thomas malloy wrote:
thomas malloy wrote:
snip
Lets start over at the beginning. There are these two super human entities who both want to be G-d, Unfortunately there's only room for one, One's going to toss the other into a black hole, him and all his followers with him.
Now this all results from the angels and humans having free will. There have been a series of prophets who have recorded G-d's message.
Lets start at the real beginning. According to your belief system, one God created the universe some ? billion years ago. During that time many civilizations have come and gone on other planets and civilizations have come and gone on this planet. Recently, relatively speaking, humans have develop sufficiently to write down their conversations with God. From these documents we learn that at some time in the past, another God came into being who wants to kick out the original God and all humans who follow this God. How about the many advanced civilizations that exist on other planets? Are all the followers of the original God on these planets going to be destroyed as well or do you think we are the only beings your God has created? And why now after so long a time?
Frankly this story seem too childish. Even humans who have acquired some wisdom do not act this self-serving and ruthless. I would expect Gods to have a higher standard. But then this is your God, not mine.
To make this difference more clear and using your concepts, we both believe in a God but we attribute different characteristic to that God. You are willing to fight over the different characteristics because one of the characteristics you attribute to your God is his wish for you to wage such a fight. The characteristics I attribute to my God are more forgiving and compassionate, more wise rather than ruthless.
Then there is the matter of the Islamists, who want to rule the world.
This is no more true than to say that Christianity wants to rule the world.
But our G-d has a right to rule his world.
So, in your belief system, Christians-Jews have the right to war against people who do not share their understanding of God because your God is the only true and real God, hence has the right to rule all people. In other words, believe or die. This sounds rather old fashion, like the attitude toward witches which we have now outgrown.
Both religions are trying to spread their beliefs and both belief systems have groups under whose rule I and you would not want to live.
Speak for yourself, I live in a theocracy, I answer to Rabbi Stan, we both answer to G-d.
On the other hand, in a few countries now and especially in the past, Islam provided a very good religious base for civilized development.
If you don't mind living in the Middle Ages, and don't care if you worship the true G-d, in spirit and truth. If it weren't for that, I'd make a good Islamist.
Turkey is not in the Middle Ages, yet it is Moslem. When you say "worship the true God" you are missing a very critical concept. You are not worshiping a God, but you are worshiping your concept of a God. You believe this concept is the only true and correct one. Therefore, everyone should share this understanding. This is like someone saying that they worship Physics and insist on making everyone believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Our understanding of Physics as well as of God has evolved. Your understanding has apparently remained locked in the past.
If you think that you'd have problems with a Christian theocracy,
you'll really hate them, they make us look like liberals.
2. I am not pro-abortion for a few reasons. A: It does nothing to encourage people to stop the numerous "meet and f**k" flings.
Lack of abortion does not stop f**kings, which all the statistics and personal experience shows.
But the ability to kill people who are inconvenient does cheapen life
War is the most outrageous ability to kill inconvenient people yet it does not get the same criticism as does abortion. I expect you will say that the fetus is innocent so it should be protected while soldiers and people who start wars are not innocent. Nevertheless, innocent people are killed in war. To be consistent, any Christian who objects to abortion should object to war just as strongly.
Abortion isn't a real hot button issue, but it is with most of my friends, particularly my Christian sisters, I am well aware of the human suffering caused by war. I believe that there are some humans who are profoundly evil, and that when one of them gets his hands on the levers of state power, the only way to stop his activities, force. There are just and unjust wars.
I agree. However, the definition is difficult to apply. Hitler and the German people thought their war was just, Bush and the American people think the present war is just, and hundreds of small "wars" are ongoing at any one time with each side thinking their fight is just. Of course, if you have "God" on your side, it is easy to know which killing is just.
B: I wouldn't know if I was destroying someone who might be something very important one day.
Or someone who was a mass murder. Of course, if God wanted a person available to do something considered important, why would it matter if that body were destroyed? Many more bodies would be available. Also, if God is all powerful and all knowing, why would a body that might be aborted be chosen?
Have you ever heard of free will, Ed? Well you have the right to exercise it. We believe that free will, combined with our sinful nature is the reason that the world is in such a mess today. Some of us are opposed to murder, not to be confused with justified killing.
So if I understand correctly, killing in war and as a penalty is ok because the person deserves death, but taking a potential life is murder, which is wrong. Presumably in your belief system, if a bomb or bullet kills an innocent person during war this is not murder, but an accident, hence ok.
Frankly, I do not know of a time when the world was not a mess somewhere. Even in the past when the Catholic Church ruled, things were done by the Church that, by all standards, were wrong, were a "sin", and must have been based on a distortion of God's will. Where do you draw the line between what is God's will and what the Church has believed and done during various times in history? Why do you think your particular variation on Christianity is completely correct?
The only people deserving of death are criminals like Sudam Husein. As for the collateral damage of war, it's an imperfect world. The Roman Church has it's good points, but it is also imperfect. As for my church, we do the best that we can to base our beliefs on the Bible. However, so do all the churches.
I don't doubt the sincerely of your approach and that of your church. However, we all must recognize that no man nor any church has all the answers. Therefore, neither man nor church should be so arrogant to insist that other people follow their understanding. We were given free will and we all should be allowed to use it. Of course, we all have the right to protect ourselves from the sinful nature of other people using law, not religion.
C: I do not have to be pro-abortion just because you say so. So many people have tried to force me to be pro-abortion that I am now totally against it mainly in defiance of those who would control my thinking.
Why do you think you are being forced to be proabortion and how is this done? Of course, many people are being forced to be "antiabortion" just because the doctors are being driven out of business.
What doctors, the abortionists? The cry that goes up from the pro abortionists every time we attempt to restrict the practice makes me think that there is more going on here than the practice of their bloody business, IMHO, their agenda is to kill humans.
Surely Thomas you see the self serving aspects of this interpretation. Put yourself in the place of a women who is pregnant with an unwanted child. She may have too many children already, she may have been raped, she might be too young to properly raise the child, or she does not want the stigma of her actions. You would say that rather than an abortion, she should pay the price for her "sin", and live with the shame or threat to her other children.
At the moment there are lots of couples who would love to adopt a child.
Good point. I suggest religious people should make adoption easier rather than abortion harder. This approach would be more consistent with their beliefs and would show their compassion.
Meanwhile you project the same lack of compassion on the abortionists. The basic issue is, where should the limited amount of compassion be placed? Is it not possible to have compassion for the doctors who have to do the nasty job, for the pregnant woman, AND for the fetus. In the process, make abortion an important action requiring thought and prayer, but not impossible.
I agree. However the strident nature of the cry that the pro abortionists make when we have attempted to limit the practice, makes me suspect that they have a hidden agenda.
Come now Thomas, there is nothing hidden here. Many people only want the option to end pregnancy using abortion, if that is their need and wish. It is the matter of freedom of choice. I'm sure you object when someone restricts your choice.
3. A religious person really really must have made you mad once, Jed? It is fine by me if you are
I know of no proposed legislation that is antireligious. However, I know that the religious right is trying to make gay marriage illegal.
We are attempting to preserve the traditional definition of the word. Have you ever heard of Sodom and Gamorrah?, do you recall what happened to those two cities?
You and I both know that what is believed about what happened in Sodom and Gamorrah is largely myth based on the Bible.
You can believe that the Bible is a myth if you want, that doesn't change the fact that of the verses which were prophetic at the time of their writing, 75% have come to pass, the ones which were dated, on time to the day. Have you seen the sulfur balls imbedded in the ash which are found in the area where Sodom and Gamorrah were?
So, you believe the Bible because some verses correctly described real events of the past or predicted real future events. This is like saying that because a textbook or history book is mostly true, that everything in it is true. But, I forget, you believe God said that all verses are true. Of course, any careful reading of the Bible shows many verses that are clearly not true, so this would seem to be a contradiction.
ce in Greek and Roman
times without cities being destroyed by God. Modern understanding of sexually is reveling that the gender spectrum between male and female is continuous. A few people are fully male or fully female, while most occupy a region between these extremes. Also, that a person can be moved on this spectrum simply my giving them the proper hormone. Where is the sin in this?
There are various levels of sin, and sexual sins are the most he heinous because they are at the center of the person. Torah was the first book to forbid homosexuality.
I suppose that was before it was possible to convert a man into a woman or a woman into a man. We know a good deal more about our sexual and gender mechanisms now. Your belief system is once again not keeping up with new understanding of the human condition.
You know, if we are supposed to be so
pro-women-liberation in other countries, so pro-freedom, so pro-lets-all-get-along-as-equals, so pro-<insert theme of day here> then why the HELL is it ok and dandy to hate religion?
I think we need to make a distinction here between spiritually and religion. Many people, myself included, believe that a another variation of this reality exists which can be called the spiritual reality. Religion makes an effort to understand this reality and then institutionalizes the result. In the process, ideas are locked into dogma and conflict results. So when you note that I and other people are antireligious, we appear this way only because we object to the process of creating dogma when we all should be trying to understand this important aspect of out existence. I make the same objection when the same process of creating dogma is applied to science.
It depends on whether or not the scenario I mentioned about the two super human beings struggling to see which one will run the universe, doesn't it. Another aspect of that is the concept of holiness, the word in Hebrew kadosh. G-d is holy and consequently is unable to tolerate that which is unholy. He obligated to extra pate sin from the universe.
In other words, the one God can not tolerate the other God because he defines himself as "holy" and can not tolerate anything that is different. Sounds rather human and sinful to me. Meanwhile we humans are instructed by the holy God to be tolerant and accepting of differences between each of us, or was the "Golden Rule" just for show?
I did not get the impression that Jed hates religion, nor do I. However, I do hate the attitude of certain religions in their belief that their God is better than the other God.
I'm savy enough to realize that the two of you are just anti religious, Ed. However, I'm sure you can appreciate that there is, however only room for one G-d and king in the universe.
While I admit this is true, history shows that there is room for more than one interpretation of what this God wants us to do. Although the correct answer has been frequently given, most people have a hard time understanding the message.
I think that the concept of holiness is pretty clearly spelled out in the Bible.
If that is the basis, then many nonChristians are clearly holy, and many Jews and Christians are not holy. That being the case, all holy people should be "saved" regardless of belief system and all unholy people damned whether they believe in your system or not. Or can a person only be holy when they believe as you do?
I do not presume to have a correct understanding, hence I do not believe I have the right to force you to adopt my particular understanding by law. For example, in my ideal world, you would have the right to deny an abortion to your family members and would have the right to talk friends out of using abortion. However, you would not be allowed to prevent my family or anyone else from using this method.
As I mentioned above, I'm quite liberal on abortion, I just want to discourage it.
Agreed. However, you should then work to make adoption much easier.
The same approach would apply to homosexual marriage. You would have the compassion and acceptance to allow me to go to Hell, if that is the result of my actions. Meanwhile, you could be confident that you would go to Heaven. We could then compare notes when we met in the spiritual reality and see who was right.
I'm going to do my best to retain the traditional definition of marriage because I see it as one of the building blocks of society. I also believe that homosexuality is just another form of sexual perversion, best addressed by celibacy.
While I see no way to change your mind about this, don't you think this should be an individual choice? While marriage between a man and woman is a building block, how does a marriage between the same-sex have any effect on the marriage between opposite sexes? I know that my marriage does not depend on whether same-sex couples live together in marriage or just live together. This has no more effect on me than would two same-sex people living together without marriage. Does such situations change your relationship to your wife, assuming you are married?
If you think I am
overreacting, then re-read your posts. They were pretty damned irritating to me at least, and I am sure others. Not for your opinion, that is fine. Do what you want. But do not ever try to force it on anyone else. By legislation or otherwise. This statement (the last part anyways) is not directly aimed at anyone.
I would also like religious people not to force their beliefs using legislation, which is the common approach.
The way we see it, there is a religion called Secular Humanism, which is being promoted by the Liberals. For all their protestations of separation of religion and government, the followers of this religion are anxious to use the levers of power which the government provides to promote it.
Allowing freedom of belief and action is not promoting Secular Humanism. The problem comes when certain people want to deny freedom and force other people to adopt actions they are sure are God's will. In other words, they want to deny free will, the very freedom God gave to man according to your belief. Don't you see the contradiction here. Thomas?
I realize that, but the promoters of Secular Humanism have an agenda, which is promoting their religion. They are, however loath to admit either that it is a religion, or that they are attempting to promote it.
Come now Thomas, they are no more promoting their religion than you are promoting yours. All people would like everyone to share their beliefs. This is only normal human behavior. What is not permitted in this country is for laws to be made to enforce application of a particular belief. No conflict would exist between the Christian right and everyone else if the Christian right would mind their own business.
Did you notice Parksie's reaction to the challenge to his orthodoxy? Intelligent Design just points out the absurdity of spontaneous biogenesis, but Parksie couldn't stand even that small incursion on his pet paradigm.
Bob Park is a small minded person who enjoys his own cleverness. He is not a spokesman for a liberal approach, although he is frequently right about the stupidity of the government.
I am amazed at how often I agree with Parksie when it comes to the government's wasting money. You have noticed his promoting allopathic medicine, and the materialistic paradigm, I assume?
A major tenet of Secular Humanism is an attempt to promote sexuality immorality and make murder socially acceptable, and we are obligated to stop it. The Secular Humanists will come out in mass to attempt to stop the justified killing of a convicted murderer, but seem to feel that the murder of an inconvenient infant is just fine. They give lip service to free speech, but when they are authority, which they are in the educational establishment, are quite intolerant of dissenting speech. They claim to support the rights of women, but blindly support the most anti woman religion on Earth, Islam. Their agenda is as simple as ABC, anything but Christianity.
You must be living in a different world than I am, Thomas. I see no such actions or intent on the part of what you call Secular Humanists. All most people want is the freedom to find their own way in this world without some group who thinks they have God on their side telling us what to think and what to do within our own life or family. You want the same, except you do not want the Moslems telling you what to believe. In this sense, we are on the same side. The difference is that I don't want Christians forcing me to adopt their value system either.
You are turning a blind eye to their activities if you can't see that they are promoting sexual immorality. Huxley's Brave New World is here.
Sexual immorality is highly variable in the human society and works very well in all its variations. If you think a particular practice is wrong, feel free not to do it. Meanwhile, give other people the chance to go to Hell if that is what will happen, which I doubt.
It's not a matter of having G-d on our side, it's being on G-d's side. I have previously mentioned holiness. The Moslems have a version of it, that is because the author of the system, HaSatan, packaged it in a matter which would appeal to them. I'm not going to force you to adopt my value system, however the G-d of Israel will.
I'm willing to wait for the God of Israel to do what he will. His being a God, I would have no defense. However, I strongly object to humans, who are not Gods, trying to force me to adopt their moral values. As history has shown many times, just because a religion believes it knows God's will, this does not make it so. Because we all can be wrong, we must not force another person to adopt our belief system. We are free to believe the most crazy ideas, as is presently done, but we must allow free-will to operate in other people. To do otherwise is to violate every lesson given to man by the spirit reality.
snip
We on the religious right have been fighting a losing battle, I believe the term is a rear guard action. While we have managed to score some small victories, we are, IMHO, loosing the war. The enemy's minions have control of most of the media, and de facto control of most of the schools.
They have a hidden government apparatus which has the ability to manipulate events, 9/11, the bombing of the Murray Building, are only two examples of this. It's not just that they did it, it's that they got away with it!
Thomas, now you are leaving the world of reality and entering the world of paranoia. It is one thing to have a belief system you believe is correct and worth spreading, it quite another to distort real events to fit into this belief system. This is the road to insanity. Be careful!!
Regards, Ed
We are the restrainer, which is spoken of in the Bible, which prevents the enemy from bringing his New World Order to fruition. At some point we will be withdrawn. Then you will see that it's not us that you have to worry about, it's him.
