Amanda Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Y'know, I thought about a rape victim saying the words 'I forgive you' while she was still gittin' twisted out by her assailant, and the thought filled me with such rage that I know my argument is valid beyond simple opinion: Dhampir, I would say to forgive him all the way to the police department where one would immediately press charges. We can understand and let go, as well as hold accountability and responsibility. Again, forgiveness is for ourself, NOT the perpetrator. You can't forgive someone until you are ready to let go. It is the very end of the process, not a part of it, and it doesn't always follow that process because it isn't necessary. It's more of a grace in the mind of the forgiver than anything, because it is dropping the score without settling it, and it is more than possible to be completely neutral (as opposed to hateful and resentul) and unforgiving. Hmmmm... grace and forgiveness are the same to me. Sometimes it isn't necessary to settle the score, because the laws of the universe seem to do that for us in a lot of circumstances. It is almost always worse to be the perpetrator, because of the state of mind they live. Again, I would know. On the other hand, sometimes the score needs to be settled, and what's wrong with that? And why does their possibly being a victim of sorts act as an extenuating circumstance? If that's not absolving the perpetrator of culpability I don't know what is. I don't know your particular circumstances... however, releasing ourself from being the victim is for ourself... NOT the perpetrator, IMO. If we can release ourself from being the victim, then the perpetrator no longer victimizes us. As to martyrdom, there are of course people who've died or been imprisoned, tortured, or whatever else would constitute martyrdom, for the causes they felt worthy of it. And under the circumstances those causes were probably worth it. But one can't be a martyr until the act is done, and my problem is with those who, while willing to die or what have you, don't go out of their way not to. It is not a virtue. Being a martyr for the sake of being a martyr sort of defeats the purpose, and creates an ego maniac one instead. However, in this story, possibly myth, this has been added to the scriptures... please let this cup pass by me, but not my will but yours. I think this is saying, of course we don't want to die... however, we must do what we must, and accept the consequences. IMO, this is about living within the vital force that enhances life by our emotions. It is standing on the substance behind a situation, and let the cards fall where they may. BTW, I could NOT do this... and am not brave/courageous enough, or have this kind of internal strength... although I can appreciate it in those who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Asimov, please see definition of altruistic here. Btw, the move went very well, I'm a little tired but a 12 hour drive will do that. Jesus posited something like the second definition. He turned the idea of helping others voluntarily into a moral obligation, using the definition much like what Auguste Comte used, when he coined the term "altruism". Altruism, as defined by Comte is the "moral obligation to serve the interest of others or the "greater good" of humanity." This is also shown in ethical systems such as Utilitarianism, communism and socialism. It's the idea that people have the obligation to bear the burdens of people who cannot or choose not to help themselves. The idea that we should do things for others without any expectation of recompense is a morally defunct idea. It focuses on the idea that society itself has rights, not the individual. Everybody makes the best decision they can at the time. When someone decides to do something, there is something within them that tells them there is a bigger 'pay off' to do it than not do it... or they would NOT do it! No exceptions, and if you think you have one... I'd like to hear it. Think it through first, please. Of course they do. That is why altruism isn't valid as a system of ethics. NOBODY does a thing without analyzing what they might get out of it. Nobody does anything without getting some kind of reward, be it emotional or material. And nobody should have the obligation of helping others if they choose not to. You're right, you don't need the forgiveness of Jesus. What we needed then are the coping skills to handle the situation we were in then. Jesus was a model. When we 'forgive', it is not for our perpetrator, it is for our self. I don't think that's entirely correct. Some people require that they be forgiven in order to get past certain things they've done. Forgiveness is not always for the self, nor is it always required by the self. It is not always rational to forgive someone, nor is it always necessary. Asimov, they should have been annhialated? Jesus had every right to. He did nothing wrong, violated no ones rights. If Jesus had the means to, he should have exacted everything he could in order to preserve his right to life and it would align perfectly with the non-initiation of aggression ideal. The people who set him up for execution for no real reason had no justification, Jesus himself was irrational, and God the Father is a morally evil being for sacrificing his own son. Nobody has the right to make that decision for anyone else. Ghandi says that an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. A certain amount of compassion, a bit of empathy can be very beneficial for a person to have. Yea, well Ghandi also dictated pacifism in ALL situations. Pacifism and altruism go hand in hand for sacrificng ones choice to live in order to serve some arbitrary "higher purpose". Compassion goes so far as ones life being threatened, same thing with empathy. Why should we have empathy or compassion for those who seek to deny our rights to life? Why should we deny our own choice to live because some self-righteous prick can feel good about his own pipe-dream reality? We have every right to defend ourselves, to defend our lives to the point of killing another being who threatens our existence directly. I'm not advocating an eye for an eye. I'm advocating rationality, rational selfishness and individualism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Hey Amanda. I can't seem to work this quote thing, so I just did it with bolds instead. I hope it's legible. Hi Julian! I had this same problem too. The nice people here informed me that we can't have more than 10 quotes in a post. Hope that helps... as I've noticed there are probably more than 10 in yours too. That is why I used different colors in my previous post to you. Of course Satan was supposedly created by "God", and he was supposedly supposed to serve "God". However, he supposedly rebelled, and went to "Hell", which is referred to the Bible as a place devoid of "God". At every turn of the page, this place is where people who merely disagree with the Bible go (or those who aren't "saved"), while people who believe in the Bible supposedly go to heaven (in spite of sin, according to the Bible). That's the popular spin in which I do not agree. Lucifer and Satan are not the same entity, IMHO. Also, heaven and hell are just states of mind. EVERYONE will end in the same place of peace and joy in the end. Why would God throw away any part of him/her/it self? Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy. How does that suggest Satan is a redeeming, cleansing force? How? It brings forth an instrument that has substance, part of the solution, and never condemns. 1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. This doesn't help your argument either. All it says is that "evil" destroys a body but "god" can save the soul, so you have to put blind faith in Christian delusion. Not blind faith, but tested and confirmed faith. Whatever helps overcome, works. You know Julian, I sometimes don't like to post these things, because I don't want to confuse people to going back to a 'childlike' fundamentalist belief system that promotes a dysfunctional life style. So, I want to say again... I in no way am promoting the traditional Christian belief system! I love how this site helps people overcome fundamentalist thinking. Yes, this site has helped me immensely, although I tend to look at these teachings as allegories and metaphors. What the author is saying is that "wisdom" is meaningless. Not only does he arrogantly assert that he has seen everything, he claims that they are worthless, so you should have blind and delusional faith. Again, you are missing the entire point of these passages. I suppose we both have a right to our own opinion... and of course that is all it is... is an opinion, and will NOT change Truth. I respect yours. I agree with you to some extent in that the goal, the destination is meaningless, because as Wayne Dyer says... "There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way." It doesn't matter what I say or do right now, because what will be, will be. I do think that Ecclesiastes 1:11 was speaking of reincarnation because why would it say that there is no remembrance of things before, and neither are there any rememberances of things to come after? There are many, many more references alluding to reincarnation too. Hebrews 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. The thing supposedly provided is "heaven", no? That seems to be all. What do you think this shows? IMO, I think it shows that we come back and learn lessons and get closer to becoming like crystal, where the light shines right through us, and we have nothing opposing the light.... metaphorically speaking, of course. "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matt 12:30 This is just saying that in accordance to these teachings, if we do not unify, reconcile with each other instead of being selfish, then we will be scattered. Right, because "(he) is against me" is so neutral and accepting... It doesn't mean "reconcile", it means "accept what I say or else". 2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; Just read what it says. He says he will have his enemies slain in front of him. While you insist that it means people should "unify", the passage itself shows that it is about intolerance. By the way, "his disciples" have killed countless people. Other than Paul, before he was blinded by the light and had a vision, what disciples killed anyone? Could you please site that for me? Thanks. Julian, I suppose our opinions are quite different. However, that is what makes discussions, debating, and life more interesting. It would be boring if everyone thought alike... as what would we talk about then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Btw, the move went very well, I'm a little tired but a 12 hour drive will do that. 12 hour drive, then unloading/unpacking! ouch! It's a good thing it is summer, and you have the long days of sunshine. I hope you got plenty of rest... and am sure you slept well. Jesus posited something like the second definition. He turned the idea of helping others voluntarily into a moral obligation, using the definition much like what Auguste Comte used, when he coined the term "altruism". Asimov, okay... maybe altruistic is NOT the best word. I see a lot of similarities between Jesus and Nelson Mandela, who was said to have a stubborn resistance towards injustice. Both refused to be complacent, as there is no real peace this way. Yet, it is much more than that though. There are other principles displayed such as attaining an internal locus of control, self efficacy, and a self actualized state too. And nobody should have the obligation of helping others if they choose not to. I would think that if one would feel obligated rather than a desire to do so, would negate the principle. IMO, it's about what enhances our emotions so that we empower a vital force within us that gives us the will to thrive. Draining that vital force brings emotional/spiritual death, enhancing that gives emotional/spiritual life. I'm sure everyones personality type was not designed for the same 'purpose', however, there probably is a purpose suited for each person. I think it is obvious that we are all interrelated, and helping others is helping ourself. Nelson Mandela was put on trial and faced the death penalty. He chose to use this to benefit his purpose too. He defended him self and used this platform moreso to progress his cause than to save him self. What is that called? I don't think that's entirely correct. Some people require that they be forgiven in order to get past certain things they've done. Forgiveness is not always for the self, nor is it always required by the self. It is not always rational to forgive someone, nor is it always necessary. People can't require that they be forgiven, because you can only control one person, yourself. We can ask for forgiveness, help them understand why we made the mistake, make restitution where we can, and then there is nothing else we can do. It is now up to the other person to decide what they want to do for themself. However, we can acquire some sense of peace in knowing we've done all we can do. What else can we do? We can't change the past. Are we to live in constant guilt, look for a way to constantly punish ourself, and be on drugs or something? Forgiving the other person is NOT condoning or excusing a behavior. We can forgive and still hold them accountable and responsible for what they've done. Forgiveness to me is understanding why they did what they did, usually revealing them being a victim in their own life, and letting go of hate, vendictiveness, resentment, and feelings of retribution. Those emotions create a state of hell. Jesus had every right to. He did nothing wrong, violated no ones rights. If Jesus had the means to, he should have exacted everything he could in order to preserve his right to life and it would align perfectly with the non-initiation of aggression ideal. The people who set him up for execution for no real reason had no justification, Jesus himself was irrational, and God the Father is a morally evil being for sacrificing his own son. Nobody has the right to make that decision for anyone else. I agree, he had a right to do so. Yet, he would have had emotions analogous to the hell state of mind. He did NOT look down and say that he condoned or excused their behavior, and yet everyone must be accountable and responsible for what they had done. Understanding they didn't know any better and letting go can be done too. Unforgiveness only hurts the person who has it. Once I saw someone on this site express it as holding onto a hot coal, waiting to throw it on someone. Maybe we should let the hot coal go... it is only hurting ourself. God sacrificing his own son. I am NOT a literalist in interpretating these teachings. That was against the character of Jesus too. I've heard the Tibetan Buddhist say there is a power, consciousness, and collective rapture of what is considered sacred. I liken this to the Father, son, and HS. Jesus searched within this power of what he considered sacred for a way out of what he knew was going to happen, but in the end, he decided that he had to do what he had to do regardless of the consequences. So, I guess it wasn't altruistic according to your definition. I am curious to know if Nelson Mandela had a similar experience before his trial. Why should we have empathy or compassion for those who seek to deny our rights to life? Why should we deny our own choice to live because some self-righteous prick can feel good about his own pipe-dream reality? :ohmy: That's basically what Jesus said!!! He called them a den of vipers, filthy rags on the inside, a bowl that is only clean on the outside, etc. IMO, if Jesus were here today... he would NOT be a Christian!!! The majority of Christians today would kill him all over again! I wish you could see this. The majority of these Christians today are the same religous right he fought against back then!!! It was them going to hell! (IMO, heaven and hell are just states of mind. EVERYONE is ending in the same place of peace and joy, eventually) He told the religous right that the harlots and the sinners shall see the kingdom of God before they would! However, it does say that if we condemn the religous right, then we are no better than they are. Lets look for solutions instead. We have every right to defend ourselves, to defend our lives to the point of killing another being who threatens our existence directly. I'm not advocating an eye for an eye. I'm advocating rationality, rational selfishness and individualism. I agree. IMO, this is what Jesus did... he just chose to do it like Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. Reason without physical force can be very powerful and effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Hi Julian! I had this same problem too. The nice people here informed me that we can't have more than 10 quotes in a post. Hope that helps... as I've noticed there are probably more than 10 in yours too. That is why I used different colors in my previous post to you. Hey, thanks for the info, I hope this comes out well. That's the popular spin in which I do not agree. Lucifer and Satan are not the same entity, IMHO. Also, heaven and hell are just states of mind. EVERYONE will end in the same place of peace and joy in the end. Why would God throw away any part of him/her/it self? First, the Christian mythology is not ambiguous on this. The angel who supposedly challenged "god" went to hell and took his followers with him. Secondly, I think it's fine for you to think that heaven and hell are just states of mind, but the fact is that the Bible does not support you and continuously states the contrary. This "god" would throw away his "creations" if they do not accept him, which forms part of the basis of Christian thought. It brings forth an instrument that has substance, part of the solution, and never condemns.... Not blind faith, but tested and confirmed faith. Whatever helps overcome, works. Yes, blind faith. People are not to question the fact that the Bible is riddled with unending contradictions, people are not to question the fact that this "god" is unethical and cruel, people are not to question the fact that the Christian mindset and the Bible are patently illogical and myopic and ignorant and worse. This, along with other things, contributes to the sad ignorance of this dogma. "Never condemns"? Take a look at the Bible: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html Look, that Christianity unbashedly condemns others is undeniable. This isn't even a point of possible contention. And Amanda, the Bible says you're not supposed to "test" your faith (even though there are stories in the Bible of people doing this and it "working"). You know Julian, I sometimes don't like to post these things, because I don't want to confuse people to going back to a 'childlike' fundamentalist belief system that promotes a dysfunctional life style. So, I want to say again... I in no way am promoting the traditional Christian belief system! I love how this site helps people overcome fundamentalist thinking. Yes, this site has helped me immensely, although I tend to look at these teachings as allegories and metaphors. I do agree that fundamentalism is as stupid as it is insane. However, I find it frustrating that someone who is quite the opposite of both descriptions would cling to a book and a dogma and a religion which is the foundation for this ignorance. Anyway, one of the reasons as to why you can't really take them as metaphors is because Christianity posits that this stuff actually happened, that we must be saved, that we will be condemned if we do not blind ourselves with faith; it is very much not an allegory or anything of the sort. Just my opinion. I suppose we both have a right to our own opinion... and of course that is all it is... is an opinion, and will NOT change Truth. I respect yours. Excuse me for saying so, but opinions will not change the passage, and that is the point here. However, I definitely respect your opinion as well, it's just that I disagree and that's all. I agree with you to some extent in that the goal, the destination is meaningless, because as Wayne Dyer says... "There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way." It doesn't matter what I say or do right now, because what will be, will be. I do think that Ecclesiastes 1:11 was speaking of reincarnation because why would it say that there is no remembrance of things before, and neither are there any rememberances of things to come after? There are many, many more references alluding to reincarnation too. It says that there is no remembrance of things before and all that because it is saying that knowledge of the world is ultimately meaningless due to the notion that they are going to "heaven". It says that we should not try to find any truth on earth because he says that he's seen it all already, and he thinks the world is unimportant because of his blind faith that we must share. What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem (a saying in the Christianized Roman Empire, people thought that learning was worthless because of "salvation"). That's what it is saying. IMO, I think it shows that we come back and learn lessons and get closer to becoming like crystal, where the light shines right through us, and we have nothing opposing the light.... metaphorically speaking, of course. How so? "Some better thing for us" is surely not as you say if you look at the passage. Actually, it seems that all the passage is about is burdens they have to face (talk about a pathetic persecution complex) and the "promise" they have (talk about feeling superior for no reason). 2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 2Co 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; Jesus was supposed to "reconcile" the world "unto himself", meaning people have to put delusional blind faith in him. This is not a tolerant view. Again, it is the whole "accept what I say or else" thing. Other than Paul, before he was blinded by the light and had a vision, what disciples killed anyone? Could you please site that for me? Thanks. We're not making excuses here. You can't say that Paul doesn't count, because he does. Next, I was speaking of disciples as in Christians in general, alluding to the innumerable wars and persecutions and crimes and worse comitted by those followers of the Nazarene. Julian, I suppose our opinions are quite different. However, that is what makes discussions, debating, and life more interesting. It would be boring if everyone thought alike... as what would we talk about then? I agree that our opinions are different, but as you said, that's what makes everything interesting (with diversity comes strength, with disagreement comes further knowledge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 I think it is obvious that we are all interrelated, and helping others is helping ourself. Nelson Mandela was put on trial and faced the death penalty. He chose to use this to benefit his purpose too. He defended him self and used this platform moreso to progress his cause than to save him self. What is that called? There is nothing wrong with helping others, as long as it's voluntary. Nelsom Mandela did resort to armed conflict in the face of losing his fight. He didn't put himself on trial and he didn't face the death penalty because he wanted to. Those were the consequences that people sympathetic to apartheid put upon him for fighting against them. If anything he was a prisoner of war. He's still alive today, so your point really isn't factoring in here. His cause was freedom and upholding the rights of others. He did this because he wanted to, he did this because he was a part of it and wanted to fight it. There's nothing wrong with that. People can't require that they be forgiven, because you can only control one person, yourself. We can ask for forgiveness, help them understand why we made the mistake, make restitution where we can, and then there is nothing else we can do. It is now up to the other person to decide what they want to do for themself. However, we can acquire some sense of peace in knowing we've done all we can do. What else can we do? We can't change the past. Are we to live in constant guilt, look for a way to constantly punish ourself, and be on drugs or something? Some people do, if they cannot be forgiven for their actions. Forgiving the other person is NOT condoning or excusing a behavior. We can forgive and still hold them accountable and responsible for what they've done. Forgiveness to me is understanding why they did what they did, usually revealing them being a victim in their own life, and letting go of hate, vendictiveness, resentment, and feelings of retribution. Those emotions create a state of hell. You don't need to forgive someone to let go of those. I'm not saying forgiveness is bad, I'm saying that it isn't always necessary or required. I agree, he had a right to do so. Yet, he would have had emotions analogous to the hell state of mind. He did NOT look down and say that he condoned or excused their behavior, and yet everyone must be accountable and responsible for what they had done. Understanding they didn't know any better and letting go can be done too. Unforgiveness only hurts the person who has it. Once I saw someone on this site express it as holding onto a hot coal, waiting to throw it on someone. Maybe we should let the hot coal go... it is only hurting ourself. I don't see how you can make that assertion without any real opinion to back it up. How do you know he would have had those emotions? They did know better, they are human beings who made a choice to kill another human being and partake in mob rule. If they are accountable and responsible for what they've done, they knew better. Something that isn't accountable or responsible for what it has done is not a human being who can make choices of their own volition. However, it does say that if we condemn the religous right, then we are no better than they are. Lets look for solutions instead. I do both. I agree. IMO, this is what Jesus did... he just chose to do it like Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. Reason without physical force can be very powerful and effective. Physical force without reason is empty. With both, one deserves victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted July 7, 2006 Share Posted July 7, 2006 Myself, I'm riding the fence. :-} You evil fencists, always criticizing us taking-side-ists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Dhampir, I would say to forgive him all the way to the police department where one would immediately press charges. We can understand and let go, as well as hold accountability and responsibility. Again, forgiveness is for ourself, NOT the perpetrator. Untrue.Forgiveness is not just for the self. Again, it is letting go of the score without settling it. Without hope or desire of reprisal. You CANNOT forgive someone until you have let go. Hmmmm... grace and forgiveness are the same to me. Sometimes it isn't necessary to settle the score, because the laws of the universe seem to do that for us in a lot of circumstances. It is almost always worse to be the perpetrator, because of the state of mind they live. I was saying exactly that, that grace and forgiveness are the same in a way. You would have to believe the universe actually gives two squirts of piss about anything that happens to anyone. And what statistical evidence do you have that the perpetrator is always feeling worse, or is even usually feeling worse about the act, or for that matter, ever feels bad at all? You're making assumptions based upon your ideal. I don't know your particular circumstances... however, releasing ourself from being the victim is for ourself... NOT the perpetrator, IMO. If we can release ourself from being the victim, then the perpetrator no longer victimizes us. Actually, forgiveness actually does more harm with regard to that than not doing so. You keep saying that it is for the person doing it, which proves you keep missing my point. Forgiveness is not about letting go; You CANNOT forgive someone until you have let go. How does one tell a person that "I am curtailing my natural and rightful enmity toward you and your actions because I 'understand' them. You have done nothing do deserve my forgiveness (which phrase is proof to the contrary of your statement that forgiveness is purely for the self), and given the opportunity, would perhaps jump at and revel in the opportunity to hurt me again, but my understanding of the circumstances that brought you to it somehow extenuate your crime against me." How can anyone say that without honestly having reached a point where letting the anger go is less painful than holding on to it? Just typing that pissed me off. Sometimes it hurts more to not be allowed rigteous anger than to let it go, and that's because anger is not 'poisonous'. Hate can be right in it's own time. Wariness prevents further victimization. Forgiveness is fine, but it is not necessary or even right in 100% or even 50% of situations. I can tell a person that I don't hate them but that I also don't forgive them, susequently walking away and never thinking about them again in life, y'see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 First, the Christian mythology is not ambiguous on this. The angel who supposedly challenged "god" went to hell and took his followers with him. Secondly, I think it's fine for you to think that heaven and hell are just states of mind, but the fact is that the Bible does not support you and continuously states the contrary. This "god" would throw away his "creations" if they do not accept him, which forms part of the basis of Christian thought. Julian, I now think the Christian mythology includes lots of variations of other mythology. However, I do NOT think that Lucifer/morning star and Satan are the same. No where does it ever say its name changes, as it has of other characters. Hell is a state of mind, that maybe alludes to being carried over into another demension of some sort after 'death'. However, it probably was apparent to them then that the land came from volcanoes, and if we didn't have the word lava, might we call it a 'lake of fire'? Could we be standing on it? If we don't have solid foundations on which to stand, might that be the bottomless pit? Isn't it here we have weeping and gnashing of teeth? Fire was for sterilization. Could hell be the natural repercussions for certain behaviors/attitudes? Yes, blind faith. People are not to question the fact that the Bible is riddled with unending contradictions, people are not to question the fact that this "god" is unethical and cruel, people are not to question the fact that the Christian mindset and the Bible are patently illogical and myopic and ignorant and worse. This, along with other things, contributes to the sad ignorance of this dogma. Look, that Christianity unbashedly condemns others is undeniable. This isn't even a point of possible contention. :ohmy: Blind faith is crazy! If we have a mustard seed of faith, a consideration, then test it. If it is true, it will grow. If we just blindly accepted it, we'd initially have it full grown. Dogma is the worst culprit, promoting rigid mindsets. Yes, Christians are just like the religious right at the time of Jesus... which his character adamantly gave them bold disrespect, much like what they dished out! Actually, that's basically the only group Jesus said anything bad. IMO, Jesus would never be a Christian today, nor do I think there's a time once the label was coined, that he would of claimed it! As far as those sites you offered... I could see by their name that they came from a biased POV. It takes a lot to research each verse they may have written and research it in the original manuscript from which the KJV was taken. I did that for many years, not knowing I was going to be on a debating forum called ExC... If you site ONE example, I will research it for you though. I do agree that fundamentalism is as stupid as it is insane. However, I find it frustrating that someone who is quite the opposite of both descriptions would cling to a book and a dogma and a religion which is the foundation for this ignorance. Anyway, one of the reasons as to why you can't really take them as metaphors is because Christianity posits that this stuff actually happened, that we must be saved, that we will be condemned if we do not blind ourselves with faith; it is very much not an allegory or anything of the sort. Just my opinion. I think these teachings started at the time of our initial stablization from a nomadic lifestyle. Abilities to grow and harvest a wheat gave abundant food source, and an ability to ponder other things than just survival, making possible a self actualized thinking. People probably thought it was God talking to them. This civilization came to notice respectful ways of living, called righteous. They went too far, even demanding how to wash our hands! A character named Jesus came and said, God is not just out there, he is within us! We are part of him! We need to be the creators of our own life, and be accountable and responsible! Ye too are gods! Perhaps the first sign towards the Atheist movement? Further, that laws were made for us, not us for the law! Think and use reason! Yes we can heal someone on the sabbath, and we can get our oxen out of the ditch too! What drains this vital force that gives us the will to thrive, is spiritual/emotonal death. What enhances it gives life. IMO, he was about priciples that give life, for those times. He and his followers were ExJews with a very much needed new message, the NT. Maybe ExChristians will come up with a very much needed new message too? Excuse me for saying so, but opinions will not change the passage, and that is the point here. However, I definitely respect your opinion as well, it's just that I disagree and that's all. Of course opinions change the meaning to the person reading it! However, it really doesn't matter what our opinions are in an interpretation of a book, IMO, it is how we live our life, our actions that are more important. We know who people are by what they do, not by their labels. And for sure, what anyone believes, does not change the Truth, just the truth for that individual person. We're not making excuses here. You can't say that Paul doesn't count, because he does. Next, I was speaking of disciples as in Christians in general, alluding to the innumerable wars and persecutions and crimes and worse comitted by those followers of the Nazarene. Ahhhh, now that's different. Yes, many Christians got worse through history... after the initial movement. Yes, it's been a dramatic transformation of the opposite meaning it initially started, IMO. The change has been much worse than St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 There is nothing wrong with helping others, as long as it's voluntary. Nelsom Mandela did resort to armed conflict in the face of losing his fight. He didn't put himself on trial and he didn't face the death penalty because he wanted to. Those were the consequences that people sympathetic to apartheid put upon him for fighting against them. If anything he was a prisoner of war. He's still alive today, so your point really isn't factoring in here. His cause was freedom and upholding the rights of others. He did this because he wanted to, he did this because he was a part of it and wanted to fight it. There's nothing wrong with that. Asimov... well, it seems you bounced back from your move! Hope you like your new place! Nelson Mandela resorted to using armed conflict? Hmmm... I don't think so. While he was in jail, I understand his wife at the time did. He soon divorced her once he was out of jail, and I personally think it had to do with her insisting on these very tactics. Jesus didn't put himself on trial, nor faced crucifiction because he wanted to do so. Those were the consequences of those he was fighting, the religous right... who are just like the religious right of today, called Christians. Some people do, if they cannot be forgiven for their actions. I know, that's why these principles are quite effective, especially for those times, IMO. Forgive others as you would have them forgive you. You don't need to forgive someone to let go of those. I'm not saying forgiveness is bad, I'm saying that it isn't always necessary or required. Could you give me an example where there is the same positive emotional outcome without it? I don't see how you can make that assertion without any real opinion to back it up. How do you know he would have had those emotions? They did know better, they are human beings who made a choice to kill another human being and partake in mob rule. If they are accountable and responsible for what they've done, they knew better. Something that isn't accountable or responsible for what it has done is not a human being who can make choices of their own volition. Why would someone want to kill someone? Because of fear to their status, fear of someone causing their foundations on which they built their life to shake, fear of letting others (who they had been serving them) be freed? These people lacked compassion in their life... they just didn't have it! I don't think it was a choice to NOT have it, it's just how their life circumstances came to be. I can understand this and let it go in regards to having hatred for them, yet I can still hold them accountable for their actions... so it doesn't happen to anyone else... and hopefully they learn to change. Increased compassion would be a nice addition to their life to replace the fear, don't you think? However, it does say that if we condemn the religous right, then we are no better than they are. Lets look for solutions instead. I do both. So did the character of Jesus. Physical force without reason is empty. With both, one deserves victory. Shouldn't we at least try it peacefully first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 Untrue. Forgiveness is not just for the self. Again, it is letting go of the score without settling it. Without hope or desire of reprisal. You CANNOT forgive someone until you have let go. Dhampir, I think you can forgive someone and still hold them accountable and responsible for it. I think pardoning the person because of their life circumstances, is not analogous to excusing the behavior for which they can be still held accountable. Do you think the people that were crucifying Jesus cared that he had forgiven them while he was on the cross? I know the story may not even be true, but if it were to be... do you think so? I was saying exactly that, that grace and forgiveness are the same in a way. You would have to believe the universe actually gives two squirts of piss about anything that happens to anyone. And what statistical evidence do you have that the perpetrator is always feeling worse, or is even usually feeling worse about the act, or for that matter, ever feels bad at all? You're making assumptions based upon your ideal. Who said this had anything to do with the universe? A person devoid of the emotions to care and respect people must live in hell within them. Dr. Wayne Dyer once said... Q: What do you get when you squeeze an orange? A: Orange juice Q: Why? A: Because that's what's inside. It seems to me, what's inside a person comes out of them. Actually, forgiveness actually does more harm with regard to that than not doing so. You keep saying that it is for the person doing it, which proves you keep missing my point. Forgiveness is not about letting go; You CANNOT forgive someone until you have let go. How does one tell a person that "I am curtailing my natural and rightful enmity toward you and your actions because I 'understand' them. You have done nothing do deserve my forgiveness (which phrase is proof to the contrary of your statement that forgiveness is purely for the self), and given the opportunity, would perhaps jump at and revel in the opportunity to hurt me again, but my understanding of the circumstances that brought you to it somehow extenuate your crime against me." How can anyone say that without honestly having reached a point where letting the anger go is less painful than holding on to it? Just typing that pissed me off. Sometimes it hurts more to not be allowed rigteous anger than to let it go, and that's because anger is not 'poisonous'. Hate can be right in it's own time. Wariness prevents further victimization. You're right, forgiveness probably isn't complete until you let go of the anger, etc. And you don't need to tell the person you forgave them! When they are ready to hear it, they will come and ask you for it. The model in the story of Jesus, is that Jesus did NOT look down and tell his perpetrators they were forgiven. He did it internally, emotionally, spiritually. Dhampir, I had no intentions of getting you pissed off, and just remember, no one's opinion makes it Truth. So it doesn't matter how I believe, it certainly doesn't make it Truth, it is only my opinion. Anger can be very healthy, IMO, in the right situations. It seems to me, anger is a powerful motivator, and can be quite justified. Forgiveness is fine, but it is not necessary or even right in 100% or even 50% of situations. I can tell a person that I don't hate them but that I also don't forgive them, susequently walking away and never thinking about them again in life, y'see? IMO, forgiveness doesn't mean we didn't learn from that event. I can forgive someone for not paying me back a loan, but it doesn't mean I'm going to ever loan them anything again. I can understand they have a problem in that area, and can avoid enabling them to continue to have it. Could you give me an example of where you could have a satisfactory outcome without forgiveness? We may just be in disagreement of a definition, and maybe we are talking about the same thing, just defining forgiveness differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poonis Posted July 8, 2006 Share Posted July 8, 2006 I think arguing particulars of a myth in a quest for truth is a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 I think arguing particulars of a myth in a quest for truth is a waste of time. Unless the myth is an illustration of something else, deeper. Sometimes a myth also can be used to bring up issues and questions in society and politics. Some of these myths are reflections of how humans see themselves, so they have a message the same way as fiction stories or novels or songs. When scientists talk about superstrings, it helps to think strings, even though they are not 3 dimensional but vibrate in 11 dimensions. Once I heard there are theories that some of the stories in the Gospels are hidden hate messages about the roman empire. Like when Jesus cast demons out and into the pigs. Pigs being the Romans. Or the 666/616 being Nero. The stories being mockery poetry, and only the initiated would understand this meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Dhampir, I think you can forgive someone and still hold them accountable and responsible for it. I think pardoning the person because of their life circumstances, is not analogous to excusing the behavior for which they can be still held accountable. Do you think the people that were crucifying Jesus cared that he had forgiven them while he was on the cross? I know the story may not even be true, but if it were to be... do you think so? I didn't say forgiveness wasn't holding someone responsible. However, in a way, saying on the one hand 'I forgive you' and on the other saying 'you need to be punished' is kinda hypochritical, so in a way, it is excusing a person. I said that you can't forgive without letting go. Though in truth, you can, just not without damage to one's self. Who said this had anything to do with the universe? You did, remember? Sometimes it isn't necessary to settle the score, because the laws of the universe seem to do that for us in a lot of circumstances. A person devoid of the emotions to care and respect people must live in hell within them.Must? That sounds like another assumption. The model in the story of Jesus, is that Jesus did NOT look down and tell his perpetrators they were forgiven. He did it internally, emotionally, spiritually. The model in the story of Jesus looked like he had all the fight beat out of him; if he wasn't angry at his predicament, that's on him, it doesn't look like an argument against my position, that being the case. IMO, forgiveness doesn't mean we didn't learn from that event. I can forgive someone for not paying me back a loan, but it doesn't mean I'm going to ever loan them anything again. I didn't say it did meant that. To answer your question, I could describe a loan situation myself. I once rented a car in my name for someone else, at my guardian's behest, as this person was a friend of the family. I knew that this most likely was a bad idea knowing that person, but I was compelled regardless. I rented the car, with the understanding that that person would change the paperwork to her name, myself paying nothing in the end. However 3 weeks passed, and eventually the police were brought into it, and I lost a hefty sum. This person never once sought to recompense me, nor did she attempt to apologize. Additionally, I was apparently reprimanded by this person for daring to take umbrage at this act. I didn't pursue any legal action, and part of me is angry for that, however that this person seems to think herself in the right for it, and even addresses me when we meet as though it never happened renders me inimical to the prospect of forgiveness. For the most part, I am not angry at this moment, because I don't have much if any contact with her anymore, and I am capable of being cordial with her, but for total forgiveness, or any level of such requires that something more on her part be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Who said this had anything to do with the universe? You did, remember? Sometimes it isn't necessary to settle the score, because the laws of the universe seem to do that for us in a lot of circumstances. Dhampir... Ahhh-ha! I apologize. What I meant by that statement, was the natural repercussions for one's actions. If someone lies, even only 10% of the time, no one will believe them because we don't know what part is the 10%. The very most, their claims will be discounted. If one steals, people won't trust them, etc. This is what I meant by laws of the universe. I did NOT use a good choice of words. A person devoid of the emotions to care and respect people must live in hell within them.Must? That sounds like another assumption. If someone does something wrong, you don't think they're missing something that would otherwise cause them to act more appropriately? The model in the story of Jesus looked like he had all the fight beat out of him; if he wasn't angry at his predicament, that's on him, it doesn't look like an argument against my position, that being the case. Yep... you're right. The anger came much earlier, like when he called them on their hippocracy and turned over tables and such in their temples... because of their arrogant ways. I didn't say it did meant that. To answer your question, I could describe a loan situation myself. I once rented a car in my name for someone else, at my guardian's behest, as this person was a friend of the family. I knew that this most likely was a bad idea knowing that person, but I was compelled regardless. I rented the car, with the understanding that that person would change the paperwork to her name, myself paying nothing in the end. However 3 weeks passed, and eventually the police were brought into it, and I lost a hefty sum. This person never once sought to recompense me, nor did she attempt to apologize. Additionally, I was apparently reprimanded by this person for daring to take umbrage at this act. I didn't pursue any legal action, and part of me is angry for that, however that this person seems to think herself in the right for it, and even addresses me when we meet as though it never happened renders me inimical to the prospect of forgiveness. For the most part, I am not angry at this moment, because I don't have much if any contact with her anymore, and I am capable of being cordial with her, but for total forgiveness, or any level of such requires that something more on her part be done. Well, as long as you have let go of animosity and resentment, you've done quite well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julian Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Julian, I now think the Christian mythology includes lots of variations of other mythology. However, I do NOT think that Lucifer/morning star and Satan are the same. No where does it ever say its name changes, as it has of other characters. Sure, it may have indirectly or even directly borrowed from other mythology, but that does absolutely nothing to make it anything other than what it is. Neither Satan nor Lucifer can ever be reasonably construed as the forces you assert. Hell is a state of mind, that maybe alludes to being carried over into another demension of some sort after 'death'. However, it probably was apparent to them then that the land came from volcanoes, and if we didn't have the word lava, might we call it a 'lake of fire'? Could we be standing on it? If we don't have solid foundations on which to stand, might that be the bottomless pit? Isn't it here we have weeping and gnashing of teeth? Fire was for sterilization. Could hell be the natural repercussions for certain behaviors/attitudes? First, I want to again say that I have no problem with you saying Hell is a state of mind. However, I would like you to use the Bible to back up your statement if you choose to say that it does. Hell is most clearly portrayed as a place for non-believers in many instances, so we can forget about carrying mental states over to another dimension. Next, it was not apparent that the world came from volcanoes, because if you actually read the Biblical view of the beginning of the world, it doesn't mention anything of the sort. Furthermore, what does geology have to do with the Bible and Christian worldviews? Not much, you still need to provide a basis for what you are saying from the Bible (or even Christianity in general, Bible or otherwise). Also, fire was for destroying cities, too, so you can't make a clear connection to "sterilization" (unless by that you mean destruction). According to Christianity, hell is a place that is a repercussion for not believing in the Bible, not being "saved" and the like. IIRC, the Bible even states that believers will be forgiven for sins (as in not go to hell). So, you're not wrong, but those behaviors/attitudes, according to Christianity, are not what any sane person would call wrong or unethical or deserving of such a fate. Here's my question. If your belief is that there are "natural repercussions for certain behaviors/attitudes", then why not just say something that is far, far more accurate than the Christian hell? :ohmy: Blind faith is crazy! If we have a mustard seed of faith, a consideration, then test it. If it is true, it will grow. If we just blindly accepted it, we'd initially have it full grown. Dogma is the worst culprit, promoting rigid mindsets. Yes, Christians are just like the religious right at the time of Jesus... which his character adamantly gave them bold disrespect, much like what they dished out! Actually, that's basically the only group Jesus said anything bad. IMO, Jesus would never be a Christian today, nor do I think there's a time once the label was coined, that he would of claimed it! I definitely agree with you. The point I do not agree on is that Jesus was as you say. He did claim that he was the "only way to 'the Father'", which in my mind is not accepting. Seriously, the gospels are anything but pluralistic or tolerant, they are anything but. As far as those sites you offered... I could see by their name that they came from a biased POV. It takes a lot to research each verse they may have written and research it in the original manuscript from which the KJV was taken. I did that for many years, not knowing I was going to be on a debating forum called ExC... If you site ONE example, I will research it for you though. Well, that's OK if you think they're biased. However, as they do cite verses, you cannot say that they are guilty of dishonesty. And the KJV is a Bible, so it's not like you can say which verse is truly Christian and which verse is not. OK then, tell me about Mark 16:16, please. I think these teachings started at the time of our initial stablization from a nomadic lifestyle. Abilities to grow and harvest a wheat gave abundant food source, and an ability to ponder other things than just survival, making possible a self actualized thinking. People probably thought it was God talking to them. This civilization came to notice respectful ways of living, called righteous. They went too far, even demanding how to wash our hands! A character named Jesus came and said, God is not just out there, he is within us! We are part of him! We need to be the creators of our own life, and be accountable and responsible! Ye too are gods! Perhaps the first sign towards the Atheist movement? Further, that laws were made for us, not us for the law! Think and use reason! Yes we can heal someone on the sabbath, and we can get our oxen out of the ditch too! What drains this vital force that gives us the will to thrive, is spiritual/emotonal death. What enhances it gives life. IMO, he was about priciples that give life, for those times. He and his followers were ExJews with a very much needed new message, the NT. Maybe ExChristians will come up with a very much needed new message too? First of all, these teachings did not originate at that time. You can see numerous civilizations which had been settled, stabalized and thriving for centuries before this. If you are talking about the OT, Egypt and Sumer had been around at the time; if you are talking about the NT, the plethora of amazing and accomplished societies is endless. Therefore, I cannot see why "primitivism" would be an excuse (especially when those same accomplished and advanced civilizations could accept and/or tolerate other deities, worshippers and traditions quite peacefully). Secondly, the Nazarene's words were very much of "that God is out there" (or rather, "MY God is out there"). The concept of the trinity shows this. There is not one shred of a remote suggestion that "yet too are gods", there is actually every indication against that very notion. Your claims are without basis IMO. Ahhhh, now that's different. Yes, many Christians got worse through history... after the initial movement. Yes, it's been a dramatic transformation of the opposite meaning it initially started, IMO. The change has been much worse than St. Nicholas to Santa Claus. Most certainly, and most unfortunately as well. Christians were pretty bad from the start if you ask me, and after that it never improves. I could really rant about this, but that's unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Asimov... well, it seems you bounced back from your move! Hope you like your new place! Nelson Mandela resorted to using armed conflict? Hmmm... I don't think so. While he was in jail, I understand his wife at the time did. He soon divorced her once he was out of jail, and I personally think it had to do with her insisting on these very tactics. Jesus didn't put himself on trial, nor faced crucifiction because he wanted to do so. Those were the consequences of those he was fighting, the religous right... who are just like the religious right of today, called Christians. I just need a days rest and I'm right back. Before his presidency he was a prominent anti-apartheid activist who, while imprisoned for 27 years, was involved in the planning of underground armed resistance activities. The armed struggle was, for Mandela, a last resort; he remained steadfastly committed to non-violence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_mandela Yes, Jesus put himself on trial, he willingly went despite his ability to prevent it from happening. He faces crucifixion because he felt he had to. Anyways, my point was that Nelson and Jesus are two different cases. Mandela was directly fighting something he was a part of, that directly affected him. Could you give me an example where there is the same positive emotional outcome without it? No, can you prove that it's always good to forgive someone? Can you possibly understand that it's not possible for some people to let go? Even with forgiveness? Why would someone want to kill someone? Because of fear to their status, fear of someone causing their foundations on which they built their life to shake, fear of letting others (who they had been serving them) be freed? There are many motivations for wanting to initiate violence, as far as I know all of them are irrational. These people lacked compassion in their life... they just didn't have it! I don't think it was a choice to NOT have it, it's just how their life circumstances came to be. I can understand this and let it go in regards to having hatred for them, yet I can still hold them accountable for their actions... so it doesn't happen to anyone else... and hopefully they learn to change. Increased compassion would be a nice addition to their life to replace the fear, don't you think? No, you don't need compassion in order to get rid of fear. You need reason, purpose, self-esteem. Understanding the virtues of life and well-being and applying them to your own life. Using reason to achieve the values of your life in order to achieve a state of happiness. So did the character of Jesus. No he didn't. Jesus was an altruistic pacifistic asshole who dictated to others that they must give up everything in order to follow him. They must sacrifice themselves in order to be considered his followers, even to the point of cutting off ones own appendages or leaving your family if they caused you to stumble in faith. Shouldn't we at least try it peacefully first? You must not have read right, let me rephrase and clarify: If one has a rational reason to engage in physical force, then one is justified in doing so. If one is justified in doing so, then it is RIGHT to do so. If it is right to do so, the it is GOOD to do so because it is in accordance with reality, objective values and morals. It's not about "peacefully". It's about rationality and the preservation of ones own life. The only reason we have to engage in physical violence is in order to preserve our own life because it is threatened by another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Sure, it may have indirectly or even directly borrowed from other mythology, but that does absolutely nothing to make it anything other than what it is. Neither Satan nor Lucifer can ever be reasonably construed as the forces you assert. Okay Julian, I suppose we have differences of opinions at this time of our lives. Nothing wrong with that, IMO. First, I want to again say that I have no problem with you saying Hell is a state of mind. However, I would like you to use the Bible to back up your statement if you choose to say that it does. Hell is most clearly portrayed as a place for non-believers in many instances, so we can forget about carrying mental states over to another dimension. I gave you some verses. It's obvious you have your slant on which you choose to interpret them, and I have mine. Next, it was not apparent that the world came from volcanoes, because if you actually read the Biblical view of the beginning of the world, it doesn't mention anything of the sort. Furthermore, what does geology have to do with the Bible and Christian worldviews? Not much, you still need to provide a basis for what you are saying from the Bible (or even Christianity in general, Bible or otherwise). Also, fire was for destroying cities, too, so you can't make a clear connection to "sterilization" (unless by that you mean destruction). According to Christianity, hell is a place that is a repercussion for not believing in the Bible, not being "saved" and the like. IIRC, the Bible even states that believers will be forgiven for sins (as in not go to hell). So, you're not wrong, but those behaviors/attitudes, according to Christianity, are not what any sane person would call wrong or unethical or deserving of such a fate. Here's my question. If your belief is that there are "natural repercussions for certain behaviors/attitudes", then why not just say something that is far, far more accurate than the Christian hell? Purose is the Greek word for fire. It's root 'pur' means to cleanse intensely, and we have words from the same root... pure, purify, purification, purge, purgatory, and probably others. So, in mystudies of the Bible, I have come to believe hell is just natural repercussions of our actions. Damnation is just judgment that gives these repercussions. Brimstone is divine. Hell and brimstone... divinely cleanse. You see it one way, I see it another. I definitely agree with you. The point I do not agree on is that Jesus was as you say. He did claim that he was the "only way to 'the Father'", which in my mind is not accepting. Seriously, the gospels are anything but pluralistic or tolerant, they are anything but. The gospels are not pluralistic? Pardon me while I laugh. I use to not think they were not pluralistic till I came to this site, however... I have seen them as tolerant for a long time. There are so many other belief systems incorporated and woven in these teachings... there may be nothing original! Check out some posts by a poster named Mythra... he changed my thinking immensely! I also see other religions in these teachings, such as Buddhism, Wicca, Jewish, etc. Even Jesus was asked about others who taught similar teachings, but not in his name, and he replied, hey... if they're not against us, they're for us. OK then, tell me about Mark 16:16, please. Mark 16:16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Julian, remember, IMO, there are principles that are asserted in these teachings attributed to Jesus. These teachings promote things like integrity, an internal locus of control, self esteem, wisdom, strength under a gentle nature, equality for all, among other things. Teachings like this give substance, strength, and empowerment that promote a will to thrive, hence 'life'. The word baptized evolved from a word that means to pickle, a recipe that originated 200 years before Jesus. Remember, I see a lot of metaphors and allegories in the Bible meant for those who have an ear, will hear. This pickeling process is done by first dipping the vegetable in hot water, then in vineger to preserve it. Baptizing means to be cleansed by the heat that gives life, hot water, wash away the old person and to seek to be more in line with these teachings, and this mindset preserved so that one can have 'life'. If one does not believe in these teachings, and goes back to their old narcissistic ways, they will be judged as unworthy. Rituals are a powerful way to encourage change and an acceptance of a mindset, however, IMO, the actual ritual is NOT necessary. I've never been baptized, nor do I intend to be... yet there is nothing wrong with it if one were to do it with the mindset that I think was intended for it. All my opinion, of course. First of all, these teachings did not originate at that time. You can see numerous civilizations which had been settled, stabalized and thriving for centuries before this. If you are talking about the OT, Egypt and Sumer had been around at the time; if you are talking about the NT, the plethora of amazing and accomplished societies is endless. Therefore, I cannot see why "primitivism" would be an excuse (especially when those same accomplished and advanced civilizations could accept and/or tolerate other deities, worshippers and traditions quite peacefully). Of course they didn't originate at the time. The Sumerians were amazing! I think they are the ones who are attributed for inventing the wheel, and I've heard that they knew the earth was round because they were intellectual enough to figure out the lunar eclipse or solar eclipse. However, the last ice age was about 13,000 years ago, and then a mutated wheat came on the scene about 8000 years ago making a stable life possible. I've heard that structured language only started about 10,000 years ago, and I don't know when significant writing started. The mutated wheat was the key to a stable life style though, and the OT shows an evolution of their thinking. The beginning of these teachings did incorporate many Gods, then it seems it started to just recognize one with Abraham. Who knows how much of all that is myth or not? Anyway, I think the one God came from an Egyptian God named Amen. And you are right, the biblical civilization was NOT the most advanced, nor do I think it is the best spiritual approach. The far east had and has some great ideas, IMO. Secondly, the Nazarene's words were very much of "that God is out there" (or rather, "MY God is out there"). The concept of the trinity shows this. There is not one shred of a remote suggestion that "yet too are gods", there is actually every indication against that very notion. Your claims are without basis IMO. Our Father, God, which is in heaven, in his kingdom, and the kingdom of God is within me, therefore God is in us. Most certainly, and most unfortunately as well. Christians were pretty bad from the start if you ask me, and after that it never improves. I could really rant about this, but that's unnecessary. Why get upset Julian? I'm no one. Certainly what I say is not going to change the world. I'm just one person amongst billions and billions that is sharing my view. Nothing more. No matter what anyone believes, it can only effect us if we let it. If it is meaningless to you... just laugh and throw it away. However, I hope we can get along as two people sharing this generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Purose is the Greek word for fire. It's root 'pur' means to cleanse intensely, and we have words from the same root... pure, purify, purification, purge, purgatory, and probably others. So, in mystudies of the Bible, I have come to believe hell is just natural repercussions of our actions. Damnation is just judgment that gives these repercussions. Brimstone is divine. Hell and brimstone... divinely cleanse. You see it one way, I see it another. Aaah! I didn't know that. That's how it connects to Zoroastrianism then. Because they believed fire as a cleansing force and built fire temples (IIRC). I've heard before that the idea of Hell being a pit of fire came from Zoroastrianism. Metal is made pure in fire. So maybe the whole "pure in fire" idea actually was born in the iron age? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 I just need a days rest and I'm right back. Asimov, I figured as much. You're amazing! Before his presidency he was a prominent anti-apartheid activist who, while imprisoned for 27 years, was involved in the planning of underground armed resistance activities. The armed struggle was, for Mandela, a last resort; he remained steadfastly committed to non-violence. Yes, Jesus put himself on trial, he willingly went despite his ability to prevent it from happening. He faces crucifixion because he felt he had to. As the story goes, he was in meditation one evening so intent in rationalizing his position on this and still get out of the crucifiction that he sweated blood! He did not go because he wanted to do so, but because it was what he felt he had to do in making his stand against what he saw as injustice. Anyways, my point was that Nelson and Jesus are two different cases. Mandela was directly fighting something he was a part of, that directly affected him. Okay, they are similar except that the character of Jesus did it for others he saw as being oppressed. Maybe a white civil right advocate for blacks, that was murdered by the KKK might be more analogous, IDK. No, can you prove that it's always good to forgive someone? Can you possibly understand that it's not possible for some people to let go? Even with forgiveness? Emotions are known to be closely related to our health. How can having a state of mind of hatred, resentment, vendictiveness, and victim mentality be good for us? It seems to me, working through it and letting it go, while still validating self, could only be good for us. I guess I can only prove it to myself, and if it works for you, fine. If not, don't forgive people if you don't want to do so. It's just my opinion, subjective experiences are hard to produce as fact. You know that much better than I. There are many motivations for wanting to initiate violence, as far as I know all of them are irrational. Asimov, compare that statement to the following one... You must not have read right, let me rephrase and clarify: If one has a rational reason to engage in physical force, then one is justified in doing so. If one is justified in doing so, then it is RIGHT to do so. If it is right to do so, the it is GOOD to do so because it is in accordance with reality, objective values and morals. It's not about "peacefully". It's about rationality and the preservation of ones own life. The only reason we have to engage in physical violence is in order to preserve our own life because it is threatened by another. I suppose it is about where to draw the line? No, you don't need compassion in order to get rid of fear. You need reason, purpose, self-esteem. Understanding the virtues of life and well-being and applying them to your own life. Using reason to achieve the values of your life in order to achieve a state of happiness. I agree, although I would also include compassion/empathy too. Once you understand someone's state of mind, it is easier to acquire more appropriate reason, purpose, and self esteem for one's solutions, IMO. No he didn't. Jesus was an altruistic pacifistic asshole who dictated to others that they must give up everything in order to follow him. They must sacrifice themselves in order to be considered his followers, even to the point of cutting off ones own appendages or leaving your family if they caused you to stumble in faith. Okay, you have your opinion and I have mine. Even though they are dramatically different on this insignificant subject, it is really not all that important, is it? I certainly like you any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Aaah! I didn't know that. That's how it connects to Zoroastrianism then. Because they believed fire as a cleansing force and built fire temples (IIRC). I've heard before that the idea of Hell being a pit of fire came from Zoroastrianism. Metal is made pure in fire. So maybe the whole "pure in fire" idea actually was born in the iron age? HanSolo... how interesting! I've got to get off this site long enough to study the Zoroastrian ideology more! Gosh, I'm afraid to miss too much because there is always something new to learn here! Pursuing your lead, I did find this here about the iron age in Asia... around the time of Jesus... Perhaps as early as 300 BC, although certainly by 200 A.D., high quality steel was being produced in southern India by what Europeans would later call the crucible technique. In this system, high-purity wrought iron, charcoal, and glass were mixed in crucibles and heated until the iron melted and absorbed the carbon. The resulting high-carbon steel, called fūlāḏ فولاذ in Arabic and wootz by later Europeans, was exported throughout much of Asia and Europe. Is this in the Zorastrian times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Definitely. The major bulk of the Avest is younger, like 651 CE, but the older parts are estimated to be old as 648 BCE. Zoroastrianism predates Christianity for sure, but it is possible that it even predates Judaism. They exist still today too. Since it's mostly existed in Persia (and still does), Paul could have been influenced by it. And I think in an earlier post I read that Mithraism came from it too, but I'm not sure. And Mithraism or Mythra worship was prevalent in Tarsus (Toro = Bull, Mythra fought a bull). These are the astrological ages: Taurus, Aries, Pisces and we're entering the Aquarius. Mythra was the slayer of the Taurus age. That's the symbolism. Remember the story in the Bible with Moses, and the golden calf? It probably depicts how they entered into the new age of Aries, and the Bull wasn't the "God" anymore. (2000 BC something) Moses was Mythra or Aries fighting the Bull. Jesus and Christianity was the change from Aries to Pisces (300 AD?). If astrology comes into play, Aquarius is the next symbol of religion. (2600 AD depending how you calculate) Someone said (probably very subjective opinion from that person) that Pisces was the symbol of Religion and Philosophy merged, while the Aquarius is the symbol of Religion, Philosophy and Science merged. But that's just astrological symbolism that probably is created very recently. Anyhoo, what's interesting is that some new religions does take all religions mythologies and bake them together, mix with some philosophy and then throw in science too. Scientology, Raelians etc. So who knows, maybe the signs do tell the truth... --edit-- Looked into a bit more: (dates estimated, there's different systems of constellation boundaries, Babylonian and modern are different) Taurus: 4525 BC - 1875 BC Aries: 1875 BC - 100 BC Pisces: 100 BC - 2600 AD Aquarius: 2600 AD - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Asimov, I figured as much. You're amazing! Now just comes the task of finding work at a gym....there are 4 or 5 in my area alone, not to mention the hundreds of others in the other areas of Calgary. Wish me luck Before his presidency he was a prominent anti-apartheid activist who, while imprisoned for 27 years, was involved in the planning of underground armed resistance activities. The armed struggle was, for Mandela, a last resort; he remained steadfastly committed to non-violence. Yes yes, he did remain steadfastly to nonviolence, but he used it when he felt he had to. As the story goes, he was in meditation one evening so intent in rationalizing his position on this and still get out of the crucifiction that he sweated blood! He did not go because he wanted to do so, but because it was what he felt he had to do in making his stand against what he saw as injustice. No, he felt he had to do it because his daddy told him to. The only injustice is God himself requiring another being to sacrifice himself for others. Okay, they are similar except that the character of Jesus did it for others he saw as being oppressed. Maybe a white civil right advocate for blacks, that was murdered by the KKK might be more analogous, IDK. Could be, you keep saying Jesus was opposing something that was unjust? The story says that he wasn't "fighting" anything, he came to die and that was that. Emotions are known to be closely related to our health. How can having a state of mind of hatred, resentment, vendictiveness, and victim mentality be good for us? It seems to me, working through it and letting it go, while still validating self, could only be good for us. I guess I can only prove it to myself, and if it works for you, fine. If not, don't forgive people if you don't want to do so. It's just my opinion, subjective experiences are hard to produce as fact. You know that much better than I. You're creating a false dichotomy, Amanda, that's why. You don't have to "forgive and forget" in order to not have hatred, vindictiveness or the victim mentality in order to do so. Asimov, compare that statement to the following one... I suppose it is about where to draw the line? I fail to see how they are in conflict, Amanda. I don't initiate violence, but I would use it if my life was directly threatened by an oppressor or opposing force. I agree, although I would also include compassion/empathy too. Once you understand someone's state of mind, it is easier to acquire more appropriate reason, purpose, and self esteem for one's solutions, IMO. You don't need to feel compassion or empathy for others in order to help them. Compassion and empathy aren't virtues. Okay, you have your opinion and I have mine. Even though they are dramatically different on this insignificant subject, it is really not all that important, is it? I certainly like you any way. Of course! I'm a likeable guy. I think it's important. My entire worldview centers around what I'm discussing. The way I act and the way I am center around the foundational values of rational self-interest. I like you too, as well...even if you're misguided Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Definitely. The major bulk of the Avest is younger, like 651 CE, but the older parts are estimated to be old as 648 BCE. Zoroastrianism predates Christianity for sure, but it is possible that it even predates Judaism. They exist still today too. Since it's mostly existed in Persia (and still does), Paul could have been influenced by it. And I think in an earlier post I read that Mithraism came from it too, but I'm not sure. And Mithraism or Mythra worship was prevalent in Tarsus (Toro = Bull, Mythra fought a bull). HanSolo, researching the Zorastrian beliefs and astrology found some interesting info. First, there is a lot of similarities to our present Christian beliefs. They incorporated pantheon Gods with natural forces. There was the one supreme God of the sky, and the one God of the darkness, with the air and wind in between. Zoraster, the prophet, says that the supreme God is the only one worthy of worship, and at the end of the universe good will triumph over evil. Much more found here. When I am researching the manuscript from which the KJV was taken, the HS is often referred as the wind, the breath, etc. These are the astrological ages: Taurus, Aries, Pisces and we're entering the Aquarius. Mythra was the slayer of the Taurus age. That's the symbolism. I found out that Taurus is associated with Venus, also known as the morning star/Lucifer/Jesus. I have not read too much about Mythra yet, and you liken him to Moses, but didn't he have some similarities to Jesus? Jesus and Christianity was the change from Aries to Pisces (300 AD?). If astrology comes into play, Aquarius is the next symbol of religion. (2600 AD depending how you calculate) Pices is the fish. I remember reading in Buddhism, where the fish is the sign of spiritual perserverance. The fish is also associated with Christianity. Although, some newer thoughts since Jesus have changed from a fish, being a closed symbol, ><>, to that of a dove, being an open symbol, like a stretched out M, indicating openess and spiritual freedom. I also was reading where the Sumerians were probably the first ones to write language. It was called cuneiform, where they pressed images into clay, starting 5000 years ago. The semites learned this from the the sumerians. More found here So, that would mean the OT could NOT have been written 6000 years ago, but probably only 3000 years ago, as suggested in this article of the mesopotamian area. Further, that seems to enhance the theory that these are stories passed on by word of mouth for many generations. I am curious how they preserved their geneology for millenias without written capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Now just comes the task of finding work at a gym....there are 4 or 5 in my area alone, not to mention the hundreds of others in the other areas of Calgary. Wish me luck Asimov, so you work in a gym? I see... you're going to win one way or the other, right? :wink: As the story goes, he was in meditation one evening so intent in rationalizing his position on this and still get out of the crucifiction that he sweated blood! He did not go because he wanted to do so, but because it was what he felt he had to do in making his stand against what he saw as injustice. No, he felt he had to do it because his daddy told him to. The only injustice is God himself requiring another being to sacrifice himself for others. Asimov, "his daddy" was inside of him, part of himself. The sacrifice is about adhering to principles that are worth standing up for no matter what. This story is just saying that true internal peace can come at a great price. Is it better to stand up and live, or to live life on our knees to self elitist men? Could be, you keep saying Jesus was opposing something that was unjust? The story says that he wasn't "fighting" anything, he came to die and that was that. Asimov, my dear friend, have you read the story... or did you just hear it from the preacher like the other Christians do? At least you were able to see through the preacher. :wink: You're creating a false dichotomy, Amanda, that's why. You don't have to "forgive and forget" in order to not have hatred, vindictiveness or the victim mentality in order to do so. Of course you do NOT forget!!! Forgiveness and holding someone accountable and responsible are two different things! Forgiveness is different than throwing away the lesson! Forgiveness is letting go of ill feelings associated with the circumstances, so that we no longer continue being a victim of it. It is for us, NOT our perpetrator. This is not just my idea, LOTS of professional psychologist perceive it this way! Could you give me an example of releasing all the ill feelings, and not forgiving? IMO, they're synonymous. I fail to see how they are in conflict, Amanda. I don't initiate violence, but I would use it if my life was directly threatened by an oppressor or opposing force. Me too. However, Nelson Mandela was facing the death penalty, and he chose NOT to fight then. He didn't even push his own life or freedom, but used his visibility for his cause. Some people are like that. Most call them heroes. You don't need to feel compassion or empathy for others in order to help them. Compassion/empathy and empathy aren't virtues. You don't think you can better help someone by knowing what their mindset is? Compassion, NOT enabling, is not a virtue? Please explain both. Of course! I'm a likeable guy. I think it's important. My entire worldview centers around what I'm discussing. The way I act and the way I am center around the foundational values of rational self-interest. I like you too, as well...even if you're misguided Uhm-hummm... not only are you a likeable guy... but you work out regularly at the gym. Of course values and rational self interest are of great importance. What I'm saying is that if you and I disagree on the interpretation of this story, is insignificance and not of importance. This is NOT about an agreement of the most powerful countries in the world and the use of nuclear force. The way you think, the way I think... so what? It's certainly NOT worth getting upset about, just interesting to debate to a certain degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts