New topic
Printablejust an fyi...i am not christian -------------------------------------------------
Something new for your ears and soul. http://artists.mp3s.com/a...dadli.html | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
IceNine said: Why would god require anything? If god created everything and is omnipotent, it is necessary to admit that this god would know all possible outcomes of all possible actions and would not need a human chess set to act out its whims. Knowing and experiencing are two different things. I can know the fire is hot, but that will have no meaning to me until I experience that the fire is hot. In order to fully understand something, you have to experience it. Explain the taste of sugar to someone that doesn't know what sugar tastes like. You use words like "It tastes sweet." Now because you've told this person what it tastes like, they know that it's sweet from what you've said, but until they taste it, they have no clue what sweet is or what the sugar tastes like. So God can know all possible outcomes, but it's entirely different to experience it. And I don't see it as a human chess set, but more as a learning experience. IceNine said: A non-egotistical god would not require worship, nor would it need recognition. True altruism in humans is in acts done anonymously and without the desire or need for recognition for the act. Why would an omnipotent being be petty enough to require worship, recognition or adulation? The answer is that god was made up by humans and humans put their own needs into him. God doesn't require worship. Forgive me if that was the implication that I made. That is where Free Will comes into play. God doesn't say "Love me". God doesn't say "Worship me." God says, "You choose." Also God doesn't require recognition. My lover has an expression that I hate when he uses it on me, but it has a lot of merit. "Just because you choose to not believe does not make it any less true." If we choose to not see God, to not love God, it doesn't make the existence any less true. We do not have to acknowledge God, or recognize God, for God to exist in other words. Please Ice understand that I'm just stating my views and beliefs here. I do respect your lack of belief as it were and I'm not trying to get you to change that belief or lack of, but rather just discussing my views and beliefs in relation to what you've said. (Don't know why I always have to throw that disclaimer in. lol) You also stated that man made up God and put their own needs into God. You are right. The ideas that man has of God are based upon their own needs and understandings. A finite being cannot begin to comprehend an infinite being. So yes, the very idea of God is man made because with a limited consciousness we cannot begin to understand an unlimited existence. So the ideas that churches teach, that preachers preach about, etc., are manmade. However, just because men place their own ideas upon who or what God is does not mean that there doesn't exist a higher power that goes beyond our understandings. IceNine said: Mankind cannot rise above good and evil or they would become god. Humans will always judge actions and outcomes according to their moral code... if a human was beyond good and evil, all actions would be the same to them and murder would be as acceptable as rescuing a man from drowning. How would you experience the pure moment of a murderer removing the entrails from a victim? Would you think that it was a good action or a bad action? God would not care about that act. There are some Ice that do see each event that you expressed above as a learning experience. They do not place upon it the same values as others do. But that does not mean they are without feelings, because they do feel, it just means that they see things without judgement. And when one meditates and reaches deep levels of meditation, they are able to leave all judgements behind. There is no duality within the deepest recesses of meditation. They view each event as just that, an event. IceNine said: If god cared about humanity, it would no allow these things to occur. You cannot sit passively by and still be passionate about the fate of your creation. You can sit passively and watch characters in a videogame slaughter each other because they do not matter to you and are inconsequential. Thinking that a god would care about you is monumentally egotistical, as god has the entire universe to worry about. You know as a mother I would not wish upon my child to discover heart break. I would not wish upon my child to know the betrayal of a friend. I would not wish upon my child to know any kind of emotional pain. However, as a mother, I realize that these are the things that will teach my child what love is, what friendship is, and will help my child to develop coping mechanisms to face whatever challenges comes his way. I watch his life passionately but I realize that there are times when I have to sit passively in order to allow him to explore, to learn, to experience. I have a 17 year old son and a 16 month old son. I've watched my 17 year old get hurt because his girlfriend dumped him. All I could say to him was, "I know it hurts, but you'll get over this and you will meet someone knew. Each love you experience prepares you for the next." Now to say that I cannot worry about one child because I have another child to worry about is erroneous. I can worry about the both of them. Just as I can worry about my family members, friends, acquaintances, strangers, etc. I'm not egotistical to think that my friends, family, lover, etc., worry about me even though they have other people of their own to worry about. Besides, as you said, God knows the outcome, so perhaps He doesn't worry, just waits for us to realize the Truth of our Self. IceNine said: God does not provide wake-up calls... if we reduce god to that, why not ask him to remove difficult stains from our clothing? No we reserve that for our mothers or significant others. lol I guess I view God in a different way from most people. I don't see God as being separate from us, but rather the essence of us. I see God as being that part of us that loves, shows compassion, helps others, all that we contain. I don't believe the Bible is a literal interpretation, nor do I see the Bible as being the only word of God. There are many texts out there that contain words of Wisdom, Love, Grace and Holiness. So when that voice within me says something like "It's in your power to help that grandmother across the street." I listen with an understanding that it is my higher Self speaking, that it is a Holy voice. (Just using the above as an example.) There are times when I read something that I say "I knew that!" even though I had never heard it before, nor had I ever experienced it before, but I could tell you what the experience was like. I believe that too to be of a higher essence. And I too do not believe in fire and brimstone and hell everlasting. One thing that I would like to point out is that we are born loving. We may not know how to express that love, but it is a natural emotion. This is the God essence that I speak of. We are also born believing that no one is separate from us, that we are all the same being. This is documented in many cases in which babies first realize that mommy is not baby and baby is not mommy but rather two separate individuals. The believing that we are all one being that the baby experiences until about a year and a half to two years of age, is also the God essence. Also a baby doesn't judge, doesn't think something is bad or good, but rather they just experience it as it happens. They live in the moment so to speak that I spoke of earlier. Love is purity. However, we learn to hate. We are taught that mommy is different from baby. We are taught that there is good and bad. Perhaps it's in the teaching that we need to reassess what our kids take in. Not to get mundane and quote the Bible but there is a verse in which Jesus said something along the lines of "To know the answers of the universe, ask a baby 7 days old." And also to come to him as a baby. And I think that what those mean is what I've stated above. We have to unlearn what we've learned. Find the innocence again that we were born with. Know love without having to define love. And experience life without judgement. dang quotes [This message was edited Tue Oct 22 15:31:27 PDT 2002 by LittleRedCorvette] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LittleRedCorvette said: IceNine said: Why would god require anything? If god created everything and is omnipotent, it is necessary to admit that this god would know all possible outcomes of all possible actions and would not need a human chess set to act out its whims. Knowing and experiencing are two different things. I can know the fire is hot, but that will have no meaning to me until I experience that the fire is hot. In order to fully understand something, you have to experience it. Explain the taste of sugar to someone that doesn't know what sugar tastes like. You use words like "It tastes sweet." Now because you've told this person what it tastes like, they know that it's sweet from what you've said, but until they taste it, they have no clue what sweet is or what the sugar tastes like. So God can know all possible outcomes, but it's entirely different to experience it. And I don't see it as a human chess set, but more as a learning experience. IceNine replied: If god is the author of all things, then god is necessarily the creator of hot, cold, sweet, sour, pain, pleasure, etc. This god would not need to live vicariously through anyone or anything to know anything, as the totality of all possible knowledge would be within god itself. The experience is knowledge and is therefore a part of god. LRC said: IceNine said: A non-egotistical god would not require worship, nor would it need recognition. True altruism in humans is in acts done anonymously and without the desire or need for recognition for the act. Why would an omnipotent being be petty enough to require worship, recognition or adulation? The answer is that god was made up by humans and humans put their own needs into him. God doesn't require worship. Forgive me if that was the implication that I made. That is where Free Will comes into play. God doesn't say "Love me". God doesn't say "Worship me." God says, "You choose." Also God doesn't require recognition. My lover has an expression that I hate when he uses it on me, but it has a lot of merit. "Just because you choose to not believe does not make it any less true." If we choose to not see God, to not love God, it doesn't make the existence any less true. We do not have to acknowledge God, or recognize God, for God to exist in other words. Please Ice understand that I'm just stating my views and beliefs here. I do respect your lack of belief as it were and I'm not trying to get you to change that belief or lack of, but rather just discussing my views and beliefs in relation to what you've said. (Don't know why I always have to throw that disclaimer in. lol) IceNine replied: The bible certainly says that worship is required, but I can appreciate that you do not believe that he requires worship. It is much more reasonable to believe that a supreme being would not be so egotistical as to require worship... unfortunatetly, that is the view set forth by the bible. LRC said: You also stated that man made up God and put their own needs into God. You are right. The ideas that man has of God are based upon their own needs and understandings. A finite being cannot begin to comprehend an infinite being. So yes, the very idea of God is man made because with a limited consciousness we cannot begin to understand an unlimited existence. So the ideas that churches teach, that preachers preach about, etc., are manmade. However, just because men place their own ideas upon who or what God is does not mean that there doesn't exist a higher power that goes beyond our understandings. IceNine replied: I cannot argue against the possibility of a god, but I can argue against the christian conception of god, as I do not believe that any supreme being would be as petty, jealous and merciless as the being described in that book. LRC said: IceNine said: Mankind cannot rise above good and evil or they would become god. Humans will always judge actions and outcomes according to their moral code... if a human was beyond good and evil, all actions would be the same to them and murder would be as acceptable as rescuing a man from drowning. How would you experience the pure moment of a murderer removing the entrails from a victim? Would you think that it was a good action or a bad action? God would not care about that act. There are some Ice that do see each event that you expressed above as a learning experience. They do not place upon it the same values as others do. But that does not mean they are without feelings, because they do feel, it just means that they see things without judgement. And when one meditates and reaches deep levels of meditation, they are able to leave all judgements behind. There is no duality within the deepest recesses of meditation. They view each event as just that, an event. IceNine replied: Buddhism is the closest that I would ever come to religion. To know the way of the Buddha, you must let fall your consciousness and view the world as pure object. Christianity has no such constraints and actions are clearly judged in accord with christian morality. The very fact that morality comes into play indicates that reserving judgment is not intended. Morality deals with right and wrong, whereas there is no right or wrong beyond good and evil. LRC said: IceNine said: If god cared about humanity, it would no allow these things to occur. You cannot sit passively by and still be passionate about the fate of your creation. You can sit passively and watch characters in a videogame slaughter each other because they do not matter to you and are inconsequential. Thinking that a god would care about you is monumentally egotistical, as god has the entire universe to worry about. You know as a mother I would not wish upon my child to discover heart break. I would not wish upon my child to know the betrayal of a friend. I would not wish upon my child to know any kind of emotional pain. However, as a mother, I realize that these are the things that will teach my child what love is, what friendship is, and will help my child to develop coping mechanisms to face whatever challenges comes his way. I watch his life passionately but I realize that there are times when I have to sit passively in order to allow him to explore, to learn, to experience. I have a 17 year old son and a 16 month old son. I've watched my 17 year old get hurt because his girlfriend dumped him. All I could say to him was, "I know it hurts, but you'll get over this and you will meet someone knew. Each love you experience prepares you for the next." Now to say that I cannot worry about one child because I have another child to worry about is erroneous. I can worry about the both of them. Just as I can worry about my family members, friends, acquaintances, strangers, etc. I'm not egotistical to think that my friends, family, lover, etc., worry about me even though they have other people of their own to worry about. Besides, as you said, God knows the outcome, so perhaps He doesn't worry, just waits for us to realize the Truth of our Self. IceNine replied: Once again, this comes down to opinion. I am of the opinion that any supreme being would be supremely above concern for humanity. 
If god truly wants the objects of his creation to explore and make mistakes, etc., this creature would not punish his creations for transgressions against his will. LRC said: IceNine said: God does not provide wake-up calls... if we reduce god to that, why not ask him to remove difficult stains from our clothing? No we reserve that for our mothers or significant others. lol I guess I view God in a different way from most people. I don't see God as being separate from us, but rather the essence of us. I see God as being that part of us that loves, shows compassion, helps others, all that we contain. I don't believe the Bible is a literal interpretation, nor do I see the Bible as being the only word of God. There are many texts out there that contain words of Wisdom, Love, Grace and Holiness. So when that voice within me says something like "It's in your power to help that grandmother across the street." I listen with an understanding that it is my higher Self speaking, that it is a Holy voice. (Just using the above as an example.) There are times when I read something that I say "I knew that!" even though I had never heard it before, nor had I ever experienced it before, but I could tell you what the experience was like. I believe that too to be of a higher essence. And I too do not believe in fire and brimstone and hell everlasting. IceNine replied: I am glad to see that many religious people reject the objectionable trappings of the bible. Please allow me to quote Sigmund Freud: "The greater the number of men to whom the treasures of knowledge become accessible, the more widespread is the falling-away from religious belief at first only from its obsolete and objectionable trappings, but later from its fundamental postulates as well.” LRC said: One thing that I would like to point out is that we are born loving. We may not know how to express that love, but it is a natural emotion. This is the God essence that I speak of. We are also born believing that no one is separate from us, that we are all the same being. This is documented in many cases in which babies first realize that mommy is not baby and baby is not mommy but rather two separate individuals. The believing that we are all one being that the baby experiences until about a year and a half to two years of age, is also the God essence. Also a baby doesn't judge, doesn't think something is bad or good, but rather they just experience it as it happens. They live in the moment so to speak that I spoke of earlier. Love is purity. However, we learn to hate. We are taught that mommy is different from baby. We are taught that there is good and bad. Perhaps it's in the teaching that we need to reassess what our kids take in. Not to get mundane and quote the Bible but there is a verse in which Jesus said something along the lines of "To know the answers of the universe, ask a baby 7 days old." And also to come to him as a baby. And I think that what those mean is what I've stated above. We have to unlearn what we've learned. Find the innocence again that we were born with. Know love without having to define love. And experience life without judgement. IceNine replied: The only problem with this is that we will learn things, we will experience things and we will form opinions on things. It is psychologically impossible for us not to for opinions when learning and growing and our environment accounts for most of what we learn. Later in life, we can look at what we "know" and view it through the eyes of intelligence and experience and decide what we think are the best ideas and opinions. A child does not have the reasoning ability to discern things at a higher level of thinking. SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
So...
Are there any fundamentalists or strict christians out there who would like to enter into this debate? SUPERJOINT RITUAL - http://www.superjointritual.com
A Lethal Dose of American Hatred | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Clone the dna. Make jesus come again. Finally settle what Jesus looked like.
Finally figure out if Jesus had a long schlong, blue eyes, 3 nipples, whatever. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well...this has been a very latitudinarian conversation.
latitudinarian \lat-uh-too-din-AIR-ee-un; -tyoo-\, adjective: Having or expressing broad and tolerant views, especially in religious matters. noun: 1. A person who is broad-minded and tolerant; one who displays freedom in thinking, especially in religious matters. ___ Latitudinarian comes from Latin latitudo, latitudin-, "latitude" (from latus, "broad, wide") + the suffix -arian. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
yamomma said: Very cool.
Deity aside. I don't think anyone doubts there was ever a man named Jesus that lived in the first century. This find only supports that. Now evidence that a man named Jesus was the son of a one true God is found in the bible, written by 5 authors, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. This, back then, was suffice, for it was 5 different eye witness accounts to what they saw. There is even a note in a journal from a Roman military figure named "Josephus" that saw Jesus and wrote that he surely must be the son of God because no man could have done the things that he saw. So, although this is a cool find. The evidence of Jesus' Deity for most people would only satisfy if a TV crew went back in time and filmed all the miricles and such. Even then, there would be doubts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul...well, this ALWAYS makes me laugh, such popular names back then weren't they, oh and Jesus was white too, right? They all sailed over there on a raft or what! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator |
Cloudbuster said: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul...well, this ALWAYS makes me laugh, such popular names back then weren't they, oh and Jesus was white too, right? They all sailed over there on a raft or what! I seriously doubt Jesus was white. And there is no historical description of his appearance from his own time. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul? Paul was Saul before it is said that God changed his name. The others? They seemed to be popular Greek and Roman names at the time... Judging from history documents of the same time. All Rights Reserved. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
