Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
Jesus isn't the ONLY way
June 26, 2009
6:58 pm
Avatar
Healing.. and peace
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
251sp_Permalink sp_Print

Mary,

I'm not sure why you threw Destiny's thread into this but whatever the reason is, maybe you don't understand why Destiny started her thread, it truly isn't about hay. I know speaking about hay may seem as though that's what it's all about to you, but it truly isn't, it's more about communication, and just talking which indeed can help a person through recovery. As far as her pony and talking about it, you see animal's can be very therapeutic.... There's been many medical studies that have proven that animals can reduce a person's BP, which leads to relaxation, equine therapy in particular can and has enhanced the healing process both physically and emotionally in patients in a out patient setting as well as inpatient.

In many of the case studies completed a person's symptoms of depression lessoned with animal assisted therapy (hippo therapy) (equine therapy) alone. When used in conjuction with traditional antidepressants many patients were able to regain their feeling of self worth, and start to get involved in activities they had not been doing for a long time due to the symptoms of clinical depression and or fatigue alone.

There are many people that benefit from them simply having pets, and the everyday care of them. You see having a pet, even horses can bring a person back from the lack of interest in everyday and ordinary pleasures, low self-esteem, and hopelessness.

We can all fall into depression with codependancy behavior, which can cause an imbalance of neurotransmitters, including dopamine, epinephrine, serotonin, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA).

So when we get ourselves involved in some activity whether with horses or any other sport, it can lead to feeling better, spiritually, emotionally and physically...The natural endorphins released during exercise seem to have a mood-elevating effect. If a person is able to achieve this balance in their life, whether by simply talking about their everyday care of their pet horse or in some threads their appointment with their therapist it is all good, as long as it can lead a person to better health and care for themselves physically and emotionally I feel it's all good. So you see, sometime just talking about other things besides the addict that we love can bring some happiness to us.

I know Destiny can speak for herself, I've seen it and she stands up for what she believes, so I'm not even defending her as I don't need to, but I hope maybe now you might understand her thread as a productive one even if you can't see it or understand the benefit in recovery.

Like I said, if this thread is good for you, or whomever wants to join it then that's great. I personally don't see the need to attack anyone but you know me.. Healing and Peace.. Maybe I should have used the name Marypoppins2.. meant in a good way!

My best to you, Healing and Peace

June 26, 2009
7:10 pm
Avatar
Healing.. and peace
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
252sp_Permalink sp_Print

(((Mary)))

June 26, 2009
7:21 pm
Avatar
marypoppins
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
253sp_Permalink sp_Print

Healing and Peace,

Thank you for your response. I have NO PROBLEM with people talking about hay or whatever they need to in order to connect with each other.

HOWEVER, Destiny has been calling me a hater and a Christian-basher, and that is simple not true.

My point in bringing up her thread was to illustrate how wrong we are to try and judge the value of someone's thread - as Destiny has been judging this thread, and ME.

I've talked about all kinds of things with people on this board and enjoyed most all of it. I have found fantastic people here, and I've stated that many times.

SO, I'm just going to continue posting on this thread or wherever I choose, and if Destiny wants to slander me for doing so, she's welcome to it. Perhaps that helps her somehow in her recovery - to take my inventory.

All the best to you.

Mary

June 27, 2009
12:17 am
Avatar
_anonymous
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 8
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
254sp_Permalink sp_Print

Caraway- You remind me of a great man called Desmond Tutu he said "if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosedn the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not spreciate your neutrality". Your courage to stand up for me and call a bully to task was very supportive.

No one should have to come to this site and put up with her bullying.

June 27, 2009
12:50 am
Avatar
_anonymous
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 8
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
255sp_Permalink sp_Print

Healing and Peace- Thank you so much for your understanding and support. MaryPoppins has personally attacked me, and other people on this site as well. She used to gang up on people with others that were asked to leave this site because they were so mean. She has no concept of what it is to be attached to animals or to people who share the same love for them. She seems to devote alot of time on this site to games of winning, to domination for the sake of domination. She has even gone so far as behaving self-destructively for the purpose of this game.
As far as hay is concerned it is much healthier to be riding ponies that it is to be riding Christians for their beliefs. You will also live longer if you shovel horse shit in favor of giving someone non-stop shit based on their religion.

June 27, 2009
2:24 am
Avatar
glittered when he walked
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
256sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bereft,

this is getting old. It's not a valid logical argument to use "begging the question" as a logical proof for anything. That's where it all ends. You may certainly use an idea that "the bible has passed the test of time" as support for your belief. I can respect that. But one cannot turn it around and infer to others that this is PROOF of God's existence. THAT is the brand circular reasoning of which i was speaking. Is this finally clear? If you don't believe me, look it up on wikipedia or google or whatever engine you wish. I'm not going down a path of semantics with you regarding "circular reasoning" because it's irrelevant and immaterial to the point at hand, and frankly it's a waste of time. That's what the "huh?" referred to...your discussion about "circular reasoning" wasn't pertinent in my opinion.

Here endeth the discussion about circular reasoning.

June 28, 2009
9:11 am
Avatar
marypoppins
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
257sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bereft,

I'm still curious about how you went from vehemently opposing to Christianity to completely embracing it.

Please, share.

Sincerely,

Mary

June 28, 2009
9:16 am
Avatar
marypoppins
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
258sp_Permalink sp_Print

"vehemently opposing to Christianity"

should be:

"vehemently opposing Christianity"

June 28, 2009
10:36 am
Avatar
marypoppins
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
259sp_Permalink sp_Print

Cary,

You're completely right. What I wrote about Destiny didn't bring me closer to recovery.

Destiny,

I'm sorry for what I wrote. I sincerely wish you and your family the best.

Mary

June 28, 2009
12:53 pm
Avatar
_anonymous
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 8
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
260sp_Permalink sp_Print

Marypoppins- I accept your apology and I am sorry as well. This is the catch 22 discussing atheism with a religious fundamentalist is like trying to communicate emotions to a narcissist. I can understand your frustrations.

June 28, 2009
1:09 pm
Avatar
marypoppins
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
261sp_Permalink sp_Print

Thanks, Destiny. However, as I've tried to state before, I'm no longer frustrated with Bereft. I think I understand where he's coming from, although I may not agree.

Mary

June 28, 2009
2:05 pm
Avatar
red blonde
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
262sp_Permalink sp_Print

marypoppins -

Not frustrated or aggravated by bereft in anyway either. But, the thought has occurred to me that when some become so 'fanatical' or 'adamant' in their beliefs, they may have lost all belief in other things - (in themselves? in others? or in everything else?) and may have only that belief left and it has become a 'life preserver' for them. So in order to 'survive', they will defend that belief fervently. (Or perhaps they have lost 'hope'?)

There is a belief that our souls make a 'contract' on the 'other side' about how our lives will 'be' when we come back to this plane of existence.... to learn, to experience, to correct, to feel, to love, to be enlightened, to transend, etc.... all to perfect our souls.

Again, these are only my thoughts.

Although I must admit that I am curious as to how bereft became, or what had made bereft become, such in his belief.

June 28, 2009
3:29 pm
Avatar
It No Longer Matters
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 72
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
263sp_Permalink sp_Print

red blonde, you jogged something in my memory about fanatics. They can be on all sides. I personally believe in God, but as Ma Strong said, I don't know anyone who had come to God being banged on the head with a King James Bible. I actually grew up with Hell Fire and Brimstone and walked away from God for a number of years. After I came home from college, I finished my degree at a local university. There was an older woman in some of my classes that was just as fanatical about being atheist. She and her husband wrote letter after letter to the editor of our local newspaper. She could not even stand the mention of God. She was an adament atheist and I always wondered what in her past had made her so bitter. I have refrained from posting here recently because there just isn't much more that can be added to the conversation. I wish everyone peace, healing, and happiness.

Bitsy

June 28, 2009
3:39 pm
Avatar
red blonde
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
264sp_Permalink sp_Print

I hear you, Bitsy!

June 28, 2009
6:15 pm
Avatar
marypoppins
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
265sp_Permalink sp_Print

Hi Red,

I guess the only one who can answer for Bereft is Bereft.

I know that you're a very spiritual person with incredible gifts. You wrote:

"There is a belief that our souls make a 'contract' on the 'other side' about how our lives will 'be' when we come back to this plane of existence.... to learn, to experience, to correct, to feel, to love, to be enlightened, to transend, etc.... all to perfect our souls."

That seems as possible to me as any other belief. It's certainly more comforting to believe we're here for a reason.

I'm grateful we live in a country with religious freedom - not a theocracy, and not a communist country, for example, in which pursuit of religion isn't allowed.

All the best to you, (((Red))).

Mary

June 29, 2009
4:39 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests
266sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bereft

On the 24-Jun-09
you wrote:

 

"The Bible is God's Word, His disclosure of Himself and His will to
man so one can assume that He meant what He said."

Your initial unsubstantiated premise is: "The Bible is God's Word,
His disclosure of Himself and His will to man"

Your following conclusion is: "so one can assume that He meant what
He said."

Why can one assume that?  By your logic, you assume that the bible is
the literal word of God and then use that assumption based upon  the
bible's contents to  substantiate the premise that the bible is the literal
word of God. I can do the same thing with the Bhagavard Gita, which 
states:

"There is no truth
superior to me."
(Lord Krishna, Bg. 7.7)

“The
whole cosmic order is under me. By my will it is manifested again and again, and
by my will it is annihilated at the end” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 9.8)

“Furthermore,
O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being, moving
or unmoving, that can exist without me”
(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita
10.39)

"I am the
source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The
wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with
all their hearts"
(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita 10.8)

"Of all
that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that
I am both the origin and the dissolution"
(Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-Gita
7.6)

Wow! In the Gita God said: "Everything
emanates from Me.
"
So the Bhagavad Gita, the Song of God must be literally the word of God
because it says so in it. Therefore the Bhagavad Gita is the literal the word of
God and "
one
can assume that He meant what He said"
in the Bhagavad Gita
!!! 

 

Can you see how flawed both your and my logic
is above???

 

Then you said:

"you didn't refute
Jesus not knowing about errors in Scripture, nor did you refute that He covered
them up (because it has a different meaning to you), so that leaves the third
alternative that there are no errors in the Bible."

I didn't refute "Jesus
not knowing about errors in Scripture"
because I believe that
Jesus did know about all the errors in the Bible. I did not refute "that
He covered them up"
  because I don't believe that Jesus did cover
them up. Then you concluded: "so that leaves the third alternative that
there are no errors in the Bible."
Whaaaa!!!! How does this conclusion
follow??? This conclusion is a non sequiter!  Why would you assume that I
would try to argue that Jesus did not know about errors in the Bible when I
believe that he did?? In fact in the Gospel of St. Thomas Jesus does imply that
there are errors in the old testament when he states:

"52.
His Disciples say to him: Twenty-four prophets proclaimed in Israel, and

they
all spoke within thee. He says to them: You have ignored the Living-

One
who is facing you, and you have spoken about the dead..."

So
Jesus is criticising his disciples for listening to the words of "the
dead"
in the old testament in the bible. Therefore he must have known
that there were inaccuracies within these scriptures. You might argue that the
Gospel of  St. Thomas does not contain the word of God. But you would be
wrong because it does. Jesus said that it is when he said that he is "the
Living One who is facing you";
that is, He is God. Therefore this
proves Thomas's Gospel is both the word of God and correct. Does this logic
sound familiar to you?? It ought to because it is the same logic that you use in
concluding that the bible is the word of God.

Then you wrote:

"getting back to June 21, you look at the Old Testament and wonder,
what kind of a loving God would do that? you describe God as
"unconditionally loving, all powerful, all knowing," but you fail
to mention His holiness, righteous judgment and wrath.
you get so distressed
by this that you can't reconcile the God of the Old Testament with that of the
New."

I failed to mention a lot of things that are irrelevant. But now that you
mention it let us run with your God's "righteous judgment and wrath."
Here we have a God who sits in "righteous judgment" upon
a flawed person of His own design who either functions or
malfunctions in accordance with the flaws in that person's own unconscious
preconditioned mind; a preconditioning about which he/she has little if any
knowledge.  Had this person the omniscience of this so-called "righteous
judge"
then the said unconscious mind would no longer be below
conscious awareness
at the time of the said offense against this God. In
such case Divine Judgement would indeed be "righteous". But
since omniscience is not a normal human attribute any judgment by your God on
human behavior would lack righteousness completely!! I doubt that the authors of
the scriptures of the bible had even the slightest inkling of the existence
of the unconscious mind
. It was this complete naivety that was complicit in
the production of the many errors in the old testament. Now to this idea of a
God who is prone to indulgences in "wrath". For a person
to be consumed by wrath, he or she must first have taken offense of some kind or
another.  All offenses involve firstly a vulnerability and secondly an
assault of a physical or psychological kind upon that vulnerability. This
implies that your God is in some way vulnerable and subject to a threat of
either physical or psychological assault!!  Further, since everything that
occurs on this earth is either caused or permitted by your God, then everything
that happens must be in accordance with his will, including offenses against
himself. So why would He take offence from something He has either caused or
permitted???   

Then you wrote:

"i admit, if you look at the Old Testament from a New Testament
perspective, you will get confused. it's because we live under the goodness,
mercy, and grace of God. we see God as unjust because we compare His justice
with His mercy, not His mercy with His law.
"

Tell me: Does your God have a pass mark, say 50%, above which one goes to
heaven and below which one goes to hell???  Say someone, because of his
balance between his lawful behavior  and his lawless
transgressions gets an assessment score of 49.99999999999999% . Does the mercy
of your God stretch enough to let this guy into heaven? If so does His mercy
stretch to allow another guy into heaven whose assessment score is
49.99999999999998%? How far does this mercy stretch? At what score does this
merciful God of yours draw the line?  Let's say it is 48%. What about the hell
bound guy that gets a score of 47.999999999999999999999%??? Why is he not given
the same mercy as his previous brother or sister who was allowed into heaven
with only a score difference of 0.0000000000000000000001%??? This is not the act
of a just and merciful God!!! Can you not see that a truly merciful God
who is omnipotent, omniscient and unconditionally loving, could never send
anyone to hell on this standard of differentiation difficulty alone????

Then you wrote:

 "we cannot look at the Old Testament from the New Testament; we
have to look at it from the beginning. and here enters the providence of God
."

Look at it any which way you like the same contradictions keep arising to
slap any critically thinking person right between the eyes.

"i include this to show at creation all sin was a capital offense.
yet, God was merciful. Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, but they didn't
die. they didn't receive justice; they received mercy."  

Whaaa??? Do you believe that Adam and Eve still live on earth today? Do you
mean that they are alive through the subsequent reincarnation of their souls? Or
do you mean that they are in either heaven or hell?  If they are not in
heaven then how did they receive mercy?????

 

Then you wrote:

" but there needed to be a substitute for Adam and Eve to satisfy
God's justice, and Jesus Christ was that substitute. that pretty much ties the
Old Testament and New Testament together."

So you believe that your Abrahamic God demanded appeasing by the blood
sacrifice of a noble, selfless and all good human being on the altar of Golgotha
to reconcile Himself with His own design-flawed creation???  Isn't this
what the Mayans did to satisfy their angered Gods - sacrificed victims on their
altars? Isn't this what Abraham did with his own son on his God's orders only to
be spared the agony of killing his own son at the last moment? What sort of a
cruel, sadistic, bloodthirsty God is this???

Then you wrote:

"if you compare the Old Testament with God's original standard,
you'll see that the Old Testament is full of mercy."

Whaaa??? God creates human beings, Adam and Eve, with an unconscious into
which neither has any insights or access. Then he preconditions these two human
beings with an ego which has the need to be fulfilled in a way that contradicts
God's test.  God ensures that neither Adam nor Eve have any foresight or
insight into the ramifications of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of
good and evil.  So then Adam and Eve through their own ignorance of good
and evil eat the fruit and then lose their innocence. They now know what is
sinful (evil) and what is not (good). So they are punished for what they did
before they attained the knowledge of good and evil. Now comes the most horrific
injustice of this unjust God. God decides to punish ALL of Adam and Eve's
descendants who are entirely innocent of any sin by subjecting them to the
horrors of the world of predators and those predated upon in turn - the world of
creatures that must kill to survive and must in turn be cruelly killed and eaten
that still others might survive until they too must die. Hmmmm!!!  Some
concept of an unconditionally loving, just, all good, all knowing, all powerful
God.

Then you wrote:

 "we are so used to His grace and mercy in getting away with our
sins that we abuse God's goodness."

Firstly, I don't believe that I get away with anything.  My intentions,
when carried through into actions, govern the conditioning of my own unconscious
mind. Therefore I set the causes and conditions in my own mind such  that,
when external events are right, I will reap the consequences of these
intentions.  Of course if I choose to give free reign to my emotions in
determining what are my intentions then my future will be a very rough ride
indeed. If I have the knowledge, compassion and wisdom to govern my intentions skilfully
then my future will be bright. This has nothing to do with any God because there
isn't one. These are my genuine beliefs about my past, present and future.

Now let's assume that your beliefs are correct for one moment. If your God is
truly merciful then I would not be held accountable by that God for not
following and adhering to one set of  scriptures from one of many different
scriptures available to me when in a sincere way I have chosen to follow just
one set of scriptures that differ greatly from those of the bible. If I was held
accountable by your God, assuming that He exists, then your God would clearly be
a very unjust and merciless God.

Then you wrote:

 "... the Jewish people of Christ's time had no such confusion
about the attributes of God and they believed Scripture, therefore, they would
not have had the same questions of the nature you have looking back from your
perspective."

Of course you are correct here.  These people lived primitive lives
within the narrow confines of their superstitious (see Leviticus) tribal
existence. They believed what they were taught by their "whited sepulchres"
- J C.

Then you wrote:

 "i cannot speak to why your religious leaders/teachers didn't
speak to what you believe are controversial parts of the Bible. what you call a
cover-up might more correctly be called ignorance or timidity. not very
"Christ-like," i would say."

I can - they had no idea of how to reconcile the irreconcilable.

Then you wrote:

" however, instead of abandoning your faith, i would have advised you
to seek out a church where they did address those areas head on as part of the
exegesis of Scripture or perhaps consult reliable commentaries."

And you think that I didn't do this??  Whaaa???  Why do you think I
bother to bring just a small proportion of these problematic issues for your
perusal? I am trying to extract from you how you reconcile the irreconcilable.
So far you have not given me anything but the same irrational fend offs that I
got all those years ago.

Then you wrote:

" that is our responsibility. i know for me having to face those gaps
in my knowledge forced me to study."

If you take your studies seriously and critically examine and question every
part of the bible as I tried to do then you must either reconcile the
irreconcilable or discard most of the bible as primitive tribal writings and
beliefs as I have done. Remember, two thirds (most) of the bible is contained
within the old testament.

Then you wrote:

"i suspect the young mystic in you wanted "the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil" to symbolize something, but it was an actual
tree, and it had actual fruit on it. there was nothing harmful in the tree
itself because everything else was good, right? there was nothing harmful in the
fruit of the tree. like everything else, it was "very good." but
eating from it was very bad, because eating from it produced the knowledge of
evil (man already knew good). the only way man could possibly eat of that tree
was if he directly disobeyed God. and we know that sad story."

As I said before if Adam and Eve were ignorant of evil then holding them
responsible for committing an evil act is evil in itself!!  God set a test
that He knew in advance Adam and Eve would fail. This same God allowed a
superior infinitely evil being, Satan, to take on the guise of a talking snake (Whaaa!!!).
Then God stood bye and did nothing and worse still He allowed this Super Snake
to dupe two naive and ignorant human beings into failing this test. No 
human beings would defy a God who plainly manifested as such and then clearly
defined the terms of a test and the consequences of failure unless they were
completely insane. No loving, omniscient God would set a test that He knew his
subjects would not pass and worse still would condemn innocent descendants to
hell for thousands of years until His bloodthirsty demands for appeasement at
Calvary were met. Your unquestioning, uncritical acceptance of the bible is
indeed a very sad story.

Then you wrote:

"the question where Cain got his wife is constantly asked and the
answer is simple: Cain married a relative. God didn't prohibit such marriage
until later. for all human beings to have come from one family, there had to be
intermarriage within that family at the beginning. Genesis 5:4-5 says that Adam
lived 930 years and begat many sons and daughters. during 930 years those sons
and daughters also gave birth to children. so Cain could have chosen his wife
from a sizable number of people."

So you are telling me that your God did not institute the biological
interbreeding malfunctioning that we know as consanguinity until many
generations had been produced?  Why did your same God also impose these
same laws on animals as well?   In this regard, what did the animals
do to warrant the same biological treatment from your God as humans copped? Let
me see if I've got this right. We have a family consisting of Adam, Eve, and
their children Cain and Abel and some unknown sisters. Now who produced Adam and
Eve's grand children. Did Adam copulate with some unknown daughter or daughters?
Or did Cain and/or Abel copulate with their mother or unknown sisters? At some
point in time God changed the biological laws to introduce both the
consanguinity effects of interbreeding and the sin of incest? So God created
the  sin of incest but mankind was only told about it at the time Leviticus
was written? God then set in place homosexuality as well as consanguinity and
then deemed the satisfaction of this same sex attraction as a sin punishable by
death?  Is this the act of a loving God???

Then you wrote:

"if the Bible is literally the Word of God and the word of Truth,
there can only be one true interpretation."

This is another non sequitur.  Whether or not "the Bible is
literally the Word of God and the word of Truth"
has no bearing upon
the many ways the bible can be interpreted.

However, if your statement is
correct then the bible cannot be the literal word of your God, even if He did
exist. Let me explain. There are many different Christian sects. These sects
exist essentially because of differences in interpretations of biblical
scriptures. Therefore scripture can be interpreted in different ways. Therefore,
by your logic, biblical scriptures cannot be the literal word of your God.

Then you wrote:

"however, if there is no such thing as absolute truth, then anyone's
interpretation can be as valid as the next. if there is no fixed truth, then
there can be no discernable error, right? if everything is up for grabs and the
words of the Bible don’t matter, or are only suggestions, or are at best equal
to other religious books, then you can believe whatever you want. it is exactly
the same attitude with which Pilate summarily dismissed Christ: “What is
truth?” the problem with denying absolute truth is if you say there is no
absolute truth, this itself is an absolute (and arbitrary) statement of truth."

It is not my position that there is no such thing as absolute truth. I take
the Buddhist position that there are in fact three 'truths' of which absolute
truth is but one. I maintain that there is also relative truth; that is truth
both common to and relative to given states of mental conditioning.  Then
there is the state of mind that encompasses both; that is the middle path. This
middle way is incomprehensible to those who only possess mental states that
cling to either absolute or relative truth. Since the possessor of both absolute
and relative truth, in all its clarity, is a Buddha, and possibly a 'Christ',
then we possessors of relative truth can only avoid  our deluded
predisposition to think that we possess the only truth by having the
wisdom to realize its inherent relativity. The mystics, though not yet the
possessors of buddha-hood, can but point both us and themselves towards the
middle way as a finger that points to the moon but is never-the-less not the
moon itself.

Then you wrote:

"time for a cup of tea and learning from your posts. grace and peace"

I must thank you for being my teacher too. May you be well, serene and happy.

June 30, 2009
5:27 pm
Avatar
bereft
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
267sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez. sorry for the delay but it took me a day and a half to read your post....no, not really, but our arguments are getting longer and longer. while i appreciate your time and efforts and all that i'm understanding from you and about you, it's getting more and more difficult for me to answer each of your points in a reasonable length. i'm sure the same applies to you with my tiny posts. allow me to make a few clarifying remarks, and i'll try to make them brief.

it doesn't sound logical to me, but people do put their faith in the bhagavardgita and a god(s) who teaches that the earth rests upon an elephant which in turn is supported by a tortoise. all i know is that there is not one such mistake in the Bible.

if Christ knew there were errors in Scripture and didn't tell us that would be a lie by omission. God is holy and cannot lie. therefore, if Christ is holy then we must believe that the Bible is the Word of God. your proof that Jesus knew there were errors in the Bible is based upon your interpretation of the spurious gnostic writings that were rejected in the third century. according to that gospel, the prophets were "the dead." however, in referring to the prophets, Jesus said in Matthew 22:32, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." since God says, "I AM (not I was) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they must be alive! since God cannot contradict Himself, then there was good reason to throw out the gospel of thomas.

the next few sections in your post are answered in the Bible. please read Romans 1:18-23 and James 1:13-15. they may help you understand where i'm coming from. first of all, all sin, ultimately, brings physical death, right? God does not grade on a curve. every single person in the world is going to die thanks to Adam and Eve. it’s appointed unto man once to die. why? wages of sin is what? is death. physical death is a reality in the world because sin is a reality. second, all sin also brings forth spiritual death because all sin cuts us off from God. thirdly, all sin brings forth eternal death. in other words, if I sin, i am condemned to Hell, right? so, all sin brings death.

the benefit to the Christian is that the death that it brings for us was borne by Christ. so, all Christians will endure is the physical death.

i agree with you Tez. you're not getting away with anything. and, according to Romans, you are without excuse, self-deceived probably, but without excuse. this leads me to my concluding remarks to you.

it is your belief that "this has nothing to do with any God because there isn't one," so why am i trying to argue logic with an atheist? by your own philosophy, you can’t help what you believe. better question: why are you trying to use logic against me?

laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. in other words, they are not made of matter, and they apply everywhere and at all times. laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. and they are necessary for logical reasoning. thus, your rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

however, as a materialistic atheist you can’t have laws of logic. you believe that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. but laws of logic are not physical. laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet you use them to try to reason. this is inconsistent. you are borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. your atheist’s view cannot be rational because you're using logic that cannot exist according to your profession.

whatever you say against Christianity, even that can't make sense unless Christianity were true in the first place. the worldview of Christianity is necessary to make sense even of your arguments. there is an impossibility in your logic to the contrary. there is no dispute or debate that can take a contrary point of view and show that it makes sense out of human experience.

therefore, the proof of the Christian world view is that, without it, you couldn't prove anything. read it again. the beauty of a concert, the laws of physics, the meaning of history, or the immorality of child abuse are lost in your way of thinking. no matter what it is you can't prove anything without the Christian worldview to begin with. without God you can't do anything ultimately, unless you live inconsistent with your own worldview, and that's what i suspect you are doing.

the goal of all unbelief is to somehow escape the voice of God, like Adam and Eve hiding in the bushes. as it says in Romans, i believe you do know about God the creator, God the sovereign who controls all things, God who sent His son into this world. you know these things are true. in fact, you wouldn't be able to make sense out of your life at all if you didn't know God.

i am convinced that the Christian God exists. therefore, i actually have a reason to spend time debating and discussing these things with people. you have no reason. que sera sera….it doesn’t matter. it shouldn’t matter to you. but somehow this does matter to you so much so that you are willing to spend your time and pages debating it. your actions speak louder than your words.

i hope that you will one day "love God with all your mind."

grace and peace

June 30, 2009
7:27 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests
268sp_Permalink sp_Print

"it doesn't sound logical to me, but people do put their faith in the bhagavardgita and a god(s) who teaches that the earth rests upon an elephant which in turn is supported by a tortoise. all i know is that there is not one such mistake in the Bible."

Do talking snakes, creation of the world from nothing in 6 days, the rediculously young age of the earth in the fundamentalists' creation myth, Christ raising Lazuras from the dead after putrification fas set in, walking on water, the walls of Jericho falling down because of trumpet blasts, Moses parting the waters, the burning bush, etc qualify as mistakes any less than your excellent examples of mythological nonsense?

"if Christ knew there were errors in Scripture and didn't tell us that would be a lie by omission."

This is a big "if". What if he did know and highlighted these errors for all to see and hear? Do you suppose that this would have made it into the new testament? Of course not. If it did then the old testament would not have been included in the bible and the Christian Jews would have been aghast at the proposition that their beliefs over the eons were corrupt. Those corrections made by Christ would have been conveniently overlooked just as the obnoxious old testament writings are blatantly overlooked by most if not all modern day preachers. How many modern day preachers are reading Leviticus from their pulpits and are telling women who have their periods that they are unclean and need to atone for having them????? Similarly any corrections made by Christ, would have been overlooked by Christ's followers in their verbal transmissions of his message over the centuries. If they weren't then those gospels certainly wouldn't have made it into the bible, just as Thomas' gospel didn't. If you want to find an example of at least one of these corrections look at the Gospel of Thomas. Of course it won't be presented as a 'correction' of the old testament perse. That would be very provocative and dangerous for those early church fathers, the apostles.

I have to bolt now - I will return to address the rest.

Keep the faith.

July 1, 2009
9:16 pm
Avatar
soofoo
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
269sp_Permalink sp_Print

Tez and bereft,

There were errors and Christ did correct them and they made it into the new testament.

Some of the things Christ corrected:

1. The sabbath day was created for man and not for God. Therefore if your sheep falls into a ditch on the sabbath day, you rescue it. You are not to cause yourself hardship by not working on the sabbath day.

2. Jesus explained that divorce does not truly happen, even though Moses had told the Jews that they could divorce their wives if they wrote it down on paper.

There are so many more. Jesus went around healing and saving people without any regard for any of the other rules. This is at least partly why he was hated by some people.

There were definitely conspiracies and cover-ups and all that jazz but it doesn't really matter. The message that Christ gives us is so simple that it can hardly be hidden. Love God, self and everyone else.

July 2, 2009
3:21 am
Avatar
fantas
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 14
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
270sp_Permalink sp_Print

I think it maybe misleading to say that Jesus didn't pay any regard to the religious laws of Judaism. He Himself stated that He came to fulfill the law so that people were no longer bound by it. What Jesus taught was the human soul, human needs, etc. were superior to the law and the law should no longer be used to suppress them. The law was made for man and not man for the law. It was meant to add to the dignity and value of the people not diminish and oppress them.

Jesus spoke against the hypocrisy of those who were so adamant about following the law and its traditions but acted in ungodly and hateful ways. If He directly and flagrantly disregarded the law, He would have been working working Himself and God, since the laws were divinely given and written to guide the children of Israel from the desert until such a time when they could demonstrate more self governance. Also, it wouldn't have been long to kill Him. In the end, they killed Him on made up charges of heresy.

His arrival was a fulfillment of the law of God and His covenant to humanity the He would never leave nor forsake them. The teachers of the law had made themselves responsible for and judges of how others obeyed the law. Jesus came to give autonomy to each individual to learn and develop their own relationship with God, hence the integration of the holy of holies which was only accessible to the high priests, into the larger temple by the splitting of the temple curtain. Jesus became the High Priest for everyone.

Regarding the divorce issue: Jesus reiterated that God hates divorce, however, due the their hardheadedness, Moses gave divorce certificates to the children of Israel, to signify disillusion of marriages. I always find it interesting that certificates were given for divorce but not marriage. So, although highly undesirable, divorce did occur.

Regarding baptism, The use of water to signify rebirth or transformation wasn't unique to Christianity, otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have needed to be baptised by John the Baptist. Jesus's mission and purpose were announced by the Holy Spirit at His baptism and Johns recognition of Him. He had entered a new phase of His life. By being baptized Christians step into their "new creation". They emerge from the water as new beings and hopefully their life testifies to that. Baptism alone doesn't a Christian make. The interesting fact is almost all major religions have this same ritual for the same purpose.

Water is a symbol for cleansing, transformation and new birth. It's water that precedes the birth of a baby. Without water, nothing living would survive for long.

July 2, 2009
11:53 am
Avatar
bereft
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
271sp_Permalink sp_Print

fantas, good stuff!! where have you been?

for your information, the bill of divorcement had several purposes. one, it was a testimonial to the innocence of the one who was released. two, it gave evidence of legal freedom to remarry. three, it protected the woman’s reputation. it was a certificate of innocence. the right to freedom then (because of innocence), the right to remarry, and the protection of a reputation were at stake.

there are several baptisms in the scripture that are of importance. there is the baptism of John. there is the baptism of John baptizing Jesus, and there is the baptism in the name of Christ in the church after his death and resurrection.

the Christian baptism is an identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. the baptism of John was a Jewish washing. throughout the Jewish history it had been traditional for Jews to demonstrate outwardly and inward repentance. they would do that through washing ceremonies.

what was happening was John was preaching repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, the Messiah is coming! the folks who accepted that message and desired to repent came to John, repented, and demonstrated their repentance in the baptism. it was a baptism of repentance, so it was Jewish baptism.

now the baptism of Jesus by John. Jesus didn’t need to repent...right? He was sinless. so why was He baptized? remember, Jesus said, "No. I have to do this for now because I need to fulfill all righteousness." what does he mean by that? some people say, "well, He wanted to identify with the people who were getting ready for Him." others have said that, "He wanted to set the example for believers in the future." i believe what He wanted to do was fulfill all righteousness and for us, all righteousness would include what? baptism. if you’re going to fulfill all the righteousness that God asks of you, you’re going to be baptized.

grace and peace

July 2, 2009
1:03 pm
Avatar
bereft
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 30, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
272sp_Permalink sp_Print

soofoo, i believe what Jesus Christ corrected was their understanding of Scripture, not Scripture itself....e.g., "you have heard that it has been said,... but I tell you..."

Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. as such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ.

i am curious to know what "conspiracies and cover-ups and all that jazz" you are referring to.

grace and peace

July 2, 2009
3:41 pm
Avatar
fantas
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 14
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
273sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bereft, Thank you!!! I often forget this Lib thread is even here. There are lots of things to learn and understand about the Holy Scriptures. If it was all so easy, then everyone wouldn't have such a difficult time with it. I think 🙂

July 2, 2009
6:55 pm
Avatar
CraigCo
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 39
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
274sp_Permalink sp_Print

Glittered,

Haven't been around for awhile. I see that folks are still heavily engaged in debating mythology - Christianity/sun worship.

So, just to be clear, I never called bedeft an idiot. Still stand by my observation though. Circular reasoning/judgement/condemnation are not indicators of real intellect.

Slice it any way you choose. Christianity is merely another plagiarised version of the same ol story that's been told many times before. Dating back to the Egyptian god Horus.

Here's a little sumthin that might interest those who choose to engage in debate with a xtian fundamentalist;

http://stellarhousepublishing......jesus.html

July 3, 2009
1:03 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests
275sp_Permalink sp_Print

Bereft.

Matthew 19 (King James Version)

Matthew 19 states:

" 1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given."

This looks, to me, like Christ making a correction to the old testament law. Am I wrong?

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 349
Currently Online:
15
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 110959
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38560
Posts: 714252
Newest Members:
charli55, SeaG1ant, shawncanwe, lianot, dagaf, duminy
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2020 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer | Do Not Sell My Personal Information