Recommended Posts
Coreece 189
holy crap dude.....
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
"We didn't start the fire"
remibond 0
though i personally don't follow any religion and have no intention of changing that, i do realise it's benefits. whether or not there is a god (or gods) and whether or not he (or she, or they) created the universe or whatever (impossible to disprove and im not a fan of blind faith), religion does help many people every day.
not being religious myself, i try to hold myself to my own values and morals and (occasionally) the values and morals of the society i live in, rather than those preached by the church. despite this, i freely admit that if one can look past the vast amounts of bullshit in it, the bible (which i use for an example only because i've read it) does hold some very good moral messages.
but having focused on the positive sides of it, it is my opinion that religious teaching is also rife with contradictions and hypocrisy, or at least some very serious inconsistencies. i often discuss the concept of faith and religion with my friends, many of whom are religious themselves, and this is a topic we always get stuck on. in my view, any religion that stands on a platform of blanket forgiveness as long as they apologize cannot truthfully claim to hold people to a high moral standard, as it is in simple terms a 'get out of jail free' card. furthermore, i don't think it could be classed as moral to only act in a certain way because of fear of punishment or the hope for reward, which are in effect what the invention of heaven and hell metaphorically represent (the carrot and the stick).
but i'm tired of writing, and i've kinda lost my train of thought 
. basically what i'm trying to say that religion can be interpreted in many ways. though i don't follow one, i recognise they have benefits and see no reason to try to dissuade people from following them unless you can offer them something better
SkyChimp 0
Islam doesn't force itself on others?? Hmmmm.....
Read this and get back to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!
Read this and get back to us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!
RonD1120 58
Quote
Um... I quoted you. You said pretty clearly that God is good, and man is evil. According to you, man is God's creation. How am I misinterpreting?
Maybe this will help.
Jeremiah 17:9 (King James Version)
9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Man is born evil and wicked and must be taught goodness. You don't have to teach children how to lie, cheat, steal, hurt others, etc. They must be taught not to engage these behaviors.
Thus, we need God's grace or attorneys.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
RonD1120 58
Quote
God is the source of everything. He created sentient beings in His image, that are capable of creating a value based spiritual reality like He did. When realities conflict evil is the consequence. Many here have accused God of being evil because the reality depicted in the Bible conflicts when their own. When the value based reality we create conflicts with God's, the Bible calls this evil. The actions produced in that alternate belief system is sin. We are created to share God's wondrous reality. Those who chose otherwise are free to live in a reality of their own creation. I think the Bible call this alternate place hell. God is good. We are free to share in His goodness, or not.
Well said, I like that.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
RonD1120 58
QuoteIts important people get his spirit and not just his words. Ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near”. When you’ve prayed a prayer of repentance, accepted the mercy in the blood of Jesus, and left everything in Gods hands, there is nothing left for you to do, the promise completely takes over from there. This is what is meant by “obeying the message”.
Another important concept which is also somewhat difficult to comprehend is, no one can choose Christ unless He first chooses them. In other words, to receive the Holy Spirit you have to accept Jesus Christ of Nazareth as Lord and Savior. In order to come to the foot of the cross and accept Jesus, you have to perceive the beckoning of the Holy Spirit.
All we can do here is encourage folks to listen.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
kallend 1,621
QuoteQuote
Um... I quoted you. You said pretty clearly that God is good, and man is evil. According to you, man is God's creation. How am I misinterpreting?
Maybe this will help.
Jeremiah 17:9 (King James Version)
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Well, that settles it.
Or was the OT supplanted by the NT? Sometimes your contradictions are hard to follow....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
RonD1120 58
QuoteQuoteQuote
Um... I quoted you. You said pretty clearly that God is good, and man is evil. According to you, man is God's creation. How am I misinterpreting?
Maybe this will help.
Jeremiah 17:9 (King James Version)
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Well, that settles it.Or was the OT supplanted by the NT? Sometimes your contradictions are hard to follow.
The OT was completed in the NT. Just listen...hear the Holy Spirit speaking to you? Do you know how to recognize His voice?
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
jakee 1,254
QuoteJust listen...hear the Holy Spirit speaking to you?
No.
And I can't hear Elvis talking to me either, or even the aliens.
Sometimes I get a flash of something from the ghost of Hendrix, but that's about it.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
RackJR 0
it's long
easy to see every day. easy to see in the bible. you remember when i said something to the effect of "if it ended with 'love others', i would go to great lengths to defend your right to preach it"? it doesn't end there. god wipes out races of people. people come from god. people wipe out races of people. an easy line of reasoning to follow. very frightening for those who find themselves on the wrong side of god, or god's people. i'm glad you have the integrity to admit it.
you're right, i don't like the implication that those victims were collateral damage in a war. however, the logic you invoke here about acceptable losses in a war is another subject entirely. i don't think of the dark ages as a war between nations or a war between religions. if it can be viewed as a war, IMO it is only as a war waged by the religious against, well, anyone, whether they were "guilty" of anything or not. it was a war waged by the establishment to maintain the establishment. machiavelli couldn't have scripted it better himself. get in power and do anything you have to to keep power. they used the bible as their platform. others will use it again if they are allowed to. a different version is used now (the koran) for similar goals.
where do you get this? you've made similar mention of it before. no one in the scientific world claims that we got something from nothing. that's what religious people claim, that god created everything from nothing. the conservation of mass dictates that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but simply transformed. likewise, no one claims that if life gets wiped out on earth, that it cannot start again on earth, or somewhere else. i absolutely do not claim that life came from nothing, or that having vanished, it will never come again. i will claim that we do not currently understand the exact mechanism that sparked life on this planet. the lack of that knowledge does not lead me to believe that there must be a god to fill that gap.
interesting. i do believe that when i die, it's over. my energy will be recycled into the system as my body decays, but my consciousness will end. IYO, does a blade of grass get to carry on it's existence and go be with god after it's time here is done? a mosquito? a dolphin? a chimp that understands and can respond to spoken english (several of these exist)? i'm gonna guess your answer is no. why not? i think that actually the burden of proof rests with you, if you're going to claim that we are somehow different than every other living thing. the events after death are untestable. unknown. we'll know when we get there. if it's my way, we won't know anything. if it's your way, you'll know it carries on. you claim that there is a life after this one, with only the bible as evidence. your assertion here, if i'm getting it right, is that my rejection of that idea is costing me my innocence and my current existence. how, exactly? it would be my counter-assertion that i will not waste one moment that i have of my current existence pandering to a god, about whom there remains absolutely no objective proof of. if you are going to reply about the existence of objective proof, i look forward to it! let me hear it. i don't claim to know what happens when we die. i believe that my consciousness will end. most religious people do make the claim that they know, with absolute certainty, what happens when they die. it includes them going to spend time with their god.
if i can quote one of my favorite movies, "how grand it must be, to be the chosen one".... -professor snape
i'm sorry, but the fact that our brains have evolved to the point that we have more time to think about things other than basic survival does not also bestow upon us everlasting life. when we became self aware, we also developed a fear of losing the self. myths were created to assuage those fears. the myths have persisted and evolved, but they are essentially the same myths that have existed since the beginnings of self awareness.
who do you claim created the world and molded us in his image? who set it up this way? you quoted me on it, i'll say it again. i just don't get it. if we were molded in the image of god, how could he not have foreseen that so many of his creations would have terrible difficulty accepting the truth you claim christ brought, on faith alone? why would that god set up a system that allowed for the suffering of so many of his sentient creations? if you had a huge ant farm at your house, and you spent time every day burning ants with a magnifying glass, how many days would go by before you stopped to consider that you might have a serious sociopathic disorder? why would you burn the ants? they are simply living according to the balance they've struck with their natural world. why make them suffer through a death filled with pain and fire? and that's just one life. why make them suffer for an eternity of fire? is there anything rational about this?
i do neither. if there is no god, i think it's fair to expect that there will be roughly equal amounts of "good" and "bad" events. and actually i think that's exactly what we see in the world. i would go on to argue that absolutely none of these things are inherently good or bad, and it is only our subjective interpretation of those events that assigns some sort of significance to an otherwise inconsequential event.
absolutely will not work for me. too much of this life is spent hearing about why i need to live in fear. any system relying on a god that needs to be feared is the embodiment of the attempt to control others. i will not waste what little time i have in fear of the benevolent being that supposedly created me.
absolutely not what i claimed. i said nothing about the spirit of jesus working today, or then. it would be my claim that there is no such thing! what i'm clearly not doing a good job of conveying is my certainty that people of religion will always claim they are working in the spirit of the lord (whatever name you give the lord). the people of that time (the dark ages) claimed they were. the people of this time, whether they agree with their predecessors or not, make the same claim. what's worse, the bible gives all of them the ability to claim, with the exact same certainty, the exact same providence. everyone claims they are working within the spirit if god. you are claiming that now. other religious people would not agree with you, but also claim they are working withing the spirit of god. who is right? IMO you are all wrong. i'll keep talking to you because you don't seem to want to kill me for disagreeing. there are plenty of people today, and always have been, who are willing to kill me for simply questioning whether they are working in god's name or spirit. getting back to your quote. my claim was not that they were working in spirit of jesus. what i said was that they would claim, just as you do, to be working in the spirit of jesus. as does every single other person of faith. including those priests, right up to the moment they were expelled for abusing children. i'm sure that they will ask forgiveness, and then get right back to work. you say they're wrong, they say you're wrong. my only claim is that you are both wrong.
not a bold statement. the inquisition was carried out by the religious leaders of the age. it's an historical fact.
i understand that you see a difference between your belief system, and the way of religion. i also understand that you are in the minority in your interpretation of the bible, and i think you know that. saying that i'm not listening... honestly i could make the same claim to you. the fundamental lesson you speak of is apparently lost on a lot of religious minded people. in addition, we seem to keep missing each other on this topic. i'm not claiming that i know what the spirit of jesus is, or who might be following it. i'm claiming that everyone, everyone who is religious claims that they are following the spirit of jesus (or insert prophet here), no matter what their belief is, or how they act, or who they choose to kill in the name of their prophet.
nope. your assertion is that jesus died for us all. i'm telling you that if someone, in the name of god, is going to kill another for disagreeing with their belief in whatever god that is, a volunteer will instead offer their life. one life is exchanged for one life. the non believer is allowed to continue to be a non believer. the volunteer's faith is so absolute that they will die instead. i believe that if i die, my existence comes to an end. a tiny part of me (very tiny) can look forward to this event. my life has been about experience, and that will be another experience, albeit the last one. but since i'll get there in any case, i don't feel the need to rush things. you believe you will carry on and be with your god. sounds great. you go in my stead. not for all mankind. just for me (or whoever becomes the target of this zealot).
perhaps the crux of our difficulty. you all claim to be working within the lord. all of you. who is right? your answer is obvious. you are right. the others are wrong, if they disagree with your viewpoint. clearly they have not understood the gospel the way you have. the same way that you are wrong if you disagree with them. it will go on and on and on. factions. protestants. catholics. baptists. northern baptists. LDS. heretics to each other. the only sure fire enemy is someone like me, willing to admit that they don't believe in any of it. and you cannot deny that even if you don't call me an enemy for that reason, many do. all claiming authority from the same book.
other religious people who do not agree with you can make the same claim about you. you could be acting as an agent of evil right now. if you told other religious people your views, undoubtedly some would claim exactly that. who is right?
matthew
Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
mark
Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49
luke
Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15
Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5
Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47
acts
Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
my google search words were "killing new testament". the page i clicked on was the first one given
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
i left out john in the interest of brevity. they are all quite similar. and clearly, things have been paraphrased. but, are they all incorrect? is this what you asked for? i didn't bring a bible with me when i moved here. if you need exact quotes, i'll do some more digging.
you were defending your position that the inquisition was part of god's plan, and therefore contained purpose. after that defense, you went on to say that the men of the world who you claim are atheists have wrought similar hardships upon mankind. i replied that everything was either part of god's plan, or it wasn't. now you go on to say that it is not god's plan, but rather the deceptive agenda of evil men. who created those men, and gave them evil agendas? is there purpose behind god's creation of the evil man?
goes against what i was taught. father-son-holy ghost are all one and the same, slightly different embodiments of the same being. nothing to do with the subjective perception of him.
a very very far cry from plain language. i don't know how the quote from john relates, since we are talking about a plain language passage rescinding the law that homosexuals must be killed. i cannot find the quote from matthew. i looked at several different sites, all of them list matthew 2:22 as something about the ruler of judea and withdrawing to galilee. nothing at all about a wineskin. i'll assume for the moment that the wineskin quotation is accurate, and that i can't find it because i don't know the bible very well. it is not plain language. it is open to interpretation. it is vague enough that you can apply it to anything you would like to change about anything. or, could just as easily be an accurate description of what will happen if you pour new wine into an old wineskin, since they did use those back then. but certainly not the same kind of plain language used to condemn homosexuals.
avoids the statement/question completely. the facts must fit with your beliefs. every bit of information you process must be filtered in such a way that it will fit with what you already believe. what you believe will not change because of new information. my world does not work that way. my beliefs must fit the facts. if new facts arise that do not fit my beliefs, the belief system comes under scrutiny. facts are verified. the entire belief system is open to be completely discarded if it no longer fits the facts. i'll admit that i might find it difficult to accept a skeleton of a modern man that dates back before the dinosaurs. but if it was verified by independent scientific work, my belief system would have to change. yours will not. you will find some way to discount new facts that don't fit.
actually, it is for me to decide, for me. it is for you to decide for you. it is not for you to decide what's right or wrong for me. so many religious minded people feel they have the right to tell others what's right and wrong, as you do here. it is arrogant and presumptuous. whatever revelations you've had can dictate how you live your life. no problem there. when you extend that into telling others what is right and wrong for their lives, it becomes arrogant. presumptuous because you feel that your answers work for everyone. they don't. if someone comes to you and tells you that they like how you live, and asks for some help getting sorted out, then great. i don't feel like you've been too preachy in your previous posts. hopefully you can recognize what you've said here for what it is.
well, i did give it a chance, if you remember. i was indoctrinated into it until i actively rejected it. but what difference does it make to say that i didn't give it a chance? i'm saying it's been around for 2500 years and it is completely open for debate whether it has caused more harm than good. what about all the other people that have given it a chance? if it was such a great thing for the masses, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. and i don't assume that i'm not on the side of truth. please quote me when you state my opinion. truth is something i place high value on, and constantly strive to be on the side of truth. it's just that i rarely find it in the religious minded. too many hypocrites. :)
something you can apply to anyone you choose, if they don't agree with your beliefs.
since i suggested that we might have different definitions of free thinking, i posted one that i found which closely resembled mine. i'm not sure how you took that to resemble me trying to define love from a dictionary. you called yourself a free thinker. that didn't fit with my idea of free thinking, since while you were calling yourself a free thinker, you had admitted that you no longer question god. if anything gets to the point that it can no longer be questioned, IMO free thinking about that topic has ended. if i use a label, and the context in which i use my label contradicts your established idea of the label, we'll need to stop and clear that up, won't we? any conversation needs to have accepted definitions if we are to understand each other. using something from the dictionary is just an easy way to start. it's a generally accepted definition. i get it that you're using a different definition. but i get it because i stopped and asked, gave you what i thought, and had you explain why it was different for you. i would still say, having heard your definition, that you will either need to find another way to describe your kind of thinking, or perhaps follow up your use of "free thinking" with your explanation of it, every time you use it. otherwise those outside your belief system will probably be confused in a way similar to the way i was.
interesting. freedom to search outside of borders is another way to say exactly what i said in my definition of free thinking. perhaps you don't see it that you have placed borders upon your thought. you no longer question god, and therefore you've established a border beyond which your questioning has stopped. does this mean that by your own definition, you're not a free thinker on this subject?
not my statement, although in the context of what you were saying, perhaps that's not what you meant. in the definition i gave, clearly it narrowed the focus to specifically include rejection of religious dogma. i stand by that, because i think it is specifically this area that many people often abandon what is normally rational and free thought and exchange it for rigid conformity with established boundaries.
i really want to clear this up, so i'll run the risk of being boring and redundant, and apologize to whoever reads this besides you ryno. i fully and absolutely understand that there is a difference between the spirit and letter of any written document. the spirit is something that can typically be taken in only as a whole, and with something as big as the bible, that will mean probably years of study. with any single author, i would argue that a study of other works might be necessary. both "sides" are guilty of a peculiar habit, taking a snippet out of context and using it to forward their argument... calling eistein a religious person, calling hitler an atheist, or taking small portions of the bible and quoting them when it fits. the spirit is usually not contained in something so small. i get it. however, the point we keep missing is that all religious people, of all time, claim that they are following the spirit in everything they do. you claim that now. the leaders of the inquisition claimed it then. you say they weren't. i'm not saying they were, dude i would never say that because i don't agree that anyone could be. i'm just saying that they claimed they were. you claim you are. the pope claims he is. white supremacists claim they are. the guy who kills an abortion doctor claims he is. GWB claims he is. Obama claims he is. the crusaders claimed they were. you can keep telling me that none of these people were actually working in the spirit of jesus, but you are, and that's fine. but it misses the point that all of you claim the same thing. please address that, and not who you think is actually right.
in a couple places in your post, you talk about my inability to see, my pride blocking my path, my inability to hear, being judged, condemned. it's always struck me as a really interesting, odd behavior, which i've seen many times in the past from religious people. it can be summed up as "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong, and bad shit will happen to you". now, the first part i could be guilty of as well. if you don't agree with me, i'll talk to you, and decide if i think you're wrong, or i am. on religion, i think if you don't agree with me, you're wrong. but no matter what the subject is, i will not tell you that bad shit will happen to you because you don't agree with me. i might think that you are missing the wonderful possibilities of a life lived without fear, but i won't tell you that you're going to hell to have your skin burned off as you suffer for the rest of eternity. i also might think that you're deluding yourself (for reasons i can only guess at) but i generally will not state that, because most people will aptly take that as an affront to their intellectual capacity. however, if you don't come around to my way of thinking, that's fine... as long as you don't hurt other people, it doesn't matter much to me what you think. i'll engage in conversation with anyone, new ideas are always good, for both of us. so, again i'm curious if you see this how i do: you're listening to what i have to say, disagreeing, but then telling me about how it is a failing of mine which means i can't see it the way you do. it's my inability to see. it's my pride. it's my inability to hear. labels. i'm hoping you can see that it is within those labels and inabilities that you find the subtle condescension of the "righteous". by all means, present your ideas. outline the way that you see it. detail your reasons why. leave out the judgement about why i don't see it the same way. i think you'll continue to find that to be very difficult, because the basis of it is learned in the bible. the lessons in the bible are that if you don't agree with the bible, it is due to some failings within you.
ok gonna call no joy now. we've got plenty to talk about, and everyone seems to be tiring of the long posts. not that i did any better :)
Say what you mean. Do what you say.
QuoteGod is not all about love.
easy to see every day. easy to see in the bible. you remember when i said something to the effect of "if it ended with 'love others', i would go to great lengths to defend your right to preach it"? it doesn't end there. god wipes out races of people. people come from god. people wipe out races of people. an easy line of reasoning to follow. very frightening for those who find themselves on the wrong side of god, or god's people. i'm glad you have the integrity to admit it.
QuoteI know you’re probably going to be fired up about the “collateral” thing, but check yourself before you do that. There are many dying by the collateral damage we are willing to accept to protect ourselves from the threat of terrorism.
you're right, i don't like the implication that those victims were collateral damage in a war. however, the logic you invoke here about acceptable losses in a war is another subject entirely. i don't think of the dark ages as a war between nations or a war between religions. if it can be viewed as a war, IMO it is only as a war waged by the religious against, well, anyone, whether they were "guilty" of anything or not. it was a war waged by the establishment to maintain the establishment. machiavelli couldn't have scripted it better himself. get in power and do anything you have to to keep power. they used the bible as their platform. others will use it again if they are allowed to. a different version is used now (the koran) for similar goals.
Quoteand we are just going to assume that life just came into being from nothing, and not only that, after it “dies” or vanishes, it will never be able to come into being from nothing again?
where do you get this? you've made similar mention of it before. no one in the scientific world claims that we got something from nothing. that's what religious people claim, that god created everything from nothing. the conservation of mass dictates that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but simply transformed. likewise, no one claims that if life gets wiped out on earth, that it cannot start again on earth, or somewhere else. i absolutely do not claim that life came from nothing, or that having vanished, it will never come again. i will claim that we do not currently understand the exact mechanism that sparked life on this planet. the lack of that knowledge does not lead me to believe that there must be a god to fill that gap.
QuoteNot only that, if you or anyone else wants to assume, or believe in without evidence (I guess we cant call that faith?) that this life is all there is, then go ahead, it is only your innocence and your life you cheat out of existence.
interesting. i do believe that when i die, it's over. my energy will be recycled into the system as my body decays, but my consciousness will end. IYO, does a blade of grass get to carry on it's existence and go be with god after it's time here is done? a mosquito? a dolphin? a chimp that understands and can respond to spoken english (several of these exist)? i'm gonna guess your answer is no. why not? i think that actually the burden of proof rests with you, if you're going to claim that we are somehow different than every other living thing. the events after death are untestable. unknown. we'll know when we get there. if it's my way, we won't know anything. if it's your way, you'll know it carries on. you claim that there is a life after this one, with only the bible as evidence. your assertion here, if i'm getting it right, is that my rejection of that idea is costing me my innocence and my current existence. how, exactly? it would be my counter-assertion that i will not waste one moment that i have of my current existence pandering to a god, about whom there remains absolutely no objective proof of. if you are going to reply about the existence of objective proof, i look forward to it! let me hear it. i don't claim to know what happens when we die. i believe that my consciousness will end. most religious people do make the claim that they know, with absolute certainty, what happens when they die. it includes them going to spend time with their god.
if i can quote one of my favorite movies, "how grand it must be, to be the chosen one".... -professor snape
i'm sorry, but the fact that our brains have evolved to the point that we have more time to think about things other than basic survival does not also bestow upon us everlasting life. when we became self aware, we also developed a fear of losing the self. myths were created to assuage those fears. the myths have persisted and evolved, but they are essentially the same myths that have existed since the beginnings of self awareness.
QuoteVanity, conceit, ego, toughness, hardness, stubborness, rebellion, denial, and a false sense of strength and control.... all under a God of money, power, and deception because we cant accept the truth that Christ brought.. so sad..
who do you claim created the world and molded us in his image? who set it up this way? you quoted me on it, i'll say it again. i just don't get it. if we were molded in the image of god, how could he not have foreseen that so many of his creations would have terrible difficulty accepting the truth you claim christ brought, on faith alone? why would that god set up a system that allowed for the suffering of so many of his sentient creations? if you had a huge ant farm at your house, and you spent time every day burning ants with a magnifying glass, how many days would go by before you stopped to consider that you might have a serious sociopathic disorder? why would you burn the ants? they are simply living according to the balance they've struck with their natural world. why make them suffer through a death filled with pain and fire? and that's just one life. why make them suffer for an eternity of fire? is there anything rational about this?
QuoteI am far more intrigued by those who feel they have the right to blame God for his plan, but not thank him when his plan reveals blessing after blessing after blessing.
i do neither. if there is no god, i think it's fair to expect that there will be roughly equal amounts of "good" and "bad" events. and actually i think that's exactly what we see in the world. i would go on to argue that absolutely none of these things are inherently good or bad, and it is only our subjective interpretation of those events that assigns some sort of significance to an otherwise inconsequential event.
QuoteHe is the very essence of destruction and it is wise to fear him.
absolutely will not work for me. too much of this life is spent hearing about why i need to live in fear. any system relying on a god that needs to be feared is the embodiment of the attempt to control others. i will not waste what little time i have in fear of the benevolent being that supposedly created me.
QuoteHowever, I wouldnt assume that the spirit of Jesus was not still working even during this time you claim he wasnt.
absolutely not what i claimed. i said nothing about the spirit of jesus working today, or then. it would be my claim that there is no such thing! what i'm clearly not doing a good job of conveying is my certainty that people of religion will always claim they are working in the spirit of the lord (whatever name you give the lord). the people of that time (the dark ages) claimed they were. the people of this time, whether they agree with their predecessors or not, make the same claim. what's worse, the bible gives all of them the ability to claim, with the exact same certainty, the exact same providence. everyone claims they are working within the spirit if god. you are claiming that now. other religious people would not agree with you, but also claim they are working withing the spirit of god. who is right? IMO you are all wrong. i'll keep talking to you because you don't seem to want to kill me for disagreeing. there are plenty of people today, and always have been, who are willing to kill me for simply questioning whether they are working in god's name or spirit. getting back to your quote. my claim was not that they were working in spirit of jesus. what i said was that they would claim, just as you do, to be working in the spirit of jesus. as does every single other person of faith. including those priests, right up to the moment they were expelled for abusing children. i'm sure that they will ask forgiveness, and then get right back to work. you say they're wrong, they say you're wrong. my only claim is that you are both wrong.
QuoteA very bold statement.
not a bold statement. the inquisition was carried out by the religious leaders of the age. it's an historical fact.
QuoteAnd you are showing me more and more that your really not listening to what we are telling you about the separation of the spirit of Christ and the way of religion
i understand that you see a difference between your belief system, and the way of religion. i also understand that you are in the minority in your interpretation of the bible, and i think you know that. saying that i'm not listening... honestly i could make the same claim to you. the fundamental lesson you speak of is apparently lost on a lot of religious minded people. in addition, we seem to keep missing each other on this topic. i'm not claiming that i know what the spirit of jesus is, or who might be following it. i'm claiming that everyone, everyone who is religious claims that they are following the spirit of jesus (or insert prophet here), no matter what their belief is, or how they act, or who they choose to kill in the name of their prophet.
QuoteYou are telling me to do what Jesus did.
nope. your assertion is that jesus died for us all. i'm telling you that if someone, in the name of god, is going to kill another for disagreeing with their belief in whatever god that is, a volunteer will instead offer their life. one life is exchanged for one life. the non believer is allowed to continue to be a non believer. the volunteer's faith is so absolute that they will die instead. i believe that if i die, my existence comes to an end. a tiny part of me (very tiny) can look forward to this event. my life has been about experience, and that will be another experience, albeit the last one. but since i'll get there in any case, i don't feel the need to rush things. you believe you will carry on and be with your god. sounds great. you go in my stead. not for all mankind. just for me (or whoever becomes the target of this zealot).
QuoteThey are already blinded, and their destruction will be their end because they claim they saw, but clearly did not see.
perhaps the crux of our difficulty. you all claim to be working within the lord. all of you. who is right? your answer is obvious. you are right. the others are wrong, if they disagree with your viewpoint. clearly they have not understood the gospel the way you have. the same way that you are wrong if you disagree with them. it will go on and on and on. factions. protestants. catholics. baptists. northern baptists. LDS. heretics to each other. the only sure fire enemy is someone like me, willing to admit that they don't believe in any of it. and you cannot deny that even if you don't call me an enemy for that reason, many do. all claiming authority from the same book.
QuoteAnyway, deception is something you probably wont understand, becasue, you, like many have a very hard time understanding that evil can take control of you and make you carry out its purpose whether you want to or not.
other religious people who do not agree with you can make the same claim about you. you could be acting as an agent of evil right now. if you told other religious people your views, undoubtedly some would claim exactly that. who is right?
QuoteNo. That is what Jesus claimed, the same Jesus you claim they followed. But it seems to me if you claim they were following the spirit of Christ, then you prove me wrong with the Gospel. Ive already proven they were not, but you still dont agree, so now, you prove me wrong. In fact, anyone here prove me wrong in this regard. Show me how they were following Jesus. You did read the sermon on the mount? Please show me anywhere in the NT where the apostles urge killing, torture, and rape in the name of God.
matthew
Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30
Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So, does Jesus think that children who curse their parents should be killed? It sure sounds like it. 15:4-7
mark
Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11
Jesus tells us to cut off our hands and feet, and pluck out our eyes to avoid going to hell. 9:43-49
luke
Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15
Jesus says that we should fear God since he has the power to kill us and then torture us forever in hell. 12:5
Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47
acts
Peter claims that Deuteronomy 18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10
my google search words were "killing new testament". the page i clicked on was the first one given
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html
i left out john in the interest of brevity. they are all quite similar. and clearly, things have been paraphrased. but, are they all incorrect? is this what you asked for? i didn't bring a bible with me when i moved here. if you need exact quotes, i'll do some more digging.
QuoteYou didnt hear what I said. I said deceptive agendas. I believe the world is under a spirit of deception. It is the nature of evil man.
you were defending your position that the inquisition was part of god's plan, and therefore contained purpose. after that defense, you went on to say that the men of the world who you claim are atheists have wrought similar hardships upon mankind. i replied that everything was either part of god's plan, or it wasn't. now you go on to say that it is not god's plan, but rather the deceptive agenda of evil men. who created those men, and gave them evil agendas? is there purpose behind god's creation of the evil man?
QuoteNo they are not. Jesus is God, but not everyone knows him. Thats like saying Islam and Jesus are the same.
goes against what i was taught. father-son-holy ghost are all one and the same, slightly different embodiments of the same being. nothing to do with the subjective perception of him.
Quote(john 19:30).When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins. Matthew 2:22
a very very far cry from plain language. i don't know how the quote from john relates, since we are talking about a plain language passage rescinding the law that homosexuals must be killed. i cannot find the quote from matthew. i looked at several different sites, all of them list matthew 2:22 as something about the ruler of judea and withdrawing to galilee. nothing at all about a wineskin. i'll assume for the moment that the wineskin quotation is accurate, and that i can't find it because i don't know the bible very well. it is not plain language. it is open to interpretation. it is vague enough that you can apply it to anything you would like to change about anything. or, could just as easily be an accurate description of what will happen if you pour new wine into an old wineskin, since they did use those back then. but certainly not the same kind of plain language used to condemn homosexuals.
QuoteYou are way underestimating faith. Its not something I can just give up because Im pissed at the way God works sometimes. Its like hearing an “inconvenient truth”. Though it may be inconvenient, it is still the truth.
avoids the statement/question completely. the facts must fit with your beliefs. every bit of information you process must be filtered in such a way that it will fit with what you already believe. what you believe will not change because of new information. my world does not work that way. my beliefs must fit the facts. if new facts arise that do not fit my beliefs, the belief system comes under scrutiny. facts are verified. the entire belief system is open to be completely discarded if it no longer fits the facts. i'll admit that i might find it difficult to accept a skeleton of a modern man that dates back before the dinosaurs. but if it was verified by independent scientific work, my belief system would have to change. yours will not. you will find some way to discount new facts that don't fit.
QuoteIt is not for you to decide the path of wisdoms revelation of life
actually, it is for me to decide, for me. it is for you to decide for you. it is not for you to decide what's right or wrong for me. so many religious minded people feel they have the right to tell others what's right and wrong, as you do here. it is arrogant and presumptuous. whatever revelations you've had can dictate how you live your life. no problem there. when you extend that into telling others what is right and wrong for their lives, it becomes arrogant. presumptuous because you feel that your answers work for everyone. they don't. if someone comes to you and tells you that they like how you live, and asks for some help getting sorted out, then great. i don't feel like you've been too preachy in your previous posts. hopefully you can recognize what you've said here for what it is.
QuoteBrother, you never gave it a chance. You, just like most, assume you are not on the side of truth because of all the hypocrites you have run across.
well, i did give it a chance, if you remember. i was indoctrinated into it until i actively rejected it. but what difference does it make to say that i didn't give it a chance? i'm saying it's been around for 2500 years and it is completely open for debate whether it has caused more harm than good. what about all the other people that have given it a chance? if it was such a great thing for the masses, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. and i don't assume that i'm not on the side of truth. please quote me when you state my opinion. truth is something i place high value on, and constantly strive to be on the side of truth. it's just that i rarely find it in the religious minded. too many hypocrites. :)
QuoteYou can listen, but you cant hear. You can see but you cant perceive.
something you can apply to anyone you choose, if they don't agree with your beliefs.
QuoteYou gave me a definition of free thinking straight from the dictionary. Told me it matched the closest to yours. To me, its like giving me a definition of love from the same source, that was my point.
since i suggested that we might have different definitions of free thinking, i posted one that i found which closely resembled mine. i'm not sure how you took that to resemble me trying to define love from a dictionary. you called yourself a free thinker. that didn't fit with my idea of free thinking, since while you were calling yourself a free thinker, you had admitted that you no longer question god. if anything gets to the point that it can no longer be questioned, IMO free thinking about that topic has ended. if i use a label, and the context in which i use my label contradicts your established idea of the label, we'll need to stop and clear that up, won't we? any conversation needs to have accepted definitions if we are to understand each other. using something from the dictionary is just an easy way to start. it's a generally accepted definition. i get it that you're using a different definition. but i get it because i stopped and asked, gave you what i thought, and had you explain why it was different for you. i would still say, having heard your definition, that you will either need to find another way to describe your kind of thinking, or perhaps follow up your use of "free thinking" with your explanation of it, every time you use it. otherwise those outside your belief system will probably be confused in a way similar to the way i was.
QuotePerhaps freedom of mind is not bound by natural law, evidence, or even definition, but is also free to search outside of those borders?
interesting. freedom to search outside of borders is another way to say exactly what i said in my definition of free thinking. perhaps you don't see it that you have placed borders upon your thought. you no longer question god, and therefore you've established a border beyond which your questioning has stopped. does this mean that by your own definition, you're not a free thinker on this subject?
QuoteI still believe saying someone is not a free thinker just because they have faith is a false statement.
not my statement, although in the context of what you were saying, perhaps that's not what you meant. in the definition i gave, clearly it narrowed the focus to specifically include rejection of religious dogma. i stand by that, because i think it is specifically this area that many people often abandon what is normally rational and free thought and exchange it for rigid conformity with established boundaries.
QuoteThe difference is between the letter and the spirit, they are not the same thing. They were following the letter, probably much more deception (money, power, greed ect..) than your willing to give credit for, but they definitely were not following the spirit of Christ.
i really want to clear this up, so i'll run the risk of being boring and redundant, and apologize to whoever reads this besides you ryno. i fully and absolutely understand that there is a difference between the spirit and letter of any written document. the spirit is something that can typically be taken in only as a whole, and with something as big as the bible, that will mean probably years of study. with any single author, i would argue that a study of other works might be necessary. both "sides" are guilty of a peculiar habit, taking a snippet out of context and using it to forward their argument... calling eistein a religious person, calling hitler an atheist, or taking small portions of the bible and quoting them when it fits. the spirit is usually not contained in something so small. i get it. however, the point we keep missing is that all religious people, of all time, claim that they are following the spirit in everything they do. you claim that now. the leaders of the inquisition claimed it then. you say they weren't. i'm not saying they were, dude i would never say that because i don't agree that anyone could be. i'm just saying that they claimed they were. you claim you are. the pope claims he is. white supremacists claim they are. the guy who kills an abortion doctor claims he is. GWB claims he is. Obama claims he is. the crusaders claimed they were. you can keep telling me that none of these people were actually working in the spirit of jesus, but you are, and that's fine. but it misses the point that all of you claim the same thing. please address that, and not who you think is actually right.
QuoteSo, we are keeping ourselves blinded by our own pride, judged by our own mind, and condemned by our own heart and consciences, as the heart is given life through the desire of love, and dies through the death of it.
Quotebecause your eyes are blinded to the truth,
in a couple places in your post, you talk about my inability to see, my pride blocking my path, my inability to hear, being judged, condemned. it's always struck me as a really interesting, odd behavior, which i've seen many times in the past from religious people. it can be summed up as "if you don't agree with me, you're wrong, and bad shit will happen to you". now, the first part i could be guilty of as well. if you don't agree with me, i'll talk to you, and decide if i think you're wrong, or i am. on religion, i think if you don't agree with me, you're wrong. but no matter what the subject is, i will not tell you that bad shit will happen to you because you don't agree with me. i might think that you are missing the wonderful possibilities of a life lived without fear, but i won't tell you that you're going to hell to have your skin burned off as you suffer for the rest of eternity. i also might think that you're deluding yourself (for reasons i can only guess at) but i generally will not state that, because most people will aptly take that as an affront to their intellectual capacity. however, if you don't come around to my way of thinking, that's fine... as long as you don't hurt other people, it doesn't matter much to me what you think. i'll engage in conversation with anyone, new ideas are always good, for both of us. so, again i'm curious if you see this how i do: you're listening to what i have to say, disagreeing, but then telling me about how it is a failing of mine which means i can't see it the way you do. it's my inability to see. it's my pride. it's my inability to hear. labels. i'm hoping you can see that it is within those labels and inabilities that you find the subtle condescension of the "righteous". by all means, present your ideas. outline the way that you see it. detail your reasons why. leave out the judgement about why i don't see it the same way. i think you'll continue to find that to be very difficult, because the basis of it is learned in the bible. the lessons in the bible are that if you don't agree with the bible, it is due to some failings within you.
ok gonna call no joy now. we've got plenty to talk about, and everyone seems to be tiring of the long posts. not that i did any better :)
Say what you mean. Do what you say.
kallend 1,621
Nice concise post.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
remibond 0
It took me 20 minutes to read that I kept scrolling and scrolling thinking "okay, this has got to end soon...any time now" but it just kept going
Nice use of the HP reference though 
dmcoco84 4
QuoteBillvon: Sure they can.
No... no they can’t... “We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are...”
Without those words... without the Declaration of Independence, everything else is just a hearing of grievances to the King.
QuoteAgain, sure you can. Most slaveowners in the US believed in God;
Lol... billvon, you’re great.
The majority of slave owners prevented their slaves from learning how to read and write, and as stated previously it was also illegal, and in some states a capital offense. Had slaves been able to read and write... had they been able to learn, they could then learn they did have the right of freedom, and then could begin to learn how to set themselves free. Dred Scott is a great example, even though he lost... but something of that magnitude doesn’t come easily. It took a civil war...
See, in England... it went. God -> King -> The People. The King gave The People their rights... so he could also take them away, or change them.
The Founders changed that... God -> The People -> Government
There is only one sole purpose for government... to protect the rights of The People.
To protect those self evident, and unalienable rights... Nothing Else.
Quotetoday most atheists in the US live in freedom.
You’re Funny! That is possible, because of the US Constitution...
Religion is a way to interpret God... you don’t need to have religion to have faith in God. You have the freedom to worship what you perceive as the Creator in anyway you please... as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others... or you have the freedom to worship no God. But as John Locke felt... atheism, is irrational.
“Locke felt that a person who calls himself an “atheist” is merely confessing that he has never dealt with the issue of the Creator’s existence. Therefore, to Locke an atheist would be to that extent “irrational,” and out of touch with reality; in fact, out of touch with the most important and fundamental reality."
If your rights do not come from God... who do they come from?
They come from who ever has power, rulers, and those rights can be taken or changed at any moment. Mao Tse-Tung believed that “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun...” He killed 40 million people! Most were drowned in rice patties... or shot in the head.
QuoteQuade:
However, if you truly believe in science almost everything you find in the Bible simply doesn't make sense. For instance, science pretty much disagrees with everything in the book of Genesis.
Pssst... guess what. I’m not a Christian.
Not a big fan of Organized Religion either... I believe in God though, a higher power of some kind... a Creator.
QuoteLogically, if most of what a belief in God is based on doesn't make sense and there is no "proof" of God, then it seems a bit silly to believe in him.
Belief in God is not based on Christianity... Christianity is based on the belief in God.
The problem is, the majority of Americans are unable to separate God and Religion as the Founders did... because they have not truly studied the Founders. What I learned in public school... angers me now. If Americans were able to do so... God on money... God in the Pledge... God anywhere, would not be a problem.
Now... if we Pledged allegiance under Jesus... I’d have a big problem with that!
Or what if we Pledged to Bush... or to Obama... think that’s funny? Chinese children were taught that Mao was like God... and when they wanted to say; that what they were saying was absolutely true... they would say, “I swear to Chairman Mao.” In his power he crushed the Chinese people... and through famine, he killed 20 million more.
However, the Founders did feel that religion was essential for all people to have. For several reasons... and within that, was, the “Religion of America.”
Side note: In about a month, once the semester is over, so I have adequate time, I will be contacting my 12th grade Government teacher. A very nice man, hilarious... and quite intelligent. I remember he was working on his dissertation while I was in his class, finishing up his doctorate.
He wrote in my yearbook, by a picture of him in the activity pages on page 161.
“DAVID - Thanx for sleeping 90 consecutive classes in 1A US Govt. Perhaps when you wake up you will realize my liberalism is Correct. Good luck, stay straight, Don’t Be A HOT Dog and Don’t perpetuate the world which is sick w/lust.”
That first part was funny, because I only slept once... for he said in the beginning of the year, you get one warning and then he will kick you out of his class for good... he does not accept sleeping. Of course, it was wonderful having issues with insomnia throughout high school... and having him for 1A!
He loved to call everyone hot dogs and say the world was sick with lust... and in many other ways, made it fun! That is what a good teacher does... make learning enjoyable.
However, I do not remember what his, “liberalism” exactly was... I will soon find out. I hope to debate him... GRIN. Though I do remember thinking, he was an honorable man. I think we’ll learn a lot from each other... though he might learn more. GRIN.
QuoteWhat I would require though is some form of proof in order to believe in him.
Everyone’s proof is different... some it’s a book... life experience... a perceived miracle.
I have my proof. Not sure if I’ll share that... we’ll see.
Though I’m sure it would be found interesting... since it is rooted in science. I’ve explained it to my family... and some close BASE friends. It gets pretty complicated too... because along with that science... my life experiences. And I have questioned my faith many times...
But I’m not sure if I want to go there...
I’ll stick with the Founders for now, and soon... the “Religion of America.”
Oh, and M-Theory is very interesting. String Theory... I love physics and studying quantum mechanics.
Science blows me away... and I think that God has every bit to do with it. Just think... if the temperature was off by the slightest degree in any part of process... we wouldn’t be here.
Things are too incredible... just too magnificent...
There is most definitely a Creator.
billvon 2,380
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Science blows me away... and I think that God has every bit to do with it.
>Just think... if the temperature was off by the slightest degree in any part of
>process... we wouldn’t be here.
No - but some completely different form of life would be. And they'd be thinking "there MUST be a God! If the temperature was off even a little, we wouldn't be here. You'd only have dust or humans or something else entirely."
>Just think... if the temperature was off by the slightest degree in any part of
>process... we wouldn’t be here.
No - but some completely different form of life would be. And they'd be thinking "there MUST be a God! If the temperature was off even a little, we wouldn't be here. You'd only have dust or humans or something else entirely."
kallend 1,621
Quote
See, in England... it went. God -> King -> The People. The King gave The People their rights... so he could also take them away, or change them.
The Founders changed that... God -> The People -> Government
.
Factually incorrect, as is common among those educated in US schools. Parliament, which answers to the people, has had supremacy over the monarch since the revolution of 1688, and passage of the British Bill of Rights of 1689. The execution of Charles I is indicative of the (lack of) power of the monarchy
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
dmcoco84 4
Oh God... please give me strength...
I hate to have to say this bro... but, people like you, are the reason many people call themselves atheist. You make me want to go bang my head against the wall... just like so many others in my past, including close friends. I mean that with the utmost respect... but its true.
You remind me of the counselors at Triple R Ranch, a Christian camp that I loved to attend as a child... archery, 22 rifles, fishing, river canoeing, western style horses, and one even shared my name, Coco... loved that horse! Went both for overnight camp and with the YMCA day camp. In overnight camp, I loved debating them at bible study. I used to piss them off, and priests/reverends, because they never had complete answers and I often showed them the contradictions within their words.
It was great...
TLDR... yeah, tell me about it. I tried to read your dissertation, tried to read the post you were replying to also, and couldn’t even get through that. I skimmed some of yours... but honestly; I didn't see anything relevant to this thread... or at least to what I just posted... but if you think so, please, repost, just shorter and more concise...
But ask yourself this... someone who is turned off by the Bible and Christianity... do you really think that spitting out a bunch of bible verse and talking about Jesus will make any difference? I’ve never seen it too...
As for your reply to me... Yes, eternal life can only deal with the afterlife... that is unless you found Duncan MacLeod, the Highlander. I’m pretty sure we are mortal... and each of us will die.
I didn’t say that Jesus was “giving us how to live in a better afterlife...” where did you get that? And every prophet talks about how to live life to the fullest, and about morality.
So... he is God, the Son of God, and “He is Life” too? “Banging head against the wall!”
QuoteNo where in the Gospel did Jesus mention if you live this way on earth your afterlife will reflect that. Rather, it is our faith that inspires the way we live and the life in us....It is not by works that one inherits the kingdom of heaven, but by faith in Jesus.
See... here is one area of Christianity that always bothered me... so, let’s say Mother Teresa was Buddhist. She never accepted Jesus into her heart, didn’t believe in Jesus. So she goes to Hell? Joe Shmo blows up a building killing people... hey, like the IRS plane guy, but accepts/accepted Jesus into his heart, so he is saved and will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven because man is evil, flawed and Jesus died for us... for our sins, so all loving Jesus will forgive him.
Yeah, sorry, don’t agree. If there is a heaven/hell... I don’t believe in Hell as explained in the bible BTW... I don’t think you go to heaven. You don’t get to share “the bliss of Gods love” in the afterlife... you get darkness, or you get darkness for a time period, or you get some form of Karma, or something else... Shrug, IDK... I don’t really care. I try to live the best life I can... give my time to Charity... really looking forward to starting Habitat for Humanity again... been way too long! And when I die, we’ll see. But with the way I have lived my life, and what I have experienced in my life... I think I’ll be fine.
QuoteIf you try to live your life just so that you can get into a "better afterlife" or whatever, then your missing the truth entirely... and I do mean entirely. The "you" is understood as one hopefully.
Okie Dokie! I spent years debating about Christianity with a wide variety of people... friends and others... I don’t wish to go through it all again.
Christianity is one way to interpret God... it’s your way, a way that I have not found understanding through. It does teach people good morals... so either way, I’m glad we both believe in God.
And if there is a Creator... I’m sure he would be on the side of Freedom... not Tyranny. So that also gives me some hope...
And let me throw this in the mix for you...
QuoteNightingale: I am simply trying to understand how you, and Christians in general, can claim that God is good, but his creation is not. This is something that never made any sense to me.
Are you familiar with the Gnostic gospels, and Gnosticism... it is viewed as heresy by the Catholic Church. Whether it is or not... whether it is truth or not, I find it interesting how it throws Christianity into a loop.
“Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a “fall” of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.”
Hmm... that’s interesting. Or what about that movie, Stigmata. “Frankie: Jesus said... the Kingdom of God is inside you, and all around you, not in mansions of wood and stone. Split a piece of wood... and I am there, lift a stone... and you will find me.”
That comes from the Gospel of Thomas. What are churches made out of... you don’t need a building to find God... I don’t need church to connect with my Creator.
In a novel I own, Change of Heart, the Gnostic gospels are discussed... a woman is trying to make a decision and her faith is challenged, this is one thing that comes up. At one point it was said, that these gospels speak of, Judas, and how he didn’t betray Jesus...
Hmmm... Interesting.
Religion is not the most important thing... God is.
We need to understand God as a nation, as the Founders did... and through our own self-study we can pursue religion... or with other if we so chose.
But either way... if we let God and the Consititution be destroyed, freedom will be lost... maybe forever.
Shotgun 1
Quote“Locke felt that a person who calls himself an “atheist” is merely confessing that he has never dealt with the issue of the Creator’s existence. Therefore, to Locke an atheist would be to that extent “irrational,” and out of touch with reality; in fact, out of touch with the most important and fundamental reality."
John Locke is simply wrong here. I don't know a single atheist who "has never dealt with the issue of the Creator’s existence." It is his intolerance of atheism that seems irrational to me.
Apologies. It seemed that your first reply had a little "subtext" to it and I of course responded to that. Im human, im not perfect. But your inquiry is very similar to the one I was replying to and therefore my response is in that longwinded post. I try to teach the Gospel way it was taught to me. Realizing that no man can earn himself into the grace of God is a very powerful truth that even many Christians do not truly understand. Hence all the judgment against others. I dont think it is too far off to believe that only God is good, especially with our perception of what we think good is.
As I said in the post, there are many evils that are carried out under the cloak of goodness. I do believe that God created man, but I dont believe that we have the full perception of the true good in God. Its too good that we even doubt its genuineness. Also in the post. You should know by now that I get everything from the spirit of Jesus, and you should at least that there is a real love available to everyone that is expressed through someone loving you so much that they actually died for you... Understanding why is not near as important as believing and having faith in that sort of loves' ability. But according to the Gospel...
10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
[a quote from the post]... "The only thing worth teaching is that Jesus is the one who “baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire”. Its important people get his spirit and not just his words. Ask and you will receive, knock and the door will be opened. “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near”. When you’ve prayed a prayer of repentance, accepted the mercy in the blood of Jesus, and left everything in Gods hands, there is nothing left for you to do, the promise completely takes over from there. This is what is meant by “obeying the message”.
The questions you guys are asking in regards to a benevolent God allowing evil, and even giving us a knowledge and perception of that evil is a spiritual question. it cant be understood with our perception alone. For example, who perceives their own childs light more than the parent? Im pretty sure most people would give their life for their children, whether or not its actually true is not the point, but the point is that if the child is yours, the perception is different. Until Jesus is yours, you cant perceive his spirit. Another example, a child brings much pain and suffering at times to the parent, but the joys the child brings, from what i have heard anyway, seem to be worth it all.
The light that I humbly testify for is so great that I dont care about what evil is being used for, nor do I care what God is doing in the world. All I know is the light is good, and Gods love is worth going through death to find it, keep it, and testify for it.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites