online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Thoughts on truth
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Thoughts on truth
Posted: 6/7/2009 5:41:59 AM
Many people confuse “Truth” with “Fact”.
“Fact” is something – you cannot change. “Truth”- on the other hand – can be distorted and made to look like a real deal. “Truth” can be something that is widely accepted BUT not necessarily the real deal. We have multiple religions in this world and all of them can’t be the fact. Some may be based on bona fide truth (meaning – made, done, presented, spread or established in good faith without real intention of fraud or deception BUT the fact remains that they have been altered through the process of their respective evolution. So, regardless of any of them being based on the fact - almost all of them is now dealing with distorted truth IMO.

The “truth” is – Bush won the election in 2000. But the “fact” regarding who actually should have won – lies with the actual count of the votes – that never happened due to Supreme Court’s decision to block the recount. So, the fact was never revealed and we most likely lived with a distorted truth.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 16 (view)
 
NY levelled by tusnami
Posted: 5/9/2009 10:28:47 AM

what are we going do do about it?
close our eyes
pretend its infrequent and will skip our generation
should we be worried?


Prepare for the worst but hope for the best.

Personally I would like to think NYC is not the likely spot for any Tsunamis anytime soon. But “tusnami” depending on what it is - as in the title of this thread – is a different scenario. Just kidding!!!

So, eat, drink and be merry.
BTW “death” is inevitable at some point anyways. If it doesn’t happen naturally – it will take place inexplicably.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 43 (view)
 
What is most important to talk or think about?
Posted: 4/18/2009 11:43:18 PM

“What is the #1 topic that people should focus on and why?


Seek and find the meaning of life and why we even exist. We should not settle for an explanation passed on to us by our forefather through some single spiritual enlightenment or justifications. I am sure it is more complex than any given explanation available but I do believe the answer or should I say, “the truth is out there”!
I think that is what we should focus on. And if we find some sort of explanation that makes somewhat sense to us then we should not stop there but keep on searching until we are convinced our explanation is closest to the truth.

By the way, this world is a learning place and someone died to erase humankind’s sin doesn’t make any sense.

An explanation that is seemingly flawless – will not only reveal our true identity but also our destiny. It should tell us – not only who we are and where we come from but also where we are heading.

So, I think the most important thing to find out is – “our true identity and why we exist” (and you know I am not talking about our name etc.)
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Why Would God Want to be Worshipped?
Posted: 4/9/2008 9:05:24 AM
It is my observation that most of the people who ask question like you have - usually not seriously seeking an answer. Their question is more like a statement.

However, I have some free time to kill.

You are seeing things through an ant’s eyes (no pun intended). To God the universe is not that vast IMO. And all the stars and planets (even though they are apparently lifeless) are doing what God intended them to do. I call it “worshipping God”.


By OP:
“This seems more something mankind has invented and ascribed to God. I mean, really, we're not talking about the same God here than created Saturn and nebulae and black holes and this whole vast universe that is pretty, darned devoid of life and worshippers.

Any thoughts?”


A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. We know too little about God and how the whole universe works and the purpose of creating the universe. We know too little about matter and energy. Once again, if doing what God wants is worshipping God then every matter that is without freewill (planet, stars, trees and what not) is already worshipping God. They are like robots – they are doing what God has designed them to do.

If you can create robots and give them freewill then what would you want your robots to do? Kill and destroy each other or live in harmony and follow your guidelines. If doing what your creator may want you to do is uncalled for then do the opposite (if you think that is the smart way to go). But that would be (IMO) un-worshipping God.

Bottomline:
Doing what God wants is acknowledging God and in other words worshipping God. And there is nothing wrong in our creator asking us to do that IMO.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 11 (view)
 
2012???
Posted: 4/9/2008 8:01:45 AM
The world as we know it – will (probably) end approximately between the year 2250-2280 A.D. Don’t ask me how I know this.
So, unless you live another 242 to 272 years – you won’t be here to witness the end of the world. However, the big burning ball may have smaller but more than regular and seemingly catastrophic “bursts” prior to that but I am confident that - the world will be spared and survive.

I must add that – the future cannot be predicted with accuracy. Smaller alterations/ adjustments in something that is already in motion can have huge butterfly effect on previously presumed ultimate scenarios. So, no human with any amount of supernatural powers can predict future with absolute accuracy and certainty. So, it is highly sensible and practical (IMO) to prepare for the worst while being optimistic and hope for best.

2012 will most likely be just another year. Unless some crazy dude in a powerful position decides to misuse his/her powers and decides that the year should have some significance in our history. We have seen crazy dudes like that in the past and the present – so why not in the future??

As far as nature disasters concern – the world has taken a lot and can yet take more until doomsday.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 20 (view)
 
30 pieces of silver
Posted: 2/3/2008 3:21:54 PM
Wow! A seriously funny question indeed!!!

Maybe I should explain – why I think this is a laughable question or maybe I should say – an inappropriate comparison IMO.
Well, I don’t think Judas action can ever be compared (on the same page as) with the seller of a marble or tortilla chip (with Jesus’ supposed image on it). These two situations are not the same IMO.

Judas was a betrayer/traitor. Even if Jesus was not a prophet or anything to do with divinity – he was still his friend (someone who had never hurt him in any shape or form). So, betraying and selling out a friend is bad enough – how much damage he caused by his action – is an added point BUT beside the point.

On the other hand - the seller of a marble or tortilla chip with a supposed image on it is just manipulating with the weakness of the human mind and making a profit out of it. His crime ends there. He is not betraying or selling out anyone – he is just cheating someone IMO. So, the seller is a bad human (a cheater, a manipulator) but he is no Judas!!

The main person/s we need to worry about – should be the “buyer” or all those bidders who actually believe that their God’s image really appeared in such a lowly and insignificant way. A weak mind is a dangerous thing. Even to think that their supposed God would be so weak that he appeared on a tortilla chip or on a marble block – is a shameful consideration IMO. The question they need to ask is – “why would a supposed God appear in such a disgraceful fashion?” “Why not appear in person or at least in their dreams??” these people need a on their respectful heads and then a lesson in logic IMO.

What I would like to know is – what these buyers do with these objects once they acquire them? No! Wait a minute –I withdraw my inquisition. If I found out - I would probably be this guy hitting my head on a wall.
So, no thanks – I don’t want to know.


By OP:
“IF the person truly believes in Jesus and thinks that his image is coming through on something. Do you feel that auctioning those things off is like Judas selling him for 30 pieces of silver?”


I think if a person truly believes in Jesus and thinks his image appeared on something – he would IMO unwisely do so and he would then probably foolishly hold on to it and not sell it. But if he needs money and does sell it – he would probably sell it to another fool. But his action can’t be compared with Judas’ action IMO. By selling – he is not selling out Jesus. He may be disobeying his commandments of believing in graven images. But disobeying commandments is NOT the same as being a traitor!!!

However, I must add – I don’t believe that anyone selling these things really (truly) believe those are images of his God to begin with. These sellers are not believers of those images they are simply manipulators IMO.

So, once again - If someone really (truly) believes he got an image of his God in his possession– he would probably consider himself stupid to sell it.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 110 (view)
 
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/14/2008 3:27:48 PM
Sorry double post!!
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 109 (view)
 
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 1/14/2008 3:24:49 PM
Let’s see if I can summarize the story into four stages.

Stage1:
Noah is told of God’s intentions and asked to build a huge boat (ark).

Stage2:
Noah builds that boat in a relatively short time. Where and how he got the material needed to build that huge boat and the manpower used – can only be characterized as a mystery – unless of course one considers Godly intervention / outside of ordinary worldly help or in simple words “a miracle”.

Stage3:
A huge number of animals in “pairs” somehow walked on the boat or were somehow carried in there. Also in a very short time!! Not to forget – all the other necessities needed to have all those animals together with eight members of his family survive for a long time. How was that done? Another miracle!!!

Stage4:
Eight members of his family supposedly took care of all those animals (feeding them and what not). Another miraculous undertaking supposedly executed efficiently. Is that humanly possible (by eight people) or was there another miracle involved???

Anyone arguing about stage4 has to go pass stages 1-3. If you don’t believe in miracles then I believe you should stop at stage one and move on. There is absolutely no need to argue about the rest of the stages. However, if you believe the first three stages took place then you believe in Godly intervention and you believe in miracles. Then why not believe in more help from God to successfully complete stage4???


My comments:

Possibility#1 --- Bible’s version of this story is either incomplete/ corrupted or something wrong with the timeline because there is no solid scientific evidence of this world wide flood occurring in the last four thousand years.

Possibility#2 ----This story could also be a hypothetical/ analogical/ mythological story – and was told to make a point. For the believer – it is advisable to concentrate on the point this story made – rather than on factual accuracy of this story IMO.

My conclusion:
I believe God did something to fix something. Not necessarily flooded the whole world with water and wiped out all living things in the process BUT something different. Maybe God flooded the world with some kind of high power energy beam (detrimental to Devil) to eradicate or reduce his (Devil’s) grip over all living things. Maybe as a result - Devil’s reach became shorter and he cannot influence us the same (powerful) way he was able to influence before. Maybe Noah did not feel he and his family and his animals needed this “beam bath” and asked God to be excluded from the process.

For those ancient people – the story needed to be told in a way – they could understand it and comprehend the point this story needed to make.

Special note:
I agree that my conclusion is probably not accurate as well but I am not worried about it because it is unnecessary to worry about whether or not this incident really took place. IMO what we (anyone believing in Abrahamic God) need to concentrate on - is – the point this story tried to relay.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Woman murdered by Muslim parents for refusing arranged marriage
Posted: 1/12/2008 7:07:20 PM

By Ravenstar66:
“It is a hateful thing when parents use religion (any religion) as a license to abuse a child.”


While I agree with your statement wholeheartedly – I failed to see (as far as the original post is concerned) the connection of religion of Islam with that incident. The fact that they were Muslims by faith does not necessarily mean – this was a religious issue. In the OP the victim also never mentioned that – the violence against her by her parents was initiated through teachings of their religion.

I don’t know as much as I would like to know about Islam but I know this religion does not teach such an act. Some of the posters have already established that point.
I think it is common knowledge that a religion that 1.5 billion people follow could not have such basic flaws when it comes to dealings with kids.

It is clear to me that – this was a cross-cultural problem and nothing to do with the religion/s. Many people of that part of the world believe in family honors and they get upset when a child ruins it somehow by disobeying older people such as their parents. Uncle and aunts blame the parents for supposedly not doing a good job in their kid’s upbringings. Many parents from that part of the world - are still very old fashioned. Some of them try to run the kid’s life for their own satisfaction. Bottom line is - this was just a cultural flaw in conjunction with human bad judgments IMO.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Where does it say - in the Bible - that pre-marital sex is restricted?
Posted: 1/8/2008 8:04:37 AM
By OP:
“I understand the "religious" rules imposed on man by a church that is more focused on works than grace - but why is it all so prevalently taught without proper textual support?”


While I disagree with most churches in many many issues – but if a church is teaching “pre-marital sex” to be a “sinful practice” – then I probably will agree with them – because it is not rocket science to realize what damage widely practiced “pre-marital sex” can cause to a society.



By OP:
“When dealing with sexual rules, homosexuality, adultery, and bestiality are mentioned. But pre-marital sex is not. Why?”



Bible is man written. It has flaws. IMO it has been fabricated and innovated and altered and distorted through translations and retranslations. However, it has many good teachings but it is not the ultimate guideline to “how we should lead our lives”. However implications are quite real regarding the restriction of “pre-marital sex” (even) in the Bible. Many posters have already shown you those verses.

But it seems like you wanted to know “why” pre-marital sex is not clearly and exclusively forbidden in the Bible. Well. I think it was unnecessary to mention them because it can easily be understood through those hints that are given. For example - you have been told “killing” is banned. You don’t need to be told different ways of “killing” someone. You can kill someone with a knife, a gun, poison or just push him/ her off a mountain. Bible wouldn’t and couldn’t describe all the different ways you can “kill” – BUT it does say, “thou shalt not kill”. Now use your head and just don’t “kill” anyone.

Okay let’s forget about Bible for a second. Just ask yourself if you would approve of you daughter (if you have any/ or if you ever have any) to have pre-marital sex with a random dude. If the answer is “no” then why would you believe that the father of the lady you are thinking about having pre-marital sex with – will approve his daughter having pre-marital sex with you???

There are certain things we can figure out even without the help of any doctrine. Just use logic and common sense and see where it takes you. (Oh! Yeah – it is not a bad idea to use Bible or some other doctrine if you feel it is not easy to figure out “what is right and what is wrong”!!)

A sin is something that usually causes unwarranted damage to you, the people around you or the society in general. Intensity of a sin is usually directly in proportion to the damage it produces. Widely practiced “pre-marital sex” can cause many damages to a person and even to the whole society. It can cause fathers to be angry create unwanted kids, cause a person unwilling to settle down with one individual and have a nice family life. Once you are used to random pre-marital sex (I believe) it would be very difficult to settle down with one spouse. On the other hand – it is possible to have pre-marital sex with someone you intend to marry and not cause any damage to the society or to yourself or her. Even her father might approve of you as her future husband. In that case – you might sneak by the lope hole Bible has left behind by not forbidding “pre-marital sex” with tougher words.

Needless to mention – refraining from it might be the message Bible is giving you with all those hints. Taking the hint or ignoring it - is entirely up to you. If I were a Christian I would think twice before jumping through that lope hole.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
 
The admiration despite not always agreeing.
Posted: 12/26/2007 8:50:10 AM

By OP:
“Do you find that you look at some peoples posts, even though you may not actually agree with them, and totally admire the strength of belief that they have in a particular subject or belief?”


I do occasionally admire certain people (both in real life and in the cyber world) BUT I don’t think I admire them for the same reason you seem to have outlined. I don’t admire them for their “strength of belief” BUT maybe for their knowledge in different subject matters and maybe for the “modesty” they show while expressing their point of view.

If you believe in an animal (cat, cow, elephant) god or if you believe in multiple gods or even multiple forms of god (i.e. human god) or believe in the concept of reincarnations then no amount of “strength of your belief” in your respective faith system will impress me. However, you can still impress me with your knowledge in an unrelated matter. For example – if you are a physician and you are good in your field then regardless of your personal convictions in a “cow god” or a “human god” – I can still admire you for being a great doctor.

There are many smart, intelligent human beings out there BUT they may not be admirable individuals round the clock. A person can exhibit great qualities and supreme intelligence in certain aspects of his/her life but yet the same person can portray him/herself to be a blinded fool when it comes to religious convictions. A person can be very impressive in many ways but yet unable to realize his/her priorities in life. How many accomplished scientists are/were bad parent or inconsiderate individual in their personal life? I can admire them for their contribution to the humanity BUT I may not approve of them in many other ways.

When I like songs of a particular rock star or the performance of an actor/actress – I try not to learn anything about their personal life because usually chances are they are messed up in there and once I find out - my likings (usually) diminishes.

So, for me - it all boils down to a game of numbers. Meaning - when the things I like about an individual supercedes the things I dislike about that individual – then I may continue to admire/respect that individual BUT when the things I dislike about an individual supercedes things I like about that individual –then I probably will cease to approve him/her any longer.

Let me try to give an example to clarify my position even clearer if I may --– Let’s say I like many things about a particular woman but I hate the fact that she smokes. I can still admire her for the other things I like about her. But if there are more things I dislike about her than the things I like about her – then my admiration will eventually cease to exist.

Another way to look at it is – we dislike people who bothers us, irritates us and makes us feel uncomfortable – we get along with people who don’t do any of that – and we admire/like/approve of people who continually impress us, entertain us and make us feel good and happy.

>>>> >>> >> >

Okay! That was probably too long… Let me try and rephrase it and make it shorter…

I could be (sometimes) amazed, shocked, surprised by the “strength of belief” of certain individuals in their belief system especially when I don’t agree with them BUT I never admire them for their dedication because let’s face the bottom line – “I don’t agree with their conclusions”.
I usually admire people whose posts seem to show their obvious intelligence in a given subject matter and set out a chain of positive thoughts in my mind. Yes! There are some people here who have (sometimes) successfully done just that!!
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 58 (view)
 
The Spiritual significance of Romance
Posted: 12/21/2007 2:45:46 PM

By OP:
“what importance does romance have on spirituality?”



Romance generally does not have any significant influence on spirituality IMO. However, I believe - positive romance can have positive influence on spirituality. At the same time, it is important to remember that - “it is a two way street”. Meaning – negative romance can have negative effect on spirituality also. If a man is romantically involved with a married woman – then chances are - their romance won’t have any positive impact on either one’s spirituality.

I must add that - any selfless act done right (within parameters set by God in different religious dogmas – however, finding the true ones is “the name of the game”) OR any positive experience we go through during our journey through life - can have positive influence towards our spirituality. So, “romance” is just one phase in life that may help us spiritually enlightened. However, when we do feel we got spiritually enlightened – we must remember that – all situations are NOT the same. “The correlation” between the experience (or a phase in life) that caused us to be spiritually enlightened and spirituality itself - should not fool us into believing that all scenarios will generate the same result.

In other words – given the situation “romance” can have different effect on an individual. With the right person (similar belief structure) – one can achieve a higher ground spiritually BUT with the wrong person one can be driven further away spiritually and thus from God.

Positive romance surfaces when you are in love with your spiritual match or your sole mate and negative romance surfaces when you fall for the forbidden fruit. It is like a car – using it intelligently you may drive it to a homeless shelter and donate food for your fellow mankind in need and show your love for them or using it improperly you may end up driving to a married woman’s house and have sex with her.


By OP:
“Is it possible that as humans a certain level of sanity is lost to us who have no romantic connections?”


It is possible! But most people experience some kind of romance in some part of their lives. If an individual experiences it once then chances are he/she be fine with or without it. A person who never experienced it or is incapable of experiencing it – well! That person’s sanity can indeed be questioned!!
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Synchronicity
Posted: 12/16/2007 6:33:40 PM
^^^^


Another scary theory would be – you guys have entities following you around (not necessarily good entities). And when they go through the glass bulbs – they pop it.
Well, all jokes aside – that really could be the case!! If you guys believe in a higher power or God – then asking for protection may help.



By OP:
“What causes it, is it coincidence, or is there an underlying scheme?



Coincidence(s) happens in everyone’s lives. I tend to believe they are mere coincidences!! Nothing more!!

Hundred and thousands of incidents happen in everyone’s lives. We only take notice when something stands out and matches with another incident. In other words – if an incident matches with another previous incident and is actually meaningful or beneficial to us in some way – we tend to take them into account. But we need to remember that - for every incident that matches – hundreds more don’t match anything at all and we don’t even notice them.

If every number we get (i.e. phone number, bank account numbers, house addresses) always matches with each other and every time I look at the watch - the time is 12:12 or 11:11 or some similar synchronized numbers then I would think there is more to it than “mere coincidence”.

Of course it is possible that God or anyone he put in charge of running different matters of this world could (??) pass some secret meanings/ messages in some of those synchronized events BUT I highly doubt it.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 79 (view)
 
Do you believe in ghosts?
Posted: 12/8/2007 8:06:33 AM
At “MysticWater” and “kitticat”:

Seems to me that – you guys believe in reincarnations and stuff like that. I could be wrong but that is how it seems.
“Reincarnation” is a concept I totally don’t believe in. I believe we only come to this world once. And I don’t believe we are coming to earth as a “learning experience”. I believe we are coming as a "punishment" and we have to prove ourselves before we are taken back. We committed a gross sin (our real original sin) of questioning God’s absolute authority. Depending to the different extent we went to question God’s absolute authority – our classification took place. Before that – all entities were the same!!
I believe babies that die young are souls of entities that did not doubt God to any extreme levels. When God intervened and asked us why we considered Devils insinuation – I believe babies that die young and animals and so forth – quickly changed their minds and repented. This is why they only come to this world as a symbolic trip. Once dead – their souls head back to heavens. Rest of humans who live through adulthood – possess souls that actually asked God to prove himself. That is why our actions counts.


By MysticWater:
“On a spiritual level souls can change their mind in utero about the experiences that they will have on earth and decide not to come in for many reasons. We choose our parents, families and living situations depending on the learning through experiences that we want to have in the physical.”


I totally disagree!!! I believe souls cannot change their minds. It is not up to souls. Only God decides which soul is appointed to which family and which part of the world IMO.
Depending on our involvement in our “original sin” (NOT Adam and eve’s forbidden fruit incident but a sin that we all committed while in Godly kingdom prior to that) – God appoints which soul is born where. If it were up to the soul then why would any soul want to be appointed to a starving family with diseases and in a poor country? That is absolutely illogical!!!


By kitticat:
“Shadowdancing, these beliefs of yours seem so sad and fearful. I respect your right to hold them...though I do not agree with them...”


If it is so sad and fearful then it is advisable for you to jump over my posts. Everyone has his or her version of the “truth” and my truth really hurt you?
Stop being a baby that you are not!!


By kitticat:
“but I am just wondering, who taught you this stuff? Was it your church or a certain book? I have read and studied so much about spirituality... and I confess I have never run across these ideas before.


I learned it and still learning through my research into multiple world famous religions (mostly Abrahamic) and also through my very own NDE experience!! I currently don’t belong to any religion and I don’t have any church. IMO most followers in almost all religion got many things wrong. By putting a brand name on the forehead – one would unknowingly admit to be a part of multiple wrong interpretations of that said religion. I think that is an unwise practice. One can have a working faith system without a brand name as long as different details are logical and based on what God (the creator) may have relayed. Different verses in any said doctrine can mean many things. No one can prove (while alive) to have the ultimate truth. So, don’t agree with what I wrote – just move along to the next post.

Once again, the entities that many people claim to encounter are NOT IMO souls of dead people. I believe those are another entity better described as devils descendants. They attach themselves to human bodies in singular numbers and feed Devil’s point of view to us. Devil is not omnipresent. If he were then that would make him very powerful.
Because these entities attached themselves to a said human – they gather his/her memories. As a result – if contacted they can impersonate him/her pretty good. These entities have a lifespan too. Once dead they leave the world as well and wait (just like human souls) for the judgment day. BTW, that is just my version.

Once, again – Yes! I believe in ghosts. BUT I don’t believe they are souls of dead humans.

 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 78 (view)
 
What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 12/8/2007 7:07:37 AM

By OP:
“Nudity has nothing to do with rape. For that matter, sex has nothing to do with rape. Rape is about power.. not sex. To think that a woman is "asking for it" because she is naked or dressed scantily is a purely old fashioned idea.”


Unless you take interviews of all known rapist and do a thorough research – you cannot say for certain that all rape is about power. Ask any date-rapist and they might tell you that – they felt they were led on (attitude of the girl, revealing clothing, teasing) and then at some point they lost control and couldn’t take “NO” for an answer.

Some guys (not all) (once turned on) cannot take “NO” for an answer. They exist in this world. They are worst than dogs. So, imagine what will happen if girls go out on dates with them in the nude!!!

Obviously, we will see havoc in our society. We will see more rape. If you disagree then try it out.



By OP:
“You do realize that this is why Islam has women cover themselves right? Because men are incapable of controlling their thoughts. So you believe this?”


Even though I don’t follow any man known religion – I think I know quite a bit about Islam. I think even men are supposed to cover themselves in this religion. Men are not supposed to wear shorts. So, what that means? Women are not capable of controlling their thoughts?

I don’t think men in general are incapable of controlling their thoughts – however I do believe some men are quite incapable of controlling their thoughts. This world is full of different kinds of people. Some men are worse than dogs. Don’t believe me? Just go to a club on a Saturday night and observe them for yourself. See how they undress girls with their eyes. You want to make their job easy by walking around naked – then be my guest. No! Scratch that! Be your own guest!!


By OP:

“Are you actually that weak willed in your convictions?”


We are not talking about just “me”!! Of course I am not weak willed. But as I said before – this world is full of different kinds of people. God’s rules are given in general and apply to all. Maybe “Tom” has good conviction and won’t use drugs and “D*ck” may use it in moderation and never really got addicted or harm anyone by using it but “Harry” is totally weak willed. He became addicted and would eventually die from O/D. So, short of coming down himself and tell everyone personally who can do drugs and who cannot - God said to all – “don’t do drugs at all”.

Almost all famous religions tell us that “nudity in public” – is wrong. They all cannot be wrong!!! Even most Govt. try to restrict it and it is not only due to religious convictions but also mostly because it is a given fact that it is detrimental towards healthy development of a child’s mental psyche.

Practices such as “healthy humans hanging out nude together” might lead to sex faster than human hanging out together fully clothed. Sex is like a wild beast. Once we find out about it and cause it to release into our lives – it is very hard to contain it. Most of us can contain our thoughts and prevent ourselves from turning our thoughts into unwarranted actions BUT why even bother to give young kids these kinds of thought at very early age? Why put them in a predicament where they have to fight their demons?
I think in an ideal society where kids learn late about sex – they may have better concentration on their studies and other more important aspects of life. What better way is there (from poisoning their minds) than covering up your unwarranted nudity?



By OP:
“To me, that medieval thought pattern is merely an excuse to make your "punishment" less severe. Kind of like kids hollering "but he made me do it!! I wouldn't have done it, if hadn't given me the idea!!"

Accept your own faults and "sins" as your own and quit looking to cast them off on someone else.
~Freya”


Most famous religions are old. However, most rules/ laws are not outdated!!
BTW, nowhere did I say that the punishment of a rapist who claimed to have been “enticed” - should be less severe.

When you break a covenant (in this case - leading a righteous life according to what God has prescribed in some of the famous religions) - you will be responsible for you own mistakes. IMO you won’t be able to cast off your sins to anyone else. A rapist will be punished for his crimes and a naked girl might be (I repeat might be) punished for not listening to God directives of clothing herself in public. Now if all famous religions are wrong and God never really gave such a directive – then I guess it may not be a sin walking around naked.

p.s. At OP:
You asked why nudity could be a sin - I stated why I think it is a sin in public. Your disagreement was predictable. I knew it was a waste of my time posting in this thread but I had some free time to kill.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 159 (view)
 
Golden Compass Promotes Hate
Posted: 12/8/2007 6:38:36 AM
Most people think that they got the ultimate truth. When it comes to religion – the grass is always greener on our own side!! This is why we shouldn’t make any movies about religious matters such as God, Angels, Satan, souls, life after death and so on. It would always anger some people when it doesn’t go along with their way of thinking.

I agree that a child’s mind can be influenced through what they watch and experience. However, we live in a free society. So unless something is directly promoting hate and violence towards a particular group or religion – I don’t think we should try to restrict it.

The first thing a parent should tell their kids before taking them to a movie is that – “it is all fantasy – it is not real”. Once being told – I think all kids should be able to handle almost any kind of fantasy stories. However, in some extreme situation where a kid lingers on in the fantasyland – there is still nothing to worry!! He would eventually snap out of it. We don’t see many kids continuing to try to fly like superman or believe in Santa Claus when they grow old.

Have faith in you kids – they are usually smarter than you think!!

I, personally haven’t seen the movie yet – but what I hear about every human having a co-companion entity or something - Well! that sounds interesting. I personally believe in such a concept myself.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 65 (view)
 
What is the reasoning for clothing our nakedness?
Posted: 12/2/2007 12:17:24 PM

By OP:
“I am trying to understand this reasoning and failing. It makes no sense to me. At what point did the naked human body become a sin and why is it viewed as such?”


What is a sin?

Many people might say – anything that is banned in their respective religion is a sin. But in reality – the definition is much more deeper than that.
In any religion that was instigated from the real God - everything that is banned from God - have good reasons behind them. Trying to figure out the reasons – is the name of the game!!

Following is what I wrote on another thread called “what is wrong with nudity”.

Let me copy and paste it here because I still feel the same way regarding this topic..


By Me:
“In the heavenly kingdom – there is nothing wrong with nudity. BUT here on earth – it is a different story. This world is our second chance for redemption. What we do here counts. If a particular thing we do - contributes to something evil (even passively) – then we could be responsible for it.

In other words – we are responsible for our actions as well as for our intentions and not to mention any evil domino effect that we may cause to initiate.

In simple words – if a naked women walks on the street with an absolute clear conscious and no evil intentions then – she could still be liable for any evil thoughts she may unknowingly instigate within the mind of a lusting guy and vice versa. At the same time – it is important to note that – if the damage she may or may not passively cause is ‘insignificant’ then she will not be punish for her unintentional behavior.

Let me give you a simple example. Let’s compare a pretty woman’s state of nakedness with a million dollars in cash. If you have a million dollars in cash – would you go and sit on the sidewalk at 3 o’clock in the morning in a bad neighborhood with your million dollars laid out in front of you? Wouldn’t you be asking to be mugged? Wouldn’t everyone call you crazy or insane? Is it not your responsibility to protect your well being and your money – so that someone don’t get evil ideas in his head and decides to take advantage of you and commit a crime to take your money away from you?

Would you only blame that thug for mugging you, or would you also blame yourself for being stupid to sit on the street with your million dollars laid out in front of you?? Now, similarly everyone is asked to protect his or her assets. It is foolish to give people evil ideas that may cause them to mug you or rape you. Of course that thug's crime is huge compare to your stupidity, but you are also responsible for not playing it safe. This is a vicious world. We are here to prove a point. This world is our punishment (not that Adam and Eve’s forbidden story) but for an earlier incident. Here, we are asked to lead a righteous life before we are allowed to make it back to heaven.

In heaven, we will not be subjected to any evil eyes. Everyone will be totally contented there. God will be directly involved and wouldn’t let anything bad happen to anyone. Things that are not okay in this world – will be okay there.

If the outcome of something you say or do – does not anger God and does not harm anyone or anything (actively or passively) – then it is not a sin. In God’s immediate kingdom – God will make sure – our words or actions do not harm anyone. That’s why we could get drunk and drive naked (if we want to) and it won’t be a sin because we won’t be hurting anyone. But, that is NOT the case here on earth. Here, our words or actions can cause someone to be hurt (physically or mentally) or we could easily contribute our share to instigate something evil. If we do - then we could be responsible for it to a certain degree. However, God will look at intentions. If a naked girl’s intention was not to make guys lust at her or if she was not trying to take advantage of them by playing with their minds – then she could be forgiven. If you don’t intend to cause an oil-spill then you could be technically forgiven – but if birds and fishes die and you ruin the environment – then the blame has to go somewhere. So, why take chance by unintentionally causing an oil spill?

However, there is nothing wrong with nudity between legitimate couple. Sins will be measured in direct proportion to the damage it produces. If damage were not present or minimal then sin would not be there or would be minimal as well.
However, if a girl has a boyfriend but she gets naked in front of another man – then she could be hurting the feelings of her boyfriend. So, then it definitely becomes a sin and thus wrong.

A person can watch naked girls online and enjoy it and limit any damage to his own self. But if it causes him to go out and rape someone or do something offensive - then his sin could technically be shared by those instigators (naked girls online) for their contribution for the initial thought that may have triggered the action. It is the domino effect; everything is connected. Everyone involved will share the burden of a sin to his or her direct proportional contribution to the manifestation of that sin.”



Once again - the preceding quoted words are taken from a post written by me in the thread called “What is wrong with nudity”.
Link below…

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/5603965datingPostpage2.aspx

 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 389 (view)
 
Was Hitler a Christian?
Posted: 12/2/2007 11:18:47 AM
Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian. If he were not a modern version of Christian then – anyone who believes in his or her sins getting erased by Jesus’ so-called blood sacrifice – would not be true Christians either IMO!!!

In my opinion – there are no true Christians left in the world since that conference in 325 A.D. Major concepts of this religion have been systematically changed. Now most (if not all) Christians (IMO) wrongfully believe in Jesus’ deity and that Jesus died to erase their sins.

It is safe to assume that – Hitler had fallen for the same misconception that Jesus’ would erase all his (Hitler’s) sins through his so-called blood sacrifice.

Jesus dying to erase his fellow mankind’s sins is a lame and false concept IMO. Hitler proved what that kind of misconception could produce.

The example of “Hitler” – should be used as an eye opener for the rest of the Christians who still wrongfully (IMO) believe that all their sins will be magically erased by Jesus’ so-called blood sacrifice. Hitler proved how crazy that concept of “erasing sins” really is!!!!

“If Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them?” -Jules Feiffer



To all so-called modern days Christians:
How many bags of sins are you carrying around expecting them to be erased by Jesus’ so-called blood sacrifice? Hitler would be looking to erase his truckload of sins at the same place but to no avail to both of you IMO. I think his truckload of sins and your bag full of sins will probably go un-erased.


There no get out of hell free card – there are no free tickets to heaven. You do a crime – you will pay the time. If God wishes to forgive you – it won’t be due to any blood sacrifice IMO.
Someone should have said that to Hitler (who was following the modern version of false Christianity.)


Wake up and smell the coffee!!
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 96 (view)
 
Ghosts, where do they fit into things
Posted: 12/2/2007 10:57:37 AM

By OP:
“Are they trapped between heaven and hell? Or what?”


If you mean they are human souls trapped between heaven and hell then… NO! I don’t think they are human souls at all!!! They are spirits (souls like entities) that comes to this world just like us. Those entities live longer than average humans and they are far too susceptible to devil and his ways. I think they come to this world as devil’s descendants. When a human child is born – one of those entities attaches itself to that human body/conscious and feeds devil’s point of view. When the human dies – these entities leave the body and but lives on for a couple of hundreds of years (the remainder of their lifespan) and then eventually they too die. I don’t believe the same entity can attach itself to another human baby because they are many in line for them as well.

When someone sees a ghost or claims of making contact – these are the entities they are making contact with IMO.

More on this in the thread called “Do you believe in ghosts” and the thread called “The Spirit world and spirits”.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Do you believe in ghosts?
Posted: 12/2/2007 10:44:26 AM
I believe that there are spirits (a soul like entity) that roams around this world BUT I do not believe they are souls of humans that have died. It is doubtful that human souls linger around after death regardless of any unfinished business they may feel they have or regardless of whether or not they worry for their left behind relatives. The “bigger picture” will be clear to everyone after death. Everyone will be concerned about the “Judgment day”. So, I believe human souls would go on a dormant mode and just wait for the judgment day. IMO the concept of time works differently in that realm – so the wait for the “judgment day” may not be that long.

Some folks occasionally claim to encounter ghosts and some so-called “mediums” even claim to make contact with them – BUT I doubt they understand what they are really making contact with. The entities that they claim to make contact with – are not dead souls of humans IMO.


God created all living beings at the same time. They were all “the same” in the beginning IMO. The classification of those “beings” took place after a rebellion in Godly kingdom.

All living entities falls under four categories…

1) Angels:
Entities that never doubted God and never questioned his absolute authority.

2) Animals, trees, babies that die young:
Entities that doubted God slightly but repented before God intervened and proved his absolute authority.

3) Human souls:
Entities that asked God to prove his authority and only after that they repented.

4) Creatures that were far-gone in their distrust:
These creatures liked devil’s suggestion better and decided to remain ignorant and did things (bigger and worst things) that may have been very offensive to God.

Angels remained with God but the rest were put in repository and are coming to this world one by one for their second change at redemption.


Category two comes to this world as a symbolic trip and once dead they are supposedly forgiven IMO.
Category three really has to prove they are worthy to be taken back. They need to believe in God with limited proof that we have and lead a righteous life and believe in the eventual judgment day.

For Category four – everything is much harder. They have a longer life span and they are more susceptible to the devil and his ways. As a matter of fact – I think they come to this world as devil’s descendants. Just like we come to this world as Adam’s descendants!!

When a human child is being born – one of those entities from the category four attaches itself with the human soul and thus feed us devil’s point of view. Devil is not omnipresent – so this is the way he tries to influence us.

When a human dies – his co-companion entity leaves the body but lives on for the rest of the duration of its lifespan. Because it remains attached with the human during his lifespan – it gathers enough memory to fool anyone that it is in fact the soul of that human. But in reality – those are not human souls. Those co-inhabited entities can be better described as devil’s descendants.

More on this in the thread called “The Spirit world & spirits”
Link below…

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/4455566datingPostpage2.aspx



 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Please explain this to me..questions and logic
Posted: 11/24/2007 10:34:22 PM

By OP:
“What, in my estimation, is (are) the basic flaws... or the basic conundrums I have come across in my research into modern christianity.”


IMO modern Christianity is full of corrupted and innovated ideologies. The preceding people who were in a position to make changes have systematically changed almost everything that Jesus had preached. Whether it was intentional (changes) or whether it happened by mistake just to make sense out of unexplained things – the bottom line is – principal ideologies have been changed over the years due to various reasons. First they turned Jesus into God or Son of God and then they couldn’t understand “why” a God couldn’t save himself from being crucified – so they came up with “blood atonement” or the concept of dying for the sins of mankind (or dying for his followers to be more specific). It is sad but in my opinion this religion has lost it’s true face!!



By OP:
“Basically the whole premise (of christianity) is that we are created as autonomous beings with life of our own...ETERNAL life, without needing the SOURCE of life (God). We just go on...forever...either in the presence of God, or not, as the case may be. Either in Heaven, or in Hell? Sooooo..... the serpent was right then, "you shall not surely die". Just suffer unbearably, or not, as the case may be. Death never really existed then...it's all an illusion. The whole, "If you eat of the tree, you shall surely die", was a lie. (the Gnostics sound more sensible every day)

This is not at all logical. If I am created IMMORTAL...why do I need to seek "eternal life", or "salvation"? Saved from what? Death?...


Yes! We are immortal in our soul form. All beings (Angels, Lucifer, Humans, animals, and so on) were created a few billion years ago at the same time in our soul form. Even though technically - we are immortal in our soul form but God created us - so he can destroy us into nonexistence if he wants to.
There is a reason why Adam’s body was created and the first soul (Adam’s soul) was put into it and later sent to this world. I wrote about it in other threads called “The forbidden fruit” and also another thread called “Why God is silent”. It is out there!! Let me point out my conclusion on this matter once again…

We are coming to this world to avail ourselves our second chance at redemption. We are not coming due to a mistake committed by Adam and Eve. Even though – technically (when they disobeyed God) they did move the location of our second chance at redemption to this planet earth – but they didn’t initiate the need for our redemption. We (as in all human beings) are coming to this world (one by one) due to our own mistake. Our “Original sin” was NOT Adam and Eve’s “forbidden fruit” incident!!! Our “Original sin” was something we all committed at the same time prior to Adam and Eve’s “forbidden fruit” incident.

A few billions of years ago – when we were created (in our soul form) we were all there in God’s kingdom. Lucifer/ Devil was there too. He was still good at the time and God had given him some extra ability. With that he became arrogant and knowingly or unknowingly misled us to believe that – he too can run a dominion like God. Most of the entities did not believe him (they are the Angels). However, some of the entities (their number still in billions) believed the Devil to different levels. When God intervened – most of those entities quickly changed their minds and repented (animals, trees, babies that die young are in that category). These entities come to this world just for a superficial visit to pay for their crime. After death they go back to God’s heavenly kingdom and supposedly forgiven.
Humans’ souls were the egocentric ones!!! We questioned God’s absolute authority and asked him to prove that he is the sole creator. After God showed his proof – we too repented. But the damage was already done. If you are the boss at your office and your subordinates constantly question your authority over them – would you like to prove it everyday? With all the proof that was already there in Godly kingdom about God’s absolute authority – why would our creator need to prove to us (every time) someone question his authority?
After we had committed our original sin - the Angels asked God to destroy us. However God rejected their recommendation and decided to give us a second chance. But this time with our memory erased. Adam was the first of those souls and after that “forbidden fruit” incident the location for our second chance was moved to a tougher place called earth.
By the way, some of the entities were too far-gone in doubting God and they are now devil’s descendants. We all have one of those entities attached to our consciousness (same place as our soul). This entity feeds us conflicting thoughts (devil’s point of view). Devil is not omni-present, so that’s the way he tries to corrupt everyone simultaneously.




ByOP:
“ So Jesus died, that I may have life eternal...when I already had it (?) He showed us how to live BY EXAMPLE, but it doesn't really matter what we do as long as we ACCEPT him by faith. So why did he live the way he did? For fun? If it doesn't really matter what our deeds are then why set an example? What's the point?”


Again! Modern versions of Christianity IMO got everything wrong. Jesus did not die to erase anyone’s sins. The only reason he was allowed to be crucified was to set the record straight that he was NOT God. A rumor had started that he was God or Son of God. So when challenged to prove that he was indeed a deity by saving himself from being killed – he was left with no choice but to go along with the crucifixion and thus prove that he was merely a human. Had God saved him and let him continue his job – then more and more people would have wrongfully started to believe that he was indeed a deity. This is why Jesus had asked the real God (while on the cross and in excruciating pain)– “if there was any other way”!!!



By OP:
“And why... when the christian church was the most powerful (had the most influence over the population) was the result the dark ages, and the black plague, the witchhunts, Inquisition and heretic burnings and hangings? Why did most of Europe (and other parts of the world) decend into a very horrid time? “


The religion of Christianity is on the wrong track from a very early age. Even some of Jesus’ disciples had wrongfully started to believe in Jesus’ deity. His miracle birth, the facts that he was strengthened with a “holy spirit” (just a soul like entity) and some of the miracles that he had performed - caused them to wrongfully believe in his deity. Jesus’ miracle birth was to take away half the impurity or genetic flaws that one may inherit from two biological parents. The “holy spirit” was just a soul like entity whose job was to take away the space where the devil or his descendant would attach itself and influence the judgment of an ordinary human. The Holy Spirit’s job was to protect Jesus from devil’s direct influence over his mind. Even the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed – does not make him a deity. Jesus had no power that was independently his own. Everything was done thru God.
So, since the early day’s Christian’s version made very little sense, they could not sell their version to willing believers. So, they had to force it unto them and as result we notice all those dark ages you mentioned. Compounded with the fact that those Christians also believed that whatever they were doing was for God and regardless of what they do – they would be forgiven because of the so-called fact that Jesus supposedly died for them.


By OP: post#5
“Please explain how one can be both mortal and immortal.”


Our soul is immortal – but our body is not. Our life on earth is like a prison term that a criminal would get when he is sent to a lockdown facility (jail).
We committed a crime when we questioned God’s absolute authority. That was our “original sin”. We are sent here (earth) to serve a time and prove ourselves worthy to be taken back into God’s heavenly kingdom.
Just like in a prison - the inmates have limited access to the outside world and limited privileges – we too have limited privileges and limited information about Godly kingdom. God did not leave us blind but whatever information we have is scattered among tons and tons of manmade rubbish.
In a punishing mode and in a lockdown facility – what more can we expect??? We should be happy that after our initial “original sin” we were not destroyed but given a second chance.


By OP:
“Why ask people (physical beings limited in perception) to believe something... why not just be up front about it..like "here I am, yes I am GOD, any questions?" Why so frickin' vague and mysterious? What's the point of it all? An Omnipotent, Omniscient, being has to rely on word of mouth advertisement? Rely on the fallible writings of people? Why couldn't GOD have written things himself? On like Titanium steel sheaves, or diamond crytals encoded with information? Why didn't he get Jesus to write the truth. He had hands, and studied in the Temple. I'm pretty sure he was literate (maybe not) Why not have an example living with us all the time so EVERYONE could see the truth, and there'd be no question? Wouldn't this make much more sense? Wouldn't it be easier to separate the truly rebellious and evil from the good if there weren't so much conjecture? I mean really...Lucifer lived in the presence of GOD and still rebelled (idiot)... why hide it from humans? And why all the metaphors and poetry? I like art., I like stories... but in reality I'd much rather just be TOLD what's going on in plain language. It's much easier to understand. Why the big convoluted coded hidden unprovable sophistry? Why is faith without evidence such a good thing? Why are thinking rational beings supposed to suspend logic?..”


No need to suspend logic. Information is out there but scattered in multiple religions and among tons and tons of man written rubbish. We are in a lockdown facility. What we have is – more than we deserve. We questioned God’s absolute authority while in God’s kingdom. All the proofs you mentioned were there. We were still misled by the devil. Now in a tougher place and with limited knowledge – we need to proof we are worthy for a second chance. God could have destroyed us – BUT God decided to give us a second chance.


By OP:
“Why should I be paying the price of two stupid and inexperienced beings? That's like people who still blame me for the slave trade because my ancestors were white. I didn't have anything to do with it. And how did all these people come about from 2 individuals> Isn't that a serious case of incest for generations? (eeeewwwwww) How is it possible for 2 people to have the gene pool to be the parents of 6 billion people? THAT doesn't make sense either.”


You are paying the price of your own deed. As I mentioned earlier – Adam and Eve ONLY moved the location of our second chance at redemption. But you are here for you own crime. If you lead a righteous life and believe in God and believe in Judgment day by sorting thru the information given about God’s heavenly kingdom – then you have nothing to fear IMO. I think God will take back most of the entities. “Everlasting damnation” is probably for devil and maybe for a few far-gone (astray) entities. However, God may forgive anyone he chooses. He created us and it’s his prerogative to forgive whomever he chooses.


By OP:
“I do however break the Sabbath”


I think one of Jesus’ main missions was to lighten up people regarding observing the Sabbath. Sabbath was primarily for Moses followers. However, I believe the strictness of following it was a manmade misconception. Jesus tried to fix that by doing different things that were not performed by the Jews of his time.



By OP:
“I haven't yet seen an arguement, position or information on this thread that answers the questions I have, nor proves the illogicality of the premises I have pointed out... though the idea that "death" was referring to the "body" (mortal) and not the "soul" (immortal) is interesting. But that would mean that "God" is constantly creating new beings (if they receive their "soul" at birth or sometime before, which has been attested to several times on this very thread) .. but the Bible states that creation was completed at the creation of Eve (?)(and God rested, it was all good...etc...I believe that this account in hebrew is also in the plural) How is that possible if new souls are required for each child? I don't think that religion would much care for the idea that humans not only create the body through reproduction, but also new souls (would make us kind of "godlike", being able to create living souls)... but the alternative is that "God" is still creating, daily! Or that He/She has a cache somewhere of infant souls to inhabit the children born to humans (are they aware? Or in a state of suspended animation?). Soooo... one idea is that God is creating new souls that will be "flawed" by being born human. In other words souls are created already condemned, and creation is not a finished project. There is also the scriptures referring to Elijah, which are kind of cool, as it sounds like Elijah was reincarnated as John the Baptist. Yet supposedly the "dead know nothing", what about Lazarus? He obviously "knew something", during his time in the grave...sounds like he was conscious to some degree. It is also interesting to point out that before the Maccabean revolt, the Hebrews had a view of the afterlife that was quite similar to the ancient Greeks... sort of a shadowy realm reminiscent of the Greek Hades (Sheol in Hebrew) Also Elijah and Moses appear at the ascension (hard to do if you are dead) many years after their deaths...centuries actually. And Elijah is said in the OT to never have died actually...but "ascended" (how did he get the "eternal life" I thought ALL were guilty until after Jesus' sacrifice?)”


All souls were created at the same time. The ones that were misled by the devil are put into a repository and they are coming one by one to this world to get their second chance at redemption. When every soul from that repository gets their single chance to come – We will have the Judgment Day and we will face God once again. I wouldn’t call it “reincarnation” because the souls gets ONLY one chance in a physical body but they are and will be into existence ever since their creation. The memory of the previous incidents in Godly kingdom is however erased for most of the human souls. But we were all there and all created at the same time and it includes all the prophets, angels, devil, and all human souls and even animals.

Depending on our participation in that rebellion that resulted after we were misled by the devil and depending on the levels of our disbelief in God’s absolute authority – we are assigned to different bodies. Our assigned parents and our appearances, born into a poor family or into a rich family, which part of the world – everything is predetermined and predestined and assigned by God.

I think – the reason our memory is not intact is because – we were fooled and misled once. It is only fair to prove we cannot be fooled again without the knowledge of the proof that God had provided to show that he is the ultimate and sole creator. I think it could be more special to God – to believe though choice rather than like a robot.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 97 (view)
 
The Forbidden Fruit
Posted: 11/10/2007 12:40:02 AM


By OP from post#30:
“if it could've been any kind of obedience (don't do that, don't touch this), why make the Tree in the first place?”

“Why not give humans knowledge about what is good and what is evil when creating them, but instead make them without that knowledge, then put that knowledge in some object, and then placing that object right in front of their faces?”



To understand “why make the tree in the first place” – it may be a good idea to seek the story behind the story. We need to figure out – why Adam and Eve and the rest of us, the Angels or any other entities were created, why heaven was created, why Adam’s physical body was created and his soul (first human) was breathed into it, why Devil was allowed to fool them (Adam and Eve) and subsequently why they were moved to planet earth and so on. By looking at the bigger picture – we might be able to understand God’s big plan.

Explanations are out there but maybe subject to personal interpretations. But the bigger problem is - it is scattered among various different religious doctrines together with tons of manmade/ man-written rubbish. IMO no single religion can nor should claim to have the entire truth.

I normally take a look at different doctrines and try to figure out possible scenarios myself rather than listening to pre-established explanations provided by priests or similar humans. It is very important to remember that – even the doctrine in question could be corrupted through innovations, fabrications or translation and re-translations.

It is my personal opinion that – all heavenly scenarios are beyond our complete comprehension. Most of the scenarios described in any God inspired/ endorsed religious doctrines are metaphorical IMO. Incidents described that had happened prior to creation of earth are not exactly as we see stuff here on earth. IMO the reality in God’s kingdom is not entirely similar to the reality in this world.

I believe that ALL prophets or godly people were humans just like us and it is impossible for humans to explain things that are out of the world or things that we have not personally experienced or things that we cannot compare to - with something else readily available in front of our eyes. If you have never eaten any chocolate cake in your entire life and never tasted anything sweet either and someone gives you a slice and asks you to describe how it tastes like but just by looking at it – CAN YOU describe it? First you have got to take a bite and then you need to know what sweet or chocolaty tastes like or something else that tastes like chocolate. Otherwise it would be impossible for you to describe the taste to someone else. Similarly, the prophets have described heavenly stuff to us to the best of their ability. Not to mention - their explanations were restricted by linguistic limitations. Not everything can be described. On top of all that - people who came before us but after those prophets - possibly knowingly or unknowingly distorted many of those descriptions/stories. So (IMO) it would be very difficult to comprehend exact ‘settings’ regarding Adam and Eve scenario. However you can give your best shot BUT (once again) first you need to try and figure out the story behind the story.

I think “the story behind the story” is quite relevant to this topic. If God did put such a tree out there and had forbidden Adam and Eve to eat any fruit from it then (I think) it is imperative to try and understand the reason behind it. However, I personally believe – this was a metaphorical example. What really happened could be slightly different than what is described in different doctrines - just to make it easy for us to comprehend. But even if it was literal – the details could still be quite off the mark for various reasons.

Here is what I think may have happened prior to the so-called “forbidden fruit” incident that may have contributed towards the reason why God may have put such a tree out there to test Adam and Eve…

Billions of years ago God created all beings (soul like entity) at the same time. We were all there (in our soul-form) in God’s Heavenly kingdom. Devil (still good at the time) knowingly or unknowingly tried to fool/mislead us by stating that he can run a dominion like God. Most of the entities didn’t believe him (they are the Angels) and they remained with God. But some (their number still in billions) believed Devil’s insinuation to different extent (they are Humans, animal/trees, Devil’s descendants). Okay, let’s ignore the different classification of the rebellious entities and deal only with “Humans souls” because we are talking about Adam and Eve and their descendants!!

God could have destroyed all that questioned his absolute authority but God is forgiving. So even though the Angels asked us to be destroyed – God decided not to do so and decided to give us a second change at redemption. So God put all those “would-be” human souls in a repository and created Adam’s body from clay and breathed the first Human soul into it. He created heaven and put Adam there. Subsequently he created Eve and the cycle had thus begun. Now one by one those human souls are coming (from that repository) to get their second chance at redemption. When all those would-be human souls are done coming to this world (only once of course) then we will have Judgment day. But that is another topic.

Anyways - when Adam and Eve were fooled by the Devil (that forbidden fruit story) – the location of where we would struggle to prove ourselves and gain our chance at redemption – was moved to planet earth. Here among death, disease, danger, chaos, misery and accidents (in short a tougher place) – we are supposed to disregard Devil’s suggestions and try and recover ourselves from our own personal “Original Sin” that we (each one of us) had committed prior to that Adam and Eve’s forbidden fruit incident. Our original sin was the sin that all of us committed when we (misled by the Devil) questioned God’s absolute authority.

Initially the Devil was good and had proved himself quite devoted. So, God had given him some extra ability. Kind of like – when the president selects his staff and gives them some extra authority to rule or control the rest of the citizens. The first time the Devil was able to mislead us was by showing his God given extra ability. But the second time he only whispered to Eve and was still able influence Eve and Adam. Thus he proved that he was worthy of participating in the test where he would attempt to manipulate humans and send them towards the wrong direction. He has nothing to gain by this but self-satisfaction and to cause a delay of his own ultimate fate.

I know – many would say that – God is omniscient and omnipotent. He knew everything so what is the point. Well, God has the power to know everything but he has the prerogative to not use all his powers all the time. It is like having a TV monitor that shows you the future but you decide to keep it off and not use it to see the future.

I don’t think it really matters whether the fruit was from “tree of knowledge” or “tree of life” or just a “plain fruit tree”. The bottom line is – Adam and Eve were asked not to do something and they (misled by the devil) did it anyways. Consequently they have caused the location of our test moved to this world (a tougher place). But the real reason we are being tested and given a second chance at redemption was our own doing. That had nothing to do with Adam and Eve’s forbidden fruit incident.

If I (personally) believed in a religion that narrates such a story where the deity created something appealing and then forbidding mankind from indulging in it and finally punishing mankind for failing to comply - then I would try to figure out God’s reason behind putting such a thing (tree) out there in the first place. Remember – everything God does have a valid reason. There are multiple things in this world that are created and seemingly beneficial to us or enjoyable to indulge in - but are forbidden to different extent. (i.e. Right amount of different drugs can cure you – too much can kill you. Yeah! Too much can work like poison.) So, without knowing what were the ingredients of those fruits – how can anyone come to conclusion that they were purely beneficial to us? God created us; God knows what is good for us. If God had put something but forbidden us from eating it – then it would be expected that we listen.

In conclusion:

Q: Why God put that tree there in the first place?
A: For the same/ similar reason he has put the ingredient of so many (illegal) addictive drugs in this planet. With the TV monitor turned off (Omniscient quality off) – it might be interesting to see if we would indulge in them or refrain from using them. IMO this world is all about our second chance at redemption. Making hard to attain it – is only fair play.
We don’t know – if the fruits from those so-called trees were addictive or not. We know what addiction to illegal drugs can do to a person because we have many bad examples to learn from (examples of other people using drugs). But for the first couple – it was only God’s warning and no example to learn from!!!!
Now (maybe because Adam and Eve ate that fruit) we are addicted to “learning” and we have millions of questions. I know it is not necessarily a bad thing BUT at least they disobey God! (Maybe it was “fruit of learning” and not “fruit of knowledge”).

Conclusion: I think it is unwise to come to wicked conclusions regarding God and his intentions WITHOUT cross checking or knowing the following facts:
a) Checking out the validity of the details of the story.
b) Considering the story behind the story (background).
c) Knowing details regarding the fruits and how they worked.

 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 53 (view)
 
What is truth?
Posted: 11/4/2007 2:50:08 PM
Truth is a mental state where all your questions are answered and you are no longer in a confused state.

Truth is the guy that humans try to pick out from a lineup and convince themselves that they got the right guy. However, the only guy that the creator of the universe picks – will be that actual Mr. Truth!! We can wait for the creator to reveal that guy to us after we die or we can try and figure out ourselves while still here on earth.
It is to our benefit if we try to figure out while we are alive because “truth” can set us free!!

The following is something I wrote in a different thread named “Does Truth exist ---”. I thought I should save some time and just copy and paste it over here. It feels a little strange to quote myself but it expresses my position on this topic regarding the word “Truth”, so why not?


At OP:
If you are talking about the “absolute truth” – then IMO there is ONLY ONE absolute truth or something close to it and it is out there to be discovered by those who seek it. BUT they need to seek at the right place.

Lets think of “absolute truth” in respect to a prime number (a positive integer that is not divisible without a remainder by any positive integer other than itself and one). So, let’s give “truth” a numeric value of “19”, which is a prime number (nineteen is a number that has the first numeral “1” and the last numeral “9”; kind of assuming - it is the alpha and omega of truth!!!).

Now, if the 100% of truth is being represented by that numeric value of “19” – then while searching for the truth - the best we can do is – try and reach that number. In our attempt to search for the truth - if we reach any positive number (obviously under 19.00) - we can say that - we are on the right track. So, anything positive (above “0”) and all the way to that magical and presumed highest possible figure of “19” (i.e. “0.01” to “18.99”) are all truth to a certain degree. However, negative (less than “0”) numbers are the opposite of truth.
In short – as long as you are on the right (positive) track – you can get close to the “truth”. You may not discover the entire and absolute truth but you can still have a little piece of it.:

Now, the question is – How do we know if we are on the positive track? This is where I believe – Godly help comes to those who begin their search in good faith.

“A negatively influenced mind is devil’s workshop”. I believe, all of us are given the ‘gift of reasoning’ BUT often we are susceptible to our socio-cultural environment. Our opinions could be negatively influenced by our personal experiences. This is where – all those pre-established dogmas come into play. We need them BUT we need to find the one - closest to the truth.We need to use our reasoning powers and find that one particular doctrine that makes the best sense to us and then we need to go through it in details and sort out any obvious fabrications or innovations that might have made their way into it. Unless we are prophets ourselves and have direct connection with God and receive direct feedbacks from God - we just cannot work on our own – we need some kind of reference to work with. We cannot totally depend on our personal inner voice, because we cannot know for sure where our inner voice is coming from. For many people (especially the egocentrically confident and self-proclaimed intelligent ones) – it could easily come from the devil himself!!! And the worst part is – they might not even know the difference!!!


Anyways – by “truth” - if you are talking about religious matters and different dogmas – then it is important to note that – even different prophets from different famous religions – never claim to know everything. Some claimed to have traveled to God’s immediate kingdom and they have tried to describe the heaven and hell to the best of their ability and understanding - BUT no one (to my knowledge) tried to explain God or tried to tell us how his powers work - with the exception of a simple statement that – God says “be” or “behold” and things comes into existence. So, the bottom line is – all truths are not revealed to us, ONLY what is necessary. We are not told much about - how the universe really came into existence, about the concept of time or even anything in details about Godly kingdom. But whatever our ancestors were told – are now hiding among tons and tons of rubbish that has been laid out and stocked up by our predecessors over the centuries. Now, it is our job to go through that rubbish land and find that “golden truth” or something closest to it! Our struggle and conflicts are more intense regarding the issues that are not clearly revealed to us in different doctrines. If the interpretations tend to reveal different viewpoint – then usually it can become a problem. Historically, it has been hard for different viewpoints to exist side by side. Relatively recently we are adopting to live together when the other viewpoint is not harming our society or us in any critical way. “You are either with us or against us” – is not a new attitude. Right or wrong - it has been an inseparable part of humanity from the start.

Who should we blame for all the differences in description of the so-called same “truth”?? Should we blame God for not providing us with one clear-cut truth? Should we blame different prophets for seemingly (to some) failing to provide a universal truth? Should we blame our predecessors for seemingly failing to preserve the “truth” and pass it to us with a more convincing flavor to it? Should we blame ourselves for not taking the time to search through all available material? Who should we blame???

I think a big portion of blames goes to the fact that – all things cannot be expressed in terms of our reality. The reality in Godly kingdom may not be exactly same as the reality in our world. Ask a person (who have never tasted any kind of fruit) to describe how an apple tastes like just by looking at it. Ask someone who has never tasted chocolate – to describe how it tastes like - by just looking at it. Even if they take a bite and have nothing to compare the taste to – they won’t be able to describe accurately how chocolate or an apple tastes like.
Similarly, the descriptions that we have - about divine things are from prophets – who (I believe) were human just like us. They described about heaven and hell and everything else - to the best of their ability and with the limitations of linguistic expressions. Not to mention that many explanations may have been lost in preservation methods or through translations and retranslations. There is tremendous room for inaccuracy and confusion there. However, many simple instructions regarding morality and different aspects of our life in this world – are not that hard to comprehend. Those who want to seek - can still easily and accurately discover and comprehend them.


To understand – why God allowed letting the “truth” hide among tons and tons of corrupted ideologies – we need to understand the reason of our existence in this world. We need to understand why we are sent here in the first place. We need to differentiate between all the theories our predecessors came up with - regarding the reason behind our life here on earth. We need to figure out - if our life is a gift, a test, a learning experience or a punishment for our (each and everyone’s) individual “original sin” that each one of us may have committed in our soul form. We need to understand why God is seemingly silent to all the atrocities that are going on in this world, why he seemingly doesn’t interfere with the devilish people and stop them from performing their crimes in the first place. We also need to seek and find all available info regarding the scenarios that will take place afterlife and so on. To seek these answers is - the quest for the truth.

As I said earlier – “The truth is out there!!!” However, it is definitely just one absolute truth and neither everyone nor every religion can simultaneously claim to represent that absolute truth. Among all the corrupted ideologies – only one dogma or one message can resemble the best possible truth or something closest to that. God did not and would not leave us absolutely blind. He provided us with bits and pieces of so-called truth as needed and sometimes in a bulk. As a result - many religions may have some true component in their doctrines but to find the one with the best possible truth or the whole truth and nothing but the truth – is the name of the game.

Five people seeking truth (in a similar setting) will be seeking the “one and same” truth, however, if they have major differences in their conclusions – then - only one of them will be closer to the truth than the rest. In respect to that one individual who may have got the best possible truth – the other four will fail to discover his same level of truth. And there are many reasons behind that. Part of the reason would be – failing to use all possible information or using other faulty methods while searching. There are also few other things that will play some part in creating the difference in their conclusions - such as, distinctive levels of perceptual capabilities by their distinguishably attained influenced minds. It could take its shape through their personal experiences and preferences. Not to mention, if they are egocentric – that plays a part too. However, the irony is - all five would usually think their conclusions are closest to truth than the conclusion of the other four. Why is that? … Because – we, humans are egoistic beings!! We trust our “inner voice” more than we trust others. We only listen to others when we trust their judgments to be better than our own, but that hardly ever happens once we grow up!!! (Only noticeable exception to that is – when definite proofs are provided to us!!!) Yeah! “Provide me the proof and I will accept your judgment” – becomes our best slogan once we grow up. But not everything in every religion can be proven while on this earth. BUT we still need the best one, because God would not leave us uninstructed. That is why – we need to work from the opposite angle and discard the ones that make “zero” sense to us and assimilate the one that makes the best sense. After that – we still need to brush off any misunderstood concepts adopted by our predecessors. It is not an easy task but it must be done.


When five people’s conclusions differ from one another then this doesn’t necessarily mean they are all wrong – nor does it mean that - four of them are definitely wrong. It only means – one out of five might be closest to the truth. They all may quite easily share some true component in their belief system. However, I must add that - some of them (regardless of what their inner voice tells them) could also represent the absolute opposite of the truth!!!
Depending on our personal experiences our mind could easily get influenced. Someone’s inner voice may tell them that “abortion” and “homosexuality” should be acceptable practices. But if God said it is not acceptable then their inner voice cannot be right. In that case, their inner voice would be further from the truth or the opposite of the truth. If they still want to stick to their inner voice then they need to discard all the major religion that are against those practices and adopt something that go along with that line of thinking. The other choice is - they could simply establish their own new ‘system of belief’ based on their very own “inner voice”. That would be a new version of their truth. Only afterlife it can be proven factually true or false. This is why – everyone (seemingly) have freedom of opinion. But it is illogical to hold on to a particular doctrine and believe it to be true but yet not believe different clear-cut component of it. “You cannot eat your cake and have it too!”

If we are not on the right and positive track then we got to be on the wrong track because there cannot be multiple truths out there!!! That is simply NOT possible.
All roads may lead to the same place – but ONLY if different people are using different methods to search for a same place!! If a person is searching for a place where certain acts are allowed but if it is not allowed in Godly kingdom – then it is safe to say that – the road that that individual is following – will never lead to that same place!!! However, I believe, God will pick up everyone (wherever their road took them) and then deal with them according to his own way.
For failing to find the true path – he may forgive them or he may not. It is his prerogative.

In conclusion – Truth exists; it is out there. Maybe not in its entirety (all of 19) but it is out there! Some people are put on the right track by their parents; they find it and adopt it easily. They might be the lucky ones. Many others search through different doctrines and eventually find it. We are all built with a decodable receiver of the truth in our consciousness. Our sense of reasoning can help us find the truth – only if we take the time to search through everything that is available to us. When we search through all the different doctrines that are out there with an open mind – divine help would usually guide us to the purest truth that is available among them. God did not leave us blind! God does not leave anyone blind who sincerely seek the truth. However, devil is not just sitting somewhere and killing flies or on vacation “fishing”. He is busy too!!! Everyone should watch out for that guy also!!!

’nuff said!!!

 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 56 (view)
 
Is it ok to hate muslims when it comes to dating?
Posted: 8/11/2007 9:09:55 AM
Assuming you are correctly identifying the reason those girls are ending conversing with you. In other words – if it is really your name that is making those chicks (as you put it) running away from you – then IMO it is not necessarily a bad thing, because you are saving yourself time dealing with some dumb fools.

Some folks are naturally stupid but there are others who decide to stay ignorant. For them their ignorance is an acquired trait. You can try to enlighten them but in the end they will stay blind.

Practices such as “Stereotyping”, “Scapegoat-ing”, “Prejudice” and “Discriminating” are WRONG!! But fools don’t realize that and some bigger fools don’t even realize when they practice it!!

Examples of such bad practice:
Stereotyping: All Muslims are terrorist.
Prejudice: I don’t like Muslims. I won’t date them!
Discrimination: Muslims aren’t allowed in my house/ my shop/ my neighborhood.
Scapegoat-ing: Muslims are the reason the price of gas went up.

Ignorance comes in all shape and size. One can be a rocket scientist and yet be ignorant about social/ religious matters. A woman can have a doctoral degree and yet be a prejudice individual when it comes to dealing with certain people of different background.

It may seem to you that - you have less fish to interact with but if you do find someone – chances are - she would be a smarter, enlightened and open-minded individual.
Good Luck in your search!!


p.s.
Thought I should address some of the other stuff you wrote in your opening post.



By OP:
“I guess you can call me a nonpracticing muslim.”

I do not understand when people claim to be a non-practicing anything. I don’t practice any religion and don’t claim to be part of any world known religion. I don’t think a non-practicing Muslim, Christian or Jew or of any other faith system - should claim to be a non-practicing (X).



By OP:
“I have experienced that almost all girls that I meet here suddenly end communication once they find out my name (which is clearly a muslim name)”


If you are non-practicing and wouldn’t mind dating individuals who have little and wrong knowledge regarding Islam/ Muslims – then – legally changing name may solve your problem. Just a thought!!



By OP:
“My question is what to do in this situation and how to deal with people who judge me without even giving me a chance?”


If disregarding them or legally changing your name is not an option – then send them emails and try to educate them. Who knows!! You might succeed!!! Or maybe not!!
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
God is a white female
Posted: 6/30/2007 10:13:11 AM
“Reversed discrimination” is all I see in OP’s comments.

It is one thing to not believe in a God but another to criticize in a disrespectful and misinformed way. There is a reason why we were created and why we were sent to this world full of poverty, disease, war etc (as you put it). And “NO” it is not because of Adam and Eve’s forbidden fruit incident.
Information is out there – the truth is out there. Seek it yourself before coming to crazy conclusions regarding God. Nuff said.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 10 (view)
 
he has a foot fetish and i hate my feet!
Posted: 5/5/2007 5:27:38 AM
If a guy really sucked on your toes then your feet can’t be that bad. However, if you are uncomfortable with your feet then it is better to find someone who wouldn’t bother with them.
There are plenty of fish out there and I haven’t seen any fish with feet yet.

I guess the guy is fishing at the wrong pond!!

I like women who take care of their feet. If you take time to take care of your feet – then chances are – you are a well-kept individual.
Lazy down there = lazy in other aspects.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
What would you do?
Posted: 1/31/2007 7:44:09 AM
I had a NDE experience when I was a young boy. Had it happened to me at a more mature age – I would have asked the right questions and would have all the answers right now and most likely wouldn’t be roaming these forums looking for clarifications (well, basically what I am doing is - systematically discarding things that don’t make sense. However, occasionally I am coming across some new ideas that make sense).

I agree that – most people turn to religion when they have a NDE experience (where they may visit Godly kingdom or divine beings or even God). It worked the other way for me for the longest while because – first of all - I was too young to comprehend the message and secondly - I always thought after my NDE that I knew more than what everyone else knew. When one witnesses so many people practicing different corrupted ideologies – one tends to move away from religions altogether because one does not want to follow a path solo. So, as a result – even though I always believed in a ONE “single God” philosophy – I never practiced any sort of religious rituals.
Even up to now – I do not follow any rituals because I have not been able to systematically discard the wrong ones (innovations by men) from the required ones (God’s directives) or even the dated ones. As a result I have not indorsed any religion 100%. However, I have categorically discarded God’s three states (trinity) due to my personal experience. But that is just my personal position.

I believe all religions have many true components intertwined with many lies resulting from fabrications, innovations, corruptions, mistranslations, traditional/ cultural influence and messages simply lost over the years. To the best of my knowledge Koran is the only doctrine that is claimed to be unchanged by its believers. The rest of the doctrines are claimed to be written by human – even by their own believers. And for obvious reasons (as already mentioned above) it is expected that - they all have many corruptions intertwined within its pages. So, I am not sure how someone can possibly prove them to be 100% truth or absolute truth? It is an impossible scenario!! Testimonies written by different people that do not always go along with each other and contradicts in many occasions – can NOT be proven to be 100% authentic without corrections being made.

But hypothetically speaking – if I was given a book with no contradictions and was proven to be written by God – and I am convinced it is the truth – then I see no reason not to indorse it and incorporated its directives into my daily way of life. Whether I do it out of love for God or out of fear or out of respect – I would do it. But if I were asked to do something really difficult and I knew that God would forgive me whether I do it or not – then I might occasionally disobey. Just like a kid would do while dealing with his understanding parents. But, first - I will figure out my parameters (of how much I can get away with).



By discombodulated61:
“I'm only dissapointed in myself that I'm not shouting it from the roof tops.”


Are you sure that is a good idea? Shouting from the roof top!!

Just kidding!



By sipp1115:
“There can be no absolute truth that could prove the existance of a god, because then that would eliminate free will.”


Not sure what you meant there. How would the proof of existence of God – cancel out freewill?
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 246 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/30/2007 10:10:12 PM

By JerryInTampa:
“I believe that I most recently ate pancakes about two weeks ago but it's possible I'm wrong.”


This is exactly what I tried to tell you regarding the word “believe”. The word “believe” can be used in multiple ways. Sometimes it can be superficially used to mean something that is really unimportant or insignificant. BUT when you are using it to address a major subject matter that governs many people’s entire lifestyle – to be more precise, when you are revealing your position regarding the existence of God – then it is expected that you ought to give a response that constitute something that you really believe in or really accept as true.

Even if you want to compare your position regarding “god” with an insignificant “memory loss” scenario dealing with – whether or not you ate pancake two weeks ago – then - your response can still be “yes” you ate pancake (theism) or “no” you definitely didn’t eat pancake (atheism) or “maybe” you ate pancakes but cannot be sure and most likely can not prove it right now (agnosticism) and then your unique position that constitutes – “anything is possible” (also agnosticism IMO). If your answer is a “maybe” or “anything is possible”- then you are closer to an agnostic’s position and very very VERY far away from an atheist’s position. An atheist’s position is – a positive denial in the existence of god/s and that means – if asked he would say - “No, god/s do not exist at all”!!


In one of the other threads – I once spoke with an atheist who told me that – he doesn’t believe there is any god at all. He added by saying that - if he was wrong – then it would also mean that devil exists. So he would rather join devil and fight god rather than submit to god. I think – that is how much the real atheists deny god. In some instances – that is how much they hate god before beginning to deny the existence of any sort of god/s.

I requested you to forget about the word “believe” entirely and use some other way to describe your position regarding god.
Following statement is what I got…


By JerryInTampa:
“I work from the position that all things are possible unless disproven and no things are actually true until proven.”


Even though, in this statement you didn’t directly address the concept of “god” – yet after taking a look at it - it can be quite clear to me that you do not qualify to be an atheist. I agree that – your position is slightly smarter than the actual position of a real atheist. But, we are discussing an atheist’s position here.

It is really my opinion that – you should try and find a new terminology for your unique position. Your position is quite “dissimilar” to a real atheist’s position. As per well-known dictionaries – you really aren’t an atheist at all.

I am not sure – why – you are desperately trying to belong to a group of people – where quite a few of them - really hate god before they start disbelieving in him. Even if there were one individual out there – who truly hates the concept of “god” and denies his existence altogether and properly satisfies the terms of the definition of “atheism” – then that would give me enough incentive to look for a new terminology for my unique position so that – I can separate myself from his position – rather than try to take refuge under his umbrella.

Bottom line is - I really think you are trying to find a loophole in a definition and trying to squeeze yourself in – when there really isn’t any loophole.

I know – “nihilism” or “nescient-ism” or “nil-opinion-ist” may not truly signify your position but if I were you - I would try and find a new terminology that would. I think – it would be better than redefining the existing definition of “atheism”.

If you want to continue this debate – then please do it without using the word “believe”. IMO you are either purposely twisting the meaning of that word or you are failing to acknowledge the vastness in meaning of that word. In different settings – that word can really differ in its intensity when you try to show your level of acceptance of something as true. While addressing the concept of “god” – if you say – you believe there is no god – it actually means you “accept as true” that god doesn’t exist. Otherwise you should just say that - you don’t know if god exists. Why beat around the bush?

Needless to say – if you are honest and you say – “you don’t know if god exists” – then your position is different from an atheist’s position. An atheist doesn’t beat around the bush – they positively deny the existence of god.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 39 (view)
 
The Spirit world & spirits!
Posted: 1/29/2007 8:27:36 AM

By OP:
“Who are these people? They are people who have passed over ("died") and are now living in the spirit world. They are commonly loved ones or relatives, but they may be your guides and teachers.”


I categorically deny this and I do not agree with your conclusion at all. However, I slightly agree with what “seafire” wrote. Read on if you may… but let me first quote what seafire wrote…



BY seafire;
“There very definitely is a spirit world, and the fog analogy is not bad -- but it is not populated by people who have died.
It is always amazing to me how many people are all ready to believe in angels, but will not even consider demons . . .
a demon has one goal, to associate itself with a soul, so that through the soul, the demon can have some experience and input into life -- demon's never "die", when the soul they were with dies, they melt back into the "fog" yet they have acquired the sublties and certainly have some of the memories of the people they have been with, and can impersonate them well enough that the unknowing and foolish believe
is there a difference between the spirit of a person and the soul of a person? if you do not know that there is, then you are engaging the spirit world with your soul, and hoo boy, does that ever make you easy pickings -- it is kinda like children wandering out into an ongoing battle field, the "good guys" will stop firing, but the demon's just take better aim”





I think “Seafire” has left the building but I think his conclusion (on his first post) was more on the money than anyone else’s conclusion here. Everyone chased him out – too bad!!


I probably looked pass this thread earlier because I didn’t see much substance in it or maybe I didn’t find anything new BUT BOY! “Seafire” surely had mentioned something I totally agree with.

I also believe that – the “spirit world” (that all those so-called “mediums” talk about) is NOT populated by the souls of actual people who have died. I do not believe that the primary soul of people who have died can be reach by anyone alive. Once dead the primary soul of every individual goes in -kind of a “dormant mode” until resurrected on the judgment day. So, who are those spirits – all those mediums keeps talking about?

My simple answer would be - our “co-companion spirit”. My position is -almost like what Seafire said – those so-called spirits are not our (human) primary souls.

What is a co-companion spirit if you may ask – then I have to provide a detailed story that may sound like a myth. However, let’s avoid the details (such as - where those co-spirits really came from and why we are sent to this world in the first place etc.) and just get straight to the point.

Every time a human soul is breathed into a potential new born baby – a co-companion spirit (descendant of devil) gets itself attached to that baby. Some say - babies can see them. However, only one of those “evilly motivated spirit” can attach with the originally intended occupant (human soul).

Devil is not omnipresent. I seriously DO NOT believe that – devil (a single entity a.k.a. Satan a.k.a. Lucifer) can be at multiple location at the same time. So, he has one of his descendants’ (long story where they came from) tag along with each and every newly born baby. This is the only way devil’s point of view is expressed to the newly born baby as he/she grows older and develops his/her own thoughts. This tagged along spirit (devil’s descendent) gives us evil thoughts (devil’s point of view) as we develop our thoughts. Devil is in charge of all his descendents and can occasionally also tag along with some particular human when and if he chooses. He can take personal interest in a particular individual if he thinks he can do some serious damage to humanity (i.e. Hitler IMO). But normally he has his descendants working for him (in singular numbers with each and every human soul by co-residing in our mind/body).

This is why we have conflicting thought in our head. Sometimes it is almost like we have two people in our head. One telling us to do something bad (tempting us) and the other fighting back and tries to refrain! When we successfully suppress that evil entity’s thoughts (suggestions) and lead a righteous life then that evil spirit becomes dormant and practically nonexistence. Righteous people are the example of such scenario. However, we also see the other way around – when the evil spirit takes over the thought pattern of an individual (i.e. criminals).

When a person dies - the real spirit heads back to a place where they wait for judgment day. IMO they remain dormant there. However the co-companion spirit lives on for a few hundred years. There is a reason why they live on for a longer period. Let’s not get into that right now.

However, I don’t believe any of them are allowed to re-inhabit any other newly born baby’s body/mind because there are many in line in their realm as well. As a result of tagging along for the whole lifespan of an individual - these entities naturally gather enough memory (info) about the person they have been tagging along with.

When some so-called “medium” tries to contact the dead – that entity (spirit) is whom they contact IMO (if they contact anyone at all - I must add!!) These entities thus can fool them with accurate info because they remember the life’s incidents (memories) of the actual human soul. BUT they are NOT the real primary soul.

Due to my conclusion – it is my opinion that – it is unwise for anyone to contact such entities - for the simplest reason that - they are really devil’s descendants and they are NOT the actual soul of a said human that passed away.

On judgment day each person’s co-occupant spirit will testify against them. In other words – their job would be - trying to prove – we have failed God.

Those evil entities (descendents of devil) are primarily “lost cause” because they have categorically rejected God’s absolute authority at an earlier date (before Adam and Eve’s indecent). Purpose of their existence on earth is slightly different than our purpose. However, a righteous man usually successfully can transform them into a pretty decent entity. And as a result - on the judgment day – the entity accompanying a righteous man may also get a ticket to the heavenly community; if it is proven that - he was indeed transformed. So, there is some hope for some of them as well.

I would refrain from attempting to contact such entities. I do not think God would like that at all. But this is just my opinion.

Proceeding is completely my opinion based on my research in multiple religious settings. If you do not agree – then it is your prerogative to indorse your own conclusions and continue attempting to contact those entitles.

I agree - no one from our time can claim to have entire truth because no one can really prove their position. We need to go by various available doctrines and go by what makes sense.

One man’s conclusion is another man’s myth – that is a common scenario in this world. So I am least expecting anyone to pay any heed to what I had to say here. Carry on!!
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 231 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/29/2007 7:14:41 AM

Originally posted by JerryInTampa:
Athiest: person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist. - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist


By the way – I forgot to mention that – even though “wiki” is written by ordinary people – you ONLY provided the first definition that is about so-called “weak atheism”. What about the second definition regarding so-called “strong atheism”??

From your same site definition#2
Atheist: A person who believes that no god exists. (Strong atheism)
So, how about that definition? Why did you forget to mention that?
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 230 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/29/2007 6:34:29 AM
At JerryInTampa:


“ I think – “I don’t know” - is a valid answer to such a question.” ~ Me

“ So you believe that he doesn't know whether he believes or does not believe? I was unaware that someone could not know what they believe.~ You


You are misdirecting the meaning of the word “believe” towards a wrong implication. “I don’t know” – is a position regarding “something”. Do not think of it as a definite standpoint. If your position regarding “god” is – “I don’t know” – then you are not an atheist (as per well-known dictionaries’ definitions). Atheists believe god does NOT exist.


By JerryInTampa:
“I did not ask "does Herb exist". "I don't know" would be an excellent answer to that question.
I asked:
- Do you believe Herb exists.
- Do you believe Herb does not exist.

I would personally answer both of those questions "no".


It is my personal opinion that – you are twisting the meaning of the word “BELIEVE” (a.k.a. “accept as true”) and playing a trickery game with it.
Okay! Let’s forget about that word. For a moment – let’s think the word “believe” does not exist in English language.

Please now describe your position regarding “god” without using the word “believe” (a.k.a “accept as true”).
In many instances - the word “believe” can be used in a superficial way BUT when you are addressing an important and debatable concept such as “god” – it is expected that – you are using that word “believe” - to imply – “accept as true”. But since you are failing (IMO) to imply it properly - let’s forget about that word for a moment.

Okay! Before you explain your position regarding “god” without using the word “believe” – let me give you some examples by using different words…

If you say – you think a god may exist out there – then you are not an atheist IMO.

If you say- you don’t hold a position regarding the existence of god – then you are not an atheist IMO because atheists hold a position. It is a definite denial of the existence of god/s.

If you acknowledge/admit/recognize the possibility that a god may exist out there – then you are not an atheist IMO.

If you disclose/indorse the possibility that a god may exist – then you are not an atheist IMO.

If you consider/feel/assume that a god may exist –then you are possibly moving away from atheism IMO.

If you trust your gut instinct that a god may exist – then you are no longer an atheist IMO.

So, please do not use the word “believe” and explain you position regarding the possibility of the “existence of god”. I think – then - it will be very clear to everyone - if you really are an atheist or not.

Do you think Herb exists?
Do you think god exists? – If your answer is “yes”, “you don’t know”, “you don’t have a position” – then you are not an atheist IMO. An atheist position would be “NO, god does not exist”!!! It is that simple.



By JerryInTampa:
“Positive claims require proof, and a positive assertion on a negative claim is just as unprovable as any other negative claim. You cannot prove there is not a Herb, and so a positive belief (that there definately isn't one) is rediculious.”


Positive claims require proof?? Really?? Proof to whom?
Do theists positively claim that a god exists? Maybe they shouldn’t positively claim either. BUT I got news for you!!! They do!!!
Similarly atheist can positively claim there is no god!! Not a problem!! So, ridicules or not – it is happening around you all the time. Theists are positively claiming the existence of god all the time. So, why do you have a problem with real atheists positively claiming – there is no god???

Based on whatever insignificant evidence you have – you can positive claim that your girlfriend loves you. You can positively claim she won’t cheat on you. Can you prove it any of that?? But you can positively claim it to your friends… right?


By JerryInTampa:
“Which definitoin?


Okay! “wiki” is the official dictionary now.

For your information, “wiki” is written by ordinary people and it can be edited/updated by anyone. Even you can do it. You can also become a “Wikipedian”. Another person doesn’t like what you wrote can also update it. That is how it works! Don’t believe me? Check you their edit page info on the following link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial

So let us not ignore the real authentic well-known dictionaries just yet.

For the real definitions of “atheism” - please check “Open Book’s” post on page5 (maybe post#125) or my post#184 page8.

 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 222 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/28/2007 1:24:54 PM

By JerryIntampa:
“So when I asked if you belived in Herb, and I asked if you disbelieved in Herb, and you said "I don't know", you weren't answering the question.”


I think – “I don’t know” - is a valid answer to such a question. However, if you have enough resources then it is not impossible to search and find - if such an individual is really out there. In either case – “not knowing” the answer - is a “valid” answer IMO. And it is very close to being an agnostic’s position. Needless to mention again that - it is far away from an atheist’s position BTW.

An atheist would positively deny the existence of such an individual based on his available knowledge. By using probability ratio and the level of evidence available to him - he would come to a conclusion that would indicate “no Herb” out there. He would be confident with his conclusion and would portray it as a “positive denial”. No matter how foolish it may sound to you – that would be an atheist’s position IMO!! An atheist will categorically deny such a person existing. His belief structure will consist of “positive denial” of such an individual.

You may say you don’t have any opinion on the existence of such an individual because you don’t know for sure. You may rightfully say that - either way is possible – BUT that is NOT atheist’s position (as per the definitions IMO). That would be very close to an agnostic’s position. Just as an atheist will deny that god/s do exist - a theist will categorically deny that god/s doesn’t exist. A theist will say god does exist. So why is it hard to accept that – an atheist’s position is the opposite of a theist’s position? If you acknowledge theists’ position then why do you believe the exact opposite of theists’ position - is not possible?

If your position is – “I don’t know” – then you are on the middle ground and very close (if not fully) an agnostic IMO.

The question – “Whether you believe in a God” – can be answered in the following different ways and I posted something similar before…

You can either answer by saying…

1) There is a God and you submit to him --- Theism IMO

Or you can say…
2) There is a God BUT you refuse to submit to him --- Non-practicing Theism IMO

Or you can say…
3) There is no God and therefore you don’t submit to him (Positive denial) --- Atheism IMO

Or you can say…
4) There may be a God but you don’t know and thus you feel no need to submit to him --- Agnosticism IMO

Or you can say
5) You don’t care if there is a God and then you should refrain from even talking about God. --- Careless-ism IMO

So, it is not just a “yes” and “no” answer – as you can see.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 208 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/27/2007 8:27:43 AM

By JerryInTampa:
“Please invite him to post here. If he actually does hold that position, he likely will not in short order. It's an undefendable position.”


Haven’t I already mentioned – you probably would think the same way about theists or anyone governed by a belief system! Can you change any theist’s mind? Why do you think you can change his mind?

Sometimes bad things happen to good people (i.e. losing his two year daughter in a sick manner or some unjustifiable manner) and then these people begin to hate god and think god surely does not exist. Because otherwise – they feel – god would not let those sickening things happen to them. This tremendous hate could be a temporary outburst for many – but that is the time they are real atheists in my opinion. Some people lead a whole life with such belief guideline. The people who generally fall into the grip of “cycle of hate” – are generally people who weren’t that religiously inclined in the first place. However I must point out that – there are many examples of even religious people suddenly disbelieving in god when something unjustifiable happen to them.

I am not sure why you are trying to associate with such people –many of whom actually generally hate god and positively deny the existence of any sort of god. If I was holding such a unique position regarding god that - I believe god doesn’t exist and possibly exist at the same time – then I would find a new term and separate myself from such people. Whether you agree or not such people exist and they are the real atheists IMO.

Even without any thing bad happening to them – some people (I have met) positively deny the existence of god (i.e. one of my uncles). I cannot say for certainly what they really believe behind close curtains but they surely mock people who believe or want to believe in any sort of god.

Generally speaking - among the disadvantageous people (failed in life, dissatisfied in their physique, chronically sick, subjected to unjustifiable torment in life and etc) there are many examples of people who - at certain stages in their life go through a phase where they positively disbelieve in any sort of god. They categorically deny god’s existence because that is the only way they can cool themselves down and disregard the possibility that – god is personally teaching them a lesson for some unknown crime.

The definition provided by Newwwayhome is pretty good…

“Atheism is a stage in the maturation process of psycho spiritual development most often characterized by the rejection of the existence of God.”


Even though this definition may generalize all atheists in one category – however this process is a good scenario for many atheists IMO. Many people occasionally repeat this process (unknowingly) due to some unforeseen gruesome incident taking place in their life. Every time something horrible happens – they go through this cycle. I would primarily put the label of REAL atheist on those people’s forehead, even though there are many ordinary positive disbelievers as well.

If I consider the possibility of a god actually existing out there – then I would separate myself from such people (even if it is a temporary stage of their mind) and call myself – something else. Maybe “Careless-ist” or “Careless-ism” or “Openmindist” or “Openmindism”!! Hey! I know you can come up with a much acceptable one. Under no circumstances – I would label myself an “atheist” and continue believing in the possibility of a god actually existing.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Buddha in the Qur'an
Posted: 1/26/2007 3:32:06 PM
I don’t have a name for my belief system but I have a question.

Do Buddha and Krishna advocated one God philosophy? If not then do you think – their teachings got corrupted over the years?

I do believe that many prophets were sent by God, however, I also believe that – many failed to make their message survive their departure. As soon as they died – their real message died with them.

My basic standpoint is an absolute ONE GOD attitude. I have NDE experience to collaborate with that standpoint. Any religion with a ONE GOD mindset – I am willing to look at. Anything with multiple gods – doesn’t appeal to me. I can still look to see if self proclaimed practitioners got it all wrong (i.e. Christianity IMO).
Even with religions with one God ideology – the self proclaimed practitioners have corrupted many things IMO.

I don’t know enough about these guys (Buddha and Krishna). But I would like to know if you think - they advocated one God philosophy as a starter?
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Do You Think That Holy Water Has An Extra Property?
Posted: 1/26/2007 3:13:00 PM
Everything good on earth is already blessed by God. Confirming it and repeating it - only affirms it more strongly. If God is pleased with an individual and if that individual blesses something (water in this case) then all he does is asking God to help/forgive/heal (etc.) that other individual in need. Now, it is up to God to either accept bless-er’s recommendation or reject it. In either case – that individual has no final saying in this. So the power is coming from God and God ONLY.

Personally – I don’t believe Pope or any priest who believes in trinity can bless anything right, because IMO they wrongly believe in Jesus to be God. So, they might be sending in their request in the wrong direction.
And similarly from the receiving end - one must believe any possible good outcome that may or may not materialize - is due to God and God only.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 194 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/26/2007 8:22:39 AM

By JerryInTampa:
“I didn't ask you to defend your definition as being correct in English. I asked you to support your positive assertion that there were a multitude of proclaimed athiests out there who had a positive disbelief in God”


Correct me if I am wrong – but it seems like you are acknowledging that the definition found in the dictionaries are not entirely going with your current conclusion.

Dictionaries job is to define the words the way they should be used. I agree that - sometimes some words are updated as per widespread usage. But, IMO if the new implicated meaning neither collaborates with the root of a said word nor makes any sense – then in honor of the person who originated that word and for keeping the linguistic reliability intact – we should leave the old definition alone. For unique and new implications – we should try and make new word/terminology and go from there. We shouldn’t redefine a word that does not need to be redefined.

I have already answered your question to the best of my ability. One of my best friends is a real Atheist. He positively denies the existence of God. One of my Uncles always mocked at people who believed in God. To him – it made no sense to believe in any sort of God. When 99.99% of someone’s comments indicate that – a God couldn’t exist and he makes it a business of making his arguments heard – then it is safe to assume that – that individual doesn’t believe in any possibility of any sort of God existing out there. “A God is actually out there” - is neither what a true atheist really considers nor acknowledges IMO. So, I still don’t know – why you are trying so hard to make it a part of atheist’ position.

When a person mocks about all kinds of god/s – I don’t ask them if they still believe in a god – it is common sense to realize that their answer would be a big fat “NO”!! I have met many people like that in my lifetime. You obviously think differently and IMO you are bringing in some linguistic drawbacks and using them in a trickery fashion to support your position. But IIRC I have asked (even you) to give it an approximate percentage figure - on the probability of a God actually existing in your belief structure. Or should I say – “a percentage in probability of existence of God” in your opinion!! Please show me the number!!! If the percentage is 0.01% or less – then I wouldn’t beat any drum and have the whole world know about it. I would stick with my higher percentage and go from there.

Believing in the possibility of a God actually existing – should not be a part of any real atheist (as per definitions). I said in my last post – until the same or equivalently qualified group of people updates those definitions – I stand by them.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 184 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/25/2007 8:22:35 AM
^^^At CountIbli:

Okay!
Q&A written by Austin Cline -
(atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm)

An article by Mathew –
(infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html)

Q&A by Richard Carrier doesn’t even count because – well it is obvious!! -
(infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/atheism.html)

A FAQ written by Charles W. Johnson –
(eskimo.com/~cwj2/chan-atheism/athafaq.html)

And the last one is also by Mathew –
(prism.gatech.edu/~spc/library/atheism-faq.html)


So basically it is three more individuals on your side. But they didn’t write the dictionaries? Or did they??

Any Tom, D*ck and Harry can have his article posted in some website.

What we need is – a clear-cut definition in world-renowned dictionaries – NOT some article by individuals.


Check out the definition in the following dictionaries…


Originally posted by Open Book:
Atheist:

-a person who believes that there is no God. (Webster's New World Dictionary®, Third College Edition)

-One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

-someone who believes that god or gods do not exist. (Cambridge International dictionary of English)

-Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god. (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition)

-One who does not believe in God. (Masonic Dictionary)

-The denial of the existence of God or gods. (Barnes & Noble Encyclopedia)

-1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings." (Random House 2006)



-1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 2003)

-Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. (Britannica Concise Encyclopædia 2002)

-Atheism, however, casts a wider net and rejects all belief in “spiritual beings,” and to the extent that belief in spiritual beings is definitive of what it means for a system to be religious, atheism rejects religion. So atheism is not only a rejection of the central conceptions of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, it is, as well, a rejection of the religious beliefs of such African religions as that of the Dinka and the Nuer, of the anthropomorphic gods of classical Greece and Rome, and of the transcendental conceptions of Hinduism and Buddhism. Generally atheism is a denial of God or of the gods, and if religion is defined in terms of belief in spiritual beings, then atheism is the rejection of all religious belief. (Encyclopædia Britannica 1992)



And also…


(from answer.com) and (freedictionary.com)

A-the-ism:
n.
1)… Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2)… The doctrine that there is no God or gods.



Until these dictionaries somehow update their info – Atheism is a positive denial in the existence of God IMO. Those three individuals are not changing my mind.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 181 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/25/2007 5:47:56 AM

By JerryInTapma:
“Beyond supposition, what support do you have for your position that the multitude of atihests fit that description?”


I am not the one going against the definition available in all those well-known dictionaries. You are!!!
So, the burden of proof is not my shoulder – it is your responsibility to check with all those atheists out there and also check with those qualified people who originally came up with those easy to comprehend terminology.
Yes! You found 2 other self proclaimed atheists (almost with you) BUT you need to find at least a thousand more such atheists and then open a group/ society with them and then take their petitions and finally go to the proper authority in charge of all those dictionaries and make an attempt to change the current definition of the term “Atheism”. If you succeed – then the world will accept you as an (genuine) atheist.

However, you still have to worry about the root of that word. Take another look at the explanation regarding the root of the word “atheist” in Open Book’s own words… Let me quote him…



The words Theos (God) and Atheos (No God), came first.

The suffix -ist (a believer) was then added to Theos (God)...making a Theist a believer in God(s). The non- (not) prefix was then attached to the word Theist (believer in God)...making a non-Theist, not a believer in God(s).

With the word Atheist, the suffix -ist (a believer) is added to the original word Atheos (No God)...making an Atheist, a believer in no God(s).


and…



“Atheism is not a-ism (no belief, or without belief), first...they are a-theos (no God, without God), first. The -ism part makes it a belief...in no God(s), or a belief system without God(s). It is not, "lack of belief", it is "lack of God"...Godless.”


A believer in no god = A person who genuinely believes that there is no god out there.

In other words – if asked - a believer who would categorically deny the existence of any kind of god. A positive denial of the existence of god!

The definition of the word “non-Theist” – means not a believer in god. But that is not the same as “atheist”. So, there is no more room for any confusion with those terms. Open Book clarified it. You maybe a non-Theist - but if you say - "a god may exist" then you cannot be an Atheist IMO.

So, I am not sure – how you are going to go around that - to make your case that your non-Theist, agnostic or some other unique position - is actually same as an atheist’s?
But good luck if you insist on trying.




By JerryInTampa:
“Disproving athiesm as the declared theists on this thread have defined it… … …”


The “declared theists” on this thread are NOT defining “atheism” out of a clear blue sky. They are doing it by the definitions found in well-known dictionaries and by breaking down the word and checking its roots.
If an impersonator knock on your door and declares that he is a cop or a utility employee - would you believe him? Wouldn’t you ask for his credentials?
Well! Dictionary is the credential we go by when confirming the meaning of a word or a terminology.
I drive my car everyday and sometimes-pretty fast but if I call myself a professional race car driver – will that make me one? What if I occasionally race with my friend a little?
No! To be an atheist – one would be required to be in a positive denial of the existence of god; at least that is what all the dictionaries imply.


By JerryInTampa:
“in that it would be paradoxical to have material proof of the non-existance of the immaterial.”


Take a good look at the following statement…

Even if everyone does something wrong – it is still wrong.

Do you agree?
Notice --- everyone is being considered doing something WRONG in the first place!!! So, it must be wrong. Similarly, regardless of any numbers’ game you might play – if you say “atheism” is not a positive denial of the existence of God – then you and anybody supporting your position – are NOT going with the dictionary definition. And thus wrong!!

Whether you have failed in finding a single authentic atheist (as per dictionary definition) – is beside the point. They do exist and in great numbers. One of my good friends is a genuine atheist.



By JerryInTampa:
“To believe that people actually held a belief this way (that it was established that there was no sort of God) would require to believe them incapable of grade-school logic.”


I think you do acknowledge such people exist in this world --- you just call them “antitheists”. Whether they lack common sense – is irrelevant. To you - the entire theist community can also look like – incapable of grade-school logic (as you put it).
So the bottom line is – such people, who don’t believe in any sort of God - exist. They positively deny any existence of any God. They are the real atheists in accordance with the definition of the dictionaries.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Original Sin?
Posted: 1/24/2007 9:55:06 AM

By OP:
Original Sin?
As pertaining to the Christian belief of Original sin that is.
What is it?


In relevance to the recent day’s Christianity – the only thing I can say is that – “Original Sin” is wrongly connected to the forbidden fruit incident. You don’t need concrete evidence to figure that out. It is absolutely illogical to even think that – a God would punish all of mankind for the mistake of two.

However, if allowed to move away from the so-called recent days Christianity – I would say that – there was an “Original Sin” and it was committed by every single human soul but forbidden fruit incident was not “it” at all.



By OP:
“Does it really mean that everyone is a sinner by birth and that everyone must believe that Jesus Christ died for their sin to be saved? And that salvation without that belief can't be accomplished?”


I agree that we are conceived with “an Original Sin”. But my definition of that particular “Original Sin” is totally different from what many imply by basing on the concepts gathered from recent day’s Christianity. By the way, needless to mention that - the recent Christianity is totally corrupted with false innovations and fabrications IMO.

Everyone is a sinner by birth due to our REAL “Original Sin” but it is for something that we all (individually) committed not just Adam and Eve’s forbidden fruit incident!!

Jesus dying to erase sin of any of the recent days’ people – is a recent day’s Christian false implication. It is a myth IMO.
IMO the ONLY salvation we can avail - is through - believing in one God and dieing with that faith intact, And through leading a righteous life.
Recent day’s Christians will disagree with me. I know that.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the real teaching from Jesus’ era goes along with my conclusion. However, I cannot reveal my position here because you seem to be asking for recent day’s standpoint of Christianity on this topic. So, trying to stay on topic – all I can say – is that – it is wrongly associated to that forbidden fruit incident IMO.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 174 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/24/2007 5:59:45 AM

Originally posted by Cagliostro:
“And 'atheism' is BELIEF IN GOD.”


That is almost the lyric of a new song I have been hearing recently.

I am not an atheist – I believe in one God. So, when someone claims that they don’t believe in any particular God but leaves room open for a God to actually exist – personally (it is expected that) I should welcome their move.
But the problem is – I don’t think any such self proclaimed atheists (that I have been listening to) really leave any significant room open for such a probability. It is my personal opinion that – they are just trying to use linguistic drawbacks in their favor in a hypocritical and deceitful fashion.

By leaving some negligible probability for a God to actually exist - their position cannot be claimed as a blind faith. It is ingenious BUT disingenuous at the same time – but it is not atheism IMO.

I Think – the real reason – no real atheists are clarifying their position (which is godless BTW) because they don’t want to do anything with religion. They may not even be roaming the religion forums. That is leaving the field open for some other (IMO) fake atheists to try and make some cheap scores in their name.

The only so-called atheists we can find here – actually leave room open for a God to exist. And that would have been fine with me – only if that went along with the real definition of the term “Atheism”. To the best of my understanding – it doesn’t. Atheism (according to well known dictionaries) is a positive denial in the existence of God.
If someone claims it is not a positive denial – then I wouldn’t mind finding out the percentage of probability (approximate) they incorporate in their belief structure - for a God to actually exist.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 169 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/23/2007 10:00:29 AM
Any so-called atheist who believes that his lack of belief in God – leaves significant probability for a God to actually exist – is not really an atheist IMO (according to dictionary definitions).

According to dictionary definitions as shown by “Open Book” in his post #125 page5 – An atheist’s position is a positive denial in the existence of God. There is no room for any (linguistic) trickery there.

Ask yourself – do you think a God may exist? If your answer is “Yes”! Then IMO you are not an atheist. It would be a good move to find a new name/termiology for that unique position.



By CountIbli:
“Correct. Atheists are without god or gods. Let me try an analogy again. If I say that I'm not cold, does that mean that I must be hot?”


You started good when you said that - atheists are without any god or gods. However, since you are comparing “feeling cold or hot” to “believing God’s existence being valid or invalid” - your analogy is flawed and inappropriate IMO.
First of all (going with your analogy) – when an atheist says – “he doesn’t feel cold” – he doesn’t just make a mere statement – he actually categorically denies, “feeling cold”. He will try to show the outside as well as his body temperature to collaborate with his conclusion that – “he doesn’t feel cold”.
According to dictionary definitions – his denial would be a positive denial to the best of his ability (levels of evidence as Open Book puts it).

And feeling cold=god, denying in “feeling cold” means - an atheist actually categorically denying in the existence of god. They don’t just say – they don’t feel cold (don’t believe in God) out of nothing. They don’t come to their conclusion that there is no god - out of a clear blue sky!



By CountIbli:
“Likewise there's a middle ground between believing god exists and believing god doesn't exist.”


Is it really a middle position even for you or is it (hypothetically speaking) 99.99% believing no God to 0.01% considering the possibility of existence of God but available due to linguistic limitations in expressing something. In other words – not really a valid possibility!!! So, if it were middle ground – it would be close (next) to one end (no god) and a thousand mile away from the other end (maybe god)!

If it really a middle position then – do you think that should still be an example of atheism?
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 162 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/22/2007 7:38:16 PM
Wow! Some positive development since I left. “Open Book” has done a great job in providing the actual definitions of the word “Atheism” in his post# 125 on page5 and few subsequent posts. After listening to couple of so-called self-proclaimed atheists explanations - I was getting confused (regarding an atheist’s true position about God). BUT thankfully after reading OpenBook’s responses – I am back to my original position regarding the proper definition of this term.

I think as per the definition/s – a true, pure and strong atheist – do not believe in the existence of any God and do not acknowledge any possibility that a God may exist. In other words – he disbelieves in the concept of God altogether. IMO the true position of an atheist - should contradict with anyone’s claim that - “a God may exist”. It is also my position that – when someone doesn’t hold a position regarding a God existing/ non-existing and considers either position - a possibility – he is actually an agnostic.

However, it is also obvious that – some self-proclaimed atheists may have found some dissimilar qualities between their position and that of an Agnostic’s (i.e. the belief that it cannot be proven either way that a God really exists) and thus they refuse to be under the same umbrella of the term “Agnosticism”. And since – there maybe no other term out there - that would express their unique position explicitly – it is my opinion that some of them might be desperately trying to split up the term “atheism” and somehow redefine it. It seems they and others may have succeeded (to some extent) in establishing new divisions within atheism – because – now we also occasionally hear about new terms such as - “weak atheism” and “strong atheism”.

“No law is full proof” – meaning it can’t successfully cover every single scenario. Similarly – no definition can be 100% specific. There always will be some room to go around the intended description and it would always be possible to show a different meaning of any “terminology”. A detailed explanation is often the perfect remedy for taking care of confusions generating from any definition. However, this should not be done by any Tom, d*ck or Harry. The same bunch of reputed and recognized qualified people who actually come up with different terminologies and the same people who are in-charge of writing the dictionaries - should clarify it.

When – someone says – “he doesn’t believe in a God” – I acknowledge that (linguistically speaking) he may leave behind a tiny possibility that a God may exist but (in reality) he just wouldn’t think that – the possibility of a God actually existing bears merit - because otherwise he won’t choose to believe – God doesn’t exist in the first place. So, it should be safe to say that – that individual’s position is very clear regarding “God” and that -given the opportunity - he would categorically deny any probability of a “God” actually existing. However, according to the definitions of “atheism” – that particular individual’s position should not be of an atheist’s position any longer IMO.

I have a friend who disbelieves in any God and claims to be an atheist. He does not leave any room for any possibility of a God existing. He doesn’t call himself “antitheist” because the dictionary provides him with a proper term – “Atheism/ Atheist”!!!


Anyone that claims a position of “not believing in any God” but yet acknowledging that a God may exist – could not be standing by his beliefs that strongly. To such an individual - I wouldn’t mind saying that – “you cannot eat your cake and still claim to have it”. Once it goes into your mouth and disappears – it is no longer a cake. If you say – there isn’t any God (since you don’t believe there is one) then it is trickery (IMO) to also say that - there could be a God.

In other words - if you don’t believe in a God and stand by your beliefs – then you shouldn’t even bother in saying that – “a God may exist” --- even if technicalities (generating from linguistic limitations) allows you to do so.

Hypothetically speaking – if 99.99% of your opinion constitute of negative notions regarding God – then why even acknowledge that 0.01% probability and beat drums and makes noise to establish that tiny probability to be a fact? Especially when that tiny percentage (IMO a.k.a. confusion) is actually generating because of linguistic limitations. “A God is actually out there” - is neither what a true atheist really considers nor acknowledges. So, why go crazy trying to make it a part of Atheism belief structure?

In either case - I think it is a very disingenuous position of individuals who try to use that tiny possibility in their favor– while disregarding their huge and ultimate position that goes against the concept of God altogether. IMO they are doing this to deny the notion that their position is also based on blind faith because they cannot prove that - there is really no God. Trying to show that “tiny possibility” holds any significance status in their belief structure – is not an honest move at all IMO.

However, the bottom line remains that - as soon as someone states that – “a God may exists” – then he should also acknowledge that - the well-known dictionaries are NO longer going along with his position regarding “Atheism”.
Under no circumstances – anyone should try to redefine a existing simple definition according to his own ideas and try to confuse people who are really trying to understand – what the real “Atheism” is all about or should be all about (and in compliance with definitions available in well known dictionaries).
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 107 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/18/2007 7:04:04 AM

By CounIbli:
“answer.com is terribly misinformed. This is not the definition of Atheism.”


Regardless of the fact that you and few others - disagree with the definition from such sites (i.e. answer.com or freedictionary.com) – the fact remains that – (unless you have such a site/means to pass around your definition) more people are looking at those definitions than you or anyone else from here ever can relay.



By OP:
“A lack of belief is not a belief. Atheism has no belief structure because it has no beliefs. You're correct that it's a lack of belief yet don't understand what the word lack means.”


Very convenient explanation but FYI if you use the word “lack” to describe something (-) then it should be presumed or acknowledged that – that “something” actually exists or existed. If it is a “vacuum” you are trying to talk about then you don’t need to use the term “lack” anymore. You shouldn’t say “lack of vacuum”.



By OP:
“I lack belief that you have a cat.”

Yeah! But you do acknowledge that the “cat” species do exist – however you lack the info whether or not I have one. Which I do BTW!



By OP:
“Do you also think that the lack of hair is the same as the presence of hair, or that the lack of oxygen is the same as the presence of oxygen?”


Lack of hair is no way presence of hair. However, you cannot say “hair” may exist after making that statement. Lack of oxygen is also absence of oxygen, if you say that then - you can no longer say – oxygen may be there and you just don’t have enough info about it.

Similarly “lack of belief” is just a convenient terminology many Atheists use (IMO) to go around the fact that “they don’t believe there is a God” or to make it even stronger - “they believe there isn’t a God”.

Anyways I can go on with the rest of your post and reply to JerryInTampa too but seven days from now we will most likely be at the same place we are today. So, lets see if I can conclude this somehow.




By CounIbli:
“Before I give my answer to the question, I'd like to hear what other people think Atheism is.”


I think I made my position quite clear regarding this topic in my initial post here, however let me try and wrap it up and give my conclusion on this - at least for now. You wanted to hear what I (others!!) think about “Atheism” … so here goes…

I think (and this is my personal opinion that) - all those who claim to be under the umbrella of the term “Atheism”– are mostly a bunch of misinformed and arrogant individuals who – on one hand quite explicitly advocate (through their front door) that – there can’t really be any God out there but on the other hand – attempt to leave their back door open – just in case there is a God out there. Their approach really seems quite hilarious to me.

Even though – they admit that their position cannot be confirmed through any evidence because its foundation is based on “lack of evidence” (in other words there are admittedly standing on shaky grounds) yet they talk as if their way makes more sense and they are somehow smarter to take their particular approach. They try to put one foot on different boats and apparently think it is the way to go. Well, we all know what will happen when the boats separates and they fail to take one foot off in time.

In either case, an Atheist’s position is quite lame in my opinion and their belief structure needs to be redefined because the difference between the so-called strong and weak Atheism - is too profound to be looked under the same term.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 99 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/17/2007 4:44:59 PM

By jerryInTampa:
“I don't think this is a vaild definition. It does not properly flow from the Greek, and it does not represent the views of any athiest I have ever met, not any athiest group I am familiar with.”


Okay! So, please remind me to check the meaning of different words at jerryInTampa.com next time. And while I am at it – I must change the spelling of the word “atheist” as well!!! Right?


By JerryInTampa:
There's just something silly about a person who follows only one of thousands of religions calling someone else a "cherry-picker".


Presumptuous but expected!!!
FYI – I think many religions have many true components and I don’t adhere to any single man known religion. I believe at least all of the Abrahamic faith systems have numerous true components. Some has more than the other.


By JerryInTampa:
“Then I'll ask you the question no theist has yet answered:
Do you believe that there is a one-eyed mongolian living in Indonesia named Herb who raises goldfish for a living?”


Doesn’t it occur to you that – your question has neither any significance to anyone’s life nor has it any consequence to anyone’s afterlife? In every shape and form – your question is inconsequential even for you. Doesn’t it occur to you that – only one man who has neither any merit nor any credibility about life or afterlife – wants to know the answer to that question? Does it occur to you that may be that’s why no one really has looked into it? We are trying to talk about an important concept such as “the existence of God” and you are dieing to find out about some one-eyed Mongolian.



By JerryInTampa:
“We can? OK. What's the unit of measure for trust?”

Oh! I am sorry… You can’t?


I thought you would try to claim somehow that you do. Okay! My mistake… So tell me - do you trust anyone? If you do – then how do you measure it? How does an Atheist develop faith in his significant other and vice versa? Does an Atheist follow his wife/GF around to make sure they don’t cheat?

Well! Sometimes based on mere observation one must develop something called faith in certain person or certain concepts. This faith cannot be scientifically measured.

When you step out of your house – do you do a scientific test/ measurement to see if you will be hit by a falling Airplane and be killed? I don’t believe you do. You go by a basic probability ratio but it is more like saying - you go by some faith that no plane will fall on your head. Similarly, (other than following some dogma) theists are also allowed to look at the probabilities and decide that there must be a creator behind all things. Just like a complex watch cannot be created by itself (there is always a creator behind every complex watch) – human anatomy is even more complex than any complex watch – and thus - it couldn’t have created by itself either. Anyone who can learn to look at the universe with an insightful eye – can always realize that there must be a creator behind all the different things. The complex things (i.e. human anatomy) should make it even more obvious.
An Atheist position behind – how the universe came into existence – is a lot more absurd than most theist position IMO.


By JerryInTampa:
“Believe - to hold a position to be true.”

okay! So lets compare with your own statement from post#100

By JerryInTampa:
“An athiest does not believe in a God. To hate something would require at least the belief that the something in question actually existed.”


By paraphrasing from those two comments – are you saying – An atheist hold a position that the concept of God is not true? Doesn’t it imply that - you don’t believe a God exists??
Oh! Wait a minute!! You already admitted that a God does not exist when you said ^^^ “To hate something would require at least the belief that the something in question actually existed”. --- Here you have clearly pointed out that God does not exist, that is why you can’t hate God.

However, in your post#198 in the other thread you claim that and I quote…

“This is absolutely corrrect. There may be a god, there's just no support for one.”


So, make up your mind… you do believe in the existence of God or not??? Don’t just make contradictory statements to make your points.


By JerryInTampa:
“I believe there isn't a god”.
“I don't believe their is a god”


Okay! Show me the difference between these two statements.



Just like I said – IMO most so-called Atheist are confused. I don’t think they know what they believe or not believe or even properly define “having a lack of belief”. Some claim online dictionaries’ definitions aren’t correct. Some sometimes say God does not exist; some sometimes claim God may exist. I think they should create a universal society and come up with a universal definition and universal code of belief or may be universal code of non-belief (if there is such a thing).

“Small amounts of philosophy lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God.” – Francis Bacon

 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 94 (view)
 
What is Atheism?
Posted: 1/17/2007 10:03:14 AM

By Op:
“Before I give my answer to the question, I'd like to hear what other people think Atheism is.”


(from answer.com)

A-the-ism:
n.
1)… Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2)… The doctrine that there is no God or gods.


IMO most self-proclaimed Atheists don’t know what Atheism is. Some confuse it with Agnosticism and some with Careless-ism (don’t care if there is a God).

Atheism –IMO means someone’s belief structure that represents a lack of belief towards any God. However, lack of belief in a God also means - believing there is no God. If you disagree then I have to ask – “glass is half full or half empty?”
Remember – “lack of belief” does not mean “lack of knowledge”. It means “lack of acknowledgement”. In other words – it means denying the existence, the authority or even the validity of God.

In either case it would funny if someone says that – he has a lack of belief in a God but however agree that - a God could be out there. This person would be admitting to be a confused individual. And confused individuals are a danger to themselves and the society. They need to continue their search until they can make up their mind. They should never give up seeking the answers and start advocating that there is no God.



Either say…
1) There is a God and you submit to him --- Theism IMO
Or say…
2) There is a God BUT you refuse to submit to him --- Non-practicing Theism IMO
Or say…
3) There is no God and therefore you don’t submit to him --- Atheism IMO
Or say…
4) There may be a God but you still refuse to submit to him --- Agnosticism IMO
Or say
5) You don’t care if there is a God and then you should refrain from even talking about God. --- Careless-ism IMO

But if you choose the forth choice then at least admit that you are still in a confused state and you are admittedly leading a blind life. But then you should continue your search until you can make up your mind because you admit that there could be a God. But in my opinion – you would be an agnostic if you claim that a God may exist.

However, if you choose the first three then at least admit that your belief (or lack of belief whatever you call it) is based on insufficient data (a.k.a faith). The first two won’t have any problem admitting that but the third one will always think he is somehow wiser then the first two and that - absence of proof is somehow proof of absence.

Yeah! Atheists refuse to admit that – their lack of belief in God – is also a belief structure. Many of them have no problem not believing that a God exists but they refuse to call it a belief system or a belief structure because of the magic words “lack of belief”. Interesting observation on my part!!!
Note again – “lack of belief” is actually “ lack of acknowledgement” and not “lack of knowledge”.

I don’t think they realize how thin the line is - that they claim to be walking on (if there is a line at all that is…



Almost all so-called Atheists that I came across - are all also confused individuals IMO. The best way to describe them would be “cherry pickers”. Many things in our life are not scientifically measurable (i.e. faith, trust, love, hope as NewWayHome pointed out) however Atheists have no problem embracing them and taking them for granted. How many Atheists follow around their wife/girlfriend to see if they cheat? How do they develop faith in their significant other and then begin to trust them? How do they come to the conclusion that their wife/GF won’t cheat? After all faith can neither be measured nor scientifically proven. Right? So, they shouldn’t have any faith in their wife or girlfriend or any of their friends or any coworker or anyone working for them. They shouldn’t ever go by their gut instincts and only go by what can be measured. Atheist should not believe that someone truly loves them unless they put them on a machine and measure their brain activity and then compare it with others who don’t claim to love them. But even then - they can’t be sure what they are measuring - is indeed “love”.
Someone has suggested that watching different humans’ behavior and by comparing them with their own feelings and behavior and by collecting data from all that - they can form a working hypothesis.
I say - Great! But the irony is – the same individual would refuse to use the same method to create a working hypothesis in favor of the existence of God. Not only that - when a theist looks at all the evidence in the nature and elsewhere (for example – if a theist looks at the anatomy of a human body and come up with a conclusion that it couldn’t be created on its own) that same Atheist might say – that is not a valid evidence and thus he would also say that - that particular theist’s hypothesis that a God must be behind creating it - is not valid. How convenient!!
Atheists can measure “love” and “trust” and “faith” and “loyalty” through brain activity or simply by watching people but theists cannot measure the existence of God through all the obvious proofs in nature and beyond. And if they do – then their presumed evidence is not real evidence???
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry!!! Yeah I am a confused individual now.





By JerryInTampa: from post #100
“Atheists do not hold the position that there is not god... they simply don't hold the position that there is one.”

“An athiest does not believe in a God. To hate something would require at least the belief that the something in question actually existed.”


Most Atheists IMO – don’t even know the difference between the two words “believe” and “submit”. IMO they also don’t know the similarity between “believe” and “acknowledgement”.

When someone says they don’t believe in a God – it means they don’t think a God exists. So, naturally when you say – “there could be a God but you just don’t believe in him” (paraphrasing from your post#198 from the other thread) – then aren’t you actually stating that - there is a God but you refuse to submit to him?

Remember - you either believe in a God or you don’t. You either submit to a God or you don’t. You cannot say – there could be a God but you don’t believe he exists. Because then you are contradicting yourself!!! (Look at ^^^ your own words)

Therefore – you cannot say there could be a God and yet claim to be an Atheist IMO. Because in your own words ^^^ – “An atheist does not believe in a God”.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 198 (view)
 
atheism vs. christianity
Posted: 1/16/2007 3:28:54 PM

Originally posted by late™:
“Okay, do read the OP to a thread, before you post to it, please.”



I don’t believe I need to be a Christian to write on this thread (if that’s is what you meant). However, I agree my (and many other’s posts) have exceeded the original topic. However, I don’t believe it has crossed any major line. We are still comparing the two concepts.


By OP:
“Could it be possible that no matter what you believe as long as it has truth involved with it, that it could have something to do with God”

Yes! It is possible. Truth is scattered among many religion’s doctrines. Some are closer than the others. However, the key words in your post to be taken into consideration - “as long as it has truth involved with it”.


By OP:
“I believe that atheism and christianity are actually leading to the same path”


Come again!


By OP:
“Therefore, there is no truth that is greater than the other.”


Disagree!
If “truth” have a numeric value of 19 – then some has 15, some has 4 and some are negative (lies). So, no! They are different levels of truth available in different doctrines. Primary reason for that is distortions, corruption, innovations and fabrications and lost in translations. There are other reasons as well. BTW, IMO some get the truth by random probabilities (meaning their doctrine may not be divinely inspired).
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 196 (view)
 
atheism vs. christianity
Posted: 1/16/2007 2:47:01 PM

Originally posted by late™:
“Put it this way, "IF" there was a "God", ...I don't think it would be a vain, vengeful, and childish entity that would punish people for leading good and contributive lives, regardless of "faith" or lack thereof.”


I agree wholeheartedly. But (and it is a BIG BUT) what if there is history behind things that you have not considered? Without providing any doctrine based evidence – I just want to mention that the truth is out there and it tells us - why it is still necessary to believe without concrete evidence.

If we research different doctrines and realize the reason behind God’s apparent silence, if we can seek and find the reason behind why we are sent to this world, if we realize that our life is a punishment and not a gift or a learning experience or a pointless test - then it might make many things clearer. If we know what God is trying to see by sending us here then that might make many things clear as well.

Lets just consider the following scenario:
Lets just say - we all have had committed a huge sin by disobeying God and by questioning his absolute authority before being sent to this world (NO! Not that forbidden fruit incident) and maybe we have already demanded from God - to prove to us that –he is really the God (our creator). Maybe we have done something really inappropriate. So, in the event that we may have committed some horrendous crime - God - instead of destroying us (our souls) or taking away our freewill – chose to give us a second chance for redemption – a chance to prove ourselves - kind of like being sent to a lockdown facility to learn to behave and believe with lesser freedom. Then that God won’t look like a vengeful or childish God at all, would he? That would be a compassionate God who decided to give us a second chance (when we probably didn’t deserve it). We should then be happy to receive that second chance – and be happy with whatever proof we got. As an offender and in a lockdown facility – one cannot ask for infinite proofs and infinite leniencies. If there was such a scenario – then dismissing God will not look very good on your "resume".

I agree that leading a good life may please God but believing in his existence and disregarding devil’s ideologies – is what he might have asked us to do. In that case, it may be expected of us to prove that – we can. Kind of like, you make a mistake and when confronted and about to be severely punished – you make a deal by asking to be given a second chance – and you promise that it will never happen again.

So leading a good life is good – but by believing in him – it might ONLY ensure our position with him – it may only fulfill our promise to him – and maybe that is what - he is expecting us to demonstrate.

Until one does some research (in some proper places) – he will never know and can never consider all those possibilities.



By JerryInTampa:
“Billions of people thinking the world was flat didn't make a flat world.”


First show me how your “one-man delusional unimportant concept” is same as a billion people’s believable and sensible concept – then let me decide where to look and which one to throw in garbage.

If a billion people tell me the earth is flat – then I will look into the possibility and check it out myself but I refuse to do the same thing with one single man’s delusional idea – an idea that is not even important to my afterlife or me in any shape or form.


By JerryInTampa:
“Try the King-James version of the book of Job 39:9–12”


Okay! First of all – it could be a wild Ox they are talking about there. Check other translations. Secondly - there are many analogies used in the Bible. If you think this was a real implication that Unicorns exist and somehow it is a very important concept regarding our afterlife – then that is your prerogative. I don’t think this should be viewed in the same light as the concept regarding the existence of God.

Thirdly, we all know that - Bible is corrupted and I don’t believe everything in it anyways. I don’t believe Jesus was God, nor do I believe he erased anyone’s sin (especially from our time).

So, try again.



By JerryInTampa:
“A fundamental difference in our positions. For you it's about numbers, for me it's about reality.”


Sometimes you have to use other’s visions to get a better picture of the reality. A feeble and misinformed mind cannot see reality very good. A person who grew up in a jungle and never saw a car (i.e. god) – may not believe in a car because he didn’t see one and it is not in his reality. But if he seeks and listens to others (i.e. prophets and their divine words) who have seen it and left behind the info and then considers it to be a possibility and trusts their descriptions and then starts to believe in it – then his reality will show a better picture to him and it will represent a better truth – because a car does exist!!! Believing someone who has seen it – is not wrong, especially if you consider all the info provided to you. So, sometimes number’s game is not a bad idea. Sometimes it is acceptable to take other people’s words especially after considering from all grounds. We do it all the time. Everything you read and believe immediately – are testimonies of others. Not all can be proved. If someone tells you about an exotic fruit in another country – that you have never seen – you will tend to believe him. Yes! You can check and make sure if that fruit really exists before believing him, but sometimes all relative evidence will convince you that – you have no reason to doubt. Evidence regarding God will be confirmed one day. It might not be possible to go back in time and indorse it then and it might annoy God for failing to listen and believing in his messengers’ testimonies.



By JerryInTampa:
“This is absolutely corrrect. There may be a god, there's just no support for one.”


Atheists believe there is no God. Are you saying there may be a God?
So, are you an agnostic? Your comment there ^ describes an agnostic’s view.
In either case – your standard or method of checking whether or not – there is a God – would be over the meter. Even if God tells you he is God – IMO you will still demand all kinds of proof and still consider other possibilities (as I already mentioned in my earlier post). So, when you say – “there is no support for one” – I disagree.


By SteveHD:
“Um...Are you sure that you're believing the correct way?
Is there a right way to believe?”


No! I am not sure. That is why I said “may kick his own azz”. There is a difference between saying “will kick his own azz” and “may kick his own azz”.


By SteveHD
“How can a theist say what is going to happen to atheist, after life, if the theist themselves don't know?”


They can say based on the information that was provided to them by their prophet. Whether it is true or not – only time will confirm. But they can say… RIGHT?





I think by asking the right questions and by seeking at the right places – an atheist can successfully become a true theist. The only bridge between those two IMO is – one surrenders from searching and starts to believe that “absence of proof is somehow proof of absence” and thus he gives up and finally exhibits lack of any desire to seek the truth any further. If they consider the possibility that a God may exist then they would have a separate term and IMO they won’t be atheists anymore. I think they would be called an agnostic.
In other words – atheists are people who have given up any possibility of God really existing because there seems to be no concrete evidence of God that they can find. They think the concept of God is BS.

What about the saying… Never give Up!!! ??? Why is it hard to continue the search?

 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 192 (view)
 
atheism vs. christianity
Posted: 1/16/2007 10:26:31 AM

Originally posted by late™:
“Roll a single die. If it comes up a six, they will give you ten thousand dollars. If it comes up 1 through 5, you give them one thousand dollars. Should you take the bet? The odds of winning are 1:6 and the payoff is 10:1. If you've got a thousand bucks to spare, it's a good bet. But if that money is supposed to go towards rent and utilities, then it would be irresponsible of you to make the bet.

If atheists are right, this is the only life you have. Using it to place a risky bet is irresponsible.”


If not playing will save you the money and somehow keep you in a better place than those who decide to play – then maybe you have a slight point. BUT IMO that won’t be the case at all!!!!
Regardless of taking the chance – those five people may or may not go to hell but presumably all atheists might surely find themselves in there. So why not at least give it a shot at that presumed 5%? What do you got to lose?


Think of yourself in a room with 6 doors and 6 other people (seven altogether). Five of the doors lead to side entrance or maybe they are false doors but one door truly leads to the main entrance of God’s heavenly kingdom. Five took the wrong door and one took the correct door BUT you just decided to stay in the room and rot forever and not even try any of the doors. How is that better than what those six people are doing?

In my opinion those five people who ended up at the wrong doors are still better because they at least tried to find God.

BTW, how do you know if those five people’s doors are not side entrance to God’s kingdom and that they will never reach God? Why do you think they will be back with you in the same place?
So, the ultimate probability to be in God's good grace could easily be at least 50% if you just believe. But since most doctrine states clearly that God will not be happy with those who didn’t believe – it would be wiser to investigate and research and then pick one of those doors and try it out. It is better than just accept hell and not even seek the proper door.

Even it was a 5% probability – I would still seek that door before my time is up for seeking. Under no circumstances I would accept defeat and cause myself to rot in that room forever. The smart way is to seek and then believe. If all doors lead nowhere (in the absence of a God)– then we will be on the same boat.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 189 (view)
 
atheism vs. christianity
Posted: 1/16/2007 8:12:02 AM
A theist and an atheist – both have something in common. They both deal with the concept of God. But from that common ground – they head opposite direction.
They both are working in the same garden. However, one (the theist) believes that – the flower he is trying to grow actually has an ultimate creator behind it. But the other (the atheist) tries to believe (for lack for concrete proof) it is somehow more intelligent to believe –the flowers were created entirely on its own and couldn’t have any creator behind it. To them – certain things don’t add up – so, it is better to disregard any more investigation and needless to try and solve the puzzling and confusing questions – because it just don’t add up. So they come to the conclusion that – there must be no God and the flowers were created on its own.




Originally posted by late™:
You are a meat eater, I am not, however...

“I contend that we are both adverse to meat. I'm just adverse to one more than you are.”


By your own analogy – how “a meat eater” is also called a “vegetarian”???

So in that so-called wise word – how both are called atheists??

Whether this so-called wise “saying” is amusing to some or not – it is based on flawed logic!!




By JerryInTampa:
“Of course someone has, and you know of it. I did when I suggested that the afterlife might be bad for those who didn't.”

You are rejecting many doctrines and testimonies by many divinely inspired individuals as well as countless wise men and not to forget -billions of ordinary believers –who come to the conclusion that - a God exists.
BUT on the contrary you are the only one that seems to believe in Unicorns and you are the only one telling me that NOT believing in Unicorn (while here on earth) will be detrimental for me afterlife.

I categorically refuse to believe one man’s delusional idea – because you cannot even provide any indoctrinated evidence regarding your suggestion about Unicorns and show me that many have believed in it and therefore it is worth looking into and should be investigated to the bones to see if it is a convincible proposition or not.

Between our concepts and each of us rejecting the other’s suggestions – it is all about numbers game and you decide and see who is playing it better.
Your refusal to accept the possibilities of existence of God - is against millions and billions of people.
My refusal to consider your delusional idea about Unicorns - is against one individual (whom I seriously doubt that even really believes in them).

So you do the math. Maybe while attempting to do the math – you might also get my answer.

The evidence of God or a God like entity creating the universe and existing somewhere is far greater than the evidence of the universe creating by itself. If you disagree then – just look around.
Forget about the nature for now – just open a medical book and see how the human body is built. How different organs are created and how they perform their task. How bones are curved to facilitate the vein to travel through. There are even holes in the bones in certain places for the vein to travel through. It is a miracle really - to see how they rarely get pinched. If you look at the “hardware” and still fail to comprehend that – our anatomy couldn’t have been created without an intelligent entity’s direct handiwork – then you will never believe in a God even if he shows his powers to prove it. You will tell him that – he is a magician and someone else has given him his powers. You might suggest that - maybe he gained his powers through science and tech. You probably will still defy him to be the God. Your disbelieving nature would be infinite. Yeah! You may consider that to be a smart move on your behalf – but what if the whole idea of “believing” is to be through insufficient evidence? If God shows himself and his powers then of course everyone could be forced to believe in him. But what if – God intention is to see how we do with insufficient evidence. What if we already failed God once and this is our second chance for redemption and thus we are no longer allowed to choose how much evidence we can get. Maybe we should be glad with whatever evidence we got and maybe we don’t even deserve even that? Maybe after we messed up the first time – God could have destroyed us but decided to give us a second chance? Maybe we are in a lockdown facility and have very little info regarding what is out there beyond the walls but we are still expected to lead a righteous life and have faith in the entity (creator of the universe) that put us there in that lockdown facility (earth)?

If you want to disregard any of the doctrines that our processors claimed to be God inspired or provided by God – then at least look at the existing evidence elsewhere and do the math.



By JerryInTampa:
“That you are desperiately trying to dimiss the analogy because you have no valid retort for it.”


I already told you – provide me some doctrine and show me that millions of people support your analogy being even 1% truth. And then tell me how it will affect my existence “afterlife” (through some already established doctrines) – then I will consider it with an open mind. Until then I am considering it to be “inconsequential”, and as a result throwing it in trash. BTW, your position is not the same – because you are dismissing a possibility that million if not billions of people are considering and it can also be recognized through many doctrines. I am dismissing your analogy – because it is not the same as considering the possibility of existence of God.

Once again … Do the math.



Einstein had his good and bad days. But I clarified my main point behind mentioning his quoted words in my last post. I am yet to hear any quoted words or suggestions by any intelligent individual – who truly considered Unicorns to be real. Every story you have heard about Unicorns – are meant to be fairytales. No one claimed (I doubt that even you are claiming) them to be real. And no one except you - have claimed it to be as important as the concept regarding God.

Yet you keep on beating the drums regarding Unicorns. Unbelievable!!!



By JerryInTampa:
“Begging the question. It's important to believe if it is important to believe. You've failed completely to establish your premise... you've just assumed it.”


The truth is out there. Seek and find it. All answers to all possible confusions are out there. Not knowing them creates confusions and confusions cause dismissal of any possibility of the existence of God to be true - by all feeble minds.

Failure to search in the right places creates misinformed and feeble minds and a feeble mind – is devil’s playground.



By JerryInTampa:
“yep. There are those who believe what is evidenced, and those who believe what they arbitrarily decide to believe.”


“Absence of proof is not proof of absence”. – Michael Crichton

What you seem to consider, as “evidenced” – is actually “absence of proof”. So what you go by – is no better than what they go by. Both are - in a way based on blind and uncontestable ideology or line of thinking.



By JerryInTampa:
“And after your long-winded rant on belief without evidence”


If theist means belief without evidence… then
Atheist means non-belief without evidence. Their idea that God doesn’t exist is based on non-evidence. It is equally valid or invalid.



By JerryInTampa:
“If God is real, and he hates teists, then he consequences of beliving in him are disasterous compared to the consequences of not believing in him.”


If you believe that a true God would hate true believers of his existence then we need to go back to “preschool of logic” to elucidate that one!!

During life an atheist has equal rights to believe there is no God, however after life an atheist may kick his own azz for practicing that right. Time will provide all the evidence there is. If you refuse to believe in a God without concrete evidence – then at least seek and find “why” a so-called God would decide to remain apparently silent. If you can get a believable answer to that question – then the rest may make sense. The truth is out there.
 shadowdancing
Joined: 3/27/2006
Msg: 182 (view)
 
atheism vs. christianity
Posted: 1/15/2007 7:33:17 PM
Wow! Talk about opening a can or worms unintentionally. We surely got off-tracked here.


At JerryInTampa:
The only point I was trying to make by mentioning that particular ‘saying’ by Einstein - was that - many wise men (truly or divinely inspired or not) have mentioned numerous times and numerous things in favor of the existence of a God/s or a God like supreme entity (who created the universe and us) --- BUT on the contrary - I cannot think of any wise men - ever talking about any true possibility of existence of things like spaghetti monsters, unicorn or any such fairy tale characters.

If Einstein’s example or his quoted words do not totally collaborate with my statement in your opinion - then try to look pass it to understand my actual point.

No one to my knowledge ever implicated that believing in a unicorn will be of any positive use regarding our afterlife scenario. Hence, I fail to see your repeated attempt to connect those two concepts and trying to view them as if they are one and the same!!!
All your examples are extremely inconsequential and it is pointless to even discuss the possibility of them being true or not. However, believing or not believing in a God – can actually alter your very existence from good to worst afterlife. A simple belief that can trigger such consequence – should not be considered in the same light as the concept regarding a Unicorn or your other examples. What are U thinking?

I would also like to mention that - it doesn’t matter if Einstein was a Jew/ Christian or an atheist by your definition. It is up to him to decide what he was -in possible different stages of his life. Some of his quoted words could be when he believed and some could be when he didn’t believe. My point was – he never considered the possibility of a unicorn getting annoyed at him afterlife - for him not believing in its existence. But he very well might have considered that possibility regarding a creator of the universe. He very well must have considered whether or not to believe in a God. And that is all we should be talking about here. Not unicorns and spaghetti monsters!!!


By JerryInTampa:

“I don't have positive beliefs that I lack evidence for. I simply don't assume that a spagetti monster made my room until I see evidence that one did.”



If you research all possible scenarios according to different famous religions and then figure out the reason behind why (?) God is (apparently) silent during our life here on earth – then you might understand why it is crucial to still believe. I wrote a tread about that very question and it is still out there somewhere. But I know that - no amount of information from any doctrine would be enough for those who don’t want to believe.
IMO the whole purpose of our life here on earth will eventually serve one important outcome – and that would be – sorting out different kinds of people and their personal position regarding God. One set of people would manage to find the truth and then believe in it even with limited evidence and another set of people would fail to do the same – because they refuse to believe without concrete evidence. And there would yet be another set who would develop mistaken beliefs (IMO) regarding the number of deity and other related matters.

Certain egocentric and self-proclaimed intelligent people will always be there - who would disregard the reason behind God apparently not providing us with clear-cut evidence of his existence and thus they would always refuse to believe unless God comes down and show himself and his powers.

Remember, if there is a God – there is a reason for his apparent supposed absence. IMO failure to comprehend that reason makes many people a disbeliever.


By JerryInTampa:
“Do you know for a fact that there is no one-eyed mongolian living in Indonesia named Herb who raises goldfish for a living?

Do you believe that there is a one-eyed mongolian living in Indonesia named Herb who raises goldfish for a living?”


How will this info help me during my life or after my death?
If I thought this was of any importance to my existence now and beyond this earthy life – and if I thought the info is available in certain doctrine and finding it and believing in it – will somehow alter my status afterlife for eternity – THEN I would most certainly seek that info and try to comprehend and believe in it. You somehow seem to think – this is an important question (equivalent to be compared to question regarding the existence of God) - so why don’t you seek and find the answer to your own question?


By HilbertSpace:
“Einstein's God was amoral and unthinking, unable to violate the laws of the universe.”


Einstein’s God???
Well that seems to collaborate with my intended point. If you don’t think so, then check and see at which stage in his life he wrote that and what was the status of his personal beliefs regarding God - at that point in time.



Originally posted by late™:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

- Stephen Roberts”


I disagree.
Lets replace the word “god” with a particular medicine. We all know that –certain medicine can do wonders for certain people but yet not work for some people.

So, lets hypothetically think - an atheist is a disbeliever of any kind of medicine and a theist is one that believes in one particular medicine because he knows and believes that - it heals him.

So, by replacing the words – what do we have…

I contend that we are both disbelievers of any sort of medicine. I just believe in one fewer medicines than you do. When you understand why you dismiss other medicines that don’t work for you and doesn’t heal you – you will understand why I dismiss the one that does work for you.

^^^ How lame does that sound now??


Similarly I can say many things regarding the rest of the so-called wise words, but that would only make this post longer.
For lack of proper info – many so-called wise men have come up with certain confused and inappropriate conclusions and reasoning for not believing in a God. It is their incompetence to find the truth that should be blamed. God IMO provided basic answers to all apparent confusing questions in some of the famous doctrines.

Finding them is the name of the game! Disregarding those doctrines and staying confused and sticking with things that don’t make sense and thus using them to continually dismiss the possibility of the existence of God – should not be the practice of a wise man.
 
Show ALL Forums