enternal hell bothers me

[wdeadwyler]

Hey all. New to this part of two plus two, but I have a concept that has been bothering me for a long time. First of all, I am a blonde haired, blue eyed American, raised hindu (Hare Krishna) for those of you who know a little about hinduism. Granted, my views on religion are going to be different than the norm because of this, but I think they are still with merit.

I have one main contention with Christianity, and that is etneral hell. One of the main points of Christianity is that God is benenifient. I believe this too. However, if God is beneficient, why does he ban us to hell eternally?

Human beings are mortal in nature. Our soul may be immortal, but our existence on this Earth is surely only temporary. Therefore, why would God send us to eternal hell for mistakes we make in our mortal lives. It simply does not make sense to me. If this is the case, than God cannot be beneficient. Do any Christians have anything to say about this? I think the idea of eternal hell is extremely nonsensical and goes against everything Christianity should stand for (Love, caring, forgiveness, righteouness, etc)

[J. Stew]

Most Christians don't have the same interpretation of God as you do. Some Christians think of God as a parent, always watching their actions and discriminating against their good and bad actions/thoughts. These themes get echoed in society, Santa Clause is an example, 'he knows if you've been bad or good'. These dualistic themes reinforce the notion of bad and good which naturally aid in creating the web of delusions that some Christians refer to as 'self'. This obviously has an affect on what they view as God because they don't see God inside of them. They think of God as 'out there' looking down on them instead of inside and all around them. This is only some Christians, but I think these differing views of God is what creates a difference in understanding. An eternal view of 'right and wrong' or dualistic thinking would be eternal heaven and eternal hell so it's natural for a dualistic society to interpret God's 'parenting' as such.

[r3vbr]

Christianity is a religion based on fear, as is Islamism a religion based on hatred.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a religion based on fear, as is Islamism a religion based on hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Islam is a religion based on a Semitic inferiority complex. (IMHO)

[wdeadwyler]

Both of you who were bashing other religions are extremely ignorant. Neither religion is one thing or another, it is the sum of those individuals who believe in it. Some Christians do HORRIBLE things, including killing Jews. Stop being so short sighted and thinking your religion is the best. It isnt.

Now, as for my post, any takers on eternal hell being in direct conflict with a beneficient God. This is a legitmate logical and philosophical contradiction that I would like to see resolved.

I address this question to religious people by using their words: If god loves me, as you say he does, then why would he condemn me to eternal hell for making an error in my mortal life?
And their answer is always the same: God put Jesus on earth to suffer and die for our sins so that we could have faith and get into heaven.
And then I always argue that I see no proof of Jesus being the son of god or anything more than a carpenter.
And their response is that the Bible states that ...
And this is where I get frustrated and tell them that it has only been humans who wrote and told me to read the bible. No angels or nephilim or holy being told me to follow the bible. So how can I be sent to eternal hell, by a god who loves me, for not believing other humans?
"But the bible ..." ad nauseam /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[RJT]

When most of us think of Hell, we have pictures or fire and a man-like creature, the Devil with horns and the like.

If you look at Heaven and Hell only conceptually I think might be easier to look at it this way:

Heaven is being with God. Hell is not being with God.

Some think of Hell as simply the absence of God in the after life; not such much as torture and eternal fires.

Not sure if that helps you or not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Both of you who were bashing other religions are extremely ignorant. Neither religion is one thing or another, it is the sum of those individuals who believe in it. Some Christians do HORRIBLE things, including killing Jews. Stop being so short sighted and thinking your religion is the best. It isnt.

Now, as for my post, any takers on eternal hell being in direct conflict with a beneficient God. This is a legitmate logical and philosophical contradiction that I would like to see resolved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard any non-faith based way of justifying an infinite punishment for a finite crime. I think it can't be done.

chez

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
I address this question to religious people by using their words: If god loves me, as you say he does, then why would he condemn me to eternal hell for making an error in my mortal life?
And their answer is always the same: God put Jesus on earth to suffer and die for our sins so that we could have faith and get into heaven.
And then I always argue that I see no proof of Jesus being the son of god or anything more than a carpenter.
And their response is that the Bible states that ...
And this is where I get frustrated and tell them that it has only been humans who wrote and told me to read the bible. No angels or nephilim or holy being told me to follow the bible. So how can I be sent to eternal hell, by a god who loves me, for not believing other humans?
"But the bible ..." ad nauseam /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus was just a man, but he lived in a way that was directly from his source which was his awareness or aliveness. People saw the God in him because he lived directly from his natural mind. That is why there is that saying, 'the church of heaven is inside you and all around you' The interpretation of God or, what Jesus acted from is interpreted in many ways but it seems obvious he was acting from the God nature that is inherent in everyone.

[David Sklansky]

"Heaven is being with God. Hell is not being with God."

That makes a lot more sense, and if Christians would unite in this interpretation as being a reasonable one, they would be taken a lot more seriously.

So I ask you what percent of studious Christians accept this as a reasonable interpretation? (I say "studious" because ironically the less studious ones, religion wise, I'm guessing, are more apt to accept this interpretation.)

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
"Heaven is being with God. Hell is not being with God."



[/ QUOTE ]

That sums it up quite well actually.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Both of you who were bashing other religions are extremely ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

[ QUOTE ]

Neither religion is one thing or another, it is the sum of those individuals who believe in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I judge a religion on it's founder, its God(s), and it's text.

[ QUOTE ]

Some Christians do HORRIBLE things, including killing Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

God not Jews, anybody but Jews. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

Stop being so short sighted and thinking your religion is the best. It isnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Polytheism strikes again! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Joking,
SDM

[ QUOTE ]
'the church of heaven is inside you and all around you'

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this from the movie Stigmata and isn't merely a "saying". This quote came from a secret gospel of christ that was supposedley in Christ's own language but "the Catholic Religion Rejects". Please inform me, because it interests me greatly. Where did you hear this alleged "Saying"?

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'the church of heaven is inside you and all around you'

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this from the movie Stigmata and isn't merely a "saying". This quote came from a secret gospel of christ that was supposedley in Christ's own language but "the Catholic Religion Rejects". Please inform me, because it interests me greatly. Where did you hear this alleged "Saying"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas.

[Jeff V]

That's a good question. RJT is obviosly paraphrasing, but this is basically what it says in the Bible. So I don't think it's that rare of a view.

[Jeff V]

We have come to have such an innocent victim mentality. I realize that I'm going to throw gas on some fires here but, it's true. There used to be a time when most people had a fear (not physical but respestful fear) and reverence for God and His judgement. Now everyone has become so "let's just do what feels right", and who cares about the rest.

What alot of people forget is God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He wants them all to find a relationship with Christ, repent and spend eternity with Him.

We will be judged-unfortunate for some but true nonetheless. The good news is we can all be saved by God's grace, and mercy.

[carlo]

This is the most Christian post that I've seen and of course submitted by a Hindu(Hare Krishna).

The Christ Impulse goes across all differences in mankind and rightly judged it will not be difficult for a Buddhist, Hindu or Jew to see the Being of Christ in the world. This does not mean that these different religious members should immediately join the Presbyterian Church.

The moral tone poem of a man's life is his work and is more difficult in our time than the path of the intellect. We have developed the intellect to an extreme degree(witness the destructive impulses) but morality is slower to manifest. This work is a baby compared to the intellect.

By adding warmth to our thinking this work is accomplished. A "thinking heart" is a reality and necessary for man's furthur progress. The different concepts discussed must be seen in an experiental form--"hell"--what is it's nature and how does this perception relate to man's work? Does the "hell" of present time offer anything or is it merely an epithet used by some(earthly egocentrists) to condemn others, which is a political act.

I personally do not have the answer to "hell" but I believe in eastern thought there is made mention of Kamaloca(Buddhist perhaps but I am sure there is a corresponding Hindu sphere) which can bring one closer to self evident truths.

carlo

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a religion based on fear, as is Islamism a religion based on hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Islam is a religion based on a Semitic inferiority complex. (IMHO)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know very much about Islam, but I know enough to say that both of those are pretty stupid and ignorant statements...the latter being slightly less stupid

In my opinion, the concept of heaven and hell in religion is nothing more than a manipulative device, which is used to scare people into believing in something.

It's comparable to any other deterrent in our society which is used to modify behavior...

HELL = PAIN

HEAVEN = PLEASURE

It was the same deterrent that was used a couple thousand years ago by the Greeks. If they didn't act accordingly to the majority's views, then the GODS would become upset, and of course cause harm. If they acted accordingly, then the GODS would reward them (create pleasure). But of course their view of multiple GODS is "crazy" (at least we like to think so right...).

What am I saying? I must have been placed here on this planet to satisfy some entity. I'm in a test or something, aren't I? That is why I exist, to please some other entity that I do not understand. I better please that entity by worshiping them, because that is what is wanted.

Seriously though, I don't believe that there is anyway that a GOD placed me on this planet to pass a test so that I could please them; adding a heaven and hell at the finish line (or whatever form of bliss your religion promises)?

These are all man made ideals and principles that were constructed in ways to create order and meaning in life. If there is some higher being out there, I highly doubt it that they would be striving to gain pleasure from my suffering as well as my happiness. If they are, then I would not consider that higher form and more admirable or honorable than any other person in life trying to take advantage of me through some form of manipulation.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a religion based on fear, as is Islamism a religion based on hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Islam is a religion based on a Semitic inferiority complex. (IMHO)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know very much about Islam, but I know enough to say that both of those are pretty stupid and ignorant statements...

[/ QUOTE ]

Political correctness has alot to answer for. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ QUOTE ]

the latter being slightly less stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: "Although I disagree with you SDM, your statement does seem likely given such things as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other examples of the Arab world hating Jews"

?

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christianity is a religion based on fear, as is Islamism a religion based on hatred.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Islam is a religion based on a Semitic inferiority complex. (IMHO)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know very much about Islam, but I know enough to say that both of those are pretty stupid and ignorant statements...

[/ QUOTE ]

Political correctness has alot to answer for. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ QUOTE ]

the latter being slightly less stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: "Although I disagree with you SDM, your statement does seem likely given such things as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other examples of the Arab world hating Jews"

?

[/ QUOTE ]

And there really isn't a response to this last statement without having to go to the politics forum (which I will not do:) ).

craig

[sexdrugsmoney]

I think the real important history lies somewhere closer to the 600's AD, round the time of Muhammad's life frankly. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Cheers,
SDM

[wdeadwyler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both of you who were bashing other religions are extremely ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

--Its a little naive to think that your religion is better than any other religion. I think most of us pretty much agree that whatever God is out there, he is omnipotent and beneficient. Petty squabbling about dogma and scripture surely is not the intent of Religion (of God), it is the intent of men who pervert the Divine Truth. Religion universally preaches forgiveness and loving, and the current state of religious conflict is anything but. So, when you argue about which religion is best and why my God is better, you are only revealing your own ignorance.
[ QUOTE ]

Neither religion is one thing or another, it is the sum of those individuals who believe in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I judge a religion on it's founder, its God(s), and it's text.

--They are all the same. There is ONE God, and each religion is simply differing ideological interpretations of His truth.

[ QUOTE ]

Some Christians do HORRIBLE things, including killing Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

God not Jews, anybody but Jews. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

--I meant that Christians and Muslims and whoever else can all be equally anti-semitic. It is not the religion at fault but rather the individuals who act on their own (often perverted) beliefs. In fact, Islam is actually one of the most benevolent and forgiving of the Abrahamic religions, it just so happens that some people twist its teachings to suit their own immoral views.

[spaminator101]

yep that sums it up

[wdeadwyler]

David, even if this interpretation is correct, I don't think that resolves the infinite punishment finite crime problem that I am having. Im not too concerned with what hevean and hell are, but rather this sort of disproportionate punishment that is dolled out by a "beneficient" God.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
David, even if this interpretation is correct, I don't think that resolves the infinite punishment finite crime problem that I am having. Im not too concerned with what hevean and hell are, but rather this sort of disproportionate punishment that is dolled out by a "beneficient" God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the same thing, it depends on the small print. Is living without god a punishment relative to living with god.

chez

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

the idea of eternal hell is suposed to bother you. Thats why it was thought up by man.

[ QUOTE ]
the idea of eternal hell is suposed to bother you. Thats why it was thought up by man.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[sexdrugsmoney]

wdeadwyler, I had to answer your post in sentances, remember as you read this post, I bring you love. /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[ QUOTE ]

--Its a little naive to think that your religion is better than any other religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "Your" I'm going to take that as "One's" as in "It's a little naive to think one's religion is better than any other religion".

That being said, I believe it's naive if you don't believe that.

If we take 2 Religions: Hinduism, & Sklanskianity, and ask each of them about the world we get this:

Hinduism: It rests on a turtle.
Sklanskianity: It revolves around the sun.

Given what we know now with science, I would have to say Sklanskianity wins this round.

If you take the view that "all religions are equal" etc etc, then you pervert the possible truth. (we don't know what the truth is, we can assume but we don't know)

[ QUOTE ]

I think most of us pretty much agree that whatever God is out there, he is omnipotent and beneficient.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, just because the masses believe something doesn't mean it's right. People love to put God "into a box" of things he can and can't be, and things he can and can't do.

If there is a God, and we are his creation, and we do not have God's power, then it is safe to assume God is more powerful than us, and likely to be smarter than us.

Therefore we should take care in judging a higher life we cannot even see and putting restrictions on what that higher life can and can't do when in truth if it exists we only have consciousness because of it and one doesn't have to look too far in this world and history to see that many people are often wrong about many things on a daily basis and a wdie range of topics. (academic, personal, and even who they form relationships with - the 'construct' of the person they love of the 'real' person)

I think looking at Judaism and Christianity it appears God is similar to man in some respects, capable of love but also anger. (after all he said King David was a 'man fater his own heart')

But who knows?

[ QUOTE ]

Petty squabbling about dogma and scripture surely is not the intent of Religion (of God), it is the intent of men who pervert the Divine Truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know the intent of God? Have you ever seen God? (and if you did are you sure it was him?)

And what is this Divine Truth?

[ QUOTE ]

Religion universally preaches forgiveness and loving, and the current state of religious conflict is anything but.

[/ QUOTE ]

So all religions universally preach forgiveness and loving? Anton LeVay's branch of Satanism doesn't, I guess that must fall outside of your generalization.

[ QUOTE ]

So, when you argue about which religion is best and why my God is better, you are only revealing your own ignorance.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a God and it wants us to know the truth, we must 'test' with our minds what would seem to be the truth.

Throwing a 'politcally correct' blanket over all religions and saying 'why can't we all get along?' is not the path to truth, but is in fact ignorance. (ie ignorance is bliss)

[ QUOTE ]
--They are all the same. There is ONE God, and each religion is simply differing ideological interpretations of His truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You assume to know many things for certain, including the truth about God.

This instantly makes me skeptical of your claims, pictures you as young and idealistic, and have not done much real research for yourself. (just my view, could be wrong)

[ QUOTE ]

--I meant that Christians and Muslims and whoever else can all be equally anti-semitic. It is not the religion at fault but rather the individuals who act on their own (often perverted) beliefs. In fact, Islam is actually one of the most benevolent and forgiving of the Abrahamic religions, it just so happens that some people twist its teachings to suit their own immoral views.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, followers can act on their own 'perverted' beliefs, many Christians hundreds of years after Christ died, when the Catholic church began did terrible things, but the apostles and followers of Christ didn't.

Contrast this to Islam where Muhammad raided caravans and when we set up shop at Medina beheaded 800 Jews while their wives watched, well there you have a problem, when the leader and intiial followers are doing this stuff so close to 'divine revelation' and not years later after their follower has gone, one must question if such a 'loving and benevolent' God has really chosen this man to carry his message and be "the greatest prophet". (greater than Jesus or Moses? Doubtful)

Cheers,
SDM

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

What alot of people forget is God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He wants them all to find a relationship with Christ, repent and spend eternity with Him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Vito Corleone doesn't want to kill the Band Leader when he puts a gun to his head and tells him "your brains or your signature will be on this contract", he wants him to sign the contract and do business with him, and he's giving the Band Leader a choice.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What alot of people forget is God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He wants them all to find a relationship with Christ, repent and spend eternity with Him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Vito Corleone doesn't want to kill the Band Leader when he puts a gun to his head and tells him "your brains or your signature will be on this contract", he wants him to sign the contract and do business with him, and he's giving the Band Leader a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what it's all about isn't it? Who's got power and who doesn't.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What alot of people forget is God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He wants them all to find a relationship with Christ, repent and spend eternity with Him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Vito Corleone doesn't want to kill the Band Leader when he puts a gun to his head and tells him "your brains or your signature will be on this contract", he wants him to sign the contract and do business with him, and he's giving the Band Leader a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, the bandleader was being unjust in the first place when he didn't sign the Singer to begin with. It was the right thing to do. Morally (don't remember the details) he should have signed the Singer to the deal all along if he was a fair person. Vito just gave him the justice he deserved.

He signed, btw.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

Let me get this straight, you're arguing that in the actual movie Vito was correct to threaten the Band leader's life, or you're trying to point out some difference between the movie situation and God's attitude towards man? If it is the second, please explain that difference.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this straight, you're arguing that in the actual movie Vito was correct to threaten the Band leader's life, or you're trying to point out some difference between the movie situation and God's attitude towards man? If it is the second, please explain that difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to refresh my memory of the details that lead up to Vito making this offer of your signature of your life. As I recall the Bandleader more or less was wrong in the first place by not having signed the Singer to begin with. The Bandleader instigated his own judgment by being unjust to the Singer. I think it was because the Singer was Italian only and therefore the Bandleader had no “moral” grounds to not sign it in the first place.

Vito didn’t make the offer out of greed or similar reasons.

I think the analogy hold to God in the context you are using God - and rendering justice on the “guilty”.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let me get this straight, you're arguing that in the actual movie Vito was correct to threaten the Band leader's life, or you're trying to point out some difference between the movie situation and God's attitude towards man? If it is the second, please explain that difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are going to have to refresh my memory of the details that lead up to Vito making this offer of your signature of your life. As I recall the Bandleader more or less was wrong in the first place by not having signed the Singer to begin with. The Bandleader instigated his own judgment by being unjust to the Singer. I think it was because the Singer was Italian only and therefore the Bandleader had no “moral” grounds to not sign it in the first place.

Vito didn’t make the offer out of greed or similar reasons.

I think the analogy hold to God in the context you are using God - and rendering justice on the “guilty”.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here is the text from the movie concerning Johnny Fontaine's contract with the band leader:

MICHAEL
Well, when Johnny was first starting out, he was signed to this personal service contract; with a big band leader. And as his career got better and better, he wanted to get out of it.

Now, Johnny is my father's godson. And my father went to see this band leader, and he offered him $10,000 to let Johnny go. But the band leader said no. So the next day, my father went to see him; only this time with Luca Brasi. And within an hour, he signed a release, for a certified check for $1,000.

KAY
How'd he do that?

MICHAEL
My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

KAY
What was that?

MICHAEL
Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured him that either his brains -- or his signature -- would be on the contract.



Whether the band leader has done anything wrong or not is arguable. Regardless, threatening his life is a rather extreme punishment for holding Johnny Fontaine's career back. It is this reason most viewers consider the Godfather's actions as morally repugnant. I am interested to hear from Jeff V and what he thinks about the analogy between the Godfather and God.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What alot of people forget is God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He wants them all to find a relationship with Christ, repent and spend eternity with Him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Vito Corleone doesn't want to kill the Band Leader when he puts a gun to his head and tells him "your brains or your signature will be on this contract", he wants him to sign the contract and do business with him, and he's giving the Band Leader a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what it's all about isn't it? Who's got power and who doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the point Nitzsche was making. It seems that God no longer affects people's lifes in a direct noticeable way. There are no more "offers we cannot refuse" issued from up high. No wonder many people find fear of God unfounded. They gladly join the chorus singing the new tune that "God is dead". What have you to offer these people who say that the old mobster in the sky is no more?

[carlo]

"The Gods are Dead"-to modern humanity, they truly are. The perspective is one of consciousness. The ancient Greek said(I believe Homer) "better a begger on earth than king of the shades".

Humanity, in its evolution, has progressively lost the ability to enter the world of the spirit(the Greek saying is a precursor to the present) but even in Grecian times there was a clarivoyance in which the truths of these regions were known. They had just lost much of the clarity of even earlier times.

This type of understanding of the spirit actually continued to the 16th century when prior to this there were many who were able to connect with the world of the spirit.

Of course the "Age of Reason" and earth bound consciousness began and Man has literally fallen into an inability to touch this world and speculation abounds as the reality of the spirit. Ergo, "the gods are dead".

The connection with this world is real and is the future and present work of Man.It is difficult to concieve the "shades" as the alphabet is not the same.

carlo

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
What have you to offer these people who say that the old mobster in the sky is no more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Buena Suerte

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]


Buena Suerte

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

SDM,

Hey buddy - good pal.

I was wondering whether your “tu” with the accent was Italian or Spanish. Now I know.
Another "Brick in the Wall." *

*In the very unlikely chance you don’t know this reference, I will tell you if you ask.

Cheers too,

RJT

[RJT]

Hey, why did you delete your post. Well, I already typed my reply so:

SDM,

See, you always read too much into things. (You do that, seriously.) I was merely being friendly in an Eddie Haskell kind of way. Eddie Haskell was a character on the early 1960’s TV show “Leave it to Beaver”. (Perhaps, you might have seen some reruns on TV?) Eddie was a kind of pain-in-the-butt, frequently obnoxious, but no harm intended kind of guy. Now that I have confirmed you are a young pup, I thought you might need a big brother type guy here for a while. You know, to make sure no bullies give you too much hassle. (Even when - often - you deserve it.) My tone was kind of Eddie Haskell, but my motives are more Wally, Beaver’s older brother. You are kind of like “the Beaver”. Beaver was a bratty,dog growling at your feet, albeit sometimes clever kid, who never meant any harm.

Regards,

RJT

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I have confirmed you are a young pup, I thought you might need a big brother type guy here for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confirm implies removal of all doubt.

It's a big word.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that I have confirmed you are a young pup, I thought you might need a big brother type guy here for a while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confirm implies removal of all doubt.

It's a big word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather me think you a ...well, a Dan Quayle, for not knowing what I was talking about yesterday? I trust is was because you were too young to remember.

www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_222.html (http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_222.html)

And don't even think about correcting my paraphrasing the quote.
(Ok, I'll admit, it was a misquote.)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you rather me think you a ...well, a Dan Quayle, for not knowing what I was talking about yesterday? I trust is was because you were too young to remember.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that reaching a conclusion based on a speech in US politics is sufficent & conclusive proof of age?

[RJT]

SDM

I don't think you get how I was referencing the quote. You were comparing (not actually comparing) yourself to Jesus. When you said Jesus talked in parables - or whatever you said exactly. You were anwering why you, yourself, wouldn't answer a direct question, directly.

So, after you juxtaposed yourself with Jesus, I then alluded to the same type of scenario. (Qualye is no JFK. Btw, Qualye is not the brightest bulb on the tree, that information should give you a context of what I meant in my last post referencing him.) It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.


Regards,

RJT

[Aytumious]

He's certainly not 33 and I think it can be inferred he is in college based on his posts in the Kidluckee thread he made.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that you're "showing your work" (in the mathematical sense) in your reasoning, but could you clarify these points please?

1. Definition "most people"
2. Definition "of age"
3. Definition "educated folk"

Cheers,
SDM

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that you're "showing your work" (in the mathematical sense) in your reasoning, but could you clarify these points please?

1. Definition "most people"
2. Definition "of age"
3. Definition "educated folk"

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The majority of ADULTS.
2. Those folk who no longer have their head up their a...
3. Was superfluous to the “proof”; merely inserted to show the “new” me and how I decided to put up with your pesky self, Beaver.


Now, get to bed.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It is a realtively famous quote, that most people who were of age at the time - especially educated folk, which I assume you are (Do I assume too much again?) - would have known what I was saying. Ergo, you are a young pup.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that you're "showing your work" (in the mathematical sense) in your reasoning, but could you clarify these points please?

1. Definition "most people"
2. Definition "of age"
3. Definition "educated folk"

Cheers,
SDM

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The majority of ADULTS.
2. Those folk who no longer have their head up their a...
3. Was superfluous to the “proof”; merely inserted to show the “new” me and how I decided to put up with your pesky self, Beaver.


Now, get to bed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I go to bed now?

My take, sry for any redundancy.

When thinking about eternal Hell, it should bother anyone with a brain who hasn't proven that God doesn't exist.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the main points of Christianity is that God is benenifient. I believe this too.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you believe in God? I'm ignorant when it comes to Hinnduism, so I'm not sure if you're referring to the same God that Christians are.

[ QUOTE ]
why would God send us to eternal hell for mistakes we make in our mortal lives. It simply does not make sense to me. If this is the case, than God cannot be beneficient.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, God can't be beneficent b/c people get raped, murdered, or have their entire lives ruined by hurricanes. Since He allows that to happen, He can't exist or He must actually be a bad dude. Sarcasm off: I think that God leaves it up to each person to reject Him or not rather than the other way around, assuming you don't believe in predestination.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of eternal hell is extremely nonsensical and goes against everything Christianity should stand for (Love, caring, forgiveness, righteouness, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]
Those moral attributes are in many religiouns, not just Christianity. My understanding is that God allows some people a chance to accept Him through Jesus. If you reject that, then you are destined for an eternity minus God's presence, which is Hell. If you accept, you go to Heaven, where God's presence exists.

[wdeadwyler]

Very good post. Sorry it took me so long to respond.

Firstly, you are right, I am young, and idealist, and it seems have not researched this as much as you.

That beind said I still have some disagreements with you.

-God is omnipotent, is he wasnt, he would be God, he would be some sort of a demi-god.

-I think it is fairly obvious God did not create man so that man could argue and squabble about who/what God is. Why? Good question. It just rings as an obvious truth to me, and many others. As for the beneficience of God, do you doubt this? What would make you think God is not Beneficient?

-Your point about Mohammed. Good one. Never heard that before. No response by me.

-Your point about using science to judge religion.
I think this is a dangerous path to tread. All science does is describe what we can comprehend about the world. God, by nature, is incomprehensible, so using science to try to pin him down as this or that does not seem like a good idea to me.


--Finally, How do you itemize quotes like that? I couldnt get it to work, it was just quote within quote ad nasuem.

[sexdrugsmoney]

No problem, it's cool. (we are all students)

[ QUOTE ]
-God is omnipotent, is he wasnt, he wouldn't be God, he would be some sort of a demi-god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question:

If God was ranked #47 in a ladder of gods, and we were his creation and he had total jurisdiction over us, would he still be our God?

If no, why? If yes, it's moot whether any god exists above him as we are his creation and he will deal with us as he sees fit.

[ QUOTE ]

-I think it is fairly obvious God did not create man so that man could argue and squabble about who/what God is. Why? Good question. It just rings as an obvious truth to me, and many others. As for the beneficience of God, do you doubt this? What would make you think God is not Beneficient?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if God did create mankind for that reason? What if he enjoys the squabbles? What if sin is a lie? (the same as being at the park with your dog and pretending to throw the frisbee to see the dog turn and run, fooling it for pleasure)

We would like to think God is nice, and that God wouldn't do such a thing, but we are bias and can't really be objective about many things.

The truth is we don't know for certain whether God exists and if he does we don't know for certain what he is like. All we "know" is that if he exists he is more powerful than us. (either by himself or access to technology)

Many texts say God is love etc, and if we are his creation and we are capable of love then it's reasonable we got that ability from somewhere.

But following that logic it's also reasonable to say our anger and hate come from the same source.

Therefore is God's hate unjust or is it just when he does it but not for us?

One will never know for certain on this earth I don't think, obviously the divide in knowledge between "God" and man requires faith to fill in the gaps, but that's typical of many things in this world anyway, we apply faith to many things we don't fully understand in complexity but have a 'good idea overall' about how the system works.

[ QUOTE ]

-Your point about Mohammed. Good one. Never heard that before. No response by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

They leave that off the pro-Islamic propaganda, just like his marriage to a 6 year girl (Aisha) and the consummation of that marriage when she was 9. (see Bukhari Hadith, the most well respected Sunni Hadith that has numerous references to this)

This however is not to say Islam doesn't have a chance at being "right", it may be, but if I was to wager between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, then Islam would be my last choice and a reluctant one.

[ QUOTE ]

-Your point about using science to judge religion.
I think this is a dangerous path to tread. All science does is describe what we can comprehend about the world. God, by nature, is incomprehensible, so using science to try to pin him down as this or that does not seem like a good idea to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

We must be careful to be 'certain' about things that is true, but science and reason are great tools of humanity that help us understand about who we are and the place we live.

Therefore when things run contra to science they must be questioned.

[ QUOTE ]

--Finally, How do you itemize quotes like that? I couldnt get it to work, it was just quote within quote ad nasuem.

[/ QUOTE ]

The (quote) (/quote) tags all have to correspond to who said what, when they began and when they finished.

-SDM

(this post was written in a huge rush, I apologize for any errors)

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
I have one main contention with Christianity, and that is etneral hell. One of the main points of Christianity is that God is benenifient. I believe this too. However, if God is beneficient, why does he ban us to hell eternally?

[/ QUOTE ]

'He' doesn't. God has nothing to do with Christianity or any organised religion.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Heaven is being with God. Hell is not being with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

With my view of God, this is impossible. What would be possible is people being under the illusion of not being with God.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Many texts say God is love etc, and if we are his creation and we are capable of love then it's reasonable we got that ability from somewhere.

But following that logic it's also reasonable to say our anger and hate come from the same source.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is everything, so anger and hate does come from the same source. However, it is a result of the illusion of seperateness. Anger exists in this world because it is a world of polarity. A world of vibration.

[ QUOTE ]
This however is not to say Islam doesn't have a chance at being "right", it may be, but if I was to wager between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, then Islam would be my last choice and a reluctant one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would wager they are all "wrong". Originating from the same source for the same reasons. Control, division, conflict.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Many texts say God is love etc, and if we are his creation and we are capable of love then it's reasonable we got that ability from somewhere.

But following that logic it's also reasonable to say our anger and hate come from the same source.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is everything, so anger and hate does come from the same source. However, it is a result of the illusion of seperateness. Anger exists in this world because it is a world of polarity. A world of vibration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me more about anger &amp; vibration.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
This however is not to say Islam doesn't have a chance at being "right", it may be, but if I was to wager between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, then Islam would be my last choice and a reluctant one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would wager they are all "wrong". Originating from the same source for the same reasons. Control, division, conflict.

[/ QUOTE ]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />


'He' doesn't. God has nothing to do with Christianity or any organised religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me more about this God.

[wdeadwyler]

[ QUOTE ]

Question:

If God was ranked #47 in a ladder of gods, and we were his creation and he had total jurisdiction over us, would he still be our God?

If no, why? If yes, it's moot whether any god exists above him as we are his creation and he will deal with us as he sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be no God above him if he had total jurisdiction of us because that would limit those above him and God is by definition unlimited. However, I understand your point and it is both interesting and disturbing. Interesting because I had never thought about it and disturbing because it challenges alot of notions we have about our superior (perhaps not ultimately so) beings.
[ QUOTE ]

What if God did create mankind for that reason? What if he enjoys the squabbles? What if sin is a lie? (the same as being at the park with your dog and pretending to throw the frisbee to see the dog turn and run, fooling it for pleasure)

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, a very scary concept. I would hope that God is better than us. We as people recognize behavior like this is selfish and wrong (not horrbily so, but apply it in a broader sense and it becomes worse). Using your arguement that we should expand upon out knowledge, it would make sense, that our God, being greater than us, would also know this behavior is not optimal and not engage in it.

[ QUOTE ]

One will never know for certain on this earth I don't think, obviously the divide in knowledge between "God" and man requires faith to fill in the gaps, but that's typical of many things in this world anyway, we apply faith to many things we don't fully understand in complexity but have a 'good idea overall' about how the system works.


[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree here. We have very little idea about how things work. Current physics predicts 11 dimensions of space. 11 dimensions! WTF, do you have any idea what that means? I dont. WE think we understand alot but in fact our understanding is like a drop of water in the ocean (using the infinite universe arguement)



[ QUOTE ]

We must be careful to be 'certain' about things that is true, but science and reason are great tools of humanity that help us understand about who we are and the place we live.

Therefore when things run contra to science they must be questioned.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in ghosts, ESP, supernatural beings, etc. These all run contrary to science, and are questioned, but still believed by many. My point is that Science is not the end all of our world. A useful tool yes, but definately not a valid way to measure or understand beings with superior understanding of our own.


-Interesting discussion so far.

-Will

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Question:

If God was ranked #47 in a ladder of gods, and we were his creation and he had total jurisdiction over us, would he still be our God?

If no, why? If yes, it's moot whether any god exists above him as we are his creation and he will deal with us as he sees fit.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would be no God above him if he had total jurisdiction of us because that would limit those above him and God is by definition unlimited. However, I understand your point and it is both interesting and disturbing. Interesting because I had never thought about it and disturbing because it challenges alot of notions we have about our superior (perhaps not ultimately so) beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll agree that God is by definition 'unlimited', but that doesn't mean there aren't gods above him.

You see, we like to attribute things to things, be it God, a place, a person we know, when often this attribute is incorrect and/or only our perception.

A classic example is falling in love with someone. You say "I love this person", but do you? Are you in love with the real person or the construct of them you have developed?

Many times people when they break up in a relationship say "you've changed" and/or "I don't know you anymore", but if they were in love with the construct then this explains why.

God, if he exists, may only be definable to us via construct, of either his own making or the one that we ascribe to him. If we can't fully know God, then we don't know everything about him, and if we are attributing things to him, then we are probably only seeing the construct.

And if we are only seeing the construct we should question the 'pieces' of that construct, where they came from and whether they are correct, and all the possibilities of why they are there and what they mean.

In short, it's so hugely complex that anybody that talks about how God is or isn't dogmatically is ignorant, regardless of their education.

But why all this talk about a construct? Well if we are only seeing the construct and not the 100% truth about this person/being/thing then we don't know everything about them, and therefore we can't really say what their surroundings may be like.

If God was #47 on a ladder of gods, and we are his creation, he may have total jurisdiction over us, granted to him by #46. (OR The ranking may be just a point of creation - when god was created- all gods may be equal but divided in their jurisdictions from another source)

I personally don't believe the "ladder of gods" thing, but I personally don't matter. The fact is I'm a human who was born and will die, I haven't studied this subject as much as I should, but even if I did a 1000 years of study I wouldn't dare claim to know of a realm outside my own when I haven't even travelled this planet, and I'm not self sufficient in my knowledge and daily needs. (humans rely on each other for everything)

I just think it's an interesting point (the 'ladder') to keep people's minds open about God, as both the critic and the pious often seem to make bold claims about this God, and frankly I wonder how they know so much. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

What if God did create mankind for that reason? What if he enjoys the squabbles? What if sin is a lie? (the same as being at the park with your dog and pretending to throw the frisbee to see the dog turn and run, fooling it for pleasure)

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, a very scary concept. I would hope that God is better than us. We as people recognize behavior like this is selfish and wrong (not horrbily so, but apply it in a broader sense and it becomes worse). Using your arguement that we should expand upon out knowledge, it would make sense, that our God, being greater than us, would also know this behavior is not optimal and not engage in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but this brings up the question of "If we do something is it ok, but it's not ok for our kids to do it?"

If God is like a parent and we are "his" children, how many circumstances in life can you think of where as a parent you do something that you don't want your kids to do. (or perhaps someone with a phd can do something that someone without a phd is not allowed to do)

It begs question that "are all things are subjective" but some things are wrong because of sin/lack of knowledge but everything is merely a tool that a Holy God may use without judgement?

Often God's anger and destructive ways come under criticism from us, but since these actions often affect us then already we are bias, and furthermore is there something at play we are not seeing?

Example: Jesus in the gospel of Mark (If I recall correctly) visits a deal girl and the parents are weeping and wailing and Jesus says something like "why do you cry, she is sleeping."

If Jesus is the son of God/God and you look at other passages in the Bible where God has 'smote' people or acted flippantly towards death (aka "the 1st death" = man dying on earth) it would seem he doesn't view it as any big deal at all, where it shatters us with grief, and sometimes we never recover from witnessing it happen to someone we love.

Therefore if Death can be our #1 enemy which we tend to view as 'bad' or'unfair', or at the very least 'not a preference' for most of us, yet God uses this tool on a daily basis with no qualms, it brings up many questions about the tool, the user, the person(s) affected, and life, the nature of God, the nature of death etc etc.

In short once again, we don't know much. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

One will never know for certain on this earth I don't think, obviously the divide in knowledge between "God" and man requires faith to fill in the gaps, but that's typical of many things in this world anyway, we apply faith to many things we don't fully understand in complexity but have a 'good idea overall' about how the system works.


[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree here. We have very little idea about how things work. Current physics predicts 11 dimensions of space. 11 dimensions! WTF, do you have any idea what that means? I dont. WE think we understand alot but in fact our understanding is like a drop of water in the ocean (using the infinite universe arguement)

[/ QUOTE ]

I like that. I agree.

But a warning. Some people would use this argument to abandon science and discredit it, but this is wrong IMHO. Science is always progressing, we are always finding out more, but it's the conclusions reached that are taken as truth and dogmatically touted that we must be wary of. (even Darwins theory has gaps)

We must pioneer further, accepting what science tells us but being wary of how we use those conclusions, even a 99.99999% surety doesn't warrant dogmaticism IMHO, if there is a possiblity, however slim it is still a possiblity.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

We must be careful to be 'certain' about things that is true, but science and reason are great tools of humanity that help us understand about who we are and the place we live.

Therefore when things run contra to science they must be questioned.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe in ghosts, ESP, supernatural beings, etc. These all run contrary to science, and are questioned, but still believed by many. My point is that Science is not the end all of our world. A useful tool yes, but definately not a valid way to measure or understand beings with superior understanding of our own.

[/ QUOTE ]

These topics I don't know much about. Ceratinly they all could be 'possible' though according to some Discovery Channel documentaries I've seen they have debunked many claims, while others seem currently 'undebunkable'.

I think whatever decision is reached about these things, we must again agree not to take the dogmatic path.

ESP is an interesting issue, like telekinesis et al. Since it said we don't use all of our brain, one wonders if such things are possible but we don't know how to do it.

If our brain is like a machine that is wired to do these things, maybe the manufacturer took out a vital part which would be the 'bridge' for us to access these abilities. Therefore when some people claim access to these abilities, ofcourse we must see what 'bridge' exists in their brains that we don't have, and if no 'bridge' exists biologically, does it exist somewhere else. (ie- demonic possession - which persons who reports have said 'levitate')

It's all rather a strange area and one we may never know completely.

Life as we know it may be bullsh!t.

Like a young racehorse that has 'blinders' put on it so it isn't distracted by it's peripheral vision and will only concentrate on what is in front of it, life could be like that, a 'tunnelled vision' to us, where this "God" knows what is outside of the blinders, and so do many other horses who have experience to understand what's important and what's not in the race.

And if we do have 'blinders' on and are still distracted, chances are we aren't going to be very successful in this race. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

-Interesting discussion so far.

-Will

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree.

Cheers,
SDM

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me more about anger &amp; vibration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not really eloquent enough to explain it properly. Energy needs poles between which the vibration can resonate. So this reality is a world of polarity. On/off, good/evil, night/day, light/dark, heaven/hell, right/wrong, negative/positive, male/female, God/Devil, left/right, Democrat/Republican, can/can't, will/won't, for/against, war/peace, matter/anti-matter etc. Anger has a polar opposite does it not? To accept anger is to create it's opposite.

This reality is a duality that divides oneness. As soon as we accept this is real, and accept any polarity, (I am American, Christian, good, liberal, poker player, whatever), we are trapped in the illusion of duality, of being separate rather than one.

I wonder what happens when 2 poles are brought together?

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me more about this God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religions are man made, for reasons of control over the masses, all originating from the same force. Mainstream science originates from the same force also, to trap the minds of those that reject religion. God is not a separate superior being that needs to be worshipped and obeyed. God is infinite consciousness, from which everything is created and thus connected. We are not insignificant accidents that cease to exist when we die. We are not our illusionary physical bodies. We are infinite consciousness. Consciousness does not vibrate. It is oneness. It is not a matter of faith or intellect. It can be experienced.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
I would hope that God is better than us. We as people recognize behavior like this is selfish and wrong (not horrbily so, but apply it in a broader sense and it becomes worse). Using your arguement that we should expand upon out knowledge, it would make sense, that our God, being greater than us, would also know this behavior is not optimal and not engage in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does selfishness come from? What is it's cause?

[JohnG]

We can never understand as long as we look at it from the narrow viewpoint of the selfish separate self. And to know any other perception or state of consciousness is impossible if we are trapped in the logical part of the brain, as the education system trains us to be. God cannot be intellectualised. God can only be experienced, and people indoctrinated into a mental straight jacket cannot do that. Which is the whole point.

God is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of experience. It can be tested.

[JohnG]

[ QUOTE ]
If Jesus is the son of God/God and you look at other passages in the Bible where God has 'smote' people or acted flippantly towards death (aka "the 1st death" = man dying on earth) it would seem he doesn't view it as any big deal at all, where it shatters us with grief, and sometimes we never recover from witnessing it happen to someone we love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does this grief come from?


[ QUOTE ]
ESP is an interesting issue, like telekinesis et al. Since it said we don't use all of our brain, one wonders if such things are possible but we don't know how to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are all one, and knew it, would we need to wonder?

[ QUOTE ]
If our brain is like a machine that is wired to do these things, maybe the manufacturer took out a vital part which would be the 'bridge' for us to access these abilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manufacturer or some other force? Why would the manufacturer take out a vital part?

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore when some people claim access to these abilities, ofcourse we must see what 'bridge' exists in their brains that we don't have, and if no 'bridge' exists biologically, does it exist somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief. Our reality is constructed and interpretted by our belief.

[ QUOTE ]
Life as we know it may be bullsh!t.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Like a young racehorse that has 'blinders' put on it so it isn't distracted by it's peripheral vision and will only concentrate on what is in front of it, life could be like that, a 'tunnelled vision' to us

[/ QUOTE ]

Could this be what organised religion, education, and science etc is for?

And it goes without saying that anyone looking at this issue through the filter of the selfish separate self has blinkers on.

It's like 1 person looking at a car and saying it is a damaged wreck, and another looking and saying it is in perfect condition. From a narrow perspective, neither can be true and it is a paradox. From a higher perspective/consciousness where the whole car can be seen, it is apparent that both were only seeing part of the picture. One looking at a damaged side of the car, thinking it was the whole car and they are right, and the other narrow perspective noticing the other side where there was no damage and thinking it was the whole picture and they are right. From the higher perspective/consciousness, there is no paradox. They are both right and both wrong, and they can never be any different until their perspective changes and they can see the whole picture.

Whilst looking at things from a selfish or self centered point of view, the picture will never be whole.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

I am not really eloquent enough to explain it properly. Energy needs poles between which the vibration can resonate. So this reality is a world of polarity. On/off, good/evil, night/day, light/dark, heaven/hell, right/wrong, negative/positive, male/female, God/Devil, left/right, Democrat/Republican, can/can't, will/won't, for/against, war/peace, matter/anti-matter etc. Anger has a polar opposite does it not? To accept anger is to create it's opposite.

This reality is a duality that divides oneness. As soon as we accept this is real, and accept any polarity, (I am American, Christian, good, liberal, poker player, whatever), we are trapped in the illusion of duality, of being separate rather than one.

I wonder what happens when 2 poles are brought together?

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Religions are man made, for reasons of control over the masses, all originating from the same force. Mainstream science originates from the same force also, to trap the minds of those that reject religion. God is not a separate superior being that needs to be worshipped and obeyed. God is infinite consciousness, from which everything is created and thus connected. We are not insignificant accidents that cease to exist when we die. We are not our illusionary physical bodies. We are infinite consciousness. Consciousness does not vibrate. It is oneness. It is not a matter of faith or intellect. It can be experienced.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it be experienced?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
If Jesus is the son of God/God and you look at other passages in the Bible where God has 'smote' people or acted flippantly towards death (aka "the 1st death" = man dying on earth) it would seem he doesn't view it as any big deal at all, where it shatters us with grief, and sometimes we never recover from witnessing it happen to someone we love.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where does this grief come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

Knowledge I would wager.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
ESP is an interesting issue, like telekinesis et al. Since it said we don't use all of our brain, one wonders if such things are possible but we don't know how to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we are all one, and knew it, would we need to wonder?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
If our brain is like a machine that is wired to do these things, maybe the manufacturer took out a vital part which would be the 'bridge' for us to access these abilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Manufacturer or some other force? Why would the manufacturer take out a vital part?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which other force could tamper, and what authority does said force have to tamper if it is not the manufacturer?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Therefore when some people claim access to these abilities, ofcourse we must see what 'bridge' exists in their brains that we don't have, and if no 'bridge' exists biologically, does it exist somewhere else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belief. Our reality is constructed and interpretted by our belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if person Y believes they can fly and jumps out of a window of a tall building, as long as they believe without doubt, they will be able to defy the laws of gravity and fly?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Like a young racehorse that has 'blinders' put on it so it isn't distracted by it's peripheral vision and will only concentrate on what is in front of it, life could be like that, a 'tunnelled vision' to us

[/ QUOTE ]

Could this be what organised religion, education, and science etc is for?

[/ QUOTE ]

But if these things were used as 'blinders' to tunnel our vision and keep us focused on the race, which set of 'blinders' gives the correct vision? (Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc?)

I don't see how education or science uses the 'blinders' unless the underlying goal is a propagated P.O.V (education) and or a secular atheistic P.O.V (science)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

And it goes without saying that anyone looking at this issue through the filter of the selfish separate self has blinkers on.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like 1 person looking at a car and saying it is a damaged wreck, and another looking and saying it is in perfect condition. From a narrow perspective, neither can be true and it is a paradox. From a higher perspective/consciousness where the whole car can be seen, it is apparent that both were only seeing part of the picture. One looking at a damaged side of the car, thinking it was the whole car and they are right, and the other narrow perspective noticing the other side where there was no damage and thinking it was the whole picture and they are right. From the higher perspective/consciousness, there is no paradox. They are both right and both wrong, and they can never be any different until their perspective changes and they can see the whole picture.

Whilst looking at things from a selfish or self centered point of view, the picture will never be whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Q. How do we see the whole picture?

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea of eternal hell is extremely nonsensical and goes against everything Christianity should stand for (Love, caring, forgiveness, righteouness, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase aquinas.

Its not that the saints enjoy watching the sinners burn (that would violate their christian duty of charity).
No they rejoice because they see the beauty of God's Justice.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[kuro]

A very high percentage of Christians believe that definition. However, they also believe that God is the only source of peace, joy, contentment, goodness, etc. and so that not being with God is equivalent to eternal suffering and a fate worse than death/not being born. They believe that's why hell is compared to being thrown into a fire pit and a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.