I am referring to the story you shared about George Washington being dragged to church by his wife. I don't believe that! I like my story better.
And that's what I get for being foolish enough to attempt a conversation with you.
My bad.I have heard differently in regards to George Washington.
I am still thinking about your point that the belief in God on a Mob mentality level creates problems.
Can you name some problems?
None is coming to mind, specifically, right at this moment.
In my life I have been focused on the benefits of the belief in God, so can you explain in specifics... if you are still in the mood.
I am sure in the catholic church on a political level there are many examples.
I have shut out all religious craziness in my personal life.
I guess you are referring to the evangelists and their so called political power grabs. I even have a hard time believing they have a political agenda at all.
A lot of people misunderstand the Jefferson Bible.
Really? A lot of people misunderstand the Jefferson Bible?
How so?I think what Chris is trying to say is he understands the Jefferson bible. No doubt he will 'splain it to yer in a while.
They think it was for his personal benefit so that he wouldn't have to read about Jesus' miracles.
It is the misunderstanding of the true nature of God that is the problem. Someday we will all agree. Until then, I hope we can all get along and respect each other's beliefs. Part of respect is not expecting or attempting to convert anyone. I am only defending that the belief in God does not HAVE to cause problems and in fact could, when rightly understood, solve problems.
PS All are free to believe in God or not.
Is that better JMcfarland?
I added it just for you!historically speaking, your view has repeatedly been shown to be incorrect.
Really? How so?
* see PS above. Is that better?you don't think that "evangelicals" intentionally go after power? The fight against gay marriage equality and the fight against abortion rights alone are attributed solely to the religious right. Secular countries for the most part do not have these kind of political battles going on.
Right now the gays can get married (they can have their own ceremonies) and women can have abortions.
What kind of power do you think the religious right can assume
None!
(BTW I am quite sure the Federal Government will facilitate legal Gay marriage.)
Abortion rights will never be taken away.
Let the "evangelicals" have their opinion. They are merely a faction and this country (which allows factions) has safeguards against factions.it is currently legal to marry your first cousin in more states than it is legal to marry your same-sex partner.
Do I genuinely think that roe vs wade will ever be overturned? No. But many states are putting more and more restrictions on abortion rights, or chasing planned parenthood out of town. I don't remember which state it is, but I know one state at least that does not have a single clinic that can perform an abortion in the entire state. Why? Because of the religious right....which is an unjust faction, but it can be dealt with in our system.
There will always be differing opinions and beliefs, I guess is your point. Yes, I yield to that.
Maybe we will all agree when were are all in heaven.
Thanks.
(Actually " hope" refers to the future, not the past. )
Ditto! always ALWAYS love hearing from you Mo!..... a voice of logic and reason in our ocean of,.. well,.. otherwise. peace!
Thanks, hon! Nice to see you around, as always.
I appreciate the kind words. Having worshiped and lived my life both 'inside' and 'outside' the Church, as it were, I think I carry a different perspective than the average person. I hope it's wisdom, and I hope it comes from God.
Big hugs.
the way people believe "god to be" is what causes problems.i think.
i could just as easy abandon all hope in a potential god.
i could let others misguided beliefs. destroy the grand idea of god for me,
self righteous people cause problems.
not a god.
spero in dioIt is NOT the belief in GOD but the belief in MAN-MADE RELIGIONS that has caused/is causing the myriad problems encountered and experienced by humankind. Do not miscontrue the issues, thank you kindly. Many have inadvertently confused the issues of God and religion. God is all-one and inclusive while religion is totally divisive and exclusve in its premise.
No belief in god = no religion. I agree - clearly this belief opens the door to problems. I would never burn a witch at the stake - because I don't believe in god. Glad you are finally beginning to understand what a corrosive thing this belief in god actually is.
We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater, however!
The baby is the problem. No baby = no bathwater. Perhaps I should stop speaking metaphorically - would that help?
God equals the baby. Bathwater equals religion. We can throw out religion, but not God!
Not God! The pure essence of God is what we ourselves are. Close your eyes. Your essence is beyond your body. You are the light of your body. That light is a small bubble in the ocean of GOD!
It might be okay for you to dry up the ocean, but not for me. Without that ocean, I am not even a bubble!Please stop speaking nonsense at me. There is no such thing as god. The BELIEF in god is the problem. Glad you reject all the crap in the bible about god being a person though - that is awesome. Well done.
ok... I take back all YOU think is crap!
No - I am speaking the truth. Sorry if that offends you. I thought you said you were god though, so you have a different definition to what the bible says - so I suppose YOU must think it is crap as well.
Jesus, himself said, Know ye not that ye are gods? There is God, (the Ocean), and us, the gods, (the bubbles.) Notice the capital G vs the small g? (I only took back what was nonsense to YOU. It is not nonsense to me, obviously.)
Excellent. How many bubbles are there? Of course it is nonsense to you. You have misunderstood this passage completely. Bubbles?
Ye be bubbles?
Are you a Freemason?
If a person does good in the name of God, is it still a problem?
Depends on what is considered "good", and who is receiving the "good" work.
Well, if someone (let's say a priest) helps a homeless man, for example.
It still depends on what "help" the priest is offering and how the homeless man feels about it. To some people and to the priest it might seem good if his heart is in the right place, But to the homeless man it might seem bad because the priest is doing it for the wrong reasons.
When God made the world, it was good -
When God created man in his own Image, it was good -
When God said to man, you have a choice, it was good -
When man chooses, it is either good or bad, but it is their choice.
I choose -
John 15:18 - If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you.
Matthew 5:44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
1 Peter 3:16 - Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.
1 Peter 3:17 - For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
Philippians 1:12-14 - But I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things [which happened] unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the gospel;
Hebrews 12:3 - For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
1 John 3:13 - Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.
Luke 6:22 - Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
1 Peter 3:14 - But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy [are ye]: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
2 Timothy 3:12 - Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
1 Peter 4:19 - Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls [to him] in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
2 Timothy 3:10 - But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
Romans 8:35-37 - Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? [shall] tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Revelation 20:4 - And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
1 John 3:1 - Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Proverbs 29:27 - An unjust man [is] an abomination to the just: and [he that is] upright in the way [is] abomination to the wicked.
Revelation 6:9-11 - And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
Revelation 2:10 - Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast [some] of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
1 Peter 4:16 - Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
2 Timothy 3:2 - For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Hebrews 13:23 - Know ye that [our] brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.
Hebrews 11:25-27 - Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
2 Timothy 4:17 - Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and [that] all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.
Romans 8:17 - And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.
2 Timothy 4:16 - At my first answer no man stood with me, but all [men] forsook me: [I pray God] that it may not be laid to their charge.
2 Timothy 1:12 - For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.
2 Timothy 1:8 - Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
2 Corinthians 12:10 - Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
2 Corinthians 6:4 - But in all [things] approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
Bless you all of this world -- for those living through God, I shall see you again in the next.so Man and Woman put on fig leaf.
What you might call "everything in a nutshell!"There was a time when HP moderated forum posts that were copy/pasted and were excessively long. I think that these kinds of spam posts should be moderated too.
LOL... surprisingly he didn't bother me much. He at least mixed it up... It wasn't solid blocks of text that require 6 complete rotations of the mouse wheel to scroll past. (Nope... didn't read it. I own a bible... don't need it reprinted on a forum)
I think we are talking about two different people, because the guy I'm talking about posted lines and lines of scripture all in different colours.
Yes... I think we're talking about the same guy. He at least broke up the monotony of 100 bible verses by making them rainbow colored
when speaking of religion - it is always acceptible to provide truth from the source.
however, you comment with anger because you fail to comprehend the attack on morals being delivered by those who wish to destroy the peace and tranquility of the righteous.Not angry. Just tired of scrolling forever when you quote a book that almost everyone owns and everyone who has access to the internet can access.
There is no attack on morals... except by you.
You will have to explain your pride and lack of humility to your maker.
We were just trying to help you walk the path brother.you know, it is possible to criticize a certain belief without attacking the person who holds it. Why do you see every point against what you're saying as a personal attack, when (in reality) it's a discussion about all of the huge, sweeping claims and judgements that you're making. It's starting to sound like you're living in your own world and you're LOOKING for 'attacks' and when none are forthcoming, you just start seeing them where they don't really exist.
Secondly - I haven't seen any post against you that was in "anger" - unless you're claiming that, in addition to holding the keys to all human morality (which is untrue) you also have the power to determine what other people who you don't know are feeling - when nothing could be further from the truth.
Lab rat time...
What with medical...
Does anyone really wish to dispute that?Most Religion is bad and has a lot to answer for, in regards politics christians should have nothing to do with politics just like jesus had nothing to do with it because his kingdom is "not of this World" so for them to get involved is clearly wrong.
The catholic church is guilty of imposing it's beliefs in Africa for sure, they pick on the uneducated masses in Africa and tell them they are all going to hell if they use contraceptives which creates a major problem in the country...they are doing to Africa now what they did in Europe all those years ago and people are allowing this to happen!
Having said that not all religion is like this so i would be careful in categorizing "Religion" rather than just saying the particular religion that is to blame.Now you are just arguing for the sake of Argument
Obviously, I mean what if a person - who truly believes in God - gives a homeless man shelter or food?
I mean, this whole thread is weird: "God has caused more problems than it has solved." Sure, there were many instances where the word of God has been misused - even to a tragic degree. But no one seems to care about the good it does.
Please remember, that God is not the Vatican (and the Pope isn't holier than anyone of us). It is an idea that makes people do what they do.
If there was no religion, people would find some other justification to do evil. We humans are hateful and manipulative creatures. We were given brains to make our lives better, instead we spend billions and trillions on developing weapons, including those that will eradicate every living thing on the planet.So - you think a few do-gooders outweighs the behavior of the many in the past?
Show me that is the case. Make an argument instead of this.underground railroad..........
Christians who hid Jews during WWII
Christians who helped Africans flee South Africa.
And the list would be too long for the complainers.Too lazy to bother huh? K then. Weird - it was the Christians murdering the Jews that was the problem. Sorry dude. Please try harder.
I forgive you, just as my Lord desires.
Maybe some day you will find truth on your own so that you too will become morally correct.wait, wait I'm sorry - are you claiming that only those that not only agree with your religion, but also agree with YOU are the only ones in the world who are morally correct? That is not only arrogant and narcissistic, but blatantly false. You do not need your god or any other god in order to be moral. Morality comes from social queues and social constructs - not from a 6000+ year old book that includes slavery, stoning non-believers and homosexuals and the relentless pursuit of "witches" without cause. Please step off of your pedestal for a moment and realize that you do not hold the key to morality - and that many people of varying beliefs (or non beliefs) are just as capable of morality as you are.
People using common sense inspire of scripture to help those being kept as slaves because of scripture.
Like the Vatican? Most Christians watched because they wanted revenge because of the death of Jesus as was told in the bible. Ask any German or Italian old enough to go to school at the beginning of the war.
The Christians who entered South Africa and started apartheid.Some Christians who hid some Jews, etc., etc.
It does not help to distill the facts when you generalize.
and that is the problem... you think that there are only a few "do-gooders." It's just either you have a limited perception of the world or you have been manipulated by the media.
You don't see in the news how religion helps or saves individuals because:
a) Not every "saved" person runs to the media to report on his or happiness
b) The media reports ONLY the bad stuff, because that is what makes them money. Bad news + commercialsSo - you cannot show me then? How do you know yourself in that case?
Thanks for the condescending remarks about me though. It validates my opinion of the "saved."First of all, sorry that I may have sounded condescending - wasn't my intention.
No, I cannot give you any statistics, sorry. I'm speaking from my own, and the people that i know of, experiences. Whether you want to believe it or not, is up to you.Really? This was not meant to be condescending?
Right. Your perception. Your limited experience. I don't believe you - no - that is why I asked you to back up your claim with some information - which you completely failed to do. You certainly validated my perception of the "saved." though.
People from all walks of life and all/no religion do charity work. I've never seen any evidence that the bible can turn a non-charitable person into a charitable person.
In addition the law of unintended consequences has always been in full effect with Christians doing missionary work. Often they cause far more problems then they solve. In many cases through out history they have wiped out entire populations by meaning well.
In addition... in their quest to spread the word of Jesus they have destroyed the cultural diversity and traditions of tribes that were doing just fine without them.
Now... yes religion can be a great comfort to an individual. It CAN change them for the better. However that is only on an individual scale. Large groups of Christians have NEVER been particularly helpful.
Individually Christianity is great. That simply doesn't convert into Christianity AS A WHOLE being a positive thing. Most of that has to do with large groups of Christians thinking that smaller groups of NonChristians would be better off joining the pack. The "we're going to abuse you for your own good" thing is the kind of thing that sets people's teeth on edge."Individually Christianity is great." - Exactly.
By creating a rich and harmonized inner world, you make the world around you better. The more people do that, the better.
That's how religion works (or should work). That's why I wanted to make it clear "The Pope and The Vatican are not holier than you."That ignores everything about human psychology and the way people work as a group.
The larger the group of people that believe something the more likely it is they will stagnate in their beliefs. The more likely it is that they will become unaccepting of others that don't think like them.
It's like the "popular" kids at high-school. Times that by about a million and you have Christianity... as a whole... which is a different creature altogether as Christianity individually.
The phrase "Mob Mentality" really does mean something.Yes, that is why humanity is so fragile. Even if you take religion away, the "popular kids" will use something different to manipulate the crowd:
a) War on Terror
b) Race superiority
c) Class warfare
and other BS
The world can change if individuals change from the inside (that is where Religion comes into play).No... it really can't.
Thousands of years have shown us that only stagnation occurs in large groups. All societal change is brought about by minorities.
Anthropology 101.
History 101
Sociology 101
Psychology 101
Edit: Large groups of even happy people will stagnate.
Hey, speak for yourself buddy. Nature is cruel, but for the most part people are able to live in harmony.
Right... I really do not want to offend you, but a quick look in the history books should reveal how wrong you are.
Perhaps you can only see human nature through your own nature. I personally am not a hateful and manipulative creature as you stated. I can tell you this however humans are the only species that will follow a mad man, but calling me and my family and the rest of humanity hateful and manipulative because of the deeds of others is ignorant.
I don't see human nature through my own nature, I just see it for what it is. We fight wars, bomb other countries, throw nuclear bombs (even if that happened only once), kill each other over BS, allow our governments to hurt us and other people...
The fact that "humans are the only species that will follow a mad man" shows how fragile your harmony is. We allow our governments to kill civilians for the sake of "War on Terror" - a general idea that is absurd and ridiculous.
However, the reason why I like religion is because true believers (emphasis on the word "true") will most certainly live in harmony with each other.Not necessarily... As much as I dislike the Westbourogh Baptist clan I have never once doubted their commitment to their faith or the strength of their belief.
The believe in Christianity with all their heart. They truly believe they are doing God's work.
They ARE true believers.Hmm... I guess I didn't make myself clear. By "true believers" I meant who understood the REAL message behind Christianity, which is, in a nutshell, live in peace and harmony.
that's the "no true scottsman" logical fallacy. The history of christianity has been full of people trying to distance themselves from the negative actions of others because, clearly, they were not "true" christians. Catholics do it to protestants, protestants do it to catholics, protestants do it to other denominations, etc - are you claiming that "true" christians are the ones that agree with your particular position?
almost every denomination of christianity claims that they're the "right" ones - that they have interpreted the bible correctly and put it into practice within their own denomination. They then assume that nearly everyone else has gotten it wrong. "true" christianity is in the mind of the individual. I would go so far to say that there is no way to tell "true" christianity, since the bible can be interpreted to say and mean practically anything that you want it to - and I don't find it particularly reliable historically or today either."are you claiming that "true" christians are the ones that agree with your particular position?"
Is it wrong to believe that people, regardless of race, color, religion should live in harmony? Because that is how I interpret Religion, and I believe that if people will be in peace with each other, they will also build peace around them.I believe that too.
But I also believe that it is purely my interpretation. Other interpretations are just as valid. So yeah... True believers don't always believe in peace and harmony. True believers NEVER believe in peace in harmony in large groups.Religion as an institution, whether in the form of catholicism, protestantism or islam and more has been responsible for more discord and disharmony than practically any other cause. Getting a group of people together that all believe in the same god and giving them political or socio-economic power is practically guaranteed to cause harm to others. History agrees. You're now claiming that those people were not "true" christians - and that accusation would have gotten you burned at the stake throughout several periods in history. "true" christians are a matter of perception, and it never agrees. That's why there are over 30000 denominations of christianity alone - because even believers can't agree with each other - let alone those that don't follow their particular faith.
I believe that also. But - Religion has proven itself to generate the Opposite. You saying it does not is not really helping the conversation at all because the facts do not bear out your claims.
So that brings up the question of individual good vs. societal good. Obviously they are not the same thing... although they can be in certain instances.
Religion for me was a very good thing individually however if my church would be given political power US- as a group- would be a nightmare if we were solely responsible for making decisions.
However US as a small group have done quite a bit of good...Right. But that is not what we are discussing.
Well it's an extension...
If we were to remove religion... which obviously is negative in large groups...
Would the society improve or would problems just change?
If individual members of society can be helped by religion what would happen if that help was no longer there? Obviously that would mean no further religious conflict... which is an obvious benefit. But would the damage to a group of separate individuals be worth it?that's an interesting question that I've spent a lot of time considering.
I'm not one of those atheists that want to see religion destroyed or removed completely, but I can understand those that do. I think, however, that if all religion were removed from the world tomorrow, humans would still find another thing to be in conflict about. It seems to be human nature.
I agree that some christians are good people - in fact, most of them are. When you add political power to a religious group is where the trouble starts. We've never seen a world without religion, so while we can speculate as to what that would be like, we have nothing to compare it to - and it would all be speculation. It would be an interesting experiment, if it were possible to pull it off.Well - I don't think there are any benefits you can get from religion that are not available from a non-religious source. Can you name any?
For me personally...
Since the death of my son I have to hold the belief that we'll be reunited in heaven. No amount of therapy or pills will provide that relief.
As delusional as it may be to you I must hold that belief to function daily. And I really do hold the belief dearly.
I also had to have a degree of forgiveness that is unprovided by logical means to not literally kill the person that was responsible for his death.
In short... emotional issues sometimes require emotional beliefs. Logic tells me that I'll never see my son again. Science can tell me what is happening to his body as we speak. So far medicine has not produced a medication capable of rendering me emotionless.
In my case all methods except religion fail.Well - I don't want to get too personal here, because there are some people that will jump on that. But - I have gone through a similar thing and found relief in accepting things the way they are and my not being able to change them. I could not bring myself to accept the belief you have accepted, so I found other ways of dealing. I just cannot convince myself to believe something so impossible. So - in a way - I have found exactly the same relief you have without believing the impossible is possible.
No therapy or pills either. Pretty sure there are pills that will render you emotionless. Whether you can still function - I can't say.*smiles*
We are two different people though. I work pretty much exclusively on emotion. That doesn't make me stupid but it does tend to make me illogical as hell.
That is my fundamental personality and it can't be changed. It can be acknowledged and worked with but not changed.
So things that "just feel right" are going to work best for me. For you... not so much.
But I digress... what works for me will not work for you and vice versa.
I do apologize for your loss and I'm glad you've found peace.
No Sir. The real message we can gain from all those stories about a person, in ancient times, being ridiculed, falsely accused, unjustly tried and murdered by an angry mob, is that our human nature is the same as it was then..... varied in the extreme.
We have gentle, loving, self-less individuals who will bend over backwards to help those in need. We have courageous individuals who will stand up and fight when they see someone being unfairly set upon. Yet we have hypocrites; lazy individuals; unthinking and unintelligent barrack-room lawyers; filthy rich tyrants from all walks of life, who manipulate society for their own greedy objectives.
Not much has changed..... even ignorant religious fervour and arrogant mob rule.
How would you know who are TRUE believers and who are not? Even demons know of Jesus.
You seem nonproficient in what is written.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.Oh look... more bible verses.
If they truly believe in their faith they are true believers.Does providing source of my rebuttal upset you? Or do you just hate what Jesus wrote? Did you not read it? It is a rebuttal. Even demons are true believers. You go by the fruit. Do they love their neighbors like themselves? Do they give to charity or help the poor? etc
Nope... I don't read bible verses in forums. No one else does either.
I own a bible and have read it. You quoting me something I've already read does not in any way add to a conversation. It just wastes space.It does add as a source to a rebuttal. Because, just because you claim to have read it does not mean you understood it, obviously. The rebuttal stands.
Also you are in error. I read them. I understand though that Jesus' words are offensive to others.
Stand as it may it adds nothing to the conversation.
As such I see no reason to give it any importance. HAGD.
You have evidence that the bible was written by Jesus? I assure you Jesus wrote nothing. Decades after his life some people wrote about him. But Jesus wrote nothing.
I should have written " Jesus words as was recorded" . Jesus was crucified, so writing his thoughts and memoirs would prove a little difficult. Thank you so much for pointing that out. I am sure that was causing quite a bit of confusion for you and others.
Just pointing out what is commonly said about the bible. I makes a rather significant difference don't you think? To state that Jesus wrote the bible as apposed to someones account of what someone may have said or done written between 50 and 100 years after that second someones death?
He's wanting to be belligerent. Ignore him... he'll go away.
Just curious because I totally missed that part of your conversation, did he really claim that Jesus wrote the Bible?
I never said that Jesus wrote the Bible. I wrote : Or do you just hate what Jesus wrote? More of a typographical error, when I meant: what he said. Which I clarified.
I saw the clarification. I wasn't mocking you and I apologize if it sounded that way. I misquoted a misquote. I do apologize.
No problem. I do not believe that particular verse was personally written or recorded by Jesus, however on second thought, I do believe that some books of the Bible may have been personally inspired by Jesus.
Several were inspired by Jesus with the Gospels being different accounts of Jesus.
Not Jesus as the inspiration of the books, but a possible collaborator of certain books themselves.
there is no proof of that - nor is there proof that the gospels were even written by eyewitnesses at all (although only two claim to be) - or the people whose names are on them (in fact the large majority of biblical scholars both secular and religious now agree that it's highly likely that the gospels were NOT written by matthew, mark, luke or john)
Makes sense. I should have added "That's what the churches teach".. LOL
Understanding how textual criticism works for knowing truth of ancient history like the times being spoken of, sheds much light on these ideas. For the real searcher of truth, it is very impressive, the gospels. For those with a bias against, no amount of evidence seems to be sufficient. I don't know you or your interest or possible biases, but there is an unbiased and fair way to look at the gospels, and at the reasonableness of trusting them as ancient documents.
One can study the works of Shakespeare in the same way, and that was only back to the 17th century. The gospels fare much better for being from the time frame they are, in comparision. Granted, Shakespeare was not writing things down as an eyewitness per se, but this plays in in regards to authors and their works, and how complete they are, and how manuscripts works. (As evidence, and in textual criticism, etc.) You would be amazed how different it is for some far less ancient works of all kinds.
The best thing any one of us can do is not be too biased for or against anything, and let the facts speak as they are. With the extreme anti religious sentiments we see on these threads, I hardly ever engage, because so many turn out to not be about the facts and reasonableness of matters. Not speaking of you, I don't know your point of view, how you engage and your level of honesty when addressing ancient manuscripts no matter what they are.The irony here is Shakespeare didn't write many of his plays either... yet they are still attributed to him.
Did you make the comparison on purpose?I was referring to the manuscripts, how many there are, how incomplete they are, how many had to basically be fill in the blanks by others much later.
It is a good study in comparing ancient literature, and how it comes to us. The point being, people are shown to put a very, and even extra (really unreachable) bar upon all of Christianity, over and above everything else. This sheds light on the intentions of the people that do that.It shows they have a higher standard of proof.
That's not necessarily a bad thing... just a difference in thought process.
I believe Julie drew her conclusions from her education in theology. I've drawn my own conclusions on authorship of the bible based on my own education.Well yes I agree, if you mean they demand a higher standard of proof.
That is all anyone can ask, that all be as intellectually honest and fair to all the documents and consistent as is possible. This way, we all come to our conclusions for good reasons, not biased ones. I totally respect that when that is the case.
The Book of Hebrews has always been attributed to an anonymous source. Further, we are not talking about well known authors from the 17th century. We are talking about a disbanded and persecuted group of left over followers. They were fishermen and assorted occupations, not 17th century writers or authors. For them to have published some book at the time is a ludicrous notion, and would have been unbelievable if they did, nor has anyone made the claim they did.
And that's fine... as long as you realize that those things really do take away from credibility. If one is insisting that the Bible be taken literally it is only intellectually honest to admit that it's authorship is less than completely credible.
No- it adds to the credibility.
When reading Paul you can tell its more first person. On the other hand the earlier books do not read the same way. Why is that? Why do they differ in style? Is it believable that a disbanded group of left over followers who were fishermen by trade and who are now being hunted down and possibly waiting for a quick return of Jesus, to say- "hey lets get out our notebooks and jot this stuff down" . That would not be believable. Its more believable the way it went down.The fact that the books were written by different people really gives no credence whatsoever to their accuracy... however the fact that they were written much later than Jesus' death does lessen their credibility... just as testimony given years after an event lessens it's credibility.
And while the books are written by different people they were all edited several times well after they were written. The have also been translated from translations.
In addition language usage has changed and words simply don't mean the same thing now that they did mean then. That is a linguistic nightmare. You can guess what the original meaning was but you have nothing more than educated guesses to back it up... There's no style guide from 2000 years ago laying around.
Finally... and more troublesome... those editors had their own agendas and their edits would have been made accordingly.
The chances of the words of Jesus being the actual words of Jesus is almost nil.
One last point... and this is from my own observations... The language within individual books is often inconsistent. That can either point to more than one author or to heavy editing. I'll even give it the benefit of the doubt and go with heavy editing.You dont even make sense. The fact that the books were written by different people is exactly what we would expect since they WERE different people.
You dont seem to understand the message, so your point is moot. You think everyone in the NT should be book writers? Just whip out a copy on their presses? LOL You do not know Jesus. Although I am not an expert at textual criticism or ancient documents, I do have common sense. I do know some are dated around 60-70 AD.Your expectations are they should have been written in 34 AD and notarized. I wonder why Jesus didnt wait a few years and choose Daniel Webster as a disciple to suit your fantastically novice opinions? I am well aware of many of the translations, so what? You dont have anything.*Shrugs* If you say so. It was my fault for trying to have a rational conversation with you. My bad. Won't happen again.
I'll go back to ignoring you now.
Multiple sources backing up the same thing, from different points of view, generally adds to a case, say being tried in a court, not the other way around. This would stand true for assessing ancient documents. These documents in question, while not written immediately, are written very early as far as ancient documents go. People give testimony that can be true decades later, and it depends on if they are telling the truth or not. That they corroborate each other is helpful.
You say, "And while the books are written by different people they were all edited several times well after they were written. The have also been translated from translations."
What makes you say that, I am curious? They are translated from their original texts, as much as is able to be done, from my understanding. Certain bibles printed today, even reflect that sentiment when they make footnotes about some of the more recent manuscripts found that go way back, to not say exactly the same as they thought. Down the ages, great care has been taken to keep it as close to the original as possible. One need not even know ancient Hebrew or Greek, and study with interlinear translations to follow along word for word. You can see how they add in small words to make it fit to the English language, for example...but apart from that, you don't find the variances you seem to allude to, and quite the opposite. They had a very strict way of working, the scribes over history especially with such important documents. The goal being to keep it in tact as much as is possible. Open to evidence to the contrary however.
For these reasons and more, it actually is not a linguistic nightmare. We are actually very lucky to not have to guess at these things.
There would be much more in it for these authors, to keep quiet than to keep writing these things. I don't think it makes more sense to think they would write to their own detriment and stick to it to their martyrdom, if they were just editing for a personal and untrue agenda. If they are right, it is an agenda of exactly what it looks like, that of truth and sharing the good news for all mankind.
Sure, it could all be false, but I think it is more reasonable to think it is true with all things considered, and I know some disagree. I think things happen to look just how it would if it were true, and that is something no one can make true or false. I mean from the times they were written, until now. I think there are a LOT of distortions and Christian cults that came in over time to mess up the message, but the core seems to be very strong, and the simple message of Jesus seems to have great support with all things considered.
One more thing, when you spoke of different translations, I didn't assume you meant the differences from say NIV, to KJV, to NKJV, to NASV, etc. Those variations are very subtle and stylistic, and having to do with eras, and ages of printing etc. They can all be tested against the originals...I like the English Standard version for accuracy, compared to them all, because it keeps the best to the most to the originals as we have them, while still being readable. Assumed you weren't talking about those as problematic though, assumed you meant going way back, and people messing and tweaking things.I would not waste any more time. Theres no honesty or thinking objectively-HERE . Jesus would not debate this stuff, because it was about his life, not textual criticism or dating of ancient manuscripts or translations
THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THAT
Its just because they are desperate to discredit Jesus or anything about Jesus, not because of anything else. Theyd be in the crowd chanting to have Him crucified again if they had a chance.Correct me if I'm wrong JM but a major edit of the bible was done by the Nicean Council. They most certainly had reasons to change parts of the bible.
The main change would have been editing the bible to make it appear that Jesus was actually the same person as God. The trinity concept was basically an attempt to avoid persecution by the still dominate Jewish rule. The Jews had a problem with worshiping Jesus Christ as it violated one of the "no other Gods" before me thing. The Nicean council solved that problem by creating a triplicate God.
And yes one does need to know ancient Greek to translate a document written in ancient Greek. The language is dead today... We have no firm guidelines to go by in translation. That is the same with all dead languages. It's best guess.
To understand why this is so important would take a detailed conversation of linguistics that I don't have the energy to go into. You would get my point though if you took a sentence and ran it through a translator and ran the translation back through again. It's also why we can pick out spun hubs so easily. While one word can mean the same word as another it doesn't always.
An example from real life... A person was trying to say they pitied someone else and it came out as "I empathize you".
But I digress...
In addition... several people saying the same thing doesn't always add weight... There are certain myths that perpetuate cultures. People 100s of miles away from each other can be telling the same story-even without modern communication-through oral traditions and lore.
Now eye-witness memory does degrade over years. And while it may be reliable on the biggies it certainly isn't reliable on exact quotes.
Now... I didn't say the bible was false. I said it was unreliable evidence. Which it is.
Therefore you can not possibly blame someone for questioning its authenticity. Nor can you hold it against someone who doesn't take it literally. If it is evidence enough for you then so be it. But have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is completely reasonable for others to doubt it. Also have the honesty to admit that others will not and should not be swayed by random verses of the bible in an intellectual debate. Not if it failed to meet their standards of proof in the first place.If you do a study on the council of Nicea, what you will come away with is a respect for what their goals were, very likely.
No doubt people were producing documents to have a part of this greater work of the "scriptures", but there needed to be some method of ruling out some, and keeping certain ones.
It makes sense, that they needed a method for having a concise way of looking at things. Contradictory items for instance are not all created equal, for that would be illogical and truth is the idea.
If one is arguing against what the council did, you are in essence arguing for a larger bible that would very likely include many possible non truths... If you allowed any Tom Dick and Harry to "enter" in their texts, you get a mish mash of truths, and then commentary, other things, etc. That isn't what that bible is for, but they can still be studied for their value as any ancient book, letter or writing. Something claiming to be the word of God is a thing worth protecting.
Anyone can add the term, "Gospel of __________" What they did at the Council of Nicea was a thing I would expect people like you would be "for", and not against, based on my take of what your desires seem to be. (That being truth coming down to us, and not false things over antiquity.) That is my goal too, and that of many others. Good point to look into though for sure.
They were debating doctrines and what was true, over what was not. This came from many sources, including all kinds of teachings, and different writings, etc. Not all was created equal.I'm not really for or against anything and I don't really have any desires.
I don't particularly care if the bible is literal or who does and doesn't take the bible as literal. It doesn't affect my religious viewpoints in the least.
My faith is my faith and I'm pretty strong in it.
I am -however- honest in why I believe the way I do. I realize the problems with my beliefs... and as such wouldn't expect anyone but myself to believe the way I do.
I can understand why those who believe do believe and why those who don't believe don't believe and I will spend not one second of my life trying to change another's faith or convince them of my rightness.
I will however admit when there are flaws in arguments. It doesn't endanger my faith not one bit.Well, that seems a great way to be, good for you.
I don't have any problem with what you said there, and think that sounds smart. Wish more people were like that.
Flaws in any of our arguments are good to flesh out. It is good for each of us to see if what others are saying might be true, even when we disagree, and maybe most when we strongly disagree. This is what I try to do anyway.In theory that's what debate does...
in practice not so much.
Debate has never really been about convincing someone else. It's largely about understanding yourself.
Unfortunately we are human and can get passionate about what we believe in.Your posts are getting shorter. I am impressed.
I think if a person wants to learn about the Bible and the history behind it and the history of the development of bible canon they should actually study it in a scholarly fashion- not believe whatever an anti-christian cohort told them. Otherwise they come up with - claims of - oh yea yea, they edited the bible to suit some agenda. Its just laughable and nonsense.
The ESV is becoming the translation of choice for many Protestant pastors, replacing the NIV.
It wouldn't hae mattered what you wrote everyone here should be smart enough to know what you ment. They will pick you to death with stupid stuff just to take from the deeper meaning in your post.. Pearls - to swine... If you get me God bless you all.
Oh I know. But apparently it had to be spelled out twice.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/106250? … ost2317129
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/106250? … ost2317426Actually, I was just answering a question. With that typo there was the implication. I actually think Phoenixv has made some very interesting points that I actually agree with to an extent. So please don't take one statement I made out of context as me being in the same thought process as some of the others that are commenting.
It wouldn't have mattered what you wrote, everyone here should be smart enough to know what you meant. They will pick you to death with stupid stuff just to take from the deeper meaning in your post... Pearls to swine... If you get me. God bless you all.
God bless you too.
"....because true believers (emphasis on the word "true") will most certainly live in harmony with each other."
Until the neighbour paints their house the wrong colour; or the cat always carries on at 3 in the morning; or they get a better car than we've got; etc. etc.
Come down to earth, you will find genuine people in all walks of life, in all religions and political parties. You will not find a "god" up on Cloud 9.
The attack on religion today is the same jealousy that has happened in the past.
Those who wish to flee the bounds of moral society want to destroy the principles of moral society.
This jealousy then leads to disaster because the jealous individuals continue to enrage each other until violence occurs.
Moral people do not attack other moral people.
Those who follow the moral commandments of their God are peace loving individuals.
Those who follow moral principles of society are peace loving people.
Those who attack those moral principles of society are violence loving people.
When the human emotion is filled with immoral thoughts, the individual perishes because they can never fulfill the inner peace that will lead them to happiness.
The truth shall always be moral - while the untruth shall always be immoral.
Neither can be changed by man - no matter how much they legislate immoral as acceptible.
Corruption breeds violence - but honesty breeds moral peace.
This can be seen in the personal attacks on those who speak and write the truth on this site as well as many others.
Those who are jealous of my peace and righteousness will always attack me - sayeth the Lord.you use the word peace when describing Religion?
It seems to me that you are doing the attacking by stating your moral superiority.
At least he's fighting his own battle this time.
you seem to have a problem with comprehension of the words written with respect, peace, love, and righteousness.
when the truth is spoken, you need to simply interpret the meaning, not use your motive as a foundation.
Over 1000 posts! Unbelievable! I guess it is time for me to play...
"The belief in God has caused more problems than it has solved!"
Who cares?Maybe I should let it go. There are apparently people that really care.
I have told HP to not notify me as to this thread. Good luck with that...
What problems are religion causing Christians speak of Jesus love and compassion and unbelievers come out of the cracks to try to blame... mostly out of conviction and the many anti christ spirits that are working through them...When has living in the word and way of the bible ever caused problems
.Never only when people who choose to sin and deny Christ it is a problem.. Not believing In jesus. I just wanna do what I want to do and I don't want to be awknoledged for doing wrong so I will deny Christ... silly thing. We are still going to be held accountable before God.. play games now pay later.. The only way to heaven is through Jesus... God is so merciful that he sent Jesus because we couldn't do it and not just that but we can rest in him.. not only did he save nut sent us Grace to do all things. Jesus loves you all.. Still even in your madness
Related Discussions
- 461
The UNBELIEF in God Has Caused More Problems Than It Has Solved!
by Brian 10 years ago
Mark 6:1-6 says, "Then He (Jesus) went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this...
- 76
What happened to the separation of church and state?
by Rad Man 12 years ago
The USA is supposed to be a secular society, but the religion or faith of their politicians seems to be of upmost importance. Canada for example, is also a secular society, but their citizens don't care what faith their politicians practice. What happened to the separation of church and state?
- 11
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?
by JP Carlos 12 years ago
Do you believe in the separation of church and state?Many policies and bills being passed by the government seem to encrouch on religious beliefs. Also, the church has been very active in the state's affairs (at least here in the Philippines). Is the separtion of church and state still...
- 142
The United States was not founded on Christianity.
by Hokey 9 years ago
One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation...not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will...
- 55
What Is So Hard To Understand Separation of Church and State?
by Dan Harmon 9 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the same right. Unfortunately a court case resulted in the school board...
- 140
Show me where does the Constitution mention Christ?
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes. I swear to Jesus His son? No.One nation under God, ok. One nation under the...