Topic awaiting preservation: Let us talk about Prayer. II

Continued form http://www.ozoneasylum.com/25419

It left off here

quote:

---

So......because they accepted his story, it's true?

They would be exceedingly eager for someone in Paul's position to take up their cause. Suspicious, certainly, and most likely concerned over his strong-headedness....but still...
I was also under the impression that they *didn't* really buy it...

It was as big a boon as to christianity as Constantine's conversion. Do you buy his story about his vision of christ?

-DL

---

Dan @ Code Town

Come all ye faithful, click on "the Bible" then "contradictions".

http://www.cygnus-study.com/

This guys views and opinions are every bit as valid as yours, especially considering the subject matter and he does raise some interesting questions.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

An interesting source, and an interesting read.

Thanks for posting the link.

YW

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Perhaps some will also find this one of interest; again pretty straight forward, but considering the subject matter as valid as anything we 'hear' from jade or gid.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I thought you could only read posts, not hear them...
Do you have a program that puts on the speaker that which we type? If so, please send it to me. It sounds like it can increase laziness by a factor of about 5.47.

Hey, Warmage, good thought, and I like it. I think that this principal would be a little late to apply to the evolution thread, though...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

oops, forgot the link http://www.evilbible.com/

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Wow, that guy must really not like God very much. It looks like a really interesting website, Ehtheist, thanks. I bookmarked it for further reading. Unfortunately his comment about how most Christians don't read the Bible can be true. Many if not all pesudo-Christians don't read the Bible. I don't know of too many Christians who don't read it, though.

You guys do realize that a Christian is "one who follows Christ," and not just someone who goes to church, right?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

'christian', like any other name for a group of people, eventually becomes defined by that group of people regardless of original intent.

FWIW

And, as there is no god (in my and that site's author opnions), it has nothing to do with liking or not liking 'god'.

Of course not, how can one have affection or disaffection for that which does not exist?

Another interesting site;
http://quinnell.us/religion/bad/criminal.html

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Wow, that guy must really not like God very much.

---

Hehe...excuse me, I'm going to go into a laughing fit...

quote:

---

Many if not all pesudo-Christians don't read the Bible.

---

What the hell is a "pseudo-Christian"?

quote:

---

I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many Christians haven?t really read the Bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many priests and preachers don?t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love.

---

The blocks are mine. That is an interesting viewpoint. I think Bugs would disagree with that.

All in all, an interesting site - thanks for posting the link.

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-27-2005 06:47)

I don't think he could. A large portion of those who practice do so with and through thier church only. The bible is only used in those places. And in other parts of the world there are a large number of illiterate people who can not read the bible.

Dan @ Code Town

True Warmage.

There are a great number of people who are bible readers only and who don't practice a specific faith following, leaving scripture interpretation to their own understanding thus eliminating a need for a organized structured religion. I see there can be false and misleading and in addition, deception in many of these cases. Lack of prior history in the history of Chrisitanity in reference to earlier teachings doesn't give a clear view and right view of the actual message of scripture(s) passages. I don't believe man was meant to "live in their own little island" in regard to scripture".

Do any of you agree with this?

but past interpretation does not equal correct interpretation.

in order to understand things properly, you need to understand the context - you need to study history.

you need to understand the socio-political circumstance under which the texts were written, the circumstances surrounding their translation, the propensity for alteration, etc.

you nede to understand the agenda that those writing the texts would have had. you need to understand the agenda the people including the texts in a collection of 'scripture' would have had.

You can't really get these perspectives from an organization who's very existence depends on people agreeing with its own interpretation of things...

(Edited by DL-44 on 04-27-2005 20:24)

Some interesting other points of view on Gids fav book.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I agree totally with DL. If you are to approach the bible in a scientific fashion, or in a logical fashion, when taking the book and your faith critically you have to do all that which DL mentions and probably a whole lot more.

However, as faith and religion tend not to be things that are taken critically or scientifically it doesn't matter how you wish to use your holy book. If you have your faith, and you are happy with how you are living your faith you are most likely on the right track.

My mother is a religious person. She doesn't go to church, she doesn't read the bible. She definately does not want to think about the reason behind god asking for the murder and rapes of countless individuals. She doesn't even want to know that those things exist or are in the bible. She is very happy with her rosey picture of the god that she believes in, and she doesn't want or need anything to interfere with that.

Like you have said before Jade about being a servant and not needing to question. Some people don't need that at all. Some people are happy and content being ignorant.

This is again a difference in beliefs. There are those with faith that feel they need structure, and there are some that don't. I know some people who say they believe in god, and have never been to church and have never read a bible. Everything seems to come in all shapes and sizes.

Dan @ Code Town

It's not just about approaching it in a scientific manner.

If you want to know what things mean, you have to understand how, when, where, and why they were said.

It is very easy to take biblical passages and interpret them in all kinds of colorful ways, ranging from peacefully delusional to sadistically horrific.

And it has been done throughout history by groups large and small.

Understanding the context in which the things were said is essential if you want to go after the actual meaning of them...

But, aside from academic interest and possibly spiking the cannons of the terminally religious, what is your...OHH! I get it!

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

In my faith belief it was by the apostolic tradition that the church compiled which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This divine revelation to compile these sacred writings, we have to believe was thur and for divine reason. Guided thur the holy spirit, we believe no mistakes were made since the divine author is the omnipotent architect of life. God cannot err. To believe there are many ways to interpret scripture is to say God was and is out to confuse. God in the knowing, sets us up, gives us a learning tool and we are still looking at divine scripture in 100 different ways by saying this is what scripture is telling me. Does this make sense? Why? Because there is no guide? Or is it that persons want to be their own guide to scripture. Considering they do not have knowledge of the necessary background info or theological study how can they come to their individual visions of Christianity to the fullest? Yes. Christ comes to the simple minded.
But when more is given, more is expected. Some are meant to hear and some meant to be heard.

For us, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book only." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written mute word, but the word incarnate and living, given to us by the Holy Spirit. In the book of John, God assumes human flesh in the living. In OT writings, the faith had to rely on the written Torah to know of God and to prepare us in prophecy for the coming of the word made flesh. God does use written words to reveal who he is, and he also uses the living spirit who uses no words. But in order for Christians to get a clearer understanding of the faith, its is useful to study scripture to make the faith become more alive and they thus become more knowledgeable in their faith walk since they are called to evangelize. The gospels are the heart of all the scriptures because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of our Lord & Savior. So, access to sacred scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful and considered as a necessary tool of our church.
Its true DL for us to interpret the bible scriptures correctly, we must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm what God wanted to reveal to us by their words. In order for us to understand the authors intention, we must definitely take into account the conditions of authors time, historical culture and the literary word usage used at that time. Sacred scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same holy spirit by whom it was written or it remains "dead letters" that are of no value to the human soul. There are those who yearn for the love of study of scripture and those who do not. Even in its limited use the sacred scriptures when applied correclty give grace and peace.

Per my bible study guide:
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal. The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction". The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Constantly in our tradition, the church has use the unity of the divine plan in the OT/NT through typology, which connects in God's works of the old covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his Son. The church says we must read the OT in the light of Christ crucified and risen. For us the NT has to be read in the light of the OT. The early Christian catechesis made constant use of the OT, because the NT lies hidden in the OT the OT is unveiled in the NT. Typology indicates for us the a movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when "God is be everything to everyone".

We can use typology to in reference to: the "Flight from Egypt- Exodus, Story of Moses, Abraham's sacrifice of his son, Story of Genesis to refer to NT fulfillment in the risen Christ. But it would be a more longer post. But it would give a spiritual version of the OT stories when applied to in the NT fulfillment.

quote:

---

To believe there are many ways to interpret scripture is to say God was and is out to confuse.

---

No, it means that god had nothing to do with it in the first place.

And once again, I must point out that there were countless boks of 'scripture' around in early christianity. It was not until the fourth century that there was any one definitive collection, and even that collection which we now call the bible was not affrimed in doctrine by the church as the definitive colelction until the 16th century or so.

It was also, for the record, first referred to in such form by the bishop of alexandria, and not rome.

It is also worth noting that many aspects of it were hotly contested then, and for quite some time afterward. We have large groups, part of the catholic church, still using the gospel of thomas in the 7th century in europe.

The revelation of John came very close to being excluded - many significant groups among the proto-orthodox thought it purely fraudulent, for what should be obvious reasons.

The 4 gospels themeselves present very different views of the basic things, like "is jesus god" and the like. You'd think something that is *that* important to what your religion has become would be spelled out very clearly right from the get-go - but it wasn't.
John, beleived by most scholars to have been brought into its final form around the turn of the 1st -> 2nd century, is the first clear mention we have of Jesus = god.

As for the text from your bible study guide...
If that is supposed help make things clearer, you have my sympathy. What a load of garbled nonsense!

Yeah the bible study stuff, just made my head spin. Maybe that was the point.

DL's first line sums it up for me.

There are so many contridictions in the bible. There are so many places where a single event is described happening in so many different ways. How is one supposed to recocile those things?

You can come up with many very fantastic reason for such things to occur. I am a bit different I tend to accept the obvious reasons instead of coming up with something fantastic.

If it were that important it should be spelled out. But it is not. The fact that we can even have an arguement of this type makes it very apparent that it is not spelled out clearly. There this is room for debate and interpretation, as clearly we are doing that right now.

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

If it were that important it should be spelled out. But it is not. The fact that we can even have an arguement of this type makes it very apparent that it is not spelled out clearly.

---

Very well said! Assuming such information was direct from a god, you would think that it would be perfectly understandable, and not subject to any misconceptions or needing interpretation.

It could have put the information in mathematical form, for example.

The fact that it is not perfectly understandable, the fact that it is subject to nisconceptions and needs interpretation (and is subject to) only shows that it is a man-made construct.

quote:

---

The fact that it is not perfectly understandable, the fact that it is subject to nisconceptions and needs interpretation (and is subject to) only shows that it is a man-made construct.

---

You miss my point. Scripture is comprehendalble in light of the translation regarding the original intent of scripture. You can go to where you want to go with your own meaning if its up to you outside of the realms of where its meaning was intented. Meaning outside the church, the translation loses its foundation of truth. Its text wasn't meant to be be understood loosly.

(Edited by jade on 04-28-2005 21:37)

I think I almost get your point Jade.

Could you point out how this might be effected with a couple of examples. Say how someone outside the church might misunderstand, but how based on the churches teaching it actually retains its foundation of truth?

Dan @ Code Town

quote:

---

You can go to where you want to go with your own meaning if its up to you outside of the realms of where its meaning was intented.

---

The point is, the "meaning that was intended" is at best hard to say.

The catholic church has their opinion, other churches have theirs, and plenty of individuals have theirs.

The church being old does not make them right.

There are plenty of imiportant points in my previous post regarding this issue.

Bottom line is that things are simply not spelled out clearly, and very basic issues, such as the nature of jesus, are represented in different ways both in scripture and throughout the evolution of church doctrine. Many proto-orthodox doctrines were later proclaimed heretical as more complex views on the nautre of jesus evolved, as the theology was created by the followers of jesus, over the course of centuries.

Furthermore, the 'meaning which was intended' has doubtless changed countless times over the millenia.

So much so, that we can likely say with confidence today the the 'meaning which was intended' is whatever the current interpretor wants it to be.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

You can go to where you want to go with your own meaning if its up to you outside of the realms of where its meaning was intented.

---

NO.

It could have been done in mathematical form (or another, that is even more "perfect" - after all, it is supposed to be a god here). That way the information, meaning, and intention can not be misinterpreted!

Language mostly has no great error checking functions. There are a few, like articles that have certain endings, according to gender, number, and specific/general. With time and translation, information gets lost, misrepresented, and skewed.

Some methods of presenting information, however, do have redundency checking, error checking, etc. Math is one of them. I'm sure a perfect being like a god could create a language capable of doing the same.

Now, WHY would this perfect being put its message in a form that it knows will turn out incredibly difficult to understand, is subject to error, and will be translated multiple times?

Again, one begins to follow what WarMage posted

quote:

---

You can come up with many very fantastic reason for such things to occur. I am a bit different I tend to accept the obvious reasons instead of coming up with something fantastic.

---

However, in this case, it is obvious that a god didn't have a hand in these things (either that, or the god in question is not all powerful, omnescient, etc).

Perhaps DL and WS' cogent points have in fact been considerd by the religious manipulators? This would certainly explain why tele-evangelists thrive so. The complimentary explanation to that phenomenon, is provided by jade in particular, who exemplifies the gullibility of the masses.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Could you point out how this might be effected with a couple of examples. Say how someone outside the church might misunderstand, but how based on the churches teaching it actually retains its foundation of truth?

---

Ok. I will give some examples. But it will have to be later. I am going out of town. Will do is as soon as I can.

quote:

---

Now, WHY would this perfect being put its message in a form that it knows will turn out incredibly difficult to understand, is subject to error, and will be translated multiple times

---

The difficulty to understand scripture depends on who or what institution you ask what it means or reveals. Protestants say "this is what scripture reveals to me" or "this is what I see" or they tell others "let me tell you what it means". This shows the concept of "bible only" faith has no foundation. The bible cannot stand alone. And it was not meant to stand alone as a "sole" basis of faith. Thru tranaslations, depending on which bible version you read you could get a different revelation per somebody. This is not how the sacred scriptures were meant to be taken.

(Edited by jade on 04-29-2005 23:09)

quote:

---

This is not how the sacred scriptures were meant to be taken.

---

But again Jade... you are saying 'we the catholics have got it right.' And all the other xian sects are saying... 'no... we've got it right.' Neither can prove the other wrong. Ever.

They are all wrong.

There, it is settled.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

(Of note, I am not longer a "believer.")

This proposed "diffuculty" in understanding scripture stems not from "revelation" to any specific institution, but a personal agenda of such an institution or person. Also: superstition and tradition. For example, Catholic belief in transubstantiation, papal infalliability, etcetera, are unsupported biblically. They are the result of some augmentation to scripture, and the Catholic church itself sways largely from the scriptural and early church. (I think specifically of Paul).

However NoJive is incorrect as well: you can prove others wrong, and have. If only scripture - even apocrypha - is accepted, transubstatiation, the priesthood, a centralized church, the papacy, confession, or the myriad other number of Catholic traditions, should be discarded. Luther saw a direct contradiction in the selling of Indulgences, however the Protestant tradition has always been a scriptural "roots" movement. The Bible was meant to be taken alone, as Jesus' teachings (supposedly) gave direct instruction on living life on this earth; of course, Jewish culture must be considered, but the general idea was to provide a template (of sorts) which would apply to any culture, in any time period. I see not problem with viewing the Bible as the only "world of God," if God does exist. There is no indication of any addition within the Bible, and it would appear that most additions from the Catholic church are meant, in some form, to amplify either spiritual or political power of an already hegemonious institution.

WS: The Bible is fairly clear; or at least, the commands and parables are made clear. Obviously, a mathematical approach (or some more specific approach) isn't appropriate when the audience is considered. Parables are easily understandable, as are commands. I think the actual question is: "Why would this "perfect being" put its message in an easily understandable form to be interpreted by falliable and corruptable humans."

And even though I agree with you on many points, Etheist, you have about as much tact and demure as an elephant. =p

In any case, it's late. If I'm full of shit, ignore me.

(Edited by cfb on 04-30-2005 09:07)

quote:

---

WS: The Bible is fairly clear; or at least, the commands and parables are made clear. Obviously, a mathematical approach (or some more specific approach) isn't appropriate when the audience is considered. Parables are easily understandable, as are commands. I think the actual question is: "Why would this "perfect being" put its message in an easily understandable form to be interpreted by falliable and corruptable humans."

---

I disagree vehemenently. I said either mathematically or another type of form that has perfect error correction built in.

quote:

---

Parables are easily understandable, as are commands.

---

That is simply not true. They also suffer from the same flaws - translation and interpretation.

Look : 1+1=2

A pretty straightforward mathematical statement. It includes error correction and the ability to test for errors.

Doesn't anyone on this board study languages and error correction?

Pick up the trilogy from David Brin - the Uplift trilogy Brightness Reef, Infinity's Shore and Heaven's Reach. He does a very good job of explaining languages and error correction systems (among other things).

quote:

---

I think the actual question is: "Why would this "perfect being" put its message in an easily understandable form to be interpreted by falliable and corruptable humans."

---

the answer is pretty simple; God is God and he will have mercy on whom he chooses. Jesus spoke in parables for the very reason that some should NOT understand.

quote:

---

The Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered. And the vision of all has become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he sayeth, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he sayeth, I am not learned.

---

quote:

---

They have not known nor understood; for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts that they cannot understand

---

cfb: sorry to hear that you no longer believe -maybe you are just doubting - it's understandable.

quote:

---

God is God and he will have mercy on whom he chooses. Jesus spoke in parables for the very reason that some should NOT understand.

---

That is the stupidest explanation that I have ever heard.

Your god supposedly wants us to have a choice. That has nothing to do with garbling the message into supposition, misinterpretation, and mistranslation.

You are saying that some, irregardless of choice, are doomed to be damned.

Like you know what Jesus personally meant - you met him, right?

Out, that is some of the lamest self-justification I have ever read and remember both god and jade post here.


CFB I seldom use tact and am never demure.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

you want to hear stupid?

of course there's choice, but what about dead babies or retarded people or other people with not enough intelligence to understand and make a choice? maybe some of them already chose before they were born.

and what about all the people through the ages who never heard of God or a bible?

could it be that some people are blinded so they will not make the wrong choice?

then there's the elect, who were chosen beforehand to be servants of God.

why restrict yourself to the choice of having to choose?

Yup, you were right, that was about a stupid as stupid gets.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

cfb said:

(Of note, I am not longer a "believer.")

---

Why, did something bad happen?

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Neither can prove the other wrong. Ever.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

both god and jade post here.

---

Watch it E-man. Some one might take your antics against believers as antics against the god they believe in. Do you know much about Lucretius or did you just like his quote?

WS, I don't know if mathematics could be used in interpretation of the Bible, but if it could, that would be preferable to everyone running around with heads cut off.

One thing I believe is that aside from big things like the Resurrection, the life and beliefs of a believer are extremely personal. Jesus said that He sent the Holy Spirit down to us. If that is true, then the Holy Spirit is working with each one individually. That might account for why there are so many interpretations.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Care to explain how the Holy Spirit working with each of us accounts for these varied interpretations? I don't get that one at all.

Dan @ Code Town

if the holy spirit - which bibically speaking does not generally "work with" people as a whole - it 'enters into' people to spread the word of god on an individual basis....those who are considered prophets are considered to have had the holy spirit in them - were actually 'working with each one individually' then it should be that the message would be completely universal.

If we're all being told the same thing by the same divinity...it should be crystal clear.

There are homes full of nice people who are filled with the holy spirit and other odd things.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Found anything out about Lucretius yet, E-man?

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 6:1
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

John 14:26
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

Titus 3:5
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

2 Peter 1:21
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

---

^A little scripture about the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is within each and every believer. If you have the Holy Spirit, you are a Christian. If you do not have it, you are not a Christian. Many, however, do not allow the Spirit to have full reign in their lives. The Spirit tries to help out in everything that we do, however, some shove Him out. When that happens different interpretations of Scripture happens. At least, that is my theory. I truly do not know why there are so many who have different interpretations, I am just a man.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

If we're all being told the same thing by the same divinity...it should be
crystal clear.

---

Scriptures have a different emphasis for different people. For instance, I used to be (and still am a little) heavy in the lust department. THose key passages stick out to me about lust etc. To someone else they may skim over those passages, and take more emphasis on others. This is where, I believe, the Holy Spirit leads people. He takes them to the perfect scripture to help them overcome the struggles in their life (in addition to other things...).

However, like I said before, there are pseudo-Christians who give the Christian Church a bad name. In Revelation, Jesus talks about "Jews who are not Jews" being the instigators of evil and seperation in the Church. He says that they are from the Devil. Are they people or demons? Probably people. Although, some just mascarade as Christians. Those are the pseudo-Christians.

You do know that a Christian is a "follower of Christ," right? You can't be a Christian if you don't follow Christ. There are some who follow the Church, Saints, idols, lovers, etc. and are not Christians. Just to let you know.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

In Revelation, Jesus talks about "Jews who are not Jews" being the instigators of evil and seperation in the Church. He says that they are from the Devil. Are they people or demons? Probably people. Although, some just mascarade as Christians. Those are the pseudo-Christians.

---

Uhhh...hate to break this to you, Gid, but the Jews don't believe in Jesus.

So...what does "Jews who are not jews" have to do with "psuedo-christians"?

They mascarade as Christians?

And what does any of that have to do with the idea of the holy-ghost giving everyone different messages about god....?

quote:

---

There are some who follow the Church, Saints, idols, lovers, etc. and are not Christians. Just to let you know.

---

Gideon

On what authority do you come to this conculsion? I try to emulate the saints. I follow a church. Who specifically are you referring to.?

Those who only do that. As long as you still have Jesus, it is okay, but if you only have those things, it is bad.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Sorry, I was in a rush there Jade. In the Bible it says that Jesus is sufficient to fulfill everything you need. Now, everything else you tack on is extra, and some of it is good, like going to church, or emulating the saints as role models. I am probably one of the few Baptists that you will run into that thinks Catholicism is an okay religion, as long as Jesus is the center. If that is the story, I would rather people be Baptist, but I understand that other's views differ from mine. I think I learned that most from this forum...

But there are some people who go to church for church, and not Jesus. There are some that worship the saints, not to try and learn from them, but to ask them to grant wishes and favors. I personally believe that Jesus is the only one who can pour supernatural blessings. Although, I have witnessed some cool things through a video screen that a Saint has supposedly done. Pretty cool, I thought.

Hey Jade, who do you consider saints?

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

Uhhh...hate to break this to you, Gid, but the Jews don't believe in Jesus.

---

Some do. All the disciples were Jews, and most all the early Christians were Jews. And just because you believe in Jesus, doesn't mean you stop being a Jew.

Christians are actually Jews. It is a really neat proof that Paul did in his letter to the Romans. I read it once, and I have not been able to find it again. Maybe it was in a different letter, or maybe I am not looking hard enough, but I do know it is there.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

So...what does "Jews who are not jews" have to do with
"psuedo-christians"? They mascarade as Christians?

---

Kinda. They are called instruments of Satan. They are used to disbar the Christian churches of Ephesus and Smyrna by Satan. I believe that they are not demoninc Satanic worshipers like others feel, since elsewhere in the Bible it says that to have Satan as you master, you simply don't have God as your master. (Satan can embody many things like addiction, money, lust, etc.) They are most likely just those who try and lead the church who really don't have the Head (Jesus) as the Head.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

And just because you believe in Jesus, doesn't mean you stop being a Jew.

---

Well not from an 'ethnicity'(birth) perspective if you will but, if you're talking religion you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

If what you were trying to convey is that there are Jews who are athiests, baptists, presbeterians and agnostics....you would be correct. But if you are a 'practicing' Jew... there is no christmas.

Jesus was clear when He said that He did not come to abolish the Law, but fulfill it. Well, if you believe what Mark wrote from eyewitness accounts is true, of course. Even so, if you don't believe that the Bible is true, then why can't practicing Jews be Christians? There is a person on another forum I met who goes to a Jewish-Christian church. Your answer is partially right for them. They don't celebrate Christmas on December 25, but every day! As I celebrate it, too.

They have a totally different outlook to Christianity because it is centered in the outlook of a Jew. The way he described it, amazing...

I would go to one of those churches, but I'm more into the Early Church instead of the Early Religion.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

christians are *not* 'actually jews'.

Paul himself was the main proponent of the idea that to be a christian one did not need to become a jew, or follow jewish law.

There were a great many followers who were very adamant that to be a christian, one must first follow the jewish traditions (which was still open to anyone who wished to do so).

But the proto-orthodox realized that such a requirement would not be very attractive to the non-jews...and so they did away with that concept.

By the end of the 1st century, the gap between christians and jews was already very wide (unlike earlier in the 1st century, when christianity was considered but one of the may jewish sects).

Very true, all of it, but not complete. Mmy Bible indicates the two words used for Jew and Gentile. The word for Jew literally meant "circumcised." And the word for Gentile literally meant "uncircumcised." Now many mistake Paul's words "Gentiles do not need to be circumcised" as meaning that they do not need to be Jews (go under all Jewish law). Not neccessarily. Paul was a man about inclusion. He (and Peter BTW) got the idea that Gentiles could become Christians. The main difference was that Peter thought they should be circumcised first. Paul said that they were to be circumcised of the spirit, not the flesh. Then he went on to say how some Jews didn't act like they were cicrumcised.

You can take from that what you want, but the proof (like geometry proof, not evidence proof) I was talking about earlier from Paul basically says that: Jesus was circumcised->we die and are born with Jesus->gentiles now share his covenant with God (being His Son) by faith. I know that you have probably already known that the circumcision was the Jews' way of outwardly showing the covenant they had made with God. Paul said that this coventant did not need to happen outwardly anymore. This is one of the first times that new ideas disgruntled old Christians.

[aside]The whole circumcision by faith was not Paul's idea, but he got it from some old texts of the Psalms or Proverbs[/aside]

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

Jews are still not Christians, Gid. The Jewish faith does not recognize Jesus Christ as the savior!

And according to what you consider a "Xian", then Jews practicing their faith are not Xian.

So...

Are you then saying that God's chosen people are not Xian?

Why entertain this bonehead? He is clearly not on a search for truth, but for attention. His are the most empty posts I can recall seeing, outside of a political forum.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

if the holy spirit - which bibically speaking does not generally "work with" people as a whole - it 'enters into' people to spread the word of god on an individual basis....those who are considered prophets are considered to have had the holy spirit in them - were actually 'working with each one individually' then it should be that the message would be completely universal.

If we're all being told the same thing by the same divinity...it should be crystal clear.

---

Universal..... This sounds kinda catholic to me. Biblical interpretive messages should unifiy thru same teachings. That is the sole purpose for selecting and translating scripture. God would not inspire a holy book to divide. That doesn't make sense. Its contrary to biblical teaching. The holy scriptures prophecy is that all faiths will merge and become one. Though the spirit is with us all, and gives private revelation meant only for that one individual in his daily life, in regard to the spirit of the church, the biblical message is the same universal for all.

quote:

---

But there are some people who go to church for church, and not Jesus. There are some that worship the saints, not to try and learn from them, but to ask them to grant wishes and favors. I personally believe that Jesus is the only one who can pour supernatural blessings. Although, I have witnessed some cool things through a video screen that a Saint has supposedly done. Pretty cool, I thought.

Hey Jade, who do you consider saints?

---

Well, my faith has many numerous saints. I especially am partial to some. St Theresa is my patron saint. She was mystic nun who led a simple life and suffered much pain of an illness. She wrote a book, called " The Story of a Soul", which is popular reading for many centuries. I am also partial to St. Peter, John the Baptist" cousin of Jesus and St. Paul the evangelizer. I try to emulate their strength & courage in preparing others for the coming of the savior. I greatly admire St. Cecilia, one of the first virgin maryters, who was raped, beaten and burned by the romans, because she would not renounce her faith. I admire St Agustine the great theological scholar who is considered an early church father. I ask St. Joseph, father of Jesus for strength and help in coming to know his son. St. Joseph is also the patron saint of chastity. Padre Pio is a fairly new saint. He was a mystic, priest who was a stigmatist. He is a patron saint for those who are ill. There was a segment on Mysteries of the Unexplained show on TV. It showed how he appeared to some who were sick and they were healed by praying for his intercession. He is definitely a favorite of mine. Oh, but here are so many saints. I think most names have a saint referenced. St. Cyril, St. Bonaventure, St. Martin, St. Thomas Aquinas, (great Catholic thinker and church father), St. Joan, St Bernadette, St. Basil, St. Christopher, St. Patrick ( Santa), St. Theresa of Avila, St Faustian, St. Francis (another favorite), St, Catherine of Sienna, and I could go on and on.

Gideon. You are confused in the view that you have that Catholics worship saints. Worship is for God alone. If your familiar with the book of Revelations you wll see that the saints are mentioned and do pray for us in heaven. Saints in heaven are intercessors. Just like if you ask your mom to pray for you to get well or heal. In heaven, since the saints have already attained heaven, their power with God for us is stronger than your moms pleads. They are in eternal life with God. We are in communion with them now and forever. In our Catholic mass we follow Revelation scripure when we call upon the saints to help all souls attain heaven.


In regard to Jews/Christians-- We Christians owe much to our Jewish brothers. Our faith is considered as an extension from the beginnings of the
Jewish foundation. In my faith as Catholics we consider ourselves, Judeo Christians. Many of our traditions come from Jewish roots. Our communal Eucharistic ritual is from the Jewish passover service. Our rituals of reverence in teachings of the ten commandments, holy of holies, baptism come from the Jewish traditions. Our priestly vestments and how we uses incense, candles come from Jewish roots in Exodus. First 5 books of the bible are the Torah. Jesus was a practicing Jew who followed the Jewish laws faithfully along with Mary and Joseph. All the apostles were Jews. The Christian Way started when Jesus began to preach to reveal who God is thru his life/death. All who heard and believed left the old way to start anew with a living word instead of a written word. The actual inception of when Christianity started as an organized sect came on the day per scripture in Acts when the holy spirit entered the apostles and the church in the upper room. Many Jews were converted to the new way and many choose to deny Christ was the Messiah as they still do today. In regard to creeds or beliefs, in the way of worsip, Christians and Jews are not considered the same faith.

quote:

---

the biblical message is the same universal for all.

---

While that makes a fine little speech, and sounds great, it is clearly not the case - as has been shown repeatedly in this discussion and in the world at large.

quote:

---

Gideon. You are confused in the view that you have that Catholics worship saints.

---

We've covered this one before too. I just hope, for your sake, that if the god you beleive in exists, he is in the habit of letting people off on technicalities
The difference is a matter of semantics at best.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Why entertain this bonehead? He is clearly not on a search for truth, but for
attention. His are the most empty posts I can recall seeing, outside of a
political forum.

---

And yours are about provocation. Listen E-man, contribute or don't, but I don't like being called "empty" without some back-up. IF you can back it up, I might even agree with you.

Thanks Jade. I was wanting a different kind of answer, but this one will work. Yeah, I guess I must have had the wrong idea before, sorry about that. Most of my knowledge comes from ex-Catholics, so I guess it is kinda biased.

So if I make some mistakes, I am sorry. I think what you say is that the saints interceed on our behalf in heaven, right? Well, I believe that all who accept Christ are saints. I know that isn't really what the Catholic Church believes, necessarily, but that is the conclusion I have come to. So having people like that praying for you has to be good. Plus, them acting as a role model is good too.

As for the whole "one church" thing, I agree on that, but not that it is exclusively Catholic. To me a church is not a building, but a people. So to me, the Church of God, the Bride of Jesus, is the entire body of believers on this planet. As for the differences in doctrine, that will be ironed out with God soon enough...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

666 (shudder all ye faithful, quake in your bones all ye believers, for the "Mark of the Beast" is upon you!)
Another biblical myth has been blasted into the ether.

I heard Bernie on KGO last night revealing some recent studies of some old fragments of biblical writing has revealed; the long-loved xian boogey-man of the "Mark of the Beast" is wrong.

It is not 666!

As is doubtless the case with the entire bible, it was mis-translated, lo those many years ago.

The actual number is 616.

Which is the area code for Grand Rapids Michigan.

Xians will doubtless be surrendering their jobs, abandoing their homes and departing the vicinity of that erstwhile community in droves before the "The Beast" manifests it self in itheir midst and leaves nothing to remind mankind of Grand Rapids, but a smoking hole in the ground and a vile stench in the air.

Thoughout the US there will be a brisk business at government registry offices as befuddled and terrified xians try to have those horrifying 3 digits eradicated from house numbers, driver's licences, license plates, condo numbers, etc ad hilarium.

But dear friends and gentle souls, let us all hope the warm and loving hearts of xians everywhere reach out and embrace those stricken believers, who find they were born June 16.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

It is not 666!

---

Well.... that blows the popular theory that calculated" 666" referred to Pope John Paul as the beast and the RC church as the "whore of babylon"

This only proves my point that without an organized divine structure, you can make sacred scriptures mean what you want, if it goes along with your own ideology. You can incorporate your own private understanding and run with it. And then go preach about it to others then make a following and then open up a church, which would represent your own beliefs. And people would follow you too.

You are a nut.

I don't know who this guy is, but even if he is right, so what? I do not fear the number 666, and this 616 doesn't scare me either. It is a number. It signifies the devil. Satan got beat bad by Jesus. I have nothing to fear from him anymore.

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

The point is that here is yet one more thing that was followed for centuries based on mistranslation of he ancient texts.

And ethiest is quite obviously being sarcastic.

quote:

---

This only proves my point that without an organized divine structure, you can make sacred scriptures mean what you want, if it goes along with your own ideology.

---

And again - with an organization like the catholic church, this is still exactly the case. The difference is there are a couple dozen people making things mean what they want instead of one person.

quote:

---

And again - with an organization like the catholic church, this is still exactly the case. The difference is there are a couple dozen people making things mean what they want instead of one person

---

Couple of dozen? Try in the many many thousands in agreement over the 2000 centuries till present.

And I know it was sarcasm

(Edited by jade on 05-10-2005 19:04)

quote:

---

Well, I believe that all who accept Christ are saints. I know that isn't really what the Catholic Church believes, necessarily, but that is the conclusion I have come to.

---

This is good. We as Christians are all called to be saints. We are all called to holiness. Some try to accept the call. I, myself am no saint, nor do I pretend to be one. But to live a saintly life like our role models saints is something to strive and aspire too because they were human like us.

I know he was sarcastic, that is why I (jokingly) called him a nut.

DL, my Bible that I use has many parts in it marked with foot notes where the Masoeric (sp?) and Dead Sea Scrolls, and other translations do not agree. They are actually surprisingly small compared to how much is in there. But there are a few things about this I must clear up:
1.)Accuracy
What Bible scholars and archeologists want is accuracy, so they may understand the happenings of that time period. Now, this little piece of evidence was found on a once illegible scrap of paper. It was dated to being older than the other writings, but older does not mean more accuracte. That is the general rule, but it doesn't always work out that way because of circumstances.
2.)Impact
Even if this writing is correct, that will only mean that the numbers have changed and the superstitious will have a different number to fear. It also means that a few movies would have to be redone, but that is about the extent of things. It is nothing new that copying mistakes happen over years. That has been documented in several books where things don't match up. This won't really change too many things. It is like saying that the actually two cities destroyed were Sodor and Gomorrah.

A few things will be rewritten, but I don't really see the big deal...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."
~Yoda

quote:

---

So to me, the Church of God, the Bride of Jesus, is the entire body of believers on this planet. As for the differences in doctrine, that will be ironed out with God soon enough...

---

This is very good too. We are almost in sync. I definitely believe as in a marriage union of two humans as bridegroom and bride, the writers of scripture gives us a clear understaning on how deep our union with God should represent. A oneness as when two total committed persons give themselves to each other totally forever in a marriage feast as in the wedding feast of the lamb from scripture. The reference to the church as bride is also a great mystery in how our relationship with God is also in the abstract. A church represented in scripture is also referrring a building, a people, a evangelizing entity, an institution of ideology and a sacred covenant relationship. So, I believe it cannot be confined to in one specific view. Though my faith is not based on "bible only," we take much from scripture as a way in how we worship in Mass.
In this way of worship is how Jesus takes us each in full sacraficial communion of himself as groom claiming his right to us as a bridegroom who takes his bride on their first consumation. Here is a site that explains how all of our Mass is based on scripture.

http://myweb.lmu.edu/fjust/Bible/Biblical_Mass_Texts.htm

quote:

---

They are actually surprisingly small compared to how much is in there.

---

And again - how is this relevant? What your bible does or does not mention about discrepancies doesn't mean much.

Let me see...Wall, DL...DL, Wall.

Yup, I believe that is all the courtesy that we need here.

Truly, DL, I have the utmost admiration for your ability to remain steadfast in such circumstances.

One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.

These people don't want to hear facts, evidence, etc to the contrary to their beliefs. They will do everything to block out anything that is not in line with their beliefs.

I truly understand why Scientists have refused to testify in the Kansas city case of ID vs the State.

The facts speak for themselves, as you and I know.

Religious nuts and fanatics have always stood between reality and humanity.

And they always will.

So shine your light of logic further, may it never dim. Just be aware, that there are those who will willingly walk blindly forwards, denying the light, instead embracing the darkness like a life ring (as I'm sure you know this o so well).

I hear your words, and so do a lot of others.

I fully expect the coming times to be very trying for those of us who chose to persue logic, instead of belief, as sad as that sounds.

One may lead a fool to knowledge, but one cannot make them think.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Stupidity is a natural state. Ignorance is self-induced.

quote:

---

I fully expect the coming times to be very trying for those of us who chose to persue logic, instead of belief, as sad as that sounds

---

Considering logic hasn't produced any proof of the origins of the beginnings for that matter that no-doubt you will be in for trying endless pursuits as well. Maybe never in your lifetime & how sad you may never know.

quote:

---

Considering logic hasn't produced any proof of the origins of the beginnings for that matter that no-doubt you will be in for trying endless pursuits as well.

---

*sigh*

Guth's Grand Guess, for instance - just one possible explanation. Do you really think before you post?

quote:

---

Maybe never in your lifetime & how sad you may never know.

---

Right back at you.

I died once. There wasn't anything afterwards, just nothingness.

quote:

---

I died once. There wasn't anything afterwards, just nothingness.

---

Excuse me? If you really died, you would not be reading this post? You cannot die and come back. Your either dead or alive. If you saw nothing, your probably weren't meant to see nothing because you were out there in an in-between state.

I was recesitated, Jade.

I drowned. I was re-animated.

You know, CPR?

quote:

---

Your either dead or alive. If you saw nothing, your probably weren't meant to see nothing because you were out there in an in-between state.

---

These are some pretty interesting statements, coming from you.

If I can only be in one of two states (dead or alive, according to you), then how could I have been in an in-between state?

Would you please make sense?

quote:

---

Maybe never in your lifetime & how sad you may never know.

---

And neither will you. You simply accept a story as truth in order to alleviate your inability to deal with that fact.

~shrug~

It's only sad for those who can't deal with reality. The rest of us are ok with such things...

quote:

---

If I can only be in one of two states (dead or alive, according to you), then how could I have been in an in-between state?

Would you please make sense?

---

Ok, well.....I was trying to convey that you were not really dead in the spiritual. (You know when the soul starts to leave the body.. what is referred to as the "near death experience"). I assume when they gave you CPR you came back and didn't get into the spiritual state of dying. If you did, you could tell us about it but you experenced nothing, therefore you didn't get the the in-between near dead state.
I quess you could of said I almost died once but was revived by CPR.

quote:

---

It's only sad for those who can't deal with reality. The rest of us are ok with such things...

---

I don' t understand why there should be a sadness?

So you have tapped into the true reality as opposed to maybe what is it ????...3/4 plus of the worlds population that believe in worship of a God in many organized religious sects. That would mean there are delusionals in the billions compared to a small percentage of athiest who have got it right. According to you, we have to make up a diety, a heavenly and human God so life can have purpose and meaning as opposed to just inhabiting the planet for no other reason that to live a lifetime and die for nothing. Because life does amount to nothing if it lives for nothing.

The reality is that you and many thousands of scientist don't know and will never come close to the intelligence used to figure out how, why or where we come from, are and are going to in this big cosmos of life. And that is a reality. Its beyond human intelligence if in itself it cannot even unlock its own human key. Its like trying to open millions of doors with a key instead of the looking for the Master key which opens all doors.

We know this reality: That we are all going to die sooner or later. And then we all have all the answers.

(Edited by jade on 05-14-2005 03:43)

I am confused...why do you think that when we die we will "know"?

Jade...I am not even going to argue. Reality is a struggle for survival, there is no other purpose...
All life, mammals, reptiles, insects, microbes are continuously in struggle for their own survival depending on one another and change according to the environment. Yes we have documented many things, we have witnessed viruses evolve as they adapted and became resistant to particular medicine as they try to depend on our body for it's survival and reproduction.

Life and all this cosmos IS in fact very complex and there will never ever be absolute answer, only interpretations.
Now some interpretations are drawn from measurement and reasoning and observation of nature , while others deal with self glorification of mankind.

You can either accept that Nature doesn't revolve around mankind, just like sun doesn't revolves around the earth. And that mankind revolves around the nature and is interdependent to every other living organism on earth.

to quote someone..:

quote:

---

It's unequivocally clear that life begins at birth and ends at death. And if most of the people on this planet understood that, they would lead their lives very differently. We always try to find religious or mysterious forces to fill in for our inadequacies, but heaven and hell are both here on earth every day, and we make our lives around them.

J. Craig Venter

---

your fanaticism saddens me, jade.

(Edited by Ruski on 05-14-2005 04:16)

quote:

---

I don' t understand why there should be a sadness?

---

Um...you are the one who said it was sad, dear.

As for what we may or may not ever know, you are quite possibly right.

Science cannot give us *all* the answers.

It is not the intention of science to give us *all* the answers.
Please understand that one.

Science is not something that exists for the purpose of telling us *everything*.

It does not exist to provide us with purpose.

Science is simply a tool to test and explain the things that are around us.


The point, which you so clearly illustrated, is that we *don't* know how things began or where things came from. Using a god who has simply always existed and then created everything else as an explanation brings us nowhere. There is no possible way of knowing such a thing except that ancient man wrote it, among many other strange tales of the world's beginnings.

We don't know, and claiming that we do based on story books is not reality. It is escapism.

Have I tapped into the "true reality"?

Silly question, of course.

All I have done is to brush past the illusions that you cling to so desperately.

quote:

---

am confused...why do you think that when we die we will know?

---

Well, for belivers we believe our souls will rise again and live forever in our spiritual state and then non-believers they will finally know their destiny, darkness or light eternal.

how naive....

why do humans try to escape reality so much?

Ever since the mankind came to self awarness he tried to gain absolute control over nature, yet over time he couldn't...thus the ideas and wish for eternal paradise has developed. I am really saddened to see that majority of people do not focus themself to preserve and improve our only location of survival, which is here and now among every other living organism.

it is as if this sort of idea came to disgust with life, merely concealing behind, masked by, dressed up as faith in "another" or "better" life.

quote:

---

You cannot die and come back

---

!

Excellent Jade, this is what we have been trying to tell you!

That is why your silly resurrection myth is just that, silly myth.

Another bit of silliness, when we die, we won't know. That will be the end of knowing.

I heard an interesting staement today, the fella said "we have to strive to reason, because myth, magic and religion are our natural state".

Time to start striving jade.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Ok Jade,

Now you are "passing judgement" on what happened to me - and you have no idea. You don't know the circumstances, you don't know how long I was gone, etc.

Yet you go WAY out on a limb, and make judgements based on wild imaginings.

I sincerely hope that in real life, you are more pragmatic.

I did experience something, like I said - it wasn't a lack of conciousness, but a lack of anthing!. And I felt a deep, sense of peacefulness. No gods, no angels, no ghosts, no spirits...just a serene sense of peace, and an infinite lack of anything.

I mayself have no idea how long I was gone - no one does, really. No one was standing around with a stopwatch. What is known, is that my cousins dragged my body out of the river, where I drowned. I was incredibly lucky that the river was a clear one, and that the current in that part was a circular one, and my body was not too hard to find, I guess. The water was about 20 feet deep there.

That Terry and Monty retained enough wits to actually recessitate me is incredulous to this day.

That I survived, is more incredulous.

At that time, I was on the Hoopa Indian Reservation, in North California. No ambulance, etc for me. I also never went to the hospital. Pretty normal stuff, lots of Indian kids die every year on the reservation.

What I find particularly insulting from you, Jade, is your absolute willingness to "explain away" my experience. Tell me, have you had such an experience yourself?

Can you remember breathing water? Or the cold, heavy feeling of it in your lungs? How about the looming darkness that comes and sweeps you away?

You believe, based on...numbers? Silly girl.

I base my knowledge on experiences, my own.

quote:

---

So you have tapped into the true reality as opposed to maybe what is it ????...3/4 plus of the worlds population that believe in worship of a God in many organized religious sects. That would mean there are delusionals in the billions compared to a small percentage of athiest who have got it right. According to you, we have to make up a diety, a heavenly and human God so life can have purpose and meaning as opposed to just inhabiting the planet for no other reason that to live a lifetime and die for nothing. Because life does amount to nothing if it lives for nothing.

---

Blocks are mine. Ummm...hehe, do you actually think before you post?

Isn't that how Christianity got started? And the Catholic Church? Well, you said it, not me. You are using an argument to try to...I don't know exactly. Prove your point? But instead, you disprove yours by stating such.

quote:

---

Because life does amount to nothing if it lives for nothing.

---

Well, I do have thoughts on such. First of all, I live my life according to rules that I believe benefit mankind, and myself in the process. I believe that the betterment of mankind in the long run benefits us all. I also pelive that our species is still evolving.

And increasing our knowledge and technological stand. I'm sure that someday, man will conquer a number of barriers, like most sicknesses, aging, and maybe even death itself. That would be the ultimate goal - I think.

In any event, the purpose is to survive, and to evolve further. I find that to be a noble purpose.

*shrugs*

Maybe you don't.

quote:

---

And increasing our knowledge and technological stand. I'm sure that someday, man will conquer a number of barriers, like most sicknesses, aging, and maybe even death itself. That would be the ultimate goal - I think.

In any event, the purpose is to survive, and to evolve further. I find that to be a noble purpose.

*shrugs*

Maybe you don't.

---

I pass no judgement on you. I was merely speculating. Forgive me please.

But I find your assessment of the pursuit of lifes journey wanting. You will not be around to reap the fruits of the endeavors of mankinds finds or breakthru discoveries.
Mans continued evolvement will mean nothing to you. So how does it benefit you as an individual? You will long be gone six feet under and one with the earth's soil. How can that make you feel satisfied? Will you find joy in your grave when mankind finds the cure for cancer? Yes, its good to be noble and strive for the betterment of mankind but in the end who benefits from you trying to do this? Sure, we remember madam curie, albert einstein, carl sagan as noteworthy scientist, but in the end did they really benefit from their studies. They are all dead. I understand what you are saying. Its while I am here I am going to enjoy life because this is how I personally see it, and I have a one shot chance to accomplish things before I die. And then its over and then nothing. I just do not see life that way.

(Edited by jade on 05-14-2005 17:07)

The problem with so many faithful like yourself, is that your outlook on life ultimately comes down to "what's in it for me?"

Now I know that you will deny that.

But you reiterate it over and over even though you may not intend to.

You find WS's outlook "wanting" because he'll never reap the benefits you think should be reaped?

You base your faith more on the idea that you want reward for your life here than on anything else (and yes, you'll deny this...but you show it over and over and over in your statements...).

And *that* is sad.

Well, Jade, you are forgetting one small thing - our offspring.

To survive and to evolve further, we need offspring. If I don't "reap the benefits" (although I find the way that I live my life benefit enough, thank you!) maybe my offspring, or their offspring will. Certainly future generations of mankind will.

Why do you worry so much about what you personally will receive as reward? Isn't your life reward enough? Why do you find that "wanting"?

I find working to make things better, for future generations of mankind is a noble goal, as well.

And I didn't lose my faith; I found reality.

quote:

---

And I didn't lose my faith; I found reality.

---

Oh...... I thought you lost your faith. What is your faith now????....since you separate it from reality?

I believe in a Super-Nature.

I believe that I explained that in a few threads gone by.