|
|
General religion discussion.
|
Posts:
341
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(1321 of 1321)
Jun 30, 2008 12:27 AM
|
Voyce - 6/29/ post
The Jesus you worship paid with his life. WHY because he went against the established religion. By taking one gooooooood hard look at the size of the HOME of a preacher, what car he's driving, and the clothes he wears....You know good and well ----Chrisitianity ain't free...
Salvation through Jesus Christ ain't even free
You gotta be blind - and not see historical proofs of the lies of the bible and the actual message of the bible.
you gotta be deaf - and shout sooo loud about Jesus's blood and flesh gets people to heaven--that you can't hear no one's voice-Voyce-not even the preacher's
you gotta be dumb - and not speak against the bible and dumb in not asking questions about the bible
You gotta repent
you gotta tithe
You gotta beat every one who isn't christian into being christian ---is it democracy or is it capitalism
Christianity is so far from being free as is rice is from growing abundantly in the desert.
Lamb's to the slaughter....STARVING----STARVING and by choice....
Kinda like me not wanting to charge for classes and struggling with bills and to build a place for all minds to come.
Thanks Voyce!!!!!!!!! I will be modest..slightly inexpensive but accomodating...you just gave me something.
|
|
|
Posts:
341
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(1320 of 1321)
Jun 29, 2008 11:47 PM
|
Marcus I see being in legion with the religious vibration can be ONE of the reasons so many have killed themselves already...A lot of folks think, I'm going to hell anyway - so might as well get a head start.
Not everyone uses religion to justify their behavior...Though it's only about 15% of the people on the planet at this time...the numbers are growing.
It takes work to master your domain and a respect for the inherent rights of others and self. Reality is on the whole we don't live in that kind of mind set. A saving grace is not be self-righteous about it. Knowing better doesn't mean always doing better.
In short....I agree.
Thanks for your reply Don...I am going to start teaching again in the next month. I was only going to charge 5 or 10 bucks per person....I got a good brow beating from a man whose opinion i value...he tells me that he's grateful i am at least willing to charge money and that i should be charging more money. In spite of how much I have paid for books or in my time living this or recovering from some 'accident' due to gaining this information--i struggle with requiring money from people.
I had been under the money was evil thing for quite a long time and when I had it(exotic dancers make a nice penny) I had spent it all - i had fun and got educated yet no equity was established. Because I have had no respect for the power behind money.
I really appreciate the replies.
I had also been asked to do a show on internet radio to teach though i have not decided on it yet; it wouldn't be for money just to do in my spare time. I am interested in doing the show I think that would be fun.
--
Edited by ToriW at 07/01/2008 5:02 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,507
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(1319 of 1321)
Jun 29, 2008 9:10 PM
|
> The fact that they see themselves as victims, or that
> they dont see what they're doing as wrong doesnt
> change what it actually is or isnt. For this
> particular subject, it isnt love. Simple as that. And
> its still wrong.
>
But we're not talking about whether or not it's right or wrong, we're talking about unanswered questions, remember? That means we're talking about whether Jesus said if it was wrong. And he didn't.
> and specifically recognizes such discipline as an
> act of love.
>
> Where?
>
Not in the Law, but in the Proverbs: Proverbs 13:24
He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
> Actually, I think it's proof that I do
> o understand, because according to your earlier
> posts, he DID advocate changes to the law, drastic
> and radical ones. Such as, the abolition of the
> dietary rules, and ablutions. Healing on the Sabbath,
> picking food from the fields on the Sabbath. Didn't
> he say it was acceptable to disregard these?
>
> No, He didnt. You know very well what He was doing in
> these instances because we've already had this
> discussion before, so please, dont toy with me.
I'm not toying with you. And as I remember that prior discussion, you were the one insisting that when Jesus made his statement that nothing from outside the body can defile it, he was indeed declaring the dietary laws abolished. And when he said that a man who divorces his wife and marries another, was still committing adultery, he was redefining both divorce and adultery because he was saying that divorce had not ended the prior marriage, that the new relationship was adulterous even though they were married. Further, since Jewish tradition allowed polygamy (Think Jacob with Leah and Rachel, and the other two; think think David, and Solomon, okay?) he was apparently redefining marriage, too. So don't tell me he wasn't, or pretend I'm toying with you.
> You also know my view on Jesus changing certain laws
> because ive said it many times before. Besides,
> whether or not Jesus changed certain laws has nothing
> to do with what we're talking about. We're talking
> about unanswered questions, not changes to the Law.
Yes. And on the matters where he said NOTHING, and the previous law also said NOTHING, I call that an unanswered question. Where there was a position in the previous law, but nobody asked Jesus what his teachings were, and he didn't volunteer anything... I call that an unanswered question, too.
>
> Such as, the abolition of death penalty for
> r adultery. Was he abolishing ALL death penalties,
> since there was none without sin who could throw the
> first stone?
>
> He wasnt abolishing anything. This specific situation
> had nothing to do with actual punishment of our
> actions. It had to do with judging others.
>
So, was he abolishing that? Saying that we must not judge others?
> But meantime, you didn't answer, did Jesus
> s consider spousal abuse grounds for divorce?
>
> No, He didnt specify.
In fact, Matthew 19 has him saying: 9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Pretty clear that marital unfaithfulness is the only exception, right? So the subject of spousal abuse would have to be ignored. That's what Jesus did, right? Ignore the subject.
> But He did make love pretty clear.
> Marriage should be founded on love.
Not in those days, it wasn't. Most marriages were arranged by the families. A man needed a wife, so he acquired one from a good family. You can read all the laws of Leviticus about marriage, I don't think they actually mention love.
> abuse is not love.
Depends on what you call abuse. The abuser usually calls it discipline. And Proverbs specifically calls it an indication of love, and calls the lack of it an indication of hate.
If it doesnt have love, then it is
> not from God. If its not from God, it is not sacred,
> meaning there is no reason to maintain the marriage
> anymore. In other words, no love, no marriage.
This goes against the teaching of Jesus, doesn't it? He didn't say that a lack of love is a reason to end the marriage! He said *only* adultery was a reason for divorce. If the couple discovered there was no love in the marriage, and never had been... Jesus felt divorce was not a valid option for them. They're stuck in a loveless marriage, tough shit. They're not to look for marriage outside. Very strange position for someone whose entire message was love. In fact, I don't think you find Jesus using the words "love" and "marry" or "marriage" together in the same chapter.
> Anything i say on this matter is my opinion, not
> Jesus' specific words, with the exception of the fact
> that it clearly falls under Jesus' command to love.
> Spouse abuse breaks that command.
>
Not if the spouse abuse is considered to be discipline, and is done out of love, as it is to children. And if you read about it, you find this is commonly the case with abusers.
> That's in the next world, voyce. And if they
> y don't believe it exists, it's no deterrent, it's
> meaningless. Do they get punished in this one? And
> what about their actual victims, not God, forgiving
> them? He wasn't real clear on that, not at all.
>
> Personal belief doesnt change what is or what isnt.
Isn't personal belief... faith? And Jesus said that faith can perform miracles. It can heal the sick, cast out demons, etc. Jesus's message was, I think, more about faith than about love. He certainly used the word "faith" more often than he did "love," and ascribed more power to faith than to love.
> Just because they dont believe in the hereafter
> doesnt mean it doesnt exist. So, in the end, they
> will still be held accountable for this life.
Moses said they should be. Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. If it won't be applied until the next life, how is that a deterrent to one believes it will never happen? It's like Linus Van Pelt of the Peanuts strips warning about retribution from the Great Pumpkin. All that tells those who don't believe, is that they can go on with their crimes and offenses with impunity, because they assume they will never be punished for it. The fact that you believe they will, does not improve their behavior in this world. Only the deterrent of punishment in this world might accomplish that.
> Many child molesters are acting out of love for
> the children, or at least, they think they are. If
> homosexuals are acting out of love, is their act
> still an "abomination".
>
> Key word here: THINK. You can think all you want that
> what you are doing is right, but it doesnt make it
> right.
>
THINK. And in the case of "think"ing that something is so, it's called belief, even faith. And when we're on the subject of faith and religion, you can't be insisting that faith and belief, and what the individual THINKs is so, are irrelevant to a spiritual reality. What the individual THINKs is central to what's in the individual's heart.
But I'm not talking about what's right or wrong. I'm talking about what's punishable. If they truly loved the children, and couldn't be made to understand he was harming them, when they know they're just offering physical gratification, never even leaving so much as a mark on the skin, and would never wish to harm them.. Maybe he's a voyeur and only wants to look a them while they are unaware, and hence unharmed even psychologically? I'm asking what Jesus's position was regarding such sexual misbehavior? If he said it was wrong, where was that? And if he didn't say it was wrong... isn't that an unanswered question, an untaught lesson?
And then there's the matter of homosexuality. Jesus said nothing about it at all. The previous law did, and made the act punishable by death. If Jesus's message was love, are we to assume he would advocate punishing such a couple for being in love? That goes against the message of love. But should we assume then, that he would choose to abolish a law he didn't even speak out against?
It's another unanswered question.
> He even pointed out the law which said an eye for
> an eye, a tooth for a tooth....
>
> This is where your reasoning is wrong. Go back and
> read it again. He didnt point to any law at all. He
> clearly said: "You have heard that it was said..."
> Jesus is talking about what people were saying about
> the Law, not about the Law itself. People had
> understood eye for an eye to mean that they had the
> right to take revenge on others. You hurt me, i hurt
> you. Jesus was telling them that this was not the
> way.
>
An eye for an eye, is part of the law. It's mentioned 3 times in the Torah, as a punishment meted out by the court. It's purpose is as a deterrent.
> Doesn't sound like asking, to me. "Give us our
> r daily bread." Lead us not into temptation."
> "Forgive us our trespasses." Asking would be, "May we
> have our daily bread?" "May we be forgiven?" "May we
> be led away from temptation?" Hell, he doesn't even
> say, "Please."
>
> Two things: One, words arent everything. You of all
> people, seeing as how you are a writer, should know
> that some things can go unsaid depending on the tone
> you use when you say something. This prayer holds a
> tone of humbleness. This is a Christian telling you
> this, not an atheist. Remember that. As a Christian,
> i pray to God humbly, and when i need or want
> something i ask. I dont command. Same goes for
> basically all Christians. For u to tell me how i am
> talking to God is like pretending to know me more
> than myself.
>
> Two, the fact that it ends with "thy will be done"
> shows that you are asking.
But it doesn't END with that. I think it should have. But that's in the middle, and it's only after that phrase that the God is told to "give us this day our daily bread," etc. As though, Thy will be done on earth, and here, I'll tell you what your will should be at a minimum. Sort of a cross between that, and "grant me these three wishes."
It would be contradictory
> to say "thy will be done", yet command God to do
> something.
Yep.
Thats what you're trying to prove, but im
> telling you you're wrong. You can interpret it
> however you want, but the point is that the prayer is
> asking God, not telling God.
When you ask for something every day, you start to become a pest. And too many Christians I know ask, as though God has neither the power nor the right to refuse a Christian.
|
|
|
Posts:
28
Registered:
4/3/08
|
|
(1318 of 1321)
Jun 29, 2008 7:46 PM
|
Man must end religion before religion ends man.
--
I'm an Atheist to the day i die.
|
|
|
Posts:
294
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(1317 of 1321)
Jun 29, 2008 4:15 PM
|
If it was something freely given, that doesn't change the value I saw... but the fact that it was something valuable, and was obtained at no cost, makes the gift all the more precious, and something more to cherish.
This is exactly how Christians view God's gift of salvation through Jesus Christ. It was free, which makes it more precious. Its there for all who want it, and its also there for people to reject.
|
|
|
Posts:
294
Registered:
1/20/08
|
|
(1316 of 1321)
Jun 29, 2008 4:14 PM
|
Most abusers don't think of themselves as abusive. Many see themselves as the victims, and in fact that's why they hurt others, they're angry at having been victimized. The abusee "made him hit her," by her stubbornness, disobedience, lack of consideration, etc.. The modern remedy is anger management.
The fact that they see themselves as victims, or that they dont see what they're doing as wrong doesnt change what it actually is or isnt. For this particular subject, it isnt love. Simple as that. And its still wrong.
and specifically recognizes such discipline as an act of love.
Where?
Actually, I think it's proof that I do understand, because according to your earlier posts, he DID advocate changes to the law, drastic and radical ones. Such as, the abolition of the dietary rules, and ablutions. Healing on the Sabbath, picking food from the fields on the Sabbath. Didn't he say it was acceptable to disregard these?
No, He didnt. You know very well what He was doing in these instances because we've already had this discussion before, so please, dont toy with me. You also know my view on Jesus changing certain laws because ive said it many times before. Besides, whether or not Jesus changed certain laws has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talking about unanswered questions, not changes to the Law.
Such as, the abolition of death penalty for adultery. Was he abolishing ALL death penalties, since there was none without sin who could throw the first stone?
He wasnt abolishing anything. This specific situation had nothing to do with actual punishment of our actions. It had to do with judging others.
But meantime, you didn't answer, did Jesus consider spousal abuse grounds for divorce?
No, He didnt specify. But He did make love pretty clear. Marriage should be founded on love. Spouse abuse is not love. If it doesnt have love, then it is not from God. If its not from God, it is not sacred, meaning there is no reason to maintain the marriage anymore. In other words, no love, no marriage. Anything i say on this matter is my opinion, not Jesus' specific words, with the exception of the fact that it clearly falls under Jesus' command to love. Spouse abuse breaks that command.
That's in the next world, voyce. And if they don't believe it exists, it's no deterrent, it's meaningless. Do they get punished in this one? And what about their actual victims, not God, forgiving them? He wasn't real clear on that, not at all.
Personal belief doesnt change what is or what isnt. Just because they dont believe in the hereafter doesnt mean it doesnt exist. So, in the end, they will still be held accountable for this life. No, they will not be punished in this one. Forgiveness is pretty clear, also. Forgive others so as God can forgive us.
Many child molesters are acting out of love for the children, or at least, they think they are. If homosexuals are acting out of love, is their act still an "abomination".
Key word here: THINK. You can think all you want that what you are doing is right, but it doesnt make it right.
He even pointed out the law which said an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth....
This is where your reasoning is wrong. Go back and read it again. He didnt point to any law at all. He clearly said: "You have heard that it was said..." Jesus is talking about what people were saying about the Law, not about the Law itself. People had understood eye for an eye to mean that they had the right to take revenge on others. You hurt me, i hurt you. Jesus was telling them that this was not the way.
Doesn't sound like asking, to me. "Give us our daily bread." Lead us not into temptation." "Forgive us our trespasses." Asking would be, "May we have our daily bread?" "May we be forgiven?" "May we be led away from temptation?" Hell, he doesn't even say, "Please."
Two things: One, words arent everything. You of all people, seeing as how you are a writer, should know that some things can go unsaid depending on the tone you use when you say something. This prayer holds a tone of humbleness. This is a Christian telling you this, not an atheist. Remember that. As a Christian, i pray to God humbly, and when i need or want something i ask. I dont command. Same goes for basically all Christians. For u to tell me how i am talking to God is like pretending to know me more than myself.
Two, the fact that it ends with "thy will be done" shows that you are asking. It would be contradictory to say "thy will be done", yet command God to do something. Thats what you're trying to prove, but im telling you you're wrong. You can interpret it however you want, but the point is that the prayer is asking God, not telling God.
|
|
|
Posts:
352
Registered:
1/28/08
|
|
(1315 of 1321)
Jun 28, 2008 9:17 PM
|
Watch.
Religion is going to be the reason that we all kill ourselves.
We use religion to justify our acts in which we will continue to believe that whatever we have done is the ultimate good.
If we all realized that there is no Supreme Being and that we are masters of our domain, we will continue to just screw ourselves.
--
Don't Outlive Your Dreams
|
|
|
Posts:
1,507
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(1314 of 1321)
Jun 27, 2008 7:10 PM
|
I value only that in which I can perceive a value.
If I paid for it, the price I paid is only for possession, and may be irrelevant to the value I saw.
If it was something freely given, that doesn't change the value I saw... but the fact that it was something valuable, and was obtained at no cost, makes the gift all the more precious, and something more to cherish.
|
|
|
Posts:
341
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(1313 of 1321)
Jun 27, 2008 7:33 AM
|
Eloh Hi neshema shenahtah tah be teh hurah hee (phonetic spelling)
My god; the soul you placed within me ; she is pure. translation....
A hebrew song...
Don may be more willing to share on Hebrew songs....
There are more yet they are more sacred and as much as i share I do not have the willingness to share more songs...
There is a lot of ritual to much of it and some are for those who've passed rites.
Then there is one song...that once you get to a certain vibration - you will here/hear.
you may duck at first( i do not advise it)...and fear drives you away for lowering you vibration though you are stimulated...yet it exists. and more beyond that tone.
Idea of the feelings of the tones and heightened states...
It's like.....................
..................being so horny you can't breathe, your in sides churn, skin is tingling, the slightest brush makes you want to jump the culprit's bones-even it means grinding a pole or wall, you are salivating desperate to suck on flesh, your nipples are darting from behind your blouse, and your privates are throbbing and swollen stiff and each wet step in any direction drowns your thighs with thundering magnificent micro-orgasms.
A lightening strike---flames of hot deisre are coursing through your veins. The tensing of your muscles as you are rushed by a fleet of rolling waves deep within over your pelvic region and all the organs this area houses. Rock in your chair, rubbing your legs together like a cricket--no ease...and to reach into it...to surrender to it -------
Oh yess......
In order to be able to maintain on the job or in any public venue you have to force air into the lungs and re direct the energy. Eating (for me) scatters the energy.....
making a conscious effort to circulate it within the body and storing it...That's what I have to do to keep from leaking the energy every where.
I mean I or you could jack-off in the bathroom yet that release is only temporary and in such a hurry it's hard to keep it tantric (for me). and hoarding the energy simply to wait for a victim to explode on won't really make the difference ( though they are willing to receive it - you are not enlightened/heightened by it and it will hurt them - not heal them)
To come across such an aroused state of body and mind if not directed can make you NUcking futs...No amount of primal behavior eases the urge and the vibration grows and grows...and in the constant feeling like you are being tickled and sucked on everywhere (try living with that feeling for two days) it ain't easy...and that is part of what it feels like....and as GOOOOOOOOD as it feels...there are higher levels of energy to enjoy, beyond this, and to live within.
Moving beyond in spite of the sensual pleasure ignited by the energy and in harmony with the sensual pleasure....it is an experience. But that is a peace of what I have come to know and hopefully gives you a taste of what it feels like...
There is no religion to it....and any sex can be holy uplifting. Which is nice....
did you feel that?
Some may disagree....But for those who do - have you ever felt this? If you have not - then don't knock it 'til you know it.
--
Edited by ToriW at 06/27/2008 9:58 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
15,840
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(1312 of 1321)
Jun 27, 2008 6:01 AM
|
Thank you for your help, Tori
I value both that which is freely given and that which I pay for if it is beautiful, meaningful, and or useful.
|
|
|
Posts:
341
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(1311 of 1321)
Jun 26, 2008 7:38 PM
|
Aramaic_language, Copto-Egyptian or/and afro asiatic egyptian.
The hellenistic period had the beginnings of early greek translations. Many of the texts from 'Alexandria' are not for public view. I would write some things were burned but we'd be fools to think they tossed it all to remove that era from history. Too much power in these priests of ' Africa' and it had been demonstrated. Just the vortexes of the area and the natural sigils. Man....If you could see what was on the top of 'Mt Sinai'...
That time had a good grasp of the intuitive arts lasers and hyrdo power. Mind power...It wasn't just them....The 'Chinese' along with Afrians first to visit us Native americans and to build factories....
There was awesome technologies and the IRON age or industrial age happened WAy way way back when.
Illustrations of the story of 'Jesus' would be egyptian papyri...The story of asaru, aset, and horus...In them you will come to know more about the bible. Though I have yet to go to Egypt (physically) the temples of Denderah, Iunu, tjebnutjer and a couple other temples would be ones I need to see in physically in order to allow me enough 'time' to read. The day will come before I expire.
'Lanto' is another Jesus(ascended master) of course Joshua and the writings on Melchezildek. Buddha would be more like God than Jesus because in the findings a gifted Hebrew/Egyptian is known to have visited andl ived among the scholars of Buddhist teachings. Milarepa would be more like Jesus in the qualities of saintly.
Some visuals you will not be able to see many in the religious community are not letting them out for viewing...not today. Some monasteries are chilling with public visitations and retreating.
Where to go; to do research so YOU will know.
.........................................................
How is the book coming?
...This is some of what i have....Let me know what you find in your research.
I have a question
Do you value what is freely given or is there value only to what you pay for? ( the question is open for any one to answer.)
--
Edited by ToriW at 06/27/2008 4:25 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
15,840
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(1310 of 1321)
Jun 26, 2008 2:18 PM
|
Did that culture have any concept of art? is art mentioned in the original texts?
Are there any musical compositions from that time?
|
|
|
Posts:
15,840
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(1309 of 1321)
Jun 26, 2008 2:16 PM
|
Were there any accomplished artists in the same time and area the Bible was written in. I don't even know the original language, an early form of Hebrew?
Were there any illustrations to accompany the original texts?
|
|
|
Posts:
15,840
Registered:
12/1/04
|
|
(1308 of 1321)
Jun 26, 2008 2:04 PM
|
Tori,
Well, I'd call my wavelength realty-based. I'm an atheist. I have to work to maintain respect for the religious community. The more fundamentalist they are the less I succeed. But, I consider religious books in the library of mankind, nonetheless, and books that try to explore morality and ethics.
Sometimes I wonder if Jesus was like Ghandi, an exceptional human being who touched many people in positive ways. So I have a little curiosity about him as a man, not so much as a religious figure.
That's why I asked if scholars now had a better idea of what he might have looked like.
|
|
|
Posts:
341
Registered:
4/14/07
|
|
(1307 of 1321)
Jun 26, 2008 7:37 AM
|
I was talking with a christian yesterday about the bible.
I was at work - dangerous.
The man mentioned about the bible being written by GOD. That the pens the people held were guided by GOD.
I told him that the fortune seers or 'witches' are directed by GOD. he was so against it...NOT overtly angry about it but very strongly against those words. I told him GOD created all things and he agreed...then I asked HOW would a person with the ability to hear GOD and not want a pulpit need to be burned or thought to burn in the hells.
He said if a priest or preacher doesn't get it from GOD then it's not from GOD.
I was soooooooooo stunned and in marvel. I almost cried.
|
|
|
|
|
