100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
Honestly MsH...... you see no nothing fearful in the actions he's been taking? Really? He can destroy our constitution, take away our rights, remove our liberties, even assassinate us.... and you can say it's all ok because it only affects terrorists? 
A law is a law once it is on the books, the definition of that law, as most, are subject to interpretation of the user.... enforcement personnel..... the possibility of abusive consequence is unquestionable! THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN AND PROVEN MANY TIMES! How can you dare laugh at the implications of them and say/think it's ok? plenty before him COULD HAVE also it wouldnt just affect terrorists, it would affect the world his own children would have to live in, something he seems to take pretty seriously Im laughing at the constant 'worst case scenario' tactics used by media to try to reinforce political campaigns,,,, and the way they are worded to suggest it is actually the intent of the president,,,, cite me five random laws or executive orders, and I can pick out a worst case possibility to,, the probability however is another story The ignorance is believing it will not be abused or misused! This is NOT the belief, the American constitution I fought to defend! It is being degraded by individuals to passive, uncaring, to give a shite! So what if another right is stolen, another freedom is taken..... when people must die to reclaim them for you, I hope you are thankful, and don't treat them as people did us Viet Nam Vets.....which is happening, and probably why we vets see it clearer than the general populas! the patriot card need not be used I have a brother who was and still IS actively engaged in 'protecting' the rights of this country , a fairly bright man, who doesnt seem to be feeling this same paranoia either so its not about whether someone was or is in the service, its a matter of personal perspective and opinion mine is that its nothing singularly unique or dangerous, yours is that it is,,,, and so goes the mingle threads ,,everday,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/25/12 05:39 PM
|
|
Honestly MsH...... you see no nothing fearful in the actions he's been taking? Really? He can destroy our constitution, take away our rights, remove our liberties, even assassinate us.... and you can say it's all ok because it only affects terrorists?
A law is a law once it is on the books, the definition of that law, as most, are subject to interpretation of the user.... enforcement personnel..... the possibility of abusive consequence is unquestionable! THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN AND PROVEN MANY TIMES! How can you dare laugh at the implications of them and say/think it's ok? plenty before him COULD HAVE also it wouldnt just affect terrorists, it would affect the world his own children would have to live in, something he seems to take pretty seriously Im laughing at the constant 'worst case scenario' tactics used by media to try to reinforce political campaigns,,,, and the way they are worded to suggest it is actually the intent of the president,,,, cite me five random laws or executive orders, and I can pick out a worst case possibility to,, the probability however is another story |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I plan to live until I stop breathing, dont know nor care when that will be
I plan , while I am living, to raise healthy, happy, respectful, respectable children into healthy, happy, respectful, respectable adults I plan, while I am living, to do as little harm emotionally or physically to others as I can and to give as much help emotionally and physically to others as I can to leave behind a positive legacy and example for others,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
You're proving my point, if we all have to in the end worship God the same way to be saved, the relationship cannot be personal. Nothing you say will make it so, it still can't be. not all worship the same way, not all believe the same way and not all will be "saved" the same way every individual "dates" someone else so by ur words, none of these relationships are "personal"? or am i misunderstandin? My point is simply, if everyone is required to end up at the same place at the end of things, then they really can't have a personal relationship with God. Personal means it's something no one else can define but them. If I wanted to worship God through nature for example, I could, if wanted to pray to God using a particular name, I could. These are different ways to connect to God. If those ways are in effect not available, it cannot be personal because it would become more what God expects you to be, than what you wish to be. This is how religion works, it molds you into its' belief of what God wants, instead of letting you find God your own way on your own terms. It'd be like if you told your kids they could have a personal relationship with you, but they all had to play football. It doesn't work. Instead of figuring out what they like, what they desire out of life, what their goals and dreams are, you set the path out for them regardless of if they like or not. It becomes more about you and what you want for them than what they might want. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Hate to break it to you, but it is all about God and doing what God wants. It's not about us exactly in that sense. We don't obey God out of derest, or being forced. We obey God because we WANT to, because we are WILLING to obey. If one is not willing to obey, they by all means have that choice. But how then would they expect to get blessed in return? Why would God do your will, when you aren't doing his? You couldn't be more wrong. God is not a monster who will let you die if you don't live exactly right. No God is much more loving than that, thank goodness. Why wouldn't he allow you to continue to live? How would you ever ask for forgiveness and give your life over to God if he automatically judged you to death when you first commit a sin? Where's the compassion in that? There's no compassion in that either, the Biblical God is NOT AT ALL compassionate. The very idea that a loving God would need the blood of an innocent being to love people again after what other people did, is absurd! Love does not require death to be, period. Then on top of that, even after saying it's for all, if you do one thing wrong, you still die! Again NOT love. this is a logical point of view from the perspective of life that is singular and of the highest priority the logical point of view from the perspective of christians like myself though, is that there is EVERLASTING life, so the loss of the mortal life is not the worst thing the CREATOR of life can do as the CREATOR controls what life is in the first place and can give everlasting life after our flesh has expired,,, Yes, but why would God let ANYONE perish if it knows what is good for them? If you had a child who did something really wrong, would you punish them eternally for it or just for a while till they learn? If we know it's wrong, so does God. That simple. that presumes Gods knowledge is dependent upon ours, which is backwards to what christians like me believe death of the mortal flesh is a given to deliver from the spiritual sickness of sin eternal life is ours for the asking if we wish to live beyond the years of our mortal flesh DEATH is a GIVEN,,,the body expiring is a GIVEN not a punishment But eternal death is different. Put it this way, if God can save us from something that it KNOWS we don't want, even if we choose it, and having the capacity to do that doesn't take us from it, it is a bad God and a bad parent. No good parent worth their salt would allow their child to make a bad choice if he/she could stop them from doing it, and you know that. So if WE know that and as best we could with our limited abilities as humans would do all we could to protect our kids from harm, you don't think God being infinitely bigger and unlimited compared to we would do the same thing? It makes no sense. Firstly, as I said above any God that had the ability to save everyone (which we don't have), and chose not to do it, even knowing we wouldn't want the other choice is a failure as a God and as a parent, and further if this God somehow COULDN'T save everyone, well then it's not a God at all. I dont think you have children..lol no offense protecting our kids from harm doesnt mean making their decision for them,, we can talk to them and advise them best we can, but their decision is still THEIRS to make my father in heaven is no worse a parent for trying to counsel and be there but still allowing me to make my own decision,,, I don't, but here's my point. We can't make our decisions for them as parents here, you are right, we are limited in our abilities. But God ISN'T. God has all this ability, all this power, and yet it doesn't use it. What does he have it for then? I refuse to accept that a God who is on a higher plane than I am, would fail on that scale. God should be BETTER than we are, not worse or the same. Anything less isn't acceptable. AGAIN< this point of view seems to demand that God be there as 'service' to HUMANS not a view I share,,, If God is supposed to be love, the actions should back it up. And a God that would let anyone be killed or tortured for all eternity, even when it doesn't have to happen is not a loving God, to say nothing of demanding worship and praise like a damn egomaniac. That isn't love either. ok. I Think God is perfect, and just, and I am grateful for the everlasting life offered through Christ. Course you do, it's all you allow yourself to see, you won't open yourself to the idea that this being may not be what you think, because it clashes with the image you have of it. People do that all the time, staying with what they know out of comfort, instead of actually looking at other ideas that would change them and their world. Oh and remember this, I may have said it before, but I'll say it again now. WHO are we being saved from? GOD! If God is supposed to be love, why would we need to be saved from it??? Love would not harm, kill, torture, or demand ANYTHING. The Bible God fails on all counts! So you're going to tell me that God is love, and yet in the same breath tell me that without Christ's sacrifice we wouldn't be loved anymore and sentenced to total death?? The idea of a loving being acting in such way is insulting, and totally contradictory to what love is supposed to be. Ergo, God would not do it. Im sorry, but as a parent, the 'because I want it' just loses its appeal after a while God did not make it EASY for us. That does not mean he is not love. I'm really glad you said this, because the Bible itself proves you totally wrong. First off it states obviously that God is love right? Ok, well then what is the Biblical definition of love? We find out in 1st Corinthians 13:4-8 It reads: "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; [a]bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails" Now, in order for God to be love, and given there is a Biblical definition of what love is it stands to reason God would have to fulfill all those things to be love right? Well let's see if He does by looking at a few qualities here..... Love is not jealous: For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." —Deuteronomy 4:24 FAIL Love is not provoked: They have roused my jealousy by worshiping things that are not God; they have provoked my anger with their useless idols. Now I will rouse their jealousy through people who are not even a people; I will provoke their anger through the foolish Gentiles. Deutronomy 32:21 FAIL Love is kind: "When they came to the threshing floor of Kidon, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God. " 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 FAIL And perhaps the most important one of all........love never fails. Let me repeat that love NEVER fails. Therefore, if God is love and love can't fail, if even one person is not saved, God fails. So this is a HUGE fail. So the only conclusion one can draw if you compare the Biblical God to its' very own definition of what love is, is that this God ISN'T, because it fails to meet any of the criteria laid out for what love is. All I can suggest is that you get a concordance and actually review the hebrew used in these passages you may find it interesting to note that even in ancient hebrew, there were words that were similar but not identical in meaning and words that changed in context the hebrew words translated simply in english to 'jealous' also have several different contexts throughout the bible and actually arent even the same hebrew word, although they are all translated with the same english word.... there is also the complex issue of love in general, I love people although their actions sometimes anger or dissapoint me,, neither of those things change my LOVE for them though,,,, its just not simple to understand until you understand it,,, but in any case wishing you a speedy recovery, but I need some rest Two things, number one, if God is so perfect and wants us all saved, WHY THE HELL DO I NEED A CONCORDANCE TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND IT??? Is God that stupid or evil to make it PURPOSEFULLY confusing?? I don't think so! Would you make the truth confusing to your kid, or would you tell them straight up? The answer should be obvious. If God wants us to know something, it will spell it out in no uncertain terms, no jumping through hoops needed, otherwise it's not God. Number two, on understanding, this is the other thing about your religion. EVERY SINGLE TIME someone tries to argue against the Bible, WITHOUT FAIL, it always falls back on the arguer. NEVER is it that maybe the Bible is wrong, NEVER EVER. If you can't see how that would deflect any criticism away from it, you're plain blind. You CANNOT have an open debate about the validity of something, if you HAVE to come to one conclusion above all others before you even begin. It does not work! Plain fact is, IF the Bible were true, it could stand up to any arguments against it, and that this tactic has to be used against them says it cannot. how can an opinion 'stand up'? its how we feel based upon our perspective and experience,,, the bible can be completely true and still not 'stand up' to those who are certain it isnt,,, and vice versa,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/25/12 05:08 PM
|
|
You're proving my point, if we all have to in the end worship God the same way to be saved, the relationship cannot be personal. Nothing you say will make it so, it still can't be. not all worship the same way, not all believe the same way and not all will be "saved" the same way every individual "dates" someone else so by ur words, none of these relationships are "personal"? or am i misunderstandin? My point is simply, if everyone is required to end up at the same place at the end of things, then they really can't have a personal relationship with God. Personal means it's something no one else can define but them. If I wanted to worship God through nature for example, I could, if wanted to pray to God using a particular name, I could. These are different ways to connect to God. If those ways are in effect not available, it cannot be personal because it would become more what God expects you to be, than what you wish to be. This is how religion works, it molds you into its' belief of what God wants, instead of letting you find God your own way on your own terms. It'd be like if you told your kids they could have a personal relationship with you, but they all had to play football. It doesn't work. Instead of figuring out what they like, what they desire out of life, what their goals and dreams are, you set the path out for them regardless of if they like or not. It becomes more about you and what you want for them than what they might want. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Hate to break it to you, but it is all about God and doing what God wants. It's not about us exactly in that sense. We don't obey God out of derest, or being forced. We obey God because we WANT to, because we are WILLING to obey. If one is not willing to obey, they by all means have that choice. But how then would they expect to get blessed in return? Why would God do your will, when you aren't doing his? You couldn't be more wrong. God is not a monster who will let you die if you don't live exactly right. No God is much more loving than that, thank goodness. Why wouldn't he allow you to continue to live? How would you ever ask for forgiveness and give your life over to God if he automatically judged you to death when you first commit a sin? Where's the compassion in that? There's no compassion in that either, the Biblical God is NOT AT ALL compassionate. The very idea that a loving God would need the blood of an innocent being to love people again after what other people did, is absurd! Love does not require death to be, period. Then on top of that, even after saying it's for all, if you do one thing wrong, you still die! Again NOT love. this is a logical point of view from the perspective of life that is singular and of the highest priority the logical point of view from the perspective of christians like myself though, is that there is EVERLASTING life, so the loss of the mortal life is not the worst thing the CREATOR of life can do as the CREATOR controls what life is in the first place and can give everlasting life after our flesh has expired,,, Yes, but why would God let ANYONE perish if it knows what is good for them? If you had a child who did something really wrong, would you punish them eternally for it or just for a while till they learn? If we know it's wrong, so does God. That simple. that presumes Gods knowledge is dependent upon ours, which is backwards to what christians like me believe death of the mortal flesh is a given to deliver from the spiritual sickness of sin eternal life is ours for the asking if we wish to live beyond the years of our mortal flesh DEATH is a GIVEN,,,the body expiring is a GIVEN not a punishment But eternal death is different. Put it this way, if God can save us from something that it KNOWS we don't want, even if we choose it, and having the capacity to do that doesn't take us from it, it is a bad God and a bad parent. No good parent worth their salt would allow their child to make a bad choice if he/she could stop them from doing it, and you know that. So if WE know that and as best we could with our limited abilities as humans would do all we could to protect our kids from harm, you don't think God being infinitely bigger and unlimited compared to we would do the same thing? It makes no sense. Firstly, as I said above any God that had the ability to save everyone (which we don't have), and chose not to do it, even knowing we wouldn't want the other choice is a failure as a God and as a parent, and further if this God somehow COULDN'T save everyone, well then it's not a God at all. I dont think you have children..lol no offense protecting our kids from harm doesnt mean making their decision for them,, we can talk to them and advise them best we can, but their decision is still THEIRS to make my father in heaven is no worse a parent for trying to counsel and be there but still allowing me to make my own decision,,, I don't, but here's my point. We can't make our decisions for them as parents here, you are right, we are limited in our abilities. But God ISN'T. God has all this ability, all this power, and yet it doesn't use it. What does he have it for then? I refuse to accept that a God who is on a higher plane than I am, would fail on that scale. God should be BETTER than we are, not worse or the same. Anything less isn't acceptable. AGAIN< this point of view seems to demand that God be there as 'service' to HUMANS not a view I share,,, If God is supposed to be love, the actions should back it up. And a God that would let anyone be killed or tortured for all eternity, even when it doesn't have to happen is not a loving God, to say nothing of demanding worship and praise like a damn egomaniac. That isn't love either. ok. I Think God is perfect, and just, and I am grateful for the everlasting life offered through Christ. Course you do, it's all you allow yourself to see, you won't open yourself to the idea that this being may not be what you think, because it clashes with the image you have of it. People do that all the time, staying with what they know out of comfort, instead of actually looking at other ideas that would change them and their world. Oh and remember this, I may have said it before, but I'll say it again now. WHO are we being saved from? GOD! If God is supposed to be love, why would we need to be saved from it??? Love would not harm, kill, torture, or demand ANYTHING. The Bible God fails on all counts! So you're going to tell me that God is love, and yet in the same breath tell me that without Christ's sacrifice we wouldn't be loved anymore and sentenced to total death?? The idea of a loving being acting in such way is insulting, and totally contradictory to what love is supposed to be. Ergo, God would not do it. Im sorry, but as a parent, the 'because I want it' just loses its appeal after a while God did not make it EASY for us. That does not mean he is not love. I'm really glad you said this, because the Bible itself proves you totally wrong. First off it states obviously that God is love right? Ok, well then what is the Biblical definition of love? We find out in 1st Corinthians 13:4-8 It reads: "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; [a]bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails" Now, in order for God to be love, and given there is a Biblical definition of what love is it stands to reason God would have to fulfill all those things to be love right? Well let's see if He does by looking at a few qualities here..... Love is not jealous: For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." —Deuteronomy 4:24 FAIL Love is not provoked: They have roused my jealousy by worshiping things that are not God; they have provoked my anger with their useless idols. Now I will rouse their jealousy through people who are not even a people; I will provoke their anger through the foolish Gentiles. Deutronomy 32:21 FAIL Love is kind: "When they came to the threshing floor of Kidon, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God. " 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 FAIL And perhaps the most important one of all........love never fails. Let me repeat that love NEVER fails. Therefore, if God is love and love can't fail, if even one person is not saved, God fails. So this is a HUGE fail. So the only conclusion one can draw if you compare the Biblical God to its' very own definition of what love is, is that this God ISN'T, because it fails to meet any of the criteria laid out for what love is. All I can suggest is that you get a concordance and actually review the hebrew used in these passages you may find it interesting to note that even in ancient hebrew, there were words that were similar but not identical in meaning and words that changed in context the hebrew words translated simply in english to 'jealous' also have several different contexts throughout the bible and actually arent even the same hebrew word, although they are all translated with the same english word.... there is also the complex issue of love in general, I love people although their actions sometimes anger or dissapoint me,, neither of those things change my LOVE for them though,,,, its just not simple to understand until you understand it,,, but in any case wishing you a speedy recovery, but I need some rest Two things, number one, if God is so perfect and wants us all saved, WHY THE HELL DO I NEED A CONCORDANCE TO PROPERLY UNDERSTAND IT??? Is God that stupid or evil to make it PURPOSEFULLY confusing?? I don't think so! Would you make the truth confusing to your kid, or would you tell them straight up? The answer should be obvious. If God wants us to know something, it will spell it out in no uncertain terms, no jumping through hoops needed, otherwise it's not God. Number two, on understanding, this is the other thing about your religion. EVERY SINGLE TIME someone tries to argue against the Bible, WITHOUT FAIL, it always falls back on the arguer. NEVER is it that maybe the Bible is wrong, NEVER EVER. If you can't see how that would deflect any criticism away from it, you're plain blind. You CANNOT have an open debate about the validity of something, if you HAVE to come to one conclusion above all others before you even begin. It does not work! Plain fact is, IF the Bible were true, it could stand up to any arguments against it, and that this tactic has to be used against them says it cannot. we no longer speak the language of the bible, thats why you need an understanding of where the translations roots are I dont consider reading jumping through hoops, but I guess people have different levels of effort they are willing to put into things that are worth it to them to be clear maybe you are right maybe I am right maybe you are wrong maybe I am wrong maybe my moms not my mom maybe she is I strongly believe she is and would always argue from the perspective that she is and request proof to the contrary from anyone contesting that neither you or I would have an opinion unless we were viewing it in our own perspective as 'right' ,,thats the best I can do for all those upset about people having an opinion of 'right' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Fellow Obama Supporters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sun 03/25/12 01:17 PM
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. That is wrong too. Police have authority to do many things that citizens do not. IF an officer stops or approaches you, it is clear they are an officer and their authority and weapon status and legitimacy are a given. Their position puts them in a unique position where threat is a regular and a constant so they can , unfortunately, usually pull the fear of physical threat card even if they THOUGHT an unarmed perosn was armed. A citizen approaching you, however, with a gun does not have any clear authority or assumed legitimate reason for having a gun and would be not within their right to shoot another citizen because they dont have the same level of authority to confront a citizen with a weapon on their person. But this man is not a police officer. Had not identifying marks or badge that someone would think he was a police officer with that authority. Trying the case in the media is how all high profile cases are tried, thats a fact of life. IN this case, I think bringing it the attention that it would otherwise not have been given is just and morally conscious and not wrong at all. THere is no evidence of race being involved, except possible racial slurs. But racism is not the crime. The potential crime that needs to be investigated is whether this man HUNTED , CONFRONTED, and then SHOT this young man who was breaking no laws and had no weapon. Race may play a part in why the man saw him as so 'suspicious' though, but thats not something anyone could prove. The boys age is at issue because he was unarmed and being followed by a grown man with a GUN. 17 year olds in most other cases arent repeatedly called 'men'. Juniors in high school arent yet 'men' or 'women'. Men hold jobs and can legally have weapons. This was a boy in school , volunteering four days a week, with no weapon, visiting family friends. When young men have to fear being hunted down , its an issue. A classic case of you deciding what is right with no knowledge of what actually happened. ITs a case of me having an opinion about how it was HANDLED and the attention it deserves and the opportunity for the family to GAIN knowledge of what happened ,,,even if it takes pressure from the national community to do so,,, You only know what you have heard on the mass media. You weren't there and know nothing about how it was handled. And "men" are often in the military, 17 years old and carry weapons, so your statements about what are "men" and who are boys and, again, just your opinion which conflicts with the facts. that assumes that being in the military is the same as being a man,, which is not at all true, but thats a whole other debate we send children to war, that is pretty well recognized , it still doesnt prove they arent still children but thats irrelevant here because THIS 'man' was not a militant with a weapon, he was a high school junior and volunteer with candy and a drink... and my opinion doesnt conflict with 'facts' at all as few 'facts' have been revealed besides a short summary on a police report and the testimony of witnesses who dont even seem to give the same account (probably because they were witnessing the ordeal at different moments) and also some background on the two involved the boy , a high school football player and volunteer with no criminal background or known violent tendencies or episodes, and a past hero who risked death to save his dad from a fire the man, a married , working man, who spent alot of time looking out for 'suspicious' people and had a past assault against someone else,,,(later dropped, but serious enough to consider given these circumstances), who was 'fed up' according to a friend and who implied as much to the dispatcher when he stated the 'aholes' always get away, and something was 'wrong' with the dude A day in court for that young man is all I want to see.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A day in court is what most people are fighting for for this young man,,, those advocating more killing do him no justice. The DA will decide if charges should be brought, the grand jury will decide if the case should proceed to court. It's not up to the angry mobs or celebrities to decide what should happen. And most of the calls haven't been for "A day in court", they are calling for Zimmerman to be convicted of murder. a conviction requires a DAY IN COURT.... where the actual details of whether or how they investigated this death can come out in the open and if they BOTCHED it (which is possible, contraty to what some citizens seem to think) and should have given more thorough investigation into whether or not this was merely 'self defense' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
I do not agree with organized Religion because people tell you what to think and do. I do believe God exist because the Universe is simply to complex to have happened by accident. I do believe in evolution, but I can not get past the big bang happening for no apparent reason. Something never comes from nothing. For any chemical reaction you have to combine at least one element with another of a different kind or have an element over a period of time to excite a reaction because of decay. I can not prove it scientifically because of limited knowledge and experience in this study. My belief that God initiated the big bang is based off faith. It is a possible solution to why and how it happened. For if God is are creator by bringing together the elements to initiate the Big Bang, how magnificent is God to have created all of this! My life and your life were not an accident. Each morning is a miracle, because anything can happen to anyone at any time and any place. I can say I have never been told what to do (Besides by my elders, which has nothing to do with organized religion and is more about my culture) and I cant say I have been told what to think by anyone I have received counsel and advice and encouragement towards what were good choices as opposed to bad choices though with billions of people on the planet,, finding millions who agree on something and wish to congregate around it is not such a terrible or unreasonable thing, I actually would expect it regardless of whether its organized religion, formal education, universal medicine etc,,, but I dont think everyone needs or has to be in anything 'organized', I just think its helpful emotionally to congregate with like minds, at least occasionally People really can try to make a horse drink water(aka peer pressure). It is up the horse to drink that water. When the horse is thirsty it will search for something to drink. When it finds water it will drink, with or with out the help of people. uhhh,,,yeah and that horse may find any number of other horses at that same source of water,,,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hunting someone down the street is not self defense at any stretch of the law and the 911 tape verifies that. Also this law they are allowing this man to be free on is suppose to be like our "make my day" law here and it doesn't cover following someone down the street and killing them. I absolutely agree with you. The man should be in Jail (but realisticlly should he be in jail someone will 'shiv' him just for the 'bragging rights'. I also think Mr. Sharpton could better apply his talents by going to the South Side and healing that community (although it does not fit his international agenda), rather than inadvertently inciting racial tensions with his good intent. and the Panthers should take a bit of a lesson from MLK... Peace brings a greater change than does violence and hatred. I have lived in a black neighborhood for a long time and being white around white people around black people I have the privileged/or not so privileged view of seeing whites reacting to black folks in negative ways. There is a reason Sharpton is still needed and the Black panthers are also still needed in some instances. Until whites get an understanding that they are not the moral majority nor the end all be all for the world with white racist views to boot, we will have to have those willing to battle for black folks in cases such as this and many more. And yes, whites are not the only racists in the world but so far they are the worst. And the battle against white men and their prejudices rages on in all arenas in this country. Women have to fight, minorities have to fight. What is their mental block that keeps them believing they have the right to mistreat everyone unlike them? And the black panthers putting a bounty dead or alive on Zimmermann and Spike Lee tweeting Zimmermanns address is moral? Does things like this not add to the racial decide in this country? Advocating the murder of another person is not the way to bring justice in this case. When Zimmerman is murdered because of the doings of the panthers and Spike will charges be brought against them? I hope so. IF that happens,,,,, A day in court is what most people are fighting for for this young man,,, those advocating more killing do him no justice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. That is wrong too. Police have authority to do many things that citizens do not. IF an officer stops or approaches you, it is clear they are an officer and their authority and weapon status and legitimacy are a given. Their position puts them in a unique position where threat is a regular and a constant so they can , unfortunately, usually pull the fear of physical threat card even if they THOUGHT an unarmed perosn was armed. A citizen approaching you, however, with a gun does not have any clear authority or assumed legitimate reason for having a gun and would be not within their right to shoot another citizen because they dont have the same level of authority to confront a citizen with a weapon on their person. But this man is not a police officer. Had not identifying marks or badge that someone would think he was a police officer with that authority. Trying the case in the media is how all high profile cases are tried, thats a fact of life. IN this case, I think bringing it the attention that it would otherwise not have been given is just and morally conscious and not wrong at all. THere is no evidence of race being involved, except possible racial slurs. But racism is not the crime. The potential crime that needs to be investigated is whether this man HUNTED , CONFRONTED, and then SHOT this young man who was breaking no laws and had no weapon. Race may play a part in why the man saw him as so 'suspicious' though, but thats not something anyone could prove. The boys age is at issue because he was unarmed and being followed by a grown man with a GUN. 17 year olds in most other cases arent repeatedly called 'men'. Juniors in high school arent yet 'men' or 'women'. Men hold jobs and can legally have weapons. This was a boy in school , volunteering four days a week, with no weapon, visiting family friends. When young men have to fear being hunted down , its an issue. A classic case of you deciding what is right with no knowledge of what actually happened. ITs a case of me having an opinion about how it was HANDLED and the attention it deserves and the opportunity for the family to GAIN knowledge of what happened ,,,even if it takes pressure from the national community to do so,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
Police sometimes shoot unarmed citizens because they are holding a bag so they think the citizen (or whoever) is armed. This case may not be any different. The media is trying to make it a race issue when there is no evidence of race being involved. The media is also making an issue of the boy's age when men of that size commit crimes every day. There will be more investigation. Trying the case in the media is wrong and just hype. That is wrong too. Police have authority to do many things that citizens do not. IF an officer stops or approaches you, it is clear they are an officer and their authority and weapon status and legitimacy are a given. Their position puts them in a unique position where threat is a regular and a constant so they can , unfortunately, usually pull the fear of physical threat card even if they THOUGHT an unarmed perosn was armed. A citizen approaching you, however, with a gun does not have any clear authority or assumed legitimate reason for having a gun and would be not within their right to shoot another citizen because they dont have the same level of authority to confront a citizen with a weapon on their person. But this man is not a police officer. Had not identifying marks or badge that someone would think he was a police officer with that authority. Trying the case in the media is how all high profile cases are tried, thats a fact of life. IN this case, I think bringing it the attention that it would otherwise not have been given is just and morally conscious and not wrong at all. THere is no evidence of race being involved, except possible racial slurs. But racism is not the crime. The potential crime that needs to be investigated is whether this man HUNTED , CONFRONTED, and then SHOT this young man who was breaking no laws and had no weapon. Race may play a part in why the man saw him as so 'suspicious' though, but thats not something anyone could prove. The boys age is at issue because he was unarmed and being followed by a grown man with a GUN. 17 year olds in most other cases arent repeatedly called 'men'. Juniors in high school arent yet 'men' or 'women'. Men hold jobs and can legally have weapons. This was a boy in school , volunteering four days a week, with no weapon, visiting family friends. When young men have to fear being hunted down , its an issue. The hell they don't. Have you not heard of something called a Citizens Arrest or a Good Samaritan Law? I guarantee that if I saw a crime being committed and there was not law enforcement around I would do whatever I could to try and stop the suspect until they got there. I have heard it. The good samaritan applies to situations where AIDE is being given to someone else. This doesnt apply here. A Citizens Arrest In a citizens arrest a crime has to have ACTUALLY occurred or the citizen is legally liable. As in this case.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The Stand Your Ground Case
|
|
What is everyones opinions of the situation? I think it's BS he is being tried in the court of public opinion after a seasoned Homicide Investigator, Police Chief and Lead Prosecutor all said self defense. Now the angry black community is trying to force charges on someone who may or not be innocent before the case is even closed. I even figured Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Sr. would be smack in the middle of this. I dont think its ******** at all when a child is shot by a grown man, teen or not, with very little further investigation beyond the word of the shooter and ONE witness out of SEVERAL. I think people need to speak up so cases like this arent just brushed off without the examination they deserve. AT the very least, I want to see a negligent homicide charge INVESTIGATED because the man had a weapon which he used to shoot a boy who had no weapon. I dont even think that a chief and prosecutor should have made that call so soon with so little and short of an investigation and with a presumed stand on the night that it was self defense. These are times Im happy for those like Al or Jesse to draw attention when someones child is shot and they are told it was merely self defense because the shooter says so and ONE witness claims to have seen someone with a red sweater (Was that even what zimmerman was wearing, I know it was red,,,) A childs death deserves more attention and investigation than that. Do you even know how a homicide investigation works? It's extremly detailed. More then one detective probably interviewed the suspect for hours if not over the course of days. Then they check the evidence on scene which backed up the shooters claim. The police chief who is a seasoned homicide investigator and the season prosecutor said self defense and they know more then we do. It's sad that the court of public opinion trumps the law. do you know thats what they did in this case? Are you so sure detectives can never get it wrong, or just not care enough to file the paperwork or investigate? a jury of his peers can decide all that the court doesnt trump the law,, look at casey anthony but at LEAST it went to court for her to get some type of ATTEMPT at justice,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Considerate
|
|
So...do you ever think before you say something brutally honest? Or do you always say what the opposite sex wants to hear to avoid hurting their feelings? Or do you say it anyway? What constitutes crossing the line with men and women? treat people how I would like to be treated If I dont have something nice to say, I say nothing. Unless Im specifically asked my opinion (With the exception of mingle where the asking of opinion is implied) thankfully, I Was fairly well educated in the english language so I am able to find ways to be honest without being 'brutal'. I try to think before I speak (or write) and consider how to communicate productively (criticism isnt productive if it shuts someone down or puts them on the defense, in my opinion) I think criticism should be constructive and aimed at aiding the person in improving something as opposed to just shutting them down completely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
I do not agree with organized Religion because people tell you what to think and do. I do believe God exist because the Universe is simply to complex to have happened by accident. I do believe in evolution, but I can not get past the big bang happening for no apparent reason. Something never comes from nothing. For any chemical reaction you have to combine at least one element with another of a different kind or have an element over a period of time to excite a reaction because of decay. I can not prove it scientifically because of limited knowledge and experience in this study. My belief that God initiated the big bang is based off faith. It is a possible solution to why and how it happened. For if God is are creator by bringing together the elements to initiate the Big Bang, how magnificent is God to have created all of this! My life and your life were not an accident. Each morning is a miracle, because anything can happen to anyone at any time and any place. I can say I have never been told what to do (Besides by my elders, which has nothing to do with organized religion and is more about my culture) and I cant say I have been told what to think by anyone I have received counsel and advice and encouragement towards what were good choices as opposed to bad choices though with billions of people on the planet,, finding millions who agree on something and wish to congregate around it is not such a terrible or unreasonable thing, I actually would expect it regardless of whether its organized religion, formal education, universal medicine etc,,, but I dont think everyone needs or has to be in anything 'organized', I just think its helpful emotionally to congregate with like minds, at least occasionally |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
You're proving my point, if we all have to in the end worship God the same way to be saved, the relationship cannot be personal. Nothing you say will make it so, it still can't be. not all worship the same way, not all believe the same way and not all will be "saved" the same way every individual "dates" someone else so by ur words, none of these relationships are "personal"? or am i misunderstandin? My point is simply, if everyone is required to end up at the same place at the end of things, then they really can't have a personal relationship with God. Personal means it's something no one else can define but them. If I wanted to worship God through nature for example, I could, if wanted to pray to God using a particular name, I could. These are different ways to connect to God. If those ways are in effect not available, it cannot be personal because it would become more what God expects you to be, than what you wish to be. This is how religion works, it molds you into its' belief of what God wants, instead of letting you find God your own way on your own terms. It'd be like if you told your kids they could have a personal relationship with you, but they all had to play football. It doesn't work. Instead of figuring out what they like, what they desire out of life, what their goals and dreams are, you set the path out for them regardless of if they like or not. It becomes more about you and what you want for them than what they might want. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Hate to break it to you, but it is all about God and doing what God wants. It's not about us exactly in that sense. We don't obey God out of derest, or being forced. We obey God because we WANT to, because we are WILLING to obey. If one is not willing to obey, they by all means have that choice. But how then would they expect to get blessed in return? Why would God do your will, when you aren't doing his? You couldn't be more wrong. God is not a monster who will let you die if you don't live exactly right. No God is much more loving than that, thank goodness. Why wouldn't he allow you to continue to live? How would you ever ask for forgiveness and give your life over to God if he automatically judged you to death when you first commit a sin? Where's the compassion in that? There's no compassion in that either, the Biblical God is NOT AT ALL compassionate. The very idea that a loving God would need the blood of an innocent being to love people again after what other people did, is absurd! Love does not require death to be, period. Then on top of that, even after saying it's for all, if you do one thing wrong, you still die! Again NOT love. this is a logical point of view from the perspective of life that is singular and of the highest priority the logical point of view from the perspective of christians like myself though, is that there is EVERLASTING life, so the loss of the mortal life is not the worst thing the CREATOR of life can do as the CREATOR controls what life is in the first place and can give everlasting life after our flesh has expired,,, Yes, but why would God let ANYONE perish if it knows what is good for them? If you had a child who did something really wrong, would you punish them eternally for it or just for a while till they learn? If we know it's wrong, so does God. That simple. that presumes Gods knowledge is dependent upon ours, which is backwards to what christians like me believe death of the mortal flesh is a given to deliver from the spiritual sickness of sin eternal life is ours for the asking if we wish to live beyond the years of our mortal flesh DEATH is a GIVEN,,,the body expiring is a GIVEN not a punishment But eternal death is different. Put it this way, if God can save us from something that it KNOWS we don't want, even if we choose it, and having the capacity to do that doesn't take us from it, it is a bad God and a bad parent. No good parent worth their salt would allow their child to make a bad choice if he/she could stop them from doing it, and you know that. So if WE know that and as best we could with our limited abilities as humans would do all we could to protect our kids from harm, you don't think God being infinitely bigger and unlimited compared to we would do the same thing? It makes no sense. Firstly, as I said above any God that had the ability to save everyone (which we don't have), and chose not to do it, even knowing we wouldn't want the other choice is a failure as a God and as a parent, and further if this God somehow COULDN'T save everyone, well then it's not a God at all. I dont think you have children..lol no offense protecting our kids from harm doesnt mean making their decision for them,, we can talk to them and advise them best we can, but their decision is still THEIRS to make my father in heaven is no worse a parent for trying to counsel and be there but still allowing me to make my own decision,,, I don't, but here's my point. We can't make our decisions for them as parents here, you are right, we are limited in our abilities. But God ISN'T. God has all this ability, all this power, and yet it doesn't use it. What does he have it for then? I refuse to accept that a God who is on a higher plane than I am, would fail on that scale. God should be BETTER than we are, not worse or the same. Anything less isn't acceptable. AGAIN< this point of view seems to demand that God be there as 'service' to HUMANS not a view I share,,, If God is supposed to be love, the actions should back it up. And a God that would let anyone be killed or tortured for all eternity, even when it doesn't have to happen is not a loving God, to say nothing of demanding worship and praise like a damn egomaniac. That isn't love either. ok. I Think God is perfect, and just, and I am grateful for the everlasting life offered through Christ. Course you do, it's all you allow yourself to see, you won't open yourself to the idea that this being may not be what you think, because it clashes with the image you have of it. People do that all the time, staying with what they know out of comfort, instead of actually looking at other ideas that would change them and their world. Oh and remember this, I may have said it before, but I'll say it again now. WHO are we being saved from? GOD! If God is supposed to be love, why would we need to be saved from it??? Love would not harm, kill, torture, or demand ANYTHING. The Bible God fails on all counts! So you're going to tell me that God is love, and yet in the same breath tell me that without Christ's sacrifice we wouldn't be loved anymore and sentenced to total death?? The idea of a loving being acting in such way is insulting, and totally contradictory to what love is supposed to be. Ergo, God would not do it. Im sorry, but as a parent, the 'because I want it' just loses its appeal after a while God did not make it EASY for us. That does not mean he is not love. I'm really glad you said this, because the Bible itself proves you totally wrong. First off it states obviously that God is love right? Ok, well then what is the Biblical definition of love? We find out in 1st Corinthians 13:4-8 It reads: "Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; [a]bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails" Now, in order for God to be love, and given there is a Biblical definition of what love is it stands to reason God would have to fulfill all those things to be love right? Well let's see if He does by looking at a few qualities here..... Love is not jealous: For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." —Deuteronomy 4:24 FAIL Love is not provoked: They have roused my jealousy by worshiping things that are not God; they have provoked my anger with their useless idols. Now I will rouse their jealousy through people who are not even a people; I will provoke their anger through the foolish Gentiles. Deutronomy 32:21 FAIL Love is kind: "When they came to the threshing floor of Kidon, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD’s anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God. " 1 Chronicles 13:9-10 FAIL And perhaps the most important one of all........love never fails. Let me repeat that love NEVER fails. Therefore, if God is love and love can't fail, if even one person is not saved, God fails. So this is a HUGE fail. So the only conclusion one can draw if you compare the Biblical God to its' very own definition of what love is, is that this God ISN'T, because it fails to meet any of the criteria laid out for what love is. All I can suggest is that you get a concordance and actually review the hebrew used in these passages you may find it interesting to note that even in ancient hebrew, there were words that were similar but not identical in meaning and words that changed in context the hebrew words translated simply in english to 'jealous' also have several different contexts throughout the bible and actually arent even the same hebrew word, although they are all translated with the same english word.... there is also the complex issue of love in general, I love people although their actions sometimes anger or dissapoint me,, neither of those things change my LOVE for them though,,,, its just not simple to understand until you understand it,,, but in any case wishing you a speedy recovery, but I need some rest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
are we looking for a real guy or a good guy?,, cause they arent necessarily the same thing,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
You're proving my point, if we all have to in the end worship God the same way to be saved, the relationship cannot be personal. Nothing you say will make it so, it still can't be. not all worship the same way, not all believe the same way and not all will be "saved" the same way every individual "dates" someone else so by ur words, none of these relationships are "personal"? or am i misunderstandin? My point is simply, if everyone is required to end up at the same place at the end of things, then they really can't have a personal relationship with God. Personal means it's something no one else can define but them. If I wanted to worship God through nature for example, I could, if wanted to pray to God using a particular name, I could. These are different ways to connect to God. If those ways are in effect not available, it cannot be personal because it would become more what God expects you to be, than what you wish to be. This is how religion works, it molds you into its' belief of what God wants, instead of letting you find God your own way on your own terms. It'd be like if you told your kids they could have a personal relationship with you, but they all had to play football. It doesn't work. Instead of figuring out what they like, what they desire out of life, what their goals and dreams are, you set the path out for them regardless of if they like or not. It becomes more about you and what you want for them than what they might want. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Hate to break it to you, but it is all about God and doing what God wants. It's not about us exactly in that sense. We don't obey God out of derest, or being forced. We obey God because we WANT to, because we are WILLING to obey. If one is not willing to obey, they by all means have that choice. But how then would they expect to get blessed in return? Why would God do your will, when you aren't doing his? You couldn't be more wrong. God is not a monster who will let you die if you don't live exactly right. No God is much more loving than that, thank goodness. Why wouldn't he allow you to continue to live? How would you ever ask for forgiveness and give your life over to God if he automatically judged you to death when you first commit a sin? Where's the compassion in that? There's no compassion in that either, the Biblical God is NOT AT ALL compassionate. The very idea that a loving God would need the blood of an innocent being to love people again after what other people did, is absurd! Love does not require death to be, period. Then on top of that, even after saying it's for all, if you do one thing wrong, you still die! Again NOT love. this is a logical point of view from the perspective of life that is singular and of the highest priority the logical point of view from the perspective of christians like myself though, is that there is EVERLASTING life, so the loss of the mortal life is not the worst thing the CREATOR of life can do as the CREATOR controls what life is in the first place and can give everlasting life after our flesh has expired,,, Yes, but why would God let ANYONE perish if it knows what is good for them? If you had a child who did something really wrong, would you punish them eternally for it or just for a while till they learn? If we know it's wrong, so does God. That simple. that presumes Gods knowledge is dependent upon ours, which is backwards to what christians like me believe death of the mortal flesh is a given to deliver from the spiritual sickness of sin eternal life is ours for the asking if we wish to live beyond the years of our mortal flesh DEATH is a GIVEN,,,the body expiring is a GIVEN not a punishment But eternal death is different. Put it this way, if God can save us from something that it KNOWS we don't want, even if we choose it, and having the capacity to do that doesn't take us from it, it is a bad God and a bad parent. No good parent worth their salt would allow their child to make a bad choice if he/she could stop them from doing it, and you know that. So if WE know that and as best we could with our limited abilities as humans would do all we could to protect our kids from harm, you don't think God being infinitely bigger and unlimited compared to we would do the same thing? It makes no sense. Firstly, as I said above any God that had the ability to save everyone (which we don't have), and chose not to do it, even knowing we wouldn't want the other choice is a failure as a God and as a parent, and further if this God somehow COULDN'T save everyone, well then it's not a God at all. I dont think you have children..lol no offense protecting our kids from harm doesnt mean making their decision for them,, we can talk to them and advise them best we can, but their decision is still THEIRS to make my father in heaven is no worse a parent for trying to counsel and be there but still allowing me to make my own decision,,, I don't, but here's my point. We can't make our decisions for them as parents here, you are right, we are limited in our abilities. But God ISN'T. God has all this ability, all this power, and yet it doesn't use it. What does he have it for then? I refuse to accept that a God who is on a higher plane than I am, would fail on that scale. God should be BETTER than we are, not worse or the same. Anything less isn't acceptable. AGAIN< this point of view seems to demand that God be there as 'service' to HUMANS not a view I share,,, If God is supposed to be love, the actions should back it up. And a God that would let anyone be killed or tortured for all eternity, even when it doesn't have to happen is not a loving God, to say nothing of demanding worship and praise like a damn egomaniac. That isn't love either. ok. I Think God is perfect, and just, and I am grateful for the everlasting life offered through Christ. Course you do, it's all you allow yourself to see, you won't open yourself to the idea that this being may not be what you think, because it clashes with the image you have of it. People do that all the time, staying with what they know out of comfort, instead of actually looking at other ideas that would change them and their world. Oh and remember this, I may have said it before, but I'll say it again now. WHO are we being saved from? GOD! If God is supposed to be love, why would we need to be saved from it??? Love would not harm, kill, torture, or demand ANYTHING. The Bible God fails on all counts! So you're going to tell me that God is love, and yet in the same breath tell me that without Christ's sacrifice we wouldn't be loved anymore and sentenced to total death?? The idea of a loving being acting in such way is insulting, and totally contradictory to what love is supposed to be. Ergo, God would not do it. Im sorry, but as a parent, the 'because I want it' just loses its appeal after a while God did not make it EASY for us. That does not mean he is not love. God does not correct our mistakes. THat does not mean he is imperfect. There is no killing when eternal life is an option. There is a spirit that lives on. So if the giver of the mortal life replaces it with eternal life instead of letting it naturally expire like all other living things,,,that doesnt make him imperfect or prove he isnt love either. I am happy and hopeful in my beliefs, things arent always what I want and sometimes I make bad choices that lead to bad consequences but I hold ME accountable for them and not God for giving me the ability to make the choice. I prefer that to being a mindless robot with a program to just always get it right and never experience consequence if I get it wrong. IF your beliefs bring you joy, and joy is your gauge of perfection and love,, than that is your perogative and your path, it doesnt at all belittle anyone elses nor does theirs belittle yours if you are assured of it (As I am of mine). I have made no claims about the necessity of Sacrifice, because(as Ive said before), I dont pretend to or need to understand in detail the intentions or reasons for God to do what he has chosen to do. There may have been another way to do it, but HE chose suffering, and as the creator, Im sure HE has a better understanding of why that would be significant. I know that even our enemies hang out with us when it makes things easy for them, but true love sometimes is best proven by how much SACRIFICE and SUFFERING others will endure to protect or save us. I imagine this philosophy is also applicable to Jesus on the Cross. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
mother's day
|
|
Thanx,, its not until May 13 in the USA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Recovery from religion...
|
|
You're proving my point, if we all have to in the end worship God the same way to be saved, the relationship cannot be personal. Nothing you say will make it so, it still can't be. not all worship the same way, not all believe the same way and not all will be "saved" the same way every individual "dates" someone else so by ur words, none of these relationships are "personal"? or am i misunderstandin? My point is simply, if everyone is required to end up at the same place at the end of things, then they really can't have a personal relationship with God. Personal means it's something no one else can define but them. If I wanted to worship God through nature for example, I could, if wanted to pray to God using a particular name, I could. These are different ways to connect to God. If those ways are in effect not available, it cannot be personal because it would become more what God expects you to be, than what you wish to be. This is how religion works, it molds you into its' belief of what God wants, instead of letting you find God your own way on your own terms. It'd be like if you told your kids they could have a personal relationship with you, but they all had to play football. It doesn't work. Instead of figuring out what they like, what they desire out of life, what their goals and dreams are, you set the path out for them regardless of if they like or not. It becomes more about you and what you want for them than what they might want. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Religion makes it all about God, instead of about us. And any good parent worth their salt would take great care to allow their kids to make their own paths in life, to carve their own trail unique to them. If we know enough to do that, so does God. Hate to break it to you, but it is all about God and doing what God wants. It's not about us exactly in that sense. We don't obey God out of derest, or being forced. We obey God because we WANT to, because we are WILLING to obey. If one is not willing to obey, they by all means have that choice. But how then would they expect to get blessed in return? Why would God do your will, when you aren't doing his? You couldn't be more wrong. God is not a monster who will let you die if you don't live exactly right. No God is much more loving than that, thank goodness. Why wouldn't he allow you to continue to live? How would you ever ask for forgiveness and give your life over to God if he automatically judged you to death when you first commit a sin? Where's the compassion in that? There's no compassion in that either, the Biblical God is NOT AT ALL compassionate. The very idea that a loving God would need the blood of an innocent being to love people again after what other people did, is absurd! Love does not require death to be, period. Then on top of that, even after saying it's for all, if you do one thing wrong, you still die! Again NOT love. this is a logical point of view from the perspective of life that is singular and of the highest priority the logical point of view from the perspective of christians like myself though, is that there is EVERLASTING life, so the loss of the mortal life is not the worst thing the CREATOR of life can do as the CREATOR controls what life is in the first place and can give everlasting life after our flesh has expired,,, Yes, but why would God let ANYONE perish if it knows what is good for them? If you had a child who did something really wrong, would you punish them eternally for it or just for a while till they learn? If we know it's wrong, so does God. That simple. that presumes Gods knowledge is dependent upon ours, which is backwards to what christians like me believe death of the mortal flesh is a given to deliver from the spiritual sickness of sin eternal life is ours for the asking if we wish to live beyond the years of our mortal flesh DEATH is a GIVEN,,,the body expiring is a GIVEN not a punishment But eternal death is different. Put it this way, if God can save us from something that it KNOWS we don't want, even if we choose it, and having the capacity to do that doesn't take us from it, it is a bad God and a bad parent. No good parent worth their salt would allow their child to make a bad choice if he/she could stop them from doing it, and you know that. So if WE know that and as best we could with our limited abilities as humans would do all we could to protect our kids from harm, you don't think God being infinitely bigger and unlimited compared to we would do the same thing? It makes no sense. Firstly, as I said above any God that had the ability to save everyone (which we don't have), and chose not to do it, even knowing we wouldn't want the other choice is a failure as a God and as a parent, and further if this God somehow COULDN'T save everyone, well then it's not a God at all. I dont think you have children..lol no offense protecting our kids from harm doesnt mean making their decision for them,, we can talk to them and advise them best we can, but their decision is still THEIRS to make my father in heaven is no worse a parent for trying to counsel and be there but still allowing me to make my own decision,,, I don't, but here's my point. We can't make our decisions for them as parents here, you are right, we are limited in our abilities. But God ISN'T. God has all this ability, all this power, and yet it doesn't use it. What does he have it for then? I refuse to accept that a God who is on a higher plane than I am, would fail on that scale. God should be BETTER than we are, not worse or the same. Anything less isn't acceptable. AGAIN< this point of view seems to demand that God be there as 'service' to HUMANS not a view I share,,, If God is supposed to be love, the actions should back it up. And a God that would let anyone be killed or tortured for all eternity, even when it doesn't have to happen is not a loving God, to say nothing of demanding worship and praise like a damn egomaniac. That isn't love either. ok. I Think God is perfect, and just, and I am grateful for the everlasting life offered through Christ. I Think the egomaniacal personality expects someone else to constantly fix their mistakes for them. but to each their own,,, |
|
|
|
|
Previous
