|
|
|
|
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:54:42 AM | crazytilting said:
I know enough about Christianity to cast it in the light of needing to be fundamentally changed or extinguished.[
Changed or extinguished, how? And by what power? Who made you Judge of what is or is not a religion worthy of protection? Such statements, along with your judging of Christian parents teaching their faith to their own children as immoral, shows the true nature of your feelings towards Christians. I don't know what brought you to this point, but whatever happened, get over it already.
What is very informative is that if someone had said, "I know enough about Atheism to know it needs to be fundamentally changed or extinguished" certain people would be all over it, demanding penalties and banning for the writer (as it should be), but say the same thing about Christianity and not a peep. Talk about a double standard! | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:04:22 AM | | alot of people who call themselves Christians are not. back in the day I use to say thank God I aint a Christian if that is what they stand for. I have seen so many claim to be a Christian when their actions appear to be of the devil. Not all are that way but there are just so many that are. I will never claim to be a Christian until I am without flaw. That does not mean I dont bleive in God because I know God exist. better to be with flaws and not claim to be Christian than to claim to be Christian and be full of evil. Sometimes I wonder do these people actually think they are saved and can now do evil and it wont matter becuase they have been saved? I have not met a christian yet that deserves the title Christian. Its not say they dont exist its just that I have never met one | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:29:41 AM | I will never claim to be a Christian until I am without flaw. That does not mean I dont bleive in God because I know God exist. better to be with flaws and not claim to be Christian than to claim to be Christian and be full of evil. Sometimes I wonder do these people actually think they are saved and can now do evil and it wont matter becuase they have been saved? I have not met a christian yet that deserves the title Christian.
kittenshere
Christianity is not about being good or trying to be good, it is about being joined to the Lord by His Spirit, and having the Lord manifest through us. When we take it upon ourselves to seek a righteousness of our own, as you are doing, or should I say suggesting that you will do (as I know you will never accomplish the righteous requirements that you have placed as judgments upon yourself and others) then we are denying any need for Christ.....And denying a need for Christ and seeking a righteousness of our own instead is about as anti christian as it gets. Even if you were capable of being perfectly righteous on your own, there is always the sin of self seeking and pride that have been left undone and have actually been what motivates you to be righteous.....there is no pecking order in the kingdom of God among men, so your righteousness is futile. Of course mankind might pat you onthe back for your efforts, but in God's eyes, all your endeavors will be about as aromatic spiritually, as the offerring of Cain was...So at the end of it all even though you can sit in high esteem of yourself and your labours.....God will turn away from all you have done, and all your futile deeds of the flesh (self righteousness) will be burnt up, as they are contrary to God's purposes in Christ.
Luke 18
9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
| |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:39:42 AM | | no one is without sin. but all these people claiming to know God do what God is against. that is my point. why is that. look at the christian who Claimed to know God and she will go to heaven yet she told me i was going to hell for using internet when she was using it too. then she hated blacks witha passion. called them names and wouold not live next door to any black but next door wasnt just it she didnt wnat a black moving in on the road she lived on at all. Was she really a Christian? there are lots of people just like her. she was not a christian but a hypocrit. If she knew God at all she would not have said and done the things she did. She couldnt have been further from God if she tried. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 9:01:45 AM |
no one is without sin. but all these people claiming to know God do what God is against. that is my point. why is that. look at the christian who Claimed to know God and she will go to heaven yet she told me i was going to hell for using internet when she was using it too. then she hated blacks witha passion. called them names and wouold not live next door to any black but next door wasnt just it she didnt wnat a black moving in on the road she lived on at all. Was she really a Christian? there are lots of people just like her. she was not a christian but a hypocrit. If she knew God at all she would not have said and done the things she did. She couldnt have been further from God if she tried.
kittenshere
to be honest, all I could relate to and agree with in your post was the first comment 'no one is without sin'
If you can ever get an understanding through scripture that no one goes to hell and that Jesus is the Savior of all men, then all things will begin to fall into place regarding grace, and grace will work righteousness and love for God.
There is the light and there is the darkness, it is not that one person may be further away from God than another. A person either has the Spirit and is resting in grace, or ththey are in the flesh, seeking after thier own righteousness because they do not have faith and are in the dark. It pretty cut and dried concerning God's kingdom, we are either in Christ and in the light of His grace, or we are in darkness, and there are no shades of varying darkness, there is no one in darkness who is closer to the light than any other who is in darkness. And we do not choose to be in light or in darkness, that is God's doing, and He is the One who directs each person's steps.. God hardens whoever He will harden and He shows mercy on who He will show mercy, and this has nothing to do with man's desires. Who has resisted God's will? NO one. God has done this in His own wisdom in order that He will show mercy on all of mankind, and no one will be left out and ending up in a ficticious pagan hellfire that goes against everything God is by nature..
Romans 11
32For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 10:58:04 AM | You seem to be asking the wrong questions. There is no religion worthy of protection, ergo no judge needed. In what other form under the sun is credulity honoured, other than religion? If you're holding the Christian bible up as something moral, indeed something worthy of teaching morals, then you're just picking out the bits you like and discarding the rest. Either it's the word of God in it's entirety as advertised, or it is not.
One need not know anything about 'atheism'. Were in not for religious dogma, atheists wouldn't be a group at all. Indeed most atheist feel no need for the huddled mass view.
Teaching a child to discard science in the face of fairy-tales is not wise, nor is it honourable. Religion came from our species early bawling period of development when we didn't know that there were 'germs' to explain illness, and seismic events to explain earthquakes and tidal waves, all because we live on a cooling planet's outer crust. Indeed the bronze-age Palestinians, of whom according to the bible, thought we lived on a disc, not an orb. People were put to death for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun, a Heretic!
It's time we as human beings show solidarity for all species of life on earth and especially with each other. So long as 'men' think their god is the real god and feel free to kill in his name because that's what the good book says, this madness of worshiping an invisible man with a big book in the clouds and all the bloodshed that goes along with this delusion, will continue unabated. This to the detriment of all. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 11:31:24 AM | Markus33:
People were put to death for claiming that the Earth revolved around the sun, a Heretic!
Unless you can name a specific person who was put to death for heliocentrism, I'd say that this statement is as much a fairy tale as those you say come from the bronze-age Palestinians.
The anti-religious have their own cherished myths as well, such as the erroneous belief that people of the Middle Ages thought the world was flat, that "more people have been killed from religion than anything else", and also the general perception that the Middle Ages was a "dark age" in any case. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 12:29:56 PM | Consigliere.. I enjoy the christian perspective you offer as it seems so free of dogma and intolerance toward others... it also gives me a new understanding of not only christianity, certain scriptures, but also of those who follow this path..
There is the light and there is the darkness, it is not that one person may be further away from God than another. A person either has the Spirit and is resting in grace, or ththey are in the flesh, seeking after thier own righteousness because they do not have faith and are in the dark. It pretty cut and dried concerning God's kingdom, we are either in Christ and in the light of His grace, or we are in darkness, and there are no shades of varying darkness, there is no one in darkness who is closer to the light than any other who is in darkness. From my own perspective, I take this to mean that you can either be a slave to your ego and its brand of instant gratification in all of its manifestations, or you may seek to express and explore the spirit.. seeking to please God as such.. and that there is no middle ground...
But what if a person makes one decision now and the other an hour later.. and continues as such.. ? Which side of the black and white fence do they then belong on? I ask out of curiosity as to how this is viewed by you..
And we do not choose to be in light or in darkness, that is God's doing, and He is the One who directs each person's steps..God hardens whoever He will harden and He shows mercy on who He will show mercy, and this has nothing to do with man's desires. So we cannot choose the light when we are in the midst of what feels like interminable darkness? Or alternatively, turn away from the light when it is abundantly shining upon us in order to gratify the ego..? This is all up to God?
I have most definately seen... and done.. otherwise, knowing full well that it was my decision... I know this because as soon as I changed my mind, chose otherwise.. I was back to the other side..
I don't know if what I am saying makes any sense to you.. it is just something I am very contemplative about lately... and what I have come to realize is that, for me at least.. there IS no choice... not because God is directing me, but because when I fully grasp the fact that I AM an infinite particle of God... whose *love* animates my every cell... then what of choice? What of duality? There is none in my universe anymore... only where it seeks to display an area within me that resists the light..
But the duality and the ability to choose was necessary to bring me to this undserstanding... that is what free will is imo.. the ability to choose that which is ultimately inevitable... God I love paradox, lol...
Who has resisted God's will? NO one. I agree with this.. but I still believe that you may choose to align your will with that of God's.. or not... until...
Sorry if this is all off topic.. I was just compelled..and am looking forward to your response :) | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 12:52:19 PM | | I did not even bother to read this thread, the idea is such a joke. People reference the crusades and 9/11 and so forth all the time- you've got to be kidding me. People make evil decisions and religion is the most accessible excuse for doing so on a large scale. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 1:42:27 PM | Jacobus- I'm sorry, but this is common knowledge. Are you familiar with 'The Trial of Galileo"? I'm certain you must be. Recording names of commoners in those days was not something the scribes felt a necessity, when a simple placard would suffice. The Roman Inquisition was a bloody lot indeed. I suppose you deny this?
"Joshua 10 (Verse 13):
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. "
"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." [King James]
It's difficult to have the sun stay still were it not revolving around the earth. Surely God would have known this, since he created the heavens and earth? I doubt 'barely bronze age Palestinians' (one could call them stone-age) would have known this, ergo 'Men' wrote the bible, not God, or a god. I don't think the natural laws were suspended do you? Why are they not being suspended today? Why were they not suspended for the Chinese, who at that same point in time had rich literature and art? Why didn't Jesus appear to them?
Do you think it more likely that the natural laws were suspended for the birth of Jesus, or that a little Jewish minx told a lie? :)
The unenlightened people of the Middle ages thought the world a disc. A disc is flat. I don't know where your other quip of "more people have been killed from religion than anything else" comes from, but I certainly have never heard it put that way. Seems counter intuitive, not to mention just a little ubiquitous. I'm nearly certain most would say that humans die more routinely of natural causes :) | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 2:32:37 PM | markus33:
Jacobus- I'm sorry, but this is common knowledge. Are you familiar with 'The Trial of Galileo"? I'm certain you must be. Recording names of commoners in those days was not something the scribes felt a necessity, when a simple placard would suffice. The Roman Inquisition was a bloody lot indeed. I suppose you deny this?
Quite familiar. The trial records of Mr. Galilei seem to be regular reading among my daily habits, since the topic comes up so often on this forum. You said people were "put to death", but Galileo was not. His position was condemned and he was sentenced to comfortable house arrest. Few people realize that Galileo never proved heliocentrism in his time because the instruments of that time could not refute Aristotle's argument against heliocentrism, posited many centuries before Christianity, that there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars. The Church accepted heliocentrism shortly after Isaac Newton demonstrated it solidly. The Church never had a problem with heliocentrism itself. After all, the first heliocentrist of the modern era was a Polish Catholic priest, Nicolas Copernicus. But it was Galileo who approached the Church (not the other way around) and demanded that heliocentrism be accepted as a fact, when it could not be scientifically demonstrated at the time. Galileo also issued personal attacks on the Jesuit astronomers who supported him, and made a slight against another important supporter and friend, Pope Urban VIII, when he placed the Pontiff's words into the mouth of a caricature named "Simplicio" in a tract on the geocentrism/heliocentrism debate. The Scriptural debate over the book of Josue is really just a distraction from the real issues at hand in the trial (which is Galileo's attempt to make the Church validate unsubstantiated science), even though the Josue Scripture is cited as the "official" reason for the condemnation of Galileo.
Again, I'm simply saying that no one was put to death for heliocentrism. It was
<div class="quote">It's difficult to have the sun stay still were it not revolving around the earth. Surely God would have known this, since he created the heavens and earth? I doubt 'barely bronze age Palestinians' (one could call them stone-age) would have known this, ergo 'Men' wrote the bible, not God, or a god. I don't think the natural laws were suspended do you?
I am sure that one of the forum's more Jewish-inclined posters, such as ScorpioMover or perhaps TheMadFiddler, can explain such concepts as midrash or ancient Hebrew metaphorical language better than I can. All I would say here is that to interpret the text of Josue too literally would be making the same mistake as the opponents of Galileo and some fundamentalists of today, for as St. Augustine of Hippo aptly said: "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."
<div class="quote">Why are they not being suspended today?
Hmm? You mean, why are there not miracles of massive proportions reported today? That's not necessarily true. The "miracle of the sun" at Fatima, Portugal on October 13, 1917 was witnessed by between 80,000 and 100,000 people, including the reporters of Communist and atheist newspapers of the time. There are some groups of Protestant Christians who believe that the "age of miracles" ended after the last book of the Bible was written, but in traditional Christianity (such as in Catholicism and Orthodoxy) there is a long tradition extending to the present day of belief in various miracles.
Why were they not suspended for the Chinese, who at that same point in time had rich literature and art? Why didn't Jesus appear to them?
I believe, as Dante Alighieri (author of the Divine Comedy) wrote in the political treatise de Monarchia, that Christ (or Jesus of Nazareth, if you prefer) chose to be incarnated in 1st-century Palestine for a very specific reason. First, because Palestine was the land of Israel, a people who in the Old Testament were described as having been chosen by God and drawn out of Egypt to build a uniquely monotheistic society. Second, in the 1st century because Palestine was then a part of the Roman Empire, the largest and most stable political structure in the world at that time, during the Pax Romana (200-year period of peace), under the Emperor Octavian Augustus. The conditions of society at this time were at a prime to foster the spread of the Christian faith. From humble origins in a backwater province, the teachings of a Jewish carpenter took over an empire and became the dominant faith of the western world.
Speaking as an Asian myself, I don't believe Christ would have had the same success if He were born in China or anywhere else in the Orient.
<div class="quote">The unenlightened people of the Middle ages thought the world a disc. A disc is flat.
It's possible that the ordinary peasant of the medieval world thought that the world is flat, because they rarely traveled far from home and from their perception, the world is indeed flat. Some peasants may have thought this until the turn of the 20th century. This has nothing to do with Scriptures. Virtually every scholar of the medieval era knew about the roundness of the earth. We can start with Boethius (480 – 524), who wrote about the earth as a sphere at an insignificant point in space in his book Consolation of Philosophy. Then we can look at the Etymologies, where St. Isidore of Seville (560-636) described the round earth. Then we can look at the Reckoning of Time by St. Bede the Venerable (672-735), who described the unequal hours of daylight in terms of the earth's roundness, and even made the assumption that all other scholars took this for granted. Perhaps the most obvious sign of this knowledge is the medieval king's crown jewel, called the globus cruciger (the orb with the cross on top, e.g. the "Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch").
I don't know where your other quip of "more people have been killed from religion than anything else" comes from, but I certainly have never heard it put that way.
You'll see it repeated by many folks in this forum, especially in the thread titled "Religion is the true EVIL in the world", or something to that effect. :edited to add: Oh, wait, it's this very topic, LOL. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 2:50:25 PM | Life on this planet is cyclical and not linear... we are about to re-enter a 2000 year 'golden age' the last of which was seen about 11000 years ago (Pyramids, Atlantis, Lemuria etc)...
I believe the Bible was VERY, VERY carefully written to contain extremely important universal knowledge hidden behind the 'veil of the ego'. Once we are able to transcend our egos the 'veil' we will lifted and we will begin to see the true knowledge held within. I believe the path of lifting the veil of the ego is provided to us in the teachings of Jesus. | |
|
| |
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 7:54:00 PM | Jacobus- Then follow your own logic please.
If we were to follow the church's teaching, then none of these scientific discoveries would have advanced, and the entire world would look like Afghanistan, with all of the religious ignorance and intolerance that goes along with it. Or perhaps we'd all be like Mennonites wearing turn of the century clothing and swearing off mechanization. Scientific advancement has always come in the teeth of religion. From Aristotle and Galileo, right on through to present day stem-cell research and George W. Bush.
If your only point is to say that there is no tangible proof that specifically no single heliocentrists were put to death, then your agreement is silly, and your contention unfounded. One would have to find a single person in history who only believed that the sun orbited the earth and yet held all other religious teaching to be true. Seems to me that a person of such vision, in that age, would indeed hold other religious 'God inspired miracles' in contempt. I did say Heretic, just because you've zoomed in on what you want to argue doesn't make you correct, nor can you prove yourself correct, nor can you prove me incorrect, nor can you defend the churches dismal and bloody treatment of non-believers.
As for bleeding statues, and the Lady of Fatima, and all that other religious nonsense mixed in with Christian theological apologist utterings, please. The apologists and theologians just love to interpret God's word for him, don't they?
Why would God almighty need theologians to interpret his real meanings, lol ? The Catholic church wanted all masses performed in Latin to the English, French and Spanish, and didn't want any one of them reading 'the good book' for themselves. Religion is insidious, hateful, bigoted, misogynistic, and preys on fear and ignorance. Surely you can see this, or perhaps you just like to argue?
God is imaginary, and wasting your time trying to discern what bronze-age Palestinians thought of the world in which they lived is a waste of intelligence and the short time you have with your one life here on earth.
This is it baby, make the most of it :) No man in the sky with a big book.
Oh, and read my profile please! thank :) | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/28/2008 8:18:29 PM |
There is no religion worthy of protection
You are quite wrong. ALL religion is worthy of protection. As is non-belief in a religion. That's a fundamental Human Right. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.
In regard to the Bible saying that the sun stood still, if you first allow that this event happened miraculously (I'm not asking you to agree, simply to allow the hypothesis in order to move on), then the language is simple enough. The writer writes from his own perspective, "the sun stood still in the sky". Was that inaccurate? Of course it was. But no more "unscientific" than the common use of "sunrise, sunset, moonrise, etc.
As for your Appeal to Popularity regarding people being put to death for believing the Earth was flat or revolved around the Sin. that's hardly proof. Proof is what was asked for, the name of a person who was executed for believing the earth for flat or revolved around the Sun. Not a reference to an anti-religious book that created the myth. And you have the temerity to talk about "fairy tales"? Where's an"irony" icon when you need one?  | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 12:32:05 AM | Markus33:
Then follow your own logic please.
Naturally. It's one of my favorite things to do.
If we were to follow the church's teaching, then none of these scientific discoveries would have advanced, and the entire world would look like Afghanistan, with all of the religious ignorance and intolerance that goes along with it.
False.
You might want to stop drinking the anti-religious Kool-Aid and pick up a book by Dr. Thomas Woods entitled How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.
People tend to forget that for centuries, the Catholic Church (and, to be fair, many other churches) was the primary patron of the arts and sciences in the western world. The arts should be obvious, because of the testimony of Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Rubens, Bernini, etc. Their work alone makes the claim that "the Church would make the world look like Afghanistan" ridiculous in itself.
But let's look more in-depth on the sciences.
Check out Father Giovanni Riccoli, priest and Jesuit astronomer. He was the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body, and many of the names he created while studying the moon and charting a map of it are still in use today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Riccioli
Next, we have Father Blessed Nicholas Steno, priest and Jesuit geologist. He is, in fact, known as the "father of geology". He was a pioneer in the study of fossils and is credited with three of the major principles of stratigraphy in Dissertationis prodromus in 1669: the law of superposition, the principle of original horizontality, and the principle of lateral continuity. He is also a strong candidate for canonization as a saint for his piety and religious studies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Steno
Next, let's look at the man often called "the last Renaissance man", Father Athanasius Kircher. He is known today as the "father of Egyptology". He paved the way for future scholars to understand Egyptian hieroglyphs. He produced an encyclopedia of China for the West. During his studyof geology, he actually lowered himself into the crater of Mt. Vesuvius even though it was on the brink of an eruption. In Scrutinium Pestis, while studying plague victims, he understood the nature of disease as carried by microorganisms and issued such directives as burning the clothes of infected people, quarantine, and the wearing of facemasks. As an inventor, he created a magnetic clock, an aelian harp, a perpetual motion machine, and even an early robot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_Kircher
Next, there's Father Roger Boscovich, priest and Jesuit physicist ans astronomer. He is known as the "father of atomic theory", as detailed in his book Theoria philosophiae naturalis redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentium about atomic theory and forces, which is still used today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boscovich
Some of the more major advances in my mind which can be credited directly to the Church include the development of architecture. The flying buttresses and great Gothic cathedrals with their walls of glass were built by the allegedly "ignorant" people of the Middle Ages. The largest non-stadium dome in the world is still the one at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. These same churches were used by Church astronomers as solar observatories, which you will notice by the markings on the floors should you visit one in Europe.
Another would have to be, of course, the invention of the printing press, which was used firstly for production of the Bible. This relieved monks from the strenuous task of copying manuscripts by hand. This also reminds us, though, of the valuable role that monastic orders played when they copied manuscripts of not only the Bible, but texts from the Greco-Roman era. However, the monks did not merely copy books. They expanded and went beyond what the Greeks and Romans knew to produce more accurate scientific treatises, new philosophies which broke from strict Platonism and Aristotelianism (especially thanks to Duns Scotus and St. Thomas Aquinas), and of course, brilliant works of art and poetry.
The first modern legal systems in the world came from the Church's canon law, which in turn came from Roman law. When the Church set up camp in the various kingdoms and tribes of "barbaric" Europe, she brought with her the canon law which regulated such things as marriage, parish and monastic property, and even how to prosecute crimes of wayward clerics. Canon law served as the model for once barbarian kingdoms to set aside ideas such as trial by ordeal and trial by combat in favor of the court system. Disputes over ecclesiastical marriage brought the concepts of duress, fraud, and free will to the civil law.
Furthermore, the Church is even credited with the development of modern international law and human rights. Father Francisco de Vitoria, a Dominican friar and Spanish scholar, stood against Machiavellianism and argued that the state is still bound by the same moral constraints as individuals. He and another priest, Bartolome de las Casas, pioneered the idea that all states, including non-Christian native kingdoms of the Americas, had right to exist and that the native kings were equal to the kings of western Europe. These ideas are found today in the major documents of the United Nations.
And so, we can see that this statement of yours:
Or perhaps we'd all be like Mennonites wearing turn of the century clothing and swearing off mechanization. Scientific advancement has always come in the teeth of religion. From Aristotle and Galileo, right on through to present day stem-cell research and George W. Bush.
Is quite far from reality. And just for good measure, regarding the turn of the century, you can read about Father Georges LeMaitre, a 20th century priest, astronomer and associate of Albert Einstein, who was the first man to propose the Big Bang theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Consider these words of Simon Weil: "I am not a Catholic, but I consider the Christian idea, which has its roots in Greek thought and in the course of the centuries has nourished all of our European civilization, as something that one cannot renounce without becoming degraded."
If your only point is to say that there is no tangible proof that specifically no single heliocentrists were put to death, then your agreement is silly, and your contention unfounded. One would have to find a single person in history who only believed that the sun orbited the earth and yet held all other religious teaching to be true.
Not silly at all. Again, the Church was a primary patron and benefactor of both the arts and the sciences. The heliocentric model was first proposed not by Galileo, but by Catholic priest Nicolas Copernicus, who dedicated his work de Revolutionibus to Pope Paul III. The Galileo affair is, in reality, a poor argument used as a propaganda piece to portray the Church as somehow "anti-scientific" when, if it were not for the Catholic Church, western civilization would not be as advanced as it is today.
Seems to me that a person of such vision, in that age, would indeed hold other religious 'God inspired miracles' in contempt.
Then you'd make a bad historian. A great number of people with "vision", both in the past and even today, still believe quite firmly in the miracles of an unseen God. I linked you to the biographies of quite a few of those men in this post.
I did say Heretic, just because you've zoomed in on what you want to argue doesn't make you correct, nor can you prove yourself correct, nor can you prove me incorrect, nor can you defend the churches dismal and bloody treatment of non-believers.
Just watch me.
Although it's outside the scope of this post for today, the commonly held view of the Inquisitions is certainly something to be challenged. For centuries, the western mind has been convinced, partially thanks to completely false portrayals of the Inquisitions from woodcuts featured in certain Protestant propaganda tracts to try to convince people that the Catholic Church is the "whore of Babylon" as well as Hitler's adage that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth, that the Inquisitions were some of the most brutal inflictions upon western civilization in history.
What they won't tell you is that, in both medieval and early modern prisons, prisoners in the civil institutions would yell and commit blasphemies just so they could be transferred to the Inquisition's prisons. I'm not saying that no people died from the Inquisition, because that would be false; but the treatment by inquisitors was, at that time, considered far superior and even humane, believe it or not, to that of the civil institutions. Also, expanding on what I discussed in the development of modern law, you might be disturbed at the similarities between the modern court system and the Inquisition's. If you've been a defendant or witness in a court, you were no doubt "inquired" by a lawyer; an "inquisitor", if you will. Again, a major development in the western world.
As for bleeding statues, and the Lady of Fatima, and all that other religious nonsense mixed in with Christian theological apologist utterings, please. The apologists and theologians just love to interpret God's word for him, don't they?
That's no argument for or against anything I wrote. There's nothing wrong with leaving anything I or anyone else says alone (as I did by deciding to focus on only one part of your previous post), but a dismissal like this is a non-argument and is just lame. I would say the same thing if a theist tried to argue an atheist with a "Godidit" response.
Why would God almighty need theologians to interpret his real meanings, lol ?
If you ask me, God doesn't "need" anything. However, in the Christian faith, God works most often through other humans, not by divine intervention. For instance, in the book of Exodus, God works mostly through the persons of Moses and Aaron, from the parting of the Red Sea to the pouring forth of water from the rock. In the Acts of the Apostles, miracles are wrought through the Apostles, such as men being healed from being cast under the shadow of St. Peter.
The same principle applies to the use of theologians. After all, only an uneducated fundamentalist would say the Bible fell from the sky. It was written by men to tell of the truths of an unseen God. Theologians are just as important in the study of theology as scientists are to the study of science, or historians are to the study of history. Any "do-it-yourself" venture in a serious academic field, whether it is history, science, or theology, is doomed to failure unless you yourself are one of the "experts". And even then, true experts rely on each other and critique each other's work on a regular basis.
The Catholic church wanted all masses performed in Latin to the English, French and Spanish
True, and this is the ideal even today (the oft-ignored reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's called not for making all Masses in the common tongue, but for teaching the faithful the Latin language while making the common tongue available for churches in missionary countries which were not familiar with the Latin tradition). I myself attend the Mass sung entirely in Latin. All of the students at my church's school, from grade 5 to 12, study Latin, which gives them a much greater grasp not only of our own English language, but of other Romance languages.
Not very many seem to understand the true visionary appeal of the Latin language for worship. But when you're able to go to a Latin Mass in Hong Kong, or Rio de Janeiro, or Paris, or Moscow, or New York, and still be able to understand it as well as the lady or gentleman sitting next to you, and to be able to greet him with Pax tecum ("peace be with you"), you can see how the Catholic Church is truly "catholic" (universal). It effectively reverses the curse of the Tower of Babel. This was realized especially by diplomats of the medieval and early modern world who were able to communicate to one another freely through Latin, and of course by priests and bishops from around the world who congregated in Rome for meetings and councils.
and didn't want any one of them reading 'the good book' for themselves.
Ooh. Another one of my favorite myths to shatter.
The most widely used translation of the Bible in the Middle Ages, the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, was created precisely to make the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible more accessible to the Roman world, which was a Latin-based world. Indeed, the word vulgate in Latin means "vulgar", referring to a common-tongue edition. While it's true that Latin ceased to be a commonly spoken language in the later medieval world, it remained as the lingua franca of all medieval people who were literate. In other words, if you could read at all, you could read Latin. And thus, you could read the Latin Bible.
The Bible was remarkably accessible in the medieval world for a people who couldn't read. Most every church had a precious, handwritten copy of the Bible chained to a desk somewhere in the church for the people to access publicly, much like a telephone book is chained to a phone booth. If you couldn't read it, you could ask the priest or deacon to read it for you and/or translate if necessary. You were not likely to own your own copy unless you were a nobleman, not because the Church forbade it but because you had to be able to afford paying a monk to copy the entire book by hand, plus materials. Contrary to popular belief, though, even in Protestant "Bible-believing" America long after the invention of the printing press, the organizers of the presidential inauguration of George Washington had a near crisis in finding a suitable Bible for the President to swear himself on, because the average citizen at that time still did not own a personal copy of the Bible. It was simply too expensive.
Oh, and going back to the issue of Latin Bibles; contrary to popular belief, there were indeed many vernacular translations of Scripture long before the Protestant Reformation, although none were standardized throughout entire kingdoms. As Sir Thomas More wrote, "the whole Bible was long before Wycliff's day (who lived during the century before Tyndale) by virtuous and well learned men translated into the English tongue and by good and godly people with devotion and soberness, well and reverendly read." And in the preface of Henry VIII's so-called "Great Bible": "was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was the mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies. ..; and when this language waxed old and out of common use, it was translated into the (English) language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found."
There was indeed a ban on some vernacular translations of the Bible by Pope Innocent III in 1199. But, guess what? Those Bibles had glaring translation errors and were replaced by better and more accurate copies.
By the way, with regard to Martin Luther, again contrary to the popular belief that he produced the first German Bible, there were actually ten translations that preceded him. However, none were standardized.
Religion is insidious, hateful, bigoted, misogynistic, and preys on fear and ignorance. Surely you can see this, or perhaps you just like to argue?
As a future lawyer, I do like to argue. However, I only like to argue for what I believe is the truth. As I have demonstrated, your generalizations of what "religion" is are false, regardless of whether or not the faith behind the religion in question is true.
By the way, the concept of an advocatus diaboli ("devil's advocate") who argues against a popular cause for the sake of ensuring that there are no holes in the argument also comes from the Catholic Church, specifically the canon lawyers who were appointed to argue against the canonization of a saint by digging up any sordid details of a saintly candidate's past.
God is imaginary, and wasting your time trying to discern what bronze-age Palestinians thought of the world in which they lived is a waste of intelligence and the short time you have with your one life here on earth.
I believe God is quite real, but arguing either for or against His existence is outside the scope of this post.
Oh, and read my profile please! thank :)
What about it? It looks like a well-written profile, but that's about all I noticed. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 12:58:43 AM |
From my own perspective, I take this to mean that you can either be a slave to your ego and its brand of instant gratification in all of its manifestations, or you may seek to express and explore the spirit.. seeking to please God as such.. and that there is no middle ground...
But what if a person makes one decision now and the other an hour later.. and continues as such.. ? Which side of the black and white fence do they then belong on? I ask out of curiosity as to how this is viewed by you..
Sassyaquarius thanks for your comments and I am happy to see that the grace of God I talk about is of interest to you, but at the same time I am not surprised that you are interested as you seem to have a great interest in a variety of different philsophies, religions, and spiritual topics.
First to make comment I have to say that there are a lot of words and phrases that have taken different slants and when I respond to christians with these terms, it is because I can somewhat understand how the majority of christians use these terms.. So when I speak of light and darkness with someone who relies on biblical text to formulate thier meanings...I will speak accordingly and try and respond according to how I relate to thier own understandings.
When you respond to the terms light and darkness, I think you might have a different slant on how you define the terms, even though in many things can be simular attributes...so in corresponding with each other if we could establish what light and darkness consists of and agree on the attributes it will help.
When I think of light, I think of love, peace, life, and all spiritual blessings that consist within the parameters of love.
When I think of darkness, I think also like you in that the self seeking ego is manifest, but I also consider other factors to be consistant with darkness, things such as fears, guilts, sorrows etc....and also how all these things that consist in darkness are given power to work death over the soul and spirit and even into the physical realities of the entire human race.
For the record sassyaquarius I really don't believe an 'ego' truly exists, I use the term because you are familiar with it, but it can add some confusion because I don't consider that what is considered the ego, is truly the motivating factor, but instead I consider the motivating factor to be a spiritual power and not a part of who we truly are in our identity, as many consider an ego to be a part of our identity. Christ spoke of those who were children of the devil and those who were children of God, but He wasn't speaking in terms of an innate identity that is part of man, but was speaking of the spiritual authority that was motivating each man which identifed them as to who's 'children' they were. Even though in the ultimate reality we all belong to God, this expression was used as a form of judgment between what was God's will and what was opposed o His will.
Now to throw another term into play that I consider to be misunderstood and slanted to fit a popular mentality...and that is repentance. Repentance is a change of mind/heart, nothing more, when the phrase repent from sin is used, I see this as meaning to have a change of mind and heart in regards to all things that lead us into the darkness and that consist of the darkness.
If we understand how darkness has a stronghold in us to become our motivating factor, then we can see(in the psychological aspect) how the grace of God in Christ removes us from this same stronghold of darkness. To keep it within your understanding, the darkness enslaves the 'ego' and motivates the 'ego' to seek self glorification/self interests and self justification, it's not really a case of an ego enslaving the motivating spirit but the motivating spirit enslaving the ego.....................though I do understand how you are saying this and do agree with your understanding....
What is the stronghold of darkness? One word...'judgment' Judgment brings death and all the fears, guilts and sorrows that accompany it. Grace on the other hand gets right to the heart of the issue and removes us from judgment...actually we are already removed from judgemnt and have been since Christ was made to be sin for us and took upon Himself all necessary judgments in regards to making peace with God, so being under judgment regarding our short comings is an error in how we perceive God. Of course as a christian I believe in coming under God's judgment, but this is a higher judgment than we are capable of with our earthly knowledge of good and evil. The judgments of God are for the purpose of restoration, correction and bringing us into the image of His Son.....and God's judgment is not for the purpose of a rehearsal of our lifes sins and how we are to account for them.
But what if a person makes one decision now and the other an hour later.. and continues as such.. ? Which side of the black and white fence do they then belong on? I ask out of curiosity as to how this is viewed by you..
I'm not sure if this applies to my view regarding what is light and whatt is darkness. When I was speakingto kittenshere I was comparing light and darkness in terms of how we relate to God. And I was trying to explain that if we considered that our acceptance to God relied upon our own righteousness and how well we could acheive holiness, then we are still in the arena of darkness. And all that consists of darkness..gult. fears. sorrows and death will still be ruling factors over our spiritual lives and minds. But if we truly are under grace and are walking in grace, then judgment is removed with all the curses that it brings, and we will experience the benefits of the kingdom of light and love.
When i make judgments reagrding various christian doctrines being either motivated by grace or by self righteousness, as I often do, it is only because I hope that an understanding of grace will be exposed in the process, and the blessings that accompany grace that I have received. will continue to be released upon those who also need to hear this good news regarding unconditional love and grace in Christ...
sorry I will have to look at the rest of the post later, I hope this isn't to confusing as I am not that talented at making posts short and to the point.. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 12:59:42 AM | Markus33:
To add to what was said here:
I don't know where your other quip of "more people have been killed from religion than anything else" comes from, but I certainly have never heard it put that way.
There's a recently created topic on this forum entitled "religion has caused more death in the world than anything else.". It's quite likely to be deleted by the time you read this since it's so lame and troll-ish, but just so you know..... | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 4:47:36 AM |
As for your Appeal to Popularity regarding people being put to death for believing the Earth was flat or revolved around the Sin. that's hardly proof. Proof is what was asked for, the name of a person who was executed for believing the earth for flat or revolved around the Sun. Not a reference to an anti-religious book that created the myth. And you have the temerity to talk about "fairy tales"? Where's an"irony" icon when you need one?
The only irony here would be inferring that my point was 'specific' to one who believed the earth revolved around the sun only. Such a person wouldn't, or better yet, couldn't have existed at that time in history without other manifestations of his belief system. Let's not forget why such a person (along with what would certainly be other 'anti-religious', or scientific expressed theories) would have been labeled a 'Heretic' and executed, or compelled to recant as was the case with Galileo. This all came with the notion that the earth was the center of God's creation, and that 'man' was created in his own image and therefore the center of God's concern and adoration. I would submit to you that if there is a god he doesn't know or care if we're here. I would also submit to you that we are not the object of this creation as the biblical theologians would have us believe. This of course is leading to the difference between being a Deist or a Theist. Since it's impossible to prove there is a god (first power, incalculable) or not, then it's not an argument to claim either, nor can one prove there is no 'first power'. That's not to say that the ongoing expressions of the universe and natural laws in continuum don't work perfectly well without a god, they do. It's the arrogance of the Theists (God answers prayer, knows you from the point of conception and has a plan for you life) that seeks to adulterate natural law.
I would submit to you that man made 'God' in his own image, certainly not the other way 'round :) | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 8:08:53 AM | huh????!!!! A Christian making this statement? Now i'm confused...
Not a reference to an anti-religious book that created the myth.
I was wondering if that was a subtle joke???
crazytilting said:
I know enough about Christianity to cast it in the light of needing to be fundamentally changed or extinguished.
romanticoptimist said:
Changed or extinguished, how? And by what power? Who made you Judge of what is or is not a religion worthy of protection? Such statements, along with your judging of Christian parents teaching their faith to their own children as immoral, shows the true nature of your feelings towards Christians. I don't know what brought you to this point, but whatever happened, get over it already.
What is very informative is that if someone had said, "I know enough about Atheism to know it needs to be fundamentally changed or extinguished" certain people would be all over it, demanding penalties and banning for the writer (as it should be), but say the same thing about Christianity and not a peep. Talk about a double standard!
You don't need to repeat my posts to troll. I know what i said and stand by it. However i have nothing against people believing for themselves only, that if they don't accept Jesus as their personal saviour they will go to hell. By all means believe that.
But as i have said and will say again just so there is no mistake:
The crime is when people spread the lie to everyone else, conning, using emotional blackmail, frightening little children into believing, taking advantage of people who are Alcoholics, and others with different degrees of mental illnesses to believe and give money and and or serve the church for their own gain.
The day Atheists as a majority tries to stop people from having personal beliefs that they keep to themselves there is the same problem i see that the Christian faith has. I raised my son with a wide variety of belief systems as information only because he did not have a fully developed brain to make a choice to believe something. And yes I taught him about 'Jesus's message. In fact in great detail as he was in a Catholic school. However when the School tried to baptise him I would not allow it. Not because i didn't think people should get baptised if it was their personal belief but because he had no idea what baptism was. I merely told them when he knows that it is, and believes that is what he wants to do as a declaration of his faith then i'd fully support that.
As adults we need to protect our children from being indoctrinated not only by churches but government and even ourselves. They are young and not fully developed to make adult choices. You can go on and on and try and make me look intolerant but that isn't the case. Oh and just for the record, yes i do think that people who believe in god are to a certain degree delusional, but at the same time admit that i have also suffered the same delusion and other ones. We as humans are prone to delusion and i don't see it as a bad thing as some people allude it to mean. As long as people can function, don't abuse others with their beliefs i think belief is a safe enough thing. But unfortunately that is not the case. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 11:04:39 AM | Markus33:
The only irony here would be inferring that my point was 'specific' to one who believed the earth revolved around the sun only. Such a person wouldn't, or better yet, couldn't have existed at that time in history without other manifestations of his belief system. Let's not forget why such a person (along with what would certainly be other 'anti-religious', or scientific expressed theories) would have been labeled a 'Heretic' and executed, or compelled to recant as was the case with Galileo.
I'll submit to you a challenge. If you can find a case of one person who was executed by the Roman Inquisition for his scientific viewpoints (not theological ones), I'll post a picture of myself with "kick me!" on a post-it note for a day as my avatar, on some suitable day. I was thinking of offering money, but I'm not a good gambler and I've been wrong before, so I'll do something silly and harmless instead, just for fun. Sound good?
This all came with the notion that the earth was the center of God's creation, and that 'man' was created in his own image and therefore the center of God's concern and adoration.
As I said before, I would re-iterate that the actual position of the earth in the universe was never a real issue in the Galileo affair. The real issue was that Galileo attempted to make the Church validate an unproven theory which did not stand up to the scientific scrutiny of the time (particularly the argument by Aristotle against heliocentrism). As the priest Copernicus supported heliocentrism as a theory, and as many of Rome's Jesuits supported the heliocentric model as a theory, the "earth was the center of God's creation" was not an especially important part of the debate.
The whole "religious vs. anti-religious" dichotomy is merely one projected by a group of secularists to serve their purposes for propaganda. Alas, it's not reality. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 12:37:50 PM | markus33 - Where you wrote:
If we were to follow the church's teaching, then none of these scientific discoveries would have advanced, and the entire world would look like Afghanistan, with all of the religious ignorance and intolerance that goes along with it.
You seem content to lump ALL religeon together and stamp a blanked "BAD" on it. Is it possible that whatever you find disagreable in Afghanistan is a strictly Afghani experiance unique to their set of circumstances?
Isn't it equally possible that the church (presumably you mean Catholic Church) has aided the advance of technology through it's resistance and testing? Seems to me that to merely accept anything on face value reduces value and The Catholic Church may therefore have as much contributed to the advance as anything.
Or perhaps we'd all be like Mennonites wearing turn of the century clothing and swearing off mechanization. Scientific advancement has always come in the teeth of religion. From Aristotle and Galileo, right on through to present day stem-cell research and George W. Bush.
You are just throwing the kitchen sink at it now. In fact I attended a Catholic conference recently to discover that The Vatican, Pope and Catholic Church embraces certain forms of stem cell research - so much for your argument that The Church tries to keep us in The Dark Ages.
nor can you defend the churches dismal and bloody treatment of non-believers.
To throw the baby out with the bathwater makes no logical sense either - and just because some of the wolves in sheeps clothing which were prophecied actually made their way into The Church - the accountability falls on the individuals who erred and not on The Church which is without error.
Why would God almighty need theologians to interpret his real meanings, lol ?
Why does the United States of America need The Supreme Court to interpret The Constition? Because the average joe is caught up working all day and relies on trusted officials and specialists to do their jobs while he does his?
The Catholic church wanted all masses performed in Latin to the English, French and Spanish
The Catholic (meaning Universal) Church relied on what was being taught world wide as a Universal Language which would unite all men in their ability to communicate (much as the Internet does now).
The natural course of logic was that The Catholic Church would want The Mass spoken in the language which would reach the most people. It just so happens that Latin, being a romantic language - is the most natural and lovely way The Mass is performed.
Religion is insidious, hateful, bigoted, misogynistic, and preys on fear and ignorance. Surely you can see this, or perhaps you just like to argue?
Or perhaps having ascertained The Truth, there is not argument except to say that The Light is defined by the darkness which surrounds it?
God is imaginary, and wasting your time trying to discern
Numbers, letters and geometric forms are imaginary - they only thing they communicate is the defined according to the knowledge, wisdom and understanding which we infuse them with.
In the case of deity it works the same - although the other way around.
This is it baby, make the most of it :) No man in the sky with a big book. Oh, and read my profile please! thank
Puuuuuuuuuulllllllleeeeeeeeezzzzz - spoken like a true prophet of the new aeon. | |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 2:22:36 PM |
So we cannot choose the light when we are in the midst of what feels like interminable darkness ?
Or alternatively, turn away from the light when it is abundantly shining upon us in order to gratify the ego..? This is all up to God? ?
When a person considers the light to be good and the darkness to be evil, then what you are saying makes perfect sense...because there is a law of reaping and sowing that becomes a reality for us after making these choices....and we experience the causes and effects of both the good and the evil.
But this is not what I mean by light and darkness....what you are saying is more how we can avoid hardships by doing the right thing in this life...and there really is nothing spiritual about what we are doing ourselves, as everything that we can do is limited to expressions of our human abilities, however that does not negate the fact that the effects of our actions can produce spiritual fruit. The blessings of peace and joy from sharing with others and doing good is definitely a spiritual exhilaration that is experienced...And the effect of doing harm to others most likely will also bring a torment upon us of many negative spiritual emotions as well... So I fully agree that what you experience through the effects of your actions is indeed a glimpse of spiritual things being manifested in your life.....
But this is still not what I was saying when I used the expression of being in the light and being in the darkness.....We can be in the light and still be effected by the type of darkness that you are talking about, just as we can be in darkness and experience moments of light as you consider light to be......so yes when light and darkness is related to as you are doing then a person can be in the light one moment and in the darkness the next.........
What I am trying to express as how I used the terms is different, and is more specific in how we relate to God.....it is the difference in coming to God in humility and coming to God in pride of oneself and accomplishments.
If your definition was used as a means to become acceptable to God, then it would rely on our ability to be righteousness in order to become one with God's will. And it wouldn't matter because whether we were doing what we considered as light or what we considered as darkness is irrelevant, it is the fact that we are attempting to become like God or become acceptable to God, via our own judgments and standards that we have set that classiifies us as being in darkness. When this seeking of self righteousness becomes the cause in our life, then the effects can only be darkness, and the darkness produces all the negative spiritual emotions (pride, intolerance, fears..etc) will be brought about and manifested by our judgments. Worse even still is we make God into our image and we view Him as possessing the same intolerant and judgmental attitude that our judgments have made us to be.....
Yes religious people can be very evil, maybe not purposely, and maybe they are not aware of it because they are blinded by thier own limited ability to see what the light is...but that does not negate the fact that others around them will pick up on the hypocrisy they are living under.
When we come to understand Christ's grace, judgment is removed, it is removed from us and because we are shown this mercy, we are called of God to reveal this mercy to the rest of the world, so that they might also understand the grace and mercy of God....
As a christian I really don't set out to evangelize or convert anyone, I don't see that God has necessarily laid that out as my path in this life.....I believe that I am called to represent His mercy....If you knew me you would see the sense of humor that God has...He has taken me, an individual who was quite merciless towards others.. and is conforming and preparing me into a vessel for the purpose of sharing His mercy with others...On this forum I utilize the scriptures to make this mercy known, in the real world there are a variety of ways that God makes me show mercy and forgiveness....
There is a spiritual freedom when we understand that we are removed from judgment before God, and this freedom cannot help but bring about the good things that belong in the kingdom of Light.
and really, isn't focusing on judgments kind of silly, .....(laws that say we shouldn't steal or hurt others...etc)........., haven't we all learned these things since childhood already from those who raised us. Does contemplating what are the correct rules to follow and how we should act even need to be our focus any longer?
To answer your question, in regards to chosing the light....when the Light is considered as being Christ's grace...can you chose this...be honest....can you say one day that you believe this to be true, and then say the next day that you don't? Is this really in your control to make this choice to believe or not. I say we can't,and unless God gives us a spiritual revelation of this grace, we will not believe it even if we understand the modus operendi of God's grace as I have attempted to describe here, this understanding doesn't necessarily constitute the type of belief that qualifies as faith or the deep inward trust towards God. So yes I believe that it is entirely up to God and He is responsible for doing the work entailed that brings us to this faith.
John 6
28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
30So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
If we look at this passage we should notice that Jesus doesn't respond by saying that man's works must be as such, but says that the work of God is to bring us into belief and faith, those who heard understood this and then asked what God would the do to make this work become manifest...
It is all entirely up to God.
| |
|
| Religion is NOT the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 3:20:33 PM |
I don't know if what I am saying makes any sense to you.. it is just something I am very contemplative about lately... and what I have come to realize is that, for me at least.. there IS no choice... not because God is directing me, but because when I fully grasp the fact that I AM an infinite particle of God... whose *love* animates my every cell... then what of choice? What of duality? There is none in my universe anymore... only where it seeks to display an area within me that resists the light..
Sassy
I know EXACTLY what you mean
it's all grace...every little speck
Namasté | |
|
| Religion is the True EVIL in the world
Posted: 5/29/2008 4:11:45 PM | Please watch www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Religion (vs. spirituality) is for those who refuse to be courageous and think for themselves.
Most people behave like sheep following a Shepard because they refuse to challenge anything they have been told; they are unwilling to learn new paradigms of thinking such as A Course in Miracles by The Foundation for Inner Peace, or read Conversations with God book 1 or Friendship with God by Neale Donald Walsch, or read "I Had it All the Time" by Alan Cohen or The Dragon Doesn't Live Here Anymore" by Alan Cohen. www.alancohen.com
Most people do not get how their mind works. Look into the Secret featured on Oprah.
I am involved in Religious Science and Unity Churches which are part of teh New Thought Movement in our society and come from complete and attitude of inclusion of human beings and acceptance of our Godself (Christ - what I call Love- within) | |
|
|
| Page 25 of 33
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 |
|
Home
login 
