Discussions
Do you believe in the religion you follow?
Posted by Uptowngal • 7/18/07 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
My latest post made me think of this "Do you believe in the religion you follow?Or do you only believe in it coz you were born in it?Did you ever question its beliefs?"
User Comments
-
I dont follow any religion. Beliefs are just delusions, beliefs are the human's way of finding a crutch, by projecting his wishes onto reality. Beliefs have no foundation. Beliefs are imaginary stuff, built to escape fear, to delude one's self into feeling safer about life, or to instil in people fear. Religious beliefs are all about CONTROL. Being born into a religion does not mean that religion is correct. All religions are mostly nonsense, in my view. There are better resources to wisdom around, than religion.
Its better to build hypotheses on life, that are open to the test of time. Should be approached logically, rationally. Human faculties are so fragile and so delicate that sometimes even our faculties like hearing/seeing give us wrong signals. One has to exercise caution. And NOT believe in something that one has not seen personally. Even the things one sees personally should not be judged immediately. Time is the only judge.
I wrote a blog entry on beliefs a few months back. In my dictionary, a 'belief' is a 'hypothesis'.
vikram-madan.blogspot.com/2006/11/beliefs.html-
I completely agree.Very well said.Will follow your post now.
-
"I dont follow any religion. Beliefs are just delusions, beliefs are the human's way of finding a crutch, by projecting his wishes onto reality."
That's fine. You can believe that if you choose.
-
-
Sure I do
AS Ziggy Marley said it best
Love is my Religion
Peace
Joanne
-
-
Well, culturally I'm a Christian, meaning that's how I was born and raised, and that's what determines the holidays we celebrate. But you won't find me in church very often, or praying for that matter. Still, I have respect for religion, and not just for the traditions upon which I was raised.-
early Christians never celebrated the Holidays some Christians celebrate now.
Birthdays were a day for a roman leader to torture a slave for the fun of it, and behead him/her.
Early Christians didn't celebrate most if not all what we do today... It was not a part of their system.
-
-
what he said -
As a high school teacher (who I respected) once told me, "You have to believe in something."
It doesn't necessarily mean religion, but beliefs are what drive us to do the things we do and how we live our lives. Without beliefs of any kind, what are we doing?
And at this point, I believe I'll go eat breakfast. -
So if a belief is a hypothese then you do have a belief system if you have a set of them....and even an Atheist has a set of beliefs about beliefs lol.....thats my belief anyway :o) -
I had some very strong spiritual experiences when I was very young, and have also experienced miraculous healing. So my faith is more based on experience.
-
Believe is a faith! Something that you haven't seen before is a faith. But if you believe in something because you already have done a deep analysis, then you trust something not in "the blind condition". There is 2 kind of religion that I knew, Theistic and Non-theistic. -
Let me share some words of wisdom from a Bahai friend of mine. When I try to understand faith and start analyzing, he compares my efforts to a scientist's analyzing sugar. What will I learn? Not the most important thing that a child can tell you right away: sugar is sweet. Apparently the same thing goes with faith. For me there is certainly a deep insight in this analogy.
-
Absolutely, 100%. But I wasn't raised in the religion I now practice, and came to my own conclusions as an adult. I definitely questioned its beliefs--in fact, for most of my life I didn't even feel the need to question because I was quite confident that I knew better than the church. Worked out pretty well for me, too. As I recently mentioned in another thread, I'd achieved everything I'd ever wanted by the time I was in my mid-thirties; I definitely wasn't one of those people who "just felt like something was missing" or who reached out for religion in a crisis. But when I started examining the REASONS behind all that "nonsense" the church taught, it was quite a revelation.-
"But when I started examining the REASONS behind all that "nonsense" the church taught, it was quite a revelation." --- Can you point me to one or two posts on your blog that would explain what is behind this sentence? Thanks!
-
Mark, I'm not sure whether I can. I'll have to think about what's there...or maybe write it. It's probably a good question to answer, if I haven't already.
-
you knew better than the church?
what denomination was that .. catholism or protestants -
Catholic, of course, GFG--otherwise the issue wouldn't even arise. But I didn't say I knew better than the church...I said that when I was younger I was quite confident that I did. VERY different statements.
-
-
i was born catholic and i will die a catholic...
i am one not because i was born one .. i chose to believe in it ...nobody took a gun to my neck and made me one ...
I chose to believe and i have faith in it... people who questions their own religion already shows signs on the lack of faith... you know what i mean -
if you were to tie a rope to yourself and trying to climb down the side of a 70 storey building with the end of the rope held on by your own mother would you have faith ? do you question or Reason if she's gonna drop you to the ground or if she is really your mother at that point?
-
You're talking about faith versus belief. They're not quite the same thing. You have to believe to have faith but you don't have to have faith to believe. Does that make sense? I think I just confused myself.
-
-
faith goes beyond beliefs ...
beliefs is a subset of fait... -
I'm believe in god, but not in my religion because catholic church is corrupted -
A little of both. I think we all have doubts but are proned to easily dismiss the issues w/ the religion of our birth.
Paul -
Absolutely! Every religion has its own bad side because they comprise people and people do bad things. However if you have the belief and faith in it no matter how corrupt the members are, you'll never be distracted by what you see and what you hear. To believe on something is to have a purpose, and having a purpose is having a life worth living.
-
Of course I really believe on my religion.. because this is not just the way of life but it's life it self -
yes..i believe in it..n never have any doubt about it..smile... -
@RTC~Yes,I agree with what ylou are saying.You have to believe in something,and one can believe in one's own conscience.What we call God is the goodness that is inherent in all of us.
-
I do not believe in a lot of faiths or religions or belief systems but I believe in everyones right to find a pathway that resonates with their truth.....and that truth is something no one else but you yourself can know :o)
-
I am Catholic and I believe in the existence of God, too bad though that I don't go to church religiously. -
I was born into a family who followed a mainstream protestant church.
As an adult, I converted to Catholicism.
I did so, after- Failing to find a loophole or logical flaw in the Catholic Church's teachings: particularly in the 'Of Human Life' encyclical
- Discovering that much of what I thought I knew about the Catholic Church was either about four centuries out of date, or simply wrong
-
yep ... it's a clear line where protestanism came from ... catholism ...
-
hmmnn...i tuned to be the other way around. born catholic but converted to protestantism 2 years ago.
-
I shy away from all forms of institutionalized religions: I feel that at the very core, all religions preach the same message, unfortunately, this message gets corrupted over time, especially if the message becomes "exclusively owned" by a certain class/section of people who then use this knowledge to control and influence the masses. I've also been very disillusioned by the masses who seem unable [unwilling?] to think for themselves, and continue to surrender their power to that class/section of people.
I would like to believe there is some sort of intelligent and compassionate greater/higher power up above. I believe the way to figure that out is within myself. I've not been consistent with my spiritual journey though, need to get on it
so, to answer part of your question - in a way you might say I don't believe in the religion I was raised in, then again, I probably believe in it in a better/more responsible way than those who raised me.. -
I was not raised with any religion,
and I do not belong to any religion
now. However, my spiritual beliefs
are very important to me and shape
my perception of life.
And, even though my family did not
practice any religion, I still wound
up with a Catholic nun for a sister...
so that makes Jesus my brother-in-law
in a way, I figure.
Seriously though, I have great respect
for my sister who became a nun, and
although I have not seen her in decades,
as she is cloistered, we do occasionally
exchange e-mails, and there is a potent
sense of PEACE that comes forth from her
messages. I treasure that... it's like
the scent of a flower drifting by on a
gentle breeze as you stroll though a
garden. (Oh, that reminds me of that
wonderful film about St. Francis, called
Brother Sun, Sister Moon. Anyone else
see that one?) -
I believe in God, I don't know about Religion. I don't know if what is written down is not changed in some way and if it is what God really meant or means for us. Books left out of the Christians Bible and rewritten to suit some rulers beliefs make me sick at the thought. I will always believe in a Loving God, but humanity has split up his teachings, it's all just a circus now. I do like the teachings of Buddha, and it never conflicts with my beliefs about God.
-
If you don't believe in the religion you're following, then you're really not following it, so the question is kind of paradoxic.
I think spirituality is more important than religion, and apparently Jesus did too.-
JL, I think that's very much not true, at least in the sense that I took the question. I know a great many practicing Catholics who follow all of the rules as they understand them and attend mass weekly and receive the sacraments and pray sincerely and all of that who do not know or understand many of the core teachings of the church or the roots of those teachings. I think those people are "following their religion" without fully understanding it or even knowing whether or not they accept and believe it completely.
-
-
@VikramMadan:
Despite all the philosophies and the supposed "logical and rational" words that you have said, you have failed miserably in understanding the essence of life..
Those sensible enough, will know what I'm talking about..
"To be ignorant can be forgiven once, but to choose to remain ignorant is the biggest foolishness a person can choose to be!"
Best regards,
Wakish -
I suppose I might answer your question better if I had a more clear understanding of what it means to be a part of a religion.
There is no clear answer. A religion can be as stereotypical as The Church or as political and invisible as the political agenda of the war on terror.
The latter, as a sort of religion, is made possible because the term "religion" has many different uses. Because it has many uses, it has many different meanings.
Consider these cases, and the distinct sense of religion that is a condition of its use:
1. He was a religious man. He went to church everyday, and loved Jesus.
2. He made politics his religion: he studied texts, manipulated content to suit his reelection campaign, and spoke as if possessed by a higher calling.
3. He considered himself to be a religious man, and he thought we were all God's children--he thought we should all be treated equally--this, despite the unreasonable conservatism that ruined the possibility of social reform in his church.
4. He was a religious man, but didn't think it justifiable that God had cause to control how he ate. Thus, he did not keep kosher.
These are all intelligible examples of how the simple expression "the man is religious" can be used and/or functional in various ways, in different situations, and appropriate only to certain social groups.
Now, back to your question--"do you believe in your religion for the sake of your religion or do you believe it because its merely cultural"?
I hope I have demonstrated the extent to which use--as determined by social environments (social contexts, culture, history, whatever you want to call it) is always in the grammar of our thought and language. In fact, the way you learned to ask that question, that is, to make a distinction between between "believing in a religion in itself" and "believing it because its part of your culture" introduces a characteristic way of talking that is made possible our social situation(s) exist in the way they do.
So from my end, it is simply impossible to separate out "believing a religion" and "believing a religion merely because its a part of your cultural existence"--the latter is presupposed in the former, albeit implicitly (and invisibly).-
For what it's worth, "religion" has a specific legal definition in the United States, based on Supreme Court cases about the free exercise of religion.
-
-
As far as the Bible goes, it explains that God wants to give meaning to our lives. And the way to experience that is to let go of our control (or perceived control anyway - unless you call messing things up "control"). There's a freedom there. It's not about guilt for messing up. There's a freedom in knowing that whatever happens, God still delights in us. Whatever happens, His goal is to have us near Him. That's nice.
So, yeah, I believe what I follow. Takes a burden of years of guilt and feeling undeserving off, you know? -
-
yes -
Willow-
All religions do not preach the same message.
Some sects of Hinduism preach that you should worship the phallus and be promiscuous. Atheist make a religion out of having faith in unexplainable spontaneous generation. And there's a big difference between polytheistic and monotheistic religions. Even religions that may spring from the same source (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) have totally different messages and ethical codes, and preach different understandings of the universe and God as well as ways to salvation.-
In lieu of Joseph's comments, a more reasonable position for Willow to take might be this:
"[Some] religions have shared [themes]." He might then consider explaining what he meant by theme. "Theme" might express what Willow had in mind, that is, that certain religions share very general themes, in the same way that we might say "science fiction books share certain characteristics" -
Thank you! Instead of adding my rant on the subject, I'll leave a link. It's a comment I made in another online community.
irish-brigid.livejournal.com/91391.html
A word of warning, though: I'm one of the masses. I'm also, according to some definitions, "poor, uneducated, and easily led."
-
The unknown can be filled with from God to the Flying Spagetti Monster. Atheists leave it as the unknown.
-
-
I surely believe my religion and it's my compass in living in this world -
I follow the religion of the Golden Rule and yes I try to practice it everyday -
can we just have our own unique ways in perceiving and communicating with God?
i was raised a Christian, i grew up in a Moslem society, and i have strong beliefs in today's humanism --a quite secular one.
sure i believe everything i follow. that is exactly why follow it =]
but i do not need religious "procedures" to keep me civilized.. although i do need God to keep me humane and humble. and when i am not in peace, i will seek solutions..
i don't blame religions. i just don't want to sell out the virtues of spirituality --as I know it to be-- merely for the sake of superiority or social recognition.
there's too much people in this world claiming that they're the word of God. God could very much speak for itself. that is how i believe it would be.
..i'm rambling.-
We all can't help having our unique perceptions and ways.
It's part of being human.
I'm glad that you don't blame religions, or religion. Freud worked that field pretty well, although quite a few crops have been grown there after his.
As far as selling "the virtues of spirituality --as I know it to be-- merely for the sake of superiority or social recognition." That sounds like good sense. Spirituality for position and profit didn't do all that much for the Pharisees, in the long run.
-
Thank you, Norski... it's good to know that I am allowed to feel safe in my own belief.
In my opinion, it is in the eyes of men and women that we see God... therefore our action and reaction towards the idea of Godliness reflects how we perceive our own society.
Request permission to stray off topic. Is it okay?
Okay? Okay.
I saw one educational cartoon on TV just the other day, it's called The Village of 100 People. Bottom line it describes the statistics of differences in our world, such as gender, economy, etcetera AND religion
and there's this part that said,
Every religion in the world shared one thing in common: everything we do or give to others, will be done or given back to us
Well BC is quite like a Village of 100 People.. so.. lol
ps: I've tried googling for that cartoon's website everywhere, can't find it. The narrator always starts with "If the world were a village of 100 people....". I really recommend it to every parent here in BC..
God bless
-
-
I believe in experimentation. My brain wants to know it all. But I try to stick to being kind, funny and giving. -
Ok...how many here are willing to do the following, for the sake of their FAITH, for the sake of their RELIGION:
1. Stake their life on the fact that their FAITH/RELIGION is RIGHT. I am not saying 'be violent to others or become a terrorist'.
2. Stake their entire life's earnings if necessary, to prove that their FAITH/RELIGION is right. Do not say things like 'i give tithe etc. regularly'...I am saying 'your entire life's earnings, if your religion/God's work demands it, all in one go.'
I request the discussion list members to answer honestly. Otherwise this discussion is just useless talk that's going nowhere.-
I just came across your new questions literally minutes after completing a post that relates very closely to my response to this--which is that I think that most people who truly believe in and follow their religions believe in good faith that they WOULD do those things (and perhaps even long, on some level, for the opportunity), but our actual day-to-day actions tend to suggest otherwise.
catholicinside.blogspot.com/2007/07/if-only-we-knew-what-god-wanted.html -
1. I put my life in God's hands every day.
2. My religion would not demand such a thing. The one thing it does insist I do is accept Jesus as my savior.
I am Catholic and I will be working on strengthening my faith until the day I die. Faith is believing in the unseen, the unproven. It is illogical and difficult, but it is the core of my being. This life is just a flash in the pan...a fleeting existance with joy, but also pain and suffering, which is often the road to faith. Maybe those who have suffered understand this more readily than those who have only charmed experiences so far. In any case, having faith is difficult and takes courage. My religious beliefs are not at all about control. Look at the freedom God gives us each second to choose what we will believe and how we will behave. He knows what is best for us every moment. But he pulls back, lets us decide and hopes we will follow him. -
Eavesdrop, why do you say your religion wouldn't demand such a thing with such confidence? The history of the Catholic church is filled with saints--some not so distant--who were asked to give up comfortable lives and the plans they'd made for themselves in favor of taking on God's work. Mother Theresa left her order and begged for food in the streets of Calcutta to survive while she began to build what has become an international order, and there are hundreds of similar examples.
I'm also interested in this statement: "The one thing it does insist I do is accept Jesus as my savior." You said that you are Catholic, and the Catholic religion in fact demands a good deal more than that. Maybe you're just saying that you disagree with the church's view of what is necessary for salvation, but this confused me a little since you seem to be saying that's all your religion requires.
-
-
I follow the Taoist philosophy.
Was put through all kinds of variations of christianity in my youth and got a bit jaded by it all.
A bit like being taught shakespear in school, learning to despise it, only to re-discover it later on in life and finding out that if you follow your own mind and not someone elses, you actually like it.
Hasn't quite worked out that way with organised religion, but you never know. -
MadameX, you write: "people who truly believe in and follow their religions believe in good faith that they WOULD do those things" (You are addressing my questions, I presume.)
Evesdropwriter, you write: "My religion would not demand such a thing." Since you mark this point as 2, I assume you are addressing my point 2--i.e. MONEY.
The bible says:
Luke 12:33: SELL THAT YE HAVE, AND GIVE ALMS....; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.
"SELL THAT YE HAVE, AND GIVE ALMS."---->Jesus tells his followers to sell everything they own and give the money to the poor.
So....unless you do this, you are not following the bible totally. From what I understand, a bible believer is supposed to follow EVERYTHING the bible says. Not doing it means you are assuming that the bible may be wrong, which goes against the christian assertion that the bible is TOTALLY infallible and inerrant....'the word of God'.
So , by not following what the above verse says....you are...defying the word of God. AND/OR are not a true believer.
What are your comments to my response? Thank you. Others in the list are most welcome to comment too.
Vikram-
Yes, I am supposed to follow everything the bible says. But I don't because I'M fallable, the bible isn't. And I am defying God and do so many times a day in my attempts to be a faithful Catholic. I fail frequently. Luckily, Jesus has already paid for my sins, past and future, so I can continue stumbling along and being human but with earnest effort to live in his image. It's also possible to interpret the bible too literally. Like every written word, the context is just as important as the letters.
-
Vikram, I could write a book in response to this post and probably still not address everything that it raises, so I will try to just throw out a couple of thoughts (running in different directions, of course).
First, many biblical quotations taken out of context seem to mean something that they may not have been intended to mean. For instance, Jesus made demands of his disciples (ie: to leave behind their homes) that were necessary for their specific mission and may apply only figuratively to the rest of us. The same is true for OT directives that came straight from God--we're not all bound to spend our lifetimes building an arc, after all. What we are bound to do is to follow the instructions we do receive in faith and without question.
Luke 12:22-34 speaks of dependence on God, and while it does say "sell your belongings and give alms", but it is a counterpoint to the immediately preceding parable of the man who stored up his harvest, building larger barns so that he could keep his goods to himself, and it emphasizes dependence on God and the importance of building up spiritual treasure. There is no indication that it is a literal exhortation to all people to divest themselves of all property.
That said, I do agree that the vast majority of those of us who self-identify as Christians live lives far too comfortable to truly BE Christian lives. It's difficult for me to understand how things like consumer electronics and $45,000 cars can EVER be valid things to spend money on when there are people all around us who are starving or can't afford safe, clean shelter for their children.
However, one of the things the Bible is definitely clear on is that none of us are perfect. If we make a conscious effort and cooperate with the holy spirit and make use of the sacraments Christ left us, then we can inch slowly toward perfection in our lifetimes, but no one, including the apostles, gets it all right in this life.
-
-
Vikram
Bible is not everything - only protestanism takes the bible for word and people who dont understand christianity takes bible for everything..it's not..
Jesus didnt have his copy of bible..-
GFG, just want to clarify that this is not the Catholic position. I have no desire to quibble with your personal beliefs, but since there is so much misconception among the Protestant community that Catholics don't "believe in the Bible", I think it's very important to clarify that while the church believes that there is revealed truth that is not included in the Bible, that truth NEVER conflicts with the Bible. The church absolutely considers the Bible to be 100% true and binding. There are two distinctions from Protestant perceptions:
1. Catholics do not believe that the Bible is the ONLY source of God's truth on earth.
2. Some Protestant sects (not all) believe that all of the stories in the Bible are literal truth, while Catholics and many other Protestants believe that some of the text is metaphorical and instructive rather than historical.
-
-
Bible is not 100% the word of god ..but interpretation of the word of god by followers ... i am catholic and i dont take bible word for word..
-
The idea that the Bible is "interpretation of the word of God by followers" is a direct contradiction of Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 105, clearly states:
GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented inthe text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books fo the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."
-
-
GFG, then people should not say 'Bible is the word of God', unless they can substantiate it. Unless they can put their 'money' where their mouth is.
You say bible is not 100% the word of God, I appreciate your honesty, but there are millions who say it is the word of God. By the way, what are your answers to my questions 1 and 2, in my last to last to last post? -
MadameX...this is a delicate point....but, your bible....the way it talks about women, at many points....it amazes me.....for example:
1 COR 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1 COR 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Very Clear instructions.....and pathetic attitude towards women.
You write: GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented inthe text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Well...I dont understand this "divine revelation" I just mentioned.
i.e. 1 COR 11:15 and 1 COR 11:16.
What kind of God would write out such a silly punishment?
What kind of a God would treat women this way---if she prays with her head uncovered, she should be shorn!! These sound like the words of a megalomaniac/sadist who makes excuses to punish! We have all seen such people. Pardon such strong words, but I did not have any other words that fit here.
Aren't there more serious things in life that deserve focus than hue and cry over shearing a woman's hair if she prays with her head uncovered! What kind of priorities does this God have? I fail to understand.
Vikram-
Vikram, have you read the entire Bible, slowly and in an honest attempt to understand the things you say here you "fail to understand"? I ask only because you ask me ot explain two sentences out of a book that is (in the printing on my desk, at least) one thousand three hundred and ninety-four pages long. I cannot do that any more than I could explain to you why the author of any other 1000+ page book made one isolated statement if you had not read the book, did not know the characters intimately, did not understand the broader themes presented, etc. I'm not saying that's the case--for all I know, you've read the Bible many times. But if you have not, then I really have only two answers for you: if you do not truly wish to understand, don't try to start a debate in the guise of a question; if you do truly wish to understand, begin with the source.
-
I would like to say in this specific context, though, that you've entirely misinterpreted the passage, which does not in any way suggest shearing a woman's hair if she prays with her head uncovered, but rather says that just as it is shameful for a woman to be shorn, so it is for her to pray with her head unveiled. The actual text says "For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off." (as in, it is just as bad as having her hair cut off)
-
-
I meant ------1 COR 11:5, 1 COR 11:6 in my last post-----NOT 11:15, 11:16...bad typing, sorry.
-
-
I was born into a Christian family; however, we did not follow it very closely, didn't go to church, and basically just had the basic label. Sometime when I was in the 8th grade I started going to church and learning more about it and I can safely say that I believe in the religion that I FOLLOW.
I know this isn't the case for everyone though. I don't think its right to have a labelled religion because if you aren't following it, or at least intending to follow it... then it really isn't your failth to begin with. -
This whole world is under the power of the wicked ones.
Every single religion is a form of Idolatry which breaks the first two commandments that Moses wrote down.
Since the corruption of Christianity being Romanized in the fourth century, Christianity has been utterly blood guilty, drowning in Idolatry. Murdering throughout the years of the crusades, having a firm grip on the governments Europe, which the Vatican was, and kind of still is, the leader of spilling blood.
The Cross is a symbol of war, one path crossing the other. Pure Idolatry, which the bubonic plague of 590 proved to be curse upon the religion of the lower entities. The Black Plague of 1347-50 also was a curse but mankind is unable to dig themselves out of the hole they got themselves into.
The Catholics just pass the plate, fleecing the flock, while the clergy show themselves with an outward appearance, acting like they abstain from sex. Now they are being uncovered slowly but surely because of what results from Idolatry; Wickedness.
The clergy are vipers and thieves, clinging on to the falsehood which has controlled the western world for over 1500 years.
Religion serves the purpose for a person of weak faith; to go someplace and start cultivating some faith. After a person's faith is strong enough they need to leave the religion of Idolatry. I am referring to all and every single religion on the face of this earth. -
MadameX...I have not misinterpreting the passage, because I am merely QUOTING what the bible says. Not using my own words, but QUOTING TEXT FROM THE BIBLE.
You say "...which does not in any way suggest shearing a woman's hair if she prays with her head uncovered"
Please read the CAPITALISED TEXT in the following verses again. ONCE AGAIN I am QUOTING the bible, NOT INTERPRETING IT.
KJV 1 COR 11:5 "FOR IF THE WOMAN BE NOT COVERED, LET HER ALSO BE SHORN": but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
RSV 1 COR 11:5 "FOR IF A WOMAN WILL NOT VEIL HERSELF, THEN SHE SHOULD CUT OFF HER HAIR; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn shaven, let her wear a veil.
BBE 1 COR 11:5 "FOR IF A WOMAN IS NOT VEILED, LET HER HAIR BE CUT OFF; but if it is a shame to a woman to have her hair cut off, let her be veiled."
ACV 1 COR 11:5 FOR IF A WOMAN IS NOT COVERED, LET HER ALSO SHEAR HERSELF. But if it is an ugly thing for a woman to shear herself or be shaven, she should be covered.
WEB 1 COR 11:5 FOR IF A WOMAN IS NOT COVERED, LET HER ALSO BE SHORN. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
The meaning from these bibles, KJV, BBE, WEB,ACV, RSV is clear. Punishment for the woman, i.e. her head deserves to be shorn, if she prays with her head uncovered.
Please do not say 'you are not interepreting it correctly'...because like I said before, I am QUOTING, NOT INTERPRETING. The meaning is crystal clear.
Such talk that degrades women(i.e. shear their heads!) cannot be the word of God.
regards.-
Out of context but may be relevant.There is a wavy scroller on my blog that reads'Opinions are like assholes,everyone has one but no one wants to see the other guys'
PS-Pure humour -
Perhaps it's not your interpretation, Vikram. As you know, the Bible was not originally written in English, and the prceise phrasing varies from one "version" of the Bible to another. Huge mistakes in interpretation are made due to small changes in the translation. I won't pretend to have the authoritative view on which is the most accurate translation (none, of course, duplicate exactly the expression of the original), but my Bible says exactly what I quoted above: "For if a woman does not have her head veiled, she may as well have her hair cut off."
Since it was the Catholic church that initially assembled the books of the Bible and the Catholic church that produced the first Bible, I tend to believe that the Catholic Bible is a more accurate reflection of the original scripture, especially given that we know that Protestant leaders (in particular Martin Luther) made specific and intentional changes to the existing Bible when their sects split off from the Church.
Thus, I still believe that what you've pointed out here is a misinterpretation, whether or not it is yours. You can draw your own conclusions as to the accuracy and consistency of the various texts and who has carried forth the true spirit of the law. I would suggest, however, that you consider your own words above--you said, "Such talk...cannot be the word of God". Perhaps it is not.
The historical context is most likely that certain "questionable" classes of women in that time, primarily prostitutes, are believed to have been the only women who wore their hair cut short, and a woman not covering her head during prayer was seen to be likening herself to that class of women in immodesty and disrespect.
This thread is getting long--maybe I missed your response about having read the Bible in its entirety? -
the Bible is a spiritual book not fleshly. It is also a living book, if you seek the Lord and understanding of His word then it is perfectly understandable. If, however, you are not, it makes no sense at all. God is GREAT! -
I almost hate responding to this, because these questions are basically an argument for the sake of arguing. But to clarify, Vikram is quoting 1 Cor 11:6 not 1 Cor 11:5, which is what MadameX is quoting. However, ironically, if you read the whole chapter, the point is that the Church is being divided by details when it should be focused on God and His promise of salvation through Christ. Occasionally, you have to keep reading or you're like the chimp and the apple. (Okay, it was fruit, I don't remember which one before anyone slams my analogy.) -
Vixious, the irony just keeps growing--if you'd read further up the thread, you would have seen that my initial point was that there was no meaningful way to discuss this single line out of context. I asked Vikram whether he'd read the whole Bible so as to have a basis for intelligent conversation on the issue, but he hasn't responded on that point.
-
-
Okay, who left their tags open and made everyone's post bold? I can't seem to get rid of it, either.
Now my answer, which does not require bold type:
I was raised Protestant but didn't really believe even as a child. I tried really hard, was even baptized at age 12, but it never really took. In college I gave Wicca a try. The ideas made a little more sense to me, but I still just felt like I was acting in a play. I didn't really believe any of it. I eventually came to the conclusion that it was a belief in any god that was the problem, not the specific kind of god.
Now I consider myself an agnostic Humanist. I'm not going to say for sure that there is no higher power, because you can't prove an absence. But I'll say I think it's very unlikely, and even more unlikely that it would take the form of any one religion's god. -
James 1:27 True religion and undefiled before God the father is this, to visit the widows and fatherless in their affliction and to remain unspotted from the world.
(this is the only time the Bible even mentions the word religion. What does God's definition of religion have to do with mans'. once again man fails)
hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I had doubt 'til the Lord gave me faith. I had faith 'til the Lord showed me belief. I no longer believe in God, I believe God and because His steady, unwavering hand whips my butt if I don't (thank God), I follow exactly what I believe. -
This whole world is under the power of the wicked ones and religion is a big part of it.
Every single religion breaks the first two Commandments that Moses wrote down.
Spirituality has do with not have any attachments of this world, not even family as Jesus taught.
Jesus said to be no part of this world, James says what? to remain unspotted from the world. Yes not to have anything to do with it.
Religion is Idolatry.
Kind of funny about the head covering subject. The new chruch group in Corinth had problems big time. Paul was writing about the culture in verses 3-12 at that time, and then if you would read on, Paul says to judge for yourselves at verse 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice.
There is your answer; For long hair is given to her as a covering.
Hello ding dong I hope the bell goes off.
Only religions create rules, upon rules, upon rules -
MadameX Said about Catholic friends:
"I think those people are "following their religion" without fully understanding it or even knowing whether or not they accept and believe it completely."
Are they following their religion or are they following their culture and habit? The religion is not just the ceremonies and the tithes.
In my opinion the people of whom you speak are not following their religion, they are just following their cultural forces of habit.
But then again, in my opinion, they should not be following the "religion" either; they should be developing their spirituality.-
Well, JL, for Catholics (and I would expect any Christian), obedience is often the first step toward "developing their spirituality". In fact, it may well be that it doesn't work in the other direction at all, that you can't continue to call the shots and have everything your way and develop your spirituality at the same time. (I realize that's not what you were saying; I'm just pointing out that for many, following the "rules" even without fully understanding the why can be a first step toward opening up to the authority that will deliver that clarity. Unfortunately, too often it is not and it becomes an end result that's not especially beneficial to anyone. But I think it is--at least much of the time--something deeper and better intentioned than simple habit that inspires the effort.
-
-
"Very Clear instructions.....and pathetic attitude towards women."
Says you, probably because of the political correct memes that you have been bombarded with since birth. Sometimes the truth doesn't agree with the popular consensus.
But I'm not saying that it's right to have women veiled. It could be that those passages were added by the church to control their population. That's why to me, the Bible offers inspiration and history and contains many "words from God," but the indisputable truth comes from spirituality, YOUR personal relationship with God and the truths you've learned from it. What does God say to you about women and veils when you talk to him? -
I believe in my religion because I came it on my own terms. I was not raised in a religious family but a philosophical family. Religion was a personal exploration. -
My last two posts may seem out of the topic but they are not. I raised certain issues that are aimed at highlighting how difficult it is for many people, to believe and follow things written in the bible. Hence the verses 1 COR 11:5,6 (status of women in the bible).
Seeing the responses of people who follow the bible highlight HOW they defend their faith/belief, how they justify their path to themselves. They are trying the impossible. Atleast from where I see it.
It is very very difficult for me to accept bible as a wisdom text, after seeing many of the things it says about women.
The status of women in the bible comes across as horrible, not just to me but to millions.
One more example, out of so many:
1 COR 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; AND THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN IS THE MAN; and the head of Christ is God.
Well...I believe in freedom and equality of the sexes. I am nobody's 'head' and nobody is my 'head'. I cannot accept such verses as 'words of wisdom'.
People say 'Bible is God's word...and God knows how to protect his word'...well...'God' certainly has not protected the various INTERPRETATIONS and TRANSLATIONS that are available everywhere....
So when one says 'The Bible is God's word'...I say..'ehhhh...WHICH BIBLE!!!!'
I have noticed that accepting the Bible(or the Quran or the Gita etc) as true generates in many people a phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance".
This is generated because such people are forcing themselves to believe that the bible is valid, although secretly they are convinced that there are many things wrong with the bible. i.e. a CONFLICT exists in their head which they DENY, to the world of course, and even to themselves!
There is a famous saying that goes 'You lie so much to yourself, that you almost believe yourself'. This is cognitive dissonance. This applies to people who claim that the Bible is God's word. This also applies to people who claim 'Quran is divine'. Also to people who claim 'The Gita is divine.'
The phrase is COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. The result of forcing yourself to believe an inconsistent, self contradicting ideology/belief-sytem/divine book. This COGNITIVE DISSONANCE makes christians fight with each other over 'what the bible really means'. This war will never end!!!
I wonder why, if the Bible is the word of God--WHY their 'God' does not intervene and clear out the confusion. Doesnt their God want to 'protect and clarify his word'? Doesnt their 'God' want to remove the confusion?
regards. -
A few points, Vikram. First, since I note that this is the third post in which you've responded to everything but my inquiry as to whether or not you've actually read the Bible, I will assume that you have not. That makes it difficult, in my mind, for you to take a meaningful position, just as it would if you were commenting on the value of any other book you had not read.
Second, you've explained cognitive dissonance incorrectly. You appear to use it correctly in your first reference, but when you go on to say "'You lie so much to yourself that you almost believe it.' This is cognitive dissonance." you either misunderstand the concept or express yourself poorly. In fact, the idea of lying to oneself to the point of belief is a means of dealing with cognitive dissonance, not cognitive dissonance itself. Cognitive dissonance is the discord and discomfort that arises from holding conflicting beliefs.
Ironically, I have experienced precisely the kind of dissonance you seem to be describing when I attempted to reject Biblical principles and follow what I deemed my own conscience. Note that this had nothing to do with conditioning or guilt, because I grew up without religious practice and never opened a Bible until I was an adult. The vast majority of my beliefs nonetheless naturally coincided with the Bible and the teachings of the Church. Those that did not required a lot of work, though that wasn't clear to me at the time. And I put up a lot of good arguments about why I didn't need them and knew better and all that as well (as do most)--I was a lawyer and taught logic, among other things, so I didn't give up my "side" easily-- but in the end, the realization that the truth was one piece and not an a la carte menu to be subjected to my own tastes and parsed as I liked did away with any dissonance about anything whatsoever.
Re your last line, God is happy to remove the confusion for those who honestly want to learn--those who do not have "ears to hear" do not hear, no matter what is said...that's covered in the Bible as well. Maybe you should check it out -
MadameX, yes I have read the entire bible, and have 5 different versions of the bible on my PC....which I used, to quote the 5 versions of 1 COR 11:5. Which you accepted as correct, after reading the verses---i.e. Head shorn punishment for women IS indeed mentioned in the bible.
-
Actually, I did not accept those as correct; I explained why I did not accept the later translations controlled by Protestant sects that by their own admission set out to make changes.
I'm curious as to why it took you four posts to respond to my inquiry about having read the Bible, when I clearly indicated that I could not respond fully if you had not. I can only assume that it was because you did not wish a full response that might have shed some real light on the subject. I understand that fighting the truth can be wearying work.
-
-
MadameX....you are not commenting AT ALL on the status of women in the bible. My stand is 'status of women in the bible is horrible'....and I have posted many verses that justify my stand. Please see my previous threads. What do you say about this?
-
Your stand is based, so far as I can see, on two things that I see as entirely irrelevant, which makes meaningful response difficult. First, you base your view of the "status of women" on a passage that I think is improperly translated in the Bible to which you refer. Second, you base the "horrible" nature of the status of women in the Bible on the fact that it conflicts with your personal view of what the status of women should be. Personally, I find that when my personal view of something conflicts with God's view of that same thing, I'm wrong. Your "stand" seems to be that God is wrong and you know better. I lived a lot of my life with that outlook, and for the most part it was pretty comfortable and worked out pretty well for me, but it wasn't right. I didn't design the world, or the people in it, and I'm not in a position to say what the appropriate relationship or status of certain people to one another might be. You didn't either, so your view of what the "status" of women should be seems equally unimportant to me. But you can't invalidate the Bible on the basis of the fact that something in it seems to you like something God shouldn't say...God knows all sorts of things that don't fit in our brains.
-
-
I missed your question earlier. Now I have responded.
Kindly comment on the status of women in the bible, with verses/quotes.
I have made my stand clear. Status of women in the bible is horrible.
And I have quoted some verses, the meaning of which is very clear. If you can prove to me that the status of women in the bible is 'good', with VERSES to back it up, I will be very happy.
regards-
"Good" according to whose standards?
-
-
The only standard that is SANE is --equality of the sexes. Kindly post verses from the bible that INSIST BEYOND DOUBT that there should be equality between the sexes. I have posted verses that degrade women. Please post verses that CLEARLY INSIST that MEN AND WOMEN ARE OF EQUAL STATUS in EVERY RESPECT. This is the only yardstick I can accept.
-
That can be done fairly easily, what you're missing is that the chapter you quoted says just that - men and women are equal in God. Seriously, read the thing. Please do not keep quoting the same 1 line of scripture translated 7 different times and act like you've given weighty evidence for an argument. You're just arguing. However, I understand that you feel that you are right and that your rightness is complete to you.
-
-
yes, my mistake on the bit about cognitive dissonance. You are right--'you lie so much you believe yourself' is a way of dealing with cognitive dissonance.
Now the rest-----please post verses that will convince people that status of men and women in the bible is EQUAL in every respect.-
Well, see, this is where we get into trouble. Initially, you asked me to demonstrate that the status of women was "good". I asked for a definition because it seemed to me (rightly, I see now) that your definition of good meant "what is acceptable to Vikram", whereas mine hinges on what is acceptable to God. Now, you ask me to demonstrate that the status of men and women is "equal", and I again suspect that we are using different definitions, and that you do not mean "equal" at all, but rather "identical". I can't demonstrate that, nor do I wish to.
It seems that what you really want me to do is to demonstrate to you that the Bible conforms to your moral and philosophical standards, or to concede that it's wrong because it does not. That's a lot like a child demanding that I prove to her that her mother is a good parent and then imposing the restriction that "good" is defined as a parent who lets her eat jelly beans for every meal. I can't demonstrate that God conforms to your standards, but neither can I see any reason that anyone, including you, should expect him to.
-
-
Allright...I'll quote some other chapter then.
Here is Genesis 3:16 on how the unconditionally loving 'God' looks at women:
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
"thy husband shall rule over thee''.....the meaning is CRYSTAL CLEAR. Inequality of the sexes, prescribed by the bible.
Why dont you post some verses from the bible that INSIST BEYOND DOUBT that WOMEN AND MEN ARE EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS?-
Genesis 3:16 is a curse of sorts, it says husband/wife, not men/women, but regardless, I think it's a pretty fair prediction considering the superior role men tend to feel. After all, my fair little head couldn't possibly argue the Bible as well as you could I'd point out that the passage you quoted did not say whether the behavior was right or wrong, simply that it would be. I'm not saying I'm offering a great argument on the passages behalf, but simply countering your argument which was fairly flimsy. I'm assuming you did a search for that information. Keep reading and Adam didn't get off too easy either. LOL
The problem with this is I do not have the burden of proof. This is your argument. You have no desire for me to prove you wrong, you simply want to be right. You said you thought beliefs were a crutch and silly, so why are you creating a conflict unless you hoped to belittle those who have a belief system? The fact that you think I'm wrong doesn't make you right. -
Okay, I cannot use someone else's bad behavior to excuse my own. I apologize for my comments about men feeling superior. Although, I think it is a common attitude within society, I do realize not every man feels this way. I absolutely hate sweeping judgments, which is why I posted in the first place. So, to the male half of the population, I apologize
I'd also like to say, yes, I am a Christian and I have the gift of faith. I was not born into a religion and for most of my life I sounded an awful lot like some others here. I no longer think that way.
-
-
I believe in my religion, give thanks daily and talk to the man every sunday.
Note: Uh hmm, someone up in this thread left the bold font turned on. -
The reason I started the 'status of women in the bible' topic here was not to belittle anyone but to discuss, like I explained earlier--to discuss that people do not believe what they follow. i.e. many women follow the bible although they feel that the bible degrades/disrespects women. This is exactly what the topic of this thread asks....'Do you believe in the religion you follow?'
The topic of this thread reflects what I have seen in reality. People who follow their religion blindly. They are not convinced that their religion is totally right, still they follow it. They follow their religion because either they were born into that religion, or their father/mother belongs to that religion.
The issue of 'women in the bible/other religions' is just an example I have used.
I am not against christians, if anyone got offended, my apologies, that was not the intention. What I said about the bible---I have found the same thngs in other religions too, like Hinduism and Islam.....i.e. disrespect for women.-
The whole world is under the power of the wicked ones.
Religion is a tool of the wicked lower entities to control the masses of people.
Religion uses sex, fear, guilt, shame and dominating over women to have control.
Lower entity worship is based on rituals and repetition, never coming to an accurate knowledge of the truth.
Religion is an object of Idolatry and the above are the results of the Idolatry.
You are correct, religion does dominate women in a very harsh way.
Every single religion in the face of the earth break the first two commandments that Moses wrote down. All Religion is Idolatry.
-
-
Yes Enlight, that is what I have been saying...religions like islam, christianity & hinduism are very very brutal and harsh towards women.
-
Thats right because all religion is under the power of the wicked entities influence (satan). People with an attachment to their religion take these things very personal. It's because of them being positioned, and their deep attachment to their religion.
Christians won't even look at the history of the organization of Christianity so then they remain ignorant. Christianity is so blood guilty, the organization is drowning, and will never be able to swim out of it.
-
-
Enlight, even hindus fight with each other like vicious mad dogs.
Buddhists fight with each other like crazy maniacs!
Muslims kill each other all the time. Shia and Sunni riots are so common.
They are all drowning, not just christian organisations.
Hindu organisations are corrupt, greedy. Muslim organisations are corrupt, greedy. Christian organisations are also corrupt, greedy. They are all the same. Hostile, violent people. -
I agree, all religion is is corrupt. When a person cultivates enough faith they need to leave their religion, and study all scripture that is available. The Bhagavad Gita, The Dhammapada, The Tao Te Ching, The Rig Veda, The Hebrew Scriptures, The Greek, The Koran.
The non-positioned, non-attached person will come to an accurate knowledge of the truth and live by Faith and show love and not just say it.
This whole world is under the power of the wicked ones. -
Enlight, yes I agree...all religions are corrupt, and this world is 'under the power of the wicked ones' like you say. And this entire problem finds its roots in the suppression of women over thousands of years. I have researched this issue a lot.
I have written a blog entry on this issue, entitled 'The Original Sin':
vikram-madan.blogspot.com/2007/02/are-humans-insane-part-2-case-of-zeenat.h...
Here is a teaser from this blog entry:
"Suppression of the feminine principle over the last few thousand years has enabled the ego to gain absolute supremacy in the collective human psyche. Although women have egos, ofcourse, the ego can take root and grow more easily in the male form than in the female. If the balance between male and female energies had not been destroyed on this planet, the ego's growth[hence human insanity's growth] would have been greatly curtailed. We would not have declared war on nature, and we would not be so completely alienated from ourselves."
regards
Vikram-
Eph 5:25-32 "Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishs and cherishs it, EVEN AS THE LORD THE CHURCH: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY: BUT I SPEAK OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH."
everything in this physical world is a reflection of some truth. Even the foolishness you spout as wisdom. It is a great mystery and if you don't look to the Lord to understand the meaning of the reflections put before you, everything is backwards, like a mirror and your perspective will be wrong.
1 Cor 1:18-22 "For the preaching of the cross to them is foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews seek after a sign and the greeks seek after wisdom". -
Christians sure are stuck on what Paul wrote. It is to bad, they don't even understand the bottom line context of what Paul was writing about. They are stuck on the writings of Paul and John and have missed the point of everything.
The ego is the very source of darkness. The ego is just as involved in women, it just plays the game differently with the sexes.
-
-
Hey Vikram, have you noticed that when two people start talking about deeper truths, that people of religion or positioned in a dogma get a little bent out of shape.
Christians really get wigged out, they always go back to the savior issue and the basics because that is where their low level of Knowledge resides. Very Shallow.-
Deeper truths? bent out of shape? low level of knowledge? very shallow? stuck on what Paul or John wrote? dont understand what Paul was talking about?
those are very vague statements...
After reading some of your opinions that you have written, I'm stunned that those vague and covertly insulting statements came from you. -
It's true, Paul wrote with very deep wisdom and according to the culture of the time. His new church groups had problems, which he tried to shed the light.
The new testament was compiled way after the Apostles died.
When Paul wrote he was writing to the chosen, not to people that are stuck in the dogma of religion. The average person in religion are lost when it comes to what Paul wrote.
The knowledge of Christianity is very shallow.
A person needs to figure our what Moses and the Prophets taught first, this is what Paul taught from, the Hebrew Scriptures. Acts 28:23
-
-
It sounds like you are rejecting God because of the Bible, a book that has been at least altered by man. The personal experience is the important thing, not the inspired writings.
But what makes you so sure that allowing the man to be the leader of a household is such an aweful thing? The political correctness that you have grown up in? I know many women who are angry at the women's lib movement because introducing females to the workplace has made male salaries drop, and it is no longer an option for most families to have a stay-at-home Mom to do the very admiarable job of child rearing. they are also angry at the sexual revolution for killing chivalry and the nice "quaint" mannerly things that past generations have done for their women. As protector and provider, perhaps it was best to have a man in charge of the household in ages past. Perhaps we would have less divorce, family disfunction, and immorality today if men had not been neutered by the sexual revolution.
I'm not saying I believe these things, I'm just giving you a different perspective. You are a mere mortal and your conviction that the best for all is to have everyone and both sexes at equal levels of authority is not a fact. It's just an opinion.
I also think you are taking things out of context. too many people take every little thing in the Bible for fact when it is just analogy or story written to make a point. In the time of Paul, it was customary for men to have short hair, so I suspect his words on that subject were nothing more than an example to illustrate a point, using customs that the listeners would understand.
Surely God had no problem with Samson's long hair.-
JL, you make some very good points here. I've read this thread all the way through to the 150th post or wherever it ends now, and I've decided not to respond to any of the rest of it because it's becoming far too vitriolic. I did want to respond to this, though, because I think it's important as a woman to say that I agree with much of what you've said here. Not the anger part, perhaps, but certainly the strong possibility that God knew better than we mortals when he set up the relationships between men and women and the way we're meant to operate as a unit.
I'm an attorney; I've written two books. My IQ places me in the upper fraction of the top 1% of the population. I've trained and created curriculum for a national corporation that hires only people who score above the 90th percentile on relevant tests. I currently manage a team of 16 in-house and outside writers. I don't feel in the least bit belittled by the "status" of women in the Bible or the Biblical roles that God designed for men and women in relation to one another, and there is absolutely no question in my mind that every one of the items listed above (and many others that I could list) pales in comparison to the importance of giving my daughter my full attention in her early years.
-
-
I wish I could contributed a little... but given the ego behind certain individual I read here that "he must be right" I think it kinda killed the whole discussion. (I guess some are THAT close to writing something but change their mind)
Religions, faiths, beliefs are very enlightening things to me. Let's just say, sometimes I do question my own religion hence, I do not return to the same church. If He's in my life, He'll forever be no matter where I am. That, I hold firm. A bible is not a bed-time storybook. The ultimate achievement of the bible would be, being able to use it in our life. Sure, one can memorize a whle chunk of it and blurt it out in a second's notice, but whether the person can apply it to their life is another issue. In the case of Christianity, we have seen many instances of non-believers with a warped understanding of what the bible is intended for. Perhaps, that is why they do not hold the same faith.
Between man & woman, it is this constant and repetitive fight to claim Rights and equality that sent many relationships down to their perils. For someone who is so insistent of factual presentations, it is a shocking relevation that he couldn't bring himself to recognize why man is born with a penis, and woman is born with a vagina. Both man & woman has a function of their own, not only in pro-creation but also in a collective life. In general, can we say the physical abilities of man & woman are the same? For one to reject this notion (fact as he claims), he must have been living in a world of his own. Not least to mention, alienate himself into derailed understanding. This is what makes it all the more dangerous.
If Christianity was all preaching violence... hmmmmmm... Russell Peters: someone gonna get hurt real bad~~ -
-deleted by author-
-
Enlight...yes I agree with you. "The knowledge of Christianity is very shallow." The Bible is full of contradictions, gore, mayhem, suppression of women, but these people will not accept it. If you point out their contraditictions to them, they will cry, scream, create a lot of fuss and self righteous noises. They are full of nonsense. They contradict each other and themselves all the time too. Their concepts are nonsense too.
JustaWitness---your bible is full of contradictions, bizzare nonsense, and is abusive and derogatory towards women, but I dont expect your christian brothers and sisters to accept it, even if it is proven to you. If it is proven to you, you will either try to divert the conversation, or make personal attacks...and create chaos, confusion. You people are not interested in the truth, you are only interested in defending 'the christian position', no matter how lopsided and self-contradicting it may be..that is all you are interested in.
Enlight is 100 % correct in their observation.-
People are not interest in the truth, only interested in their position because it is easy.
Everybody in religion wants the easy way out. Their all saved remember.
The Hebrew and Greek scriptures were manipulated from the Jewish Scribes and the early so called Christian Fathers.
The truth is still there, just very hard to find. For a person to understand the whole picture, a person has to give up their attachment and position, and accept the other side, such as the Bhagavad Gita and the Dhammapada, which would be the best books for a Christian to read. -
I hope you understand that everyone has the Rights to pursue in their beliefs, like it or not. You have your Rights to state your displeasure whatsoever, but one thing you should not do is forcefully impose your ideals and interpretation on others. You mentioned about ego, have you taken a minute sitting back, look at yourself in the mirror? I am not disgusted by what you said about the bible, but I am disgusted about the ego and "I must be right" freaking attitude you are showing here.
Getting personal? You have made outrageous remarks without much consideration of how other users feel. In what position are you to criticize another of personal attacks? Again, please reflect on your own conduct of arguments.
I think instead of burying yourself in your research, there is a more immediate need for you to read up on Netiquette and effective communication skills. We are all interested in the truth, but we are not interested in "Only Vikram's Truth". Stop locking yourself in a world of only you you you you you... Get the whole idea?
One teaching my elders imparted to me... If you're not God, don't play God. -
People take it personal, because they have made their religion personal. All things are really subjective and impersonal, except our inner person and the Almighty Divine Source.
-
-
Like I have said, Religion serves for a purpose. For the person that can not pursue spirituality on their own needs a religion. Although after they are able to cultivate some faith (which might be 10 or 20 years) the person needS to leave their religion and deepen their knowledge of truth.
The problem is weakness which resides within and their attachment and being comfortable in the religion which is Idolatry.
I am referring to a person that want to attain the ultimate goal; a deep personal relationship with the Almighty Divine Source of All without anything in between.
The point is WITHOUT ANYTHING IN BETWEEN -
EndohT: you write "You have made outrageous remarks without much consideration of how other users feel."
I have made no personal remarks against anyone, but personal remarks were made against me because I was picking up verses from the bible that are negative and derogatory. If I have made personal attacks against anyone, give me an example. Otherwise dont make empty accusations.
I am not addressing you anyway. If you dont like my comments, do not address me. Get my drift?-
I quit... not because of anything, but it's a waste of time to talk to you anymore. Continue to live in your own world.
-
I agree, I just attack religion and show the truth. People take it personal because they're attached to the subject.
-
-
EndohT----I have made no personal remarks against you. You are most probably emotionally attached to the bible, that is why you are reacting violently to what I have been posting.
I am not emotionally attached to the concepts I have posted in this forum.
The topic that I started, it is a sensitive issue, and I posted verses that are sensitive.
Then someone came along and instead of answering my questions, started skirting the issue, diverting, confusing, contradicting themselves, and making personal remarks against me, and saying things like "GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF SACRED SCRIPTURE."
This kind of a response will obviously make anyone furious.
Then I posted more verses, and got more personal attacks instead of responses to the ISSUE I was writing about. This is crazy.
One should attack the concepts, not the person. Like Enlight writes.
If you get emotionally attached to your concepts, you cannot progress. -
***And because I got personally attacked, my writing style became provocative.
-
The Bible may be full of contradictions like the universe or quantum physics is, but instead of trying to comprehend them you choose to belittle them.
The Bible is also the only ancient religious text that tells the story of evolution in the exact order in which the various animal species progressed, which Darwin wouldn't do until thousands of years later (fish, flying things (dragonflies were before amphibians and reptiles), crawling things, and then, lastly, man.
Most of the other religions have man being created first.
This past year some members of my church went on a missionary trip to Africa. The lady who ran the mission over there had recently said some things on national news against one of the warlords, and got a call from a friend telling her to get out because the warlord had sent 10 men by bus to beat her up and possibly killing her. Instead of fleeing she stayed and prayed all night. The next day they got the report that the bus carrying the ten men had gone off a cliff and all ten had died.
Not enough for you?
The ten men had picked up three hitchhikers along the way. All three were in the bus when it wrecked, and all three survived without a scratch.
Now I'm sure you'll rationalize that or deny its truth because of whatever fleshly vice you are hanging onto that seems more important to you than salvation at the present time, but if you close yourself off to spirituality you will never be exposed to its reality.
Here's another story. There was a devout group of Hindus who had isolated themselves in wilderness for many years and had never heard of Christianity. they had never seen a Bible and no missionary had ever visited there part of the world. During their many years of spirituality and meditation in the wilderness, they came to understand that their religion was wrong. They came to know that there were not many gods, but one God, and they even had ascertained that at some point in history, that God had sent a son to the Earth, and that the story had been written down in a book.
Now, in your mind I'm sure you want to believe that those isolated Hindus got a copy somehow, but their ignorance of the Christian faith and its teachings was well documented, and if you want vehementally not to believe then no amount of truth is going to disuade you from your own folly. -
The point that many people miss, again, is that religion serves for a purpose. All religion has a measure of truth in their dogma, with lots of falsehood.
At that time, those Hindus in the story, most likely needed to be presented a new way.
Most people in the world need a religion and some need a new religion.
I go for the bottom root on an independent level. The bottom root is that all religion is Idolatry, for a person that can go solo, that person will be able to understand the deep truth of life.
Of course Jesus is the Anointed one and high priest to be able to forgive our sins. If I ask a Christian what does Messiah mean? they say Savior. That is wrong, Messiah means Anointed which is how they got the word Christ.
If I ask what is the opposite if Love, most don't know or say hate. The opposite is selfishness. You can hate someone and still show love to them.
Many ways religion is used for many purposes, good and bad. The bottom line is that it breaks the first two commandments of Moses.
Christmas is worship of the sun god and Easter is worship of the fertility goddess. The cross is direct Idolatry, it's a symbol of war. -
Within the story of Africa. That was Divine direction. The battle is against the darkness and the light. It does not matter what religion a person in, what matters is their faith.
Faith is what saves not a religion.
Every person matters no matter who they are, Many people are protected from the wicked darkness. Those people could have been of Islam, or Hindu, or in Buddhism, it does not matter, what matter is their faith.
I just point to a deeper level without religion, that is all. -
JosephLayden:
You say the bible says that 'man was created last'....well...you are wrong my friend....the bible CONTRADICTS itself on this point. At one point it says man was created last, at another point it says man was created BEFORE animals were created.
Here are the bible verses that clearly say that humans were created BEFORE animals.
Genesis 2:18-19:
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
So according to this verse, 'God' said...it is not good that man should be alone, so he created animals, and brought them to Adam, and Adam named the animals!
Good enough for you? Perhaps now you should focus on your folly, instead of pointing out other people's follies and writing as if you are a 'know it all'. -
I believe in my faith and the strength within to maintain the faith in trying times. I find myself to be more spiritual than religious.
My religion says to go to Church, listen to the rev. and follow his word. Religion is a means of control and people are meant not to be perfect in their ways and walks of life. How can you follow a man when you have no clue who he is once the cloth comes off? Or how can you follow a congregation that is judgmental, and without fail not perfect by the same standards in which they point and judge others.
I keep my faith and beliefs and hold them dear. I do believe that the church offers a solid mental foundation for growing children and adults and should be questioned often. -
"So according to this verse, 'God' said...it is not good that man should be alone, so he created animals, and brought them to Adam, and Adam named the animals!"
Or it could mean that God created the animals in anticipation of Adam's being alone, and made them visible to him once he was created. of course man named the animals; animals don't have language to create names with you know.
The verse *I* was refering to (the first account of creation in Genesis)clearly has the order of the Origin of Species lined up to a T, so how do you explain that? How did prehistoric man know the exact order in which the creatures on earth evolved without science or archeology?
My suspicion is that the two accounts of creation in Genesis are the remnants of two old stories from different sects that had been passed down for perhaps thousands of years through oral tradition and most likely were slightly altered along the way. The scribe who penned Genesis was probably copying the two different stories down from two different stone tabs or sets of runes.
But exact historical facts are not important to the message that Genesis is imparting. It's just fascinating that despite all odds, one of those stories got it absolutely right when no other religious account of creation could do the same. It's uncanny that those prehistoric people got it right...almost...supernatural...like the deaths of the murderers in the bus. -
I guess you two can argue about Genesis? Here is an article about the beginning.
clearlyenlight.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-beginning.html -
JosephLayden,
I am afraid you are wrong, once again.
You claim "Genesis clearly has the order of the Origin of Species lined up to a T".
I am afraid all this is totally wrong.
The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects.
1. The earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3)
2. Light (1:3) is created before the Sun and stars (1:16)
3. Birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects .i.e. "creeping things" (1:24)
So the earth was created first(but there was no light!)......after that light was created, and after that the Sun and stars were created!
Birds and whales being created before reptiles and insects(creepiest things) is not scientific.
You claim one of the stories in the bible got it right, and other religions got it wrong. If you look carefully, ALL religions have got it all wrong. Including your religion.
Enlight writes, in the article he posted above:
"Religion has buried and twisted the truth regarding the beginning of mankind. Along with twisting it, the religious dogma has stereotyped women because of their(religions') twisted falsehood."
I agree totally with Enlight. Religion is all twisted, confused, upside down, downside up.....going round and round in circles! -
(So the earth was created first(but there was no light!)......after that light was created, and after that the Sun and stars were created!)
No the "firmament" was created first, "fermament" being a word that was translated from ancient Hebrew which was probably translated from a sumerian contemporary language which was probably translated from something contemporary with Natufian.
In any event, the ancient hebrews had a different word for Gaia, or Earth, and it was not the one that the Catholics translated to "firmament."
(Birds and whales being created before reptiles and insects(creepiest things) is not scientific.)
The Bible says nothing about whales; you are stretching. Since when did "populated the seas" come to mean "populated the seas with everything that would ever be in the sea for a thousand years."
the Bible says nothing about birds either. it says that He populated the heavens with flying things.
Let's get back down to what it says and stop making things up. The Bible says he populated the seas first; that's true, he populated the seas with invertabrates, plankton, and fish, etc. Then it says he populated the heavens with flying things; next on the evolutionary Darwinian chain is flying insects, so the Bible got it right again. -
Homo Sapiens were created in Africa.
-
Yes in a place east of Ethiopia called Eden by the ancients. It is now beneath the sea, as all coastlines existing before 10,600 BC are. If you don't believe me, ask a historical geologist.
But Adam and Eve were probably not the first homo sapiens. if they were then I guess the wives of cain and Able were of the erectus or archaic homo line. but I suspect that Adama and Eve were just the first sapients with souls. But that's not to say that I discount the idea that the may have been symbolic of a race.
Like Socrates, I don't know everything, but at least I can recognize and appreciate that fact. -
What rivers flow in Ethiopia?
-
10,600 years ago? You'd have to ask a geologists because I'm not sure of their names.
-
Well this is what I found out.
Satellite photos reveal two dry riverbeds flowing toward the Persian Gulf near where the Tigris and Euphrates also terminate. This would account for four easterly flowing rivers. Archaeologist Juris Zarins claimed that the Garden of Eden was situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers run into the sea, from his research on this area using information from many different sources, including LANDSAT images from space. In this theory, the Bible’s Gihon River would correspond with the Karun River in Iran, and the Pishon River would correspond to the Wadi Batin river system that once drained the now dry, but once quite fertile central part of the Arabian Peninsula. His theory is strongly supported by C. A. Salabach -
Well that's an interesting theory too. At 11,600 BC the Persian Gulf was half the size it is now. The coastline from Africa to the Persian Gulf extended hundreds of miles farther southward than it does today. All of this now submerged land was highly habitable by early hominids and homo sapient, but the area between Africa and the Persian Gulf that is exposed today was then dry desert, totally inhospitable to human survival. If the Persian Gulf were the cradle of mankind, then we wouldn't know it, because the ancient path of the hominids to Africa and to South East Asia is now covered with the ocean. Scientists have long known that ancient homos walked the coasts between southeast asia and africa, and indeed for many of the early species these are the only two continents in which they are found. Why do they find no specimens of the earliest (2mill+ yr old) homo erectus between africa and southeast asia? because the path between those two continents is now beneath the sea, including the land that once populated much of the area now known as the Persian Gulf. And the Persian gulf is, incidentally, east of Eden.
-
I meant the Persian Gulf is east of Ethiopia...duh!!
Of course, the boundaries of Ethiopia were probably defined differently back then when it was a wealthier state. -
Ok so if this was the case, Homo Sapiens had their start in Africa, not the middle east.
Since this is the case, Genesis does not add up, unless a person looks very closely at chapter 2 and notice that Adam was taken and put in the garden. If this is the case, Why was he taken and put in the garden? Adam was also created in the Likeness of the light which relates to qualities. So what do you think why Adam was taken and put in the garden? -
I don't know, maybe to seperate him from the other homo sapiens so that he could birth homo sapien sapient? Or maybe they were already homo sapien sapients and he was seperated because he was the first to have a soul? And that's if Genesis is talking about a man and isn't symbolic of a race.
Anyway, "created from the earth" and "evolved from apes" mean the same thing to me, if I look at it from an ancient's perspective, because what seperates AD thought from BC thought is that to the ancients, Gaia was a living organism and plants and animals were parts of it. Now we think of "Earth" as a material, unliving/unthinking thing that is here mainly for exploitation. -
The creation process does not matter. Moses writes in Chapter 2 about area outside of eden, even gold in a land with a name. Most areas are not give a name until the area is inhabited.
There were humans living in the earth before eden which were being ruled by the wicked entities. The entity of light and love formed Adam in the likeness of the light, which relates to qualities.
Keep in mind the battle is between the light and the darkness.
The tree was a test of ruler-ship. Once Adam touched it, the ego entered. They felt shame and fear, and blamed one another, and they were kicked out of Eden in the world of wickedness. The whole idea if Adam would not have touched of the tree, the garden would have been expanded and overruled the wickedness outside of eden.
The line of Adam is what mattered because of the likeness of light and love.
Eden was an ego-less state of consciousness.
The Jewish scribes manipulated the first two chapters of Genesis, possibly took out a chapter. Compare chapter one with two. There is some missing. -
Joseph Layden:
You make wrong false claims and do not back them up with verses. I back everything up with verses.
You accuse me of making things up........while I am QUOTING YOUR BIBLE! i.e....in effect you are saying that your bibles make things up....!!! Which is true actually!!
You write: "No the "firmament" was created first.........."
My friend....the firmament was created in 1:6. Go read your bible!
You either have not read the bible or are talking crap and are not quoting verses to prove your point.
You write: "The Bible says nothing about whales; you are stretching."
Well.....You either lie or have not read the bible. Here is proof.
KJV Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
The KJV says 'whales'. Other bibles say 'great sea beasts, great sea creatures'. Dont you read the bibles?
You write "the Bible says nothing about birds either. it says that He populated the heavens with flying things."
The BBE says "The winged birds". KJV says 'birds'.....you talk total nonsense my friend, and do not back your claims up with VERSES. You have been proven wrong so many times. But you cannot accept it, and keep talking without quoting any VERSES. Vague talk.
You are all claims, and no verses to back what you say. -
Well your right, it absolutely depends on what translation you are reading.
What do you think the ancient word was that has been translated alternately to "whales" and "sea monsters?"
Both translations are educated guesses by scribes who may have known Hebrew, but not prehistoric Hebrew, because it was a dead language.
And in any event, "whales" could not have been the correct translation as they weren't differentiated from large fish until we learned in relatively modern times that they weren't fish.
Why do you think some versions translate it "birds" and others translate it "fowls" and others translate it "flying creatures?"
Could it be that the ancients didn't have the same knowledge of biology that we now have, and classified animals by elements instead of families and species?
And how many words that are now translated into "earth" did the ancient hebrews have? And being that it is a dead language, how do we know whether they were using it to describe matter, the planet, the planet and it's organisms, dirt, all the planets, or something else?
What's more, I saw a recent documentary featuring Hawkins that had the universe and matter and even planet-like masses forming after the Big Bang but before the suns lit up.
In philosophy 101 socrates teaches us that we should know that we don't know. -
The only way to figure out the Hebrew and Greek scriptures is getting an interlinear and using the strongs Hebrew and Greek Dictionary which works with the KJV. There are many words that are mistranslated. The word that is a great example is "worship" in the Hebrew there are at least 7 different hebrew words they translate as worship, and the meaning to those hebrew words does not even come close to the definition of what we are told today.
-
The Jewish Scribes held on to the biblical hebrew language.
-
Don't they say that Genesis was written around 3000 BC? But the occurences on the planet it describes happened around 11,600 BC. So the original was passed down through oral tradition, and then through now lost written tradition for thousands of years and probably through the births and deaths of many languages.
-
Great points by the way Enlight.
-
Moses wrote Genesis around (don't quote me) 1300-1400 BCE.
The planet and the creation of the first Homo Sapien were around for at least 200,000 years before Adam was put in the garden. Then don't forget about humans before the homo sapiens and dinosaurs and all. Basically we know that the first city-state civilization was in sumer, the city of Ur was one of the cities, in 3500 BCE. The best thing to do is study sumer and the tablets of what they found in Ninevah.
The flood happened around 11,000 or so, maybe, basically we really don't know the dates. We do know about Sumer in 3500 BCE -
Joseph Layden:
Well...all I can say after reading your arguments is that you have no way of proving your claims. There are so many different bibles around, so many interpretations, and christians continuously fight with each other over a long list of christian concepts.
You make tall claims, like other christians do. But do not back them up with anything concrete, just vague talk....one can not just assume that you are providing authentic information. A serious debator will not accept claims that are not backed up. Either dont make strong claims, or back them up properly. You talk of some hindu group discovering the bible somewhere....helll....how do I even know that the story you are posting is not a lie?
You say:
'I saw a hawkins TV program that says XYZ about the formation of planets'---this is not called backing up your facts. I do not know whether such a TV program even exists.
You talk is just vague talk, unreliable talk.
Christians make tall claims like:
1. The bible is God's word....divine relevation...perfect...given to humans by Allmighty allpowerful God!
2. God knows how to protect his word.
3. God is the author of sacred scripture.
4. Some christians say 'evolution is wrong'. Some christians, like you, say Bible talks of evolution!
But they cannot back up their claims!
Hindus make tall claims like:
1. The Bhagvadgita is divine revelation, perfect....given to humans by Almight Krishna, "the absolute, allpowerful."
2. The bhagvadgita explains everything, including evolution of the species!
3. Krishna is the supreme lord of the universe....nobody supercedes Krishna!
But they cannot back up their claims! Apart from saying things that are identical with your style of talking! i.e....Strong claims, vague arguments.
Muslims make claims like:
1. Allah is the supreme being, and has no partners, no son!
2. Quranic verses and science explains everything...the cosmos, evolution etc!
But they cannot back up their claims, apart from stuff that sounds IDENTICAL to your talk!! Strong claims, vague arguments!
Hindus and muslims also have a lot of research going on, on their sacred scriptures....and have loads of 'religion-science' books!! And they all claim only their religion is correct! And that ONLY their religion is correct scientifically.
There are approximately 2 billion chrisitans, 1 billion muslims and 1 billion hindus in this world. Thousands of books written by each, books that are going no where!
Each time science comes out with some concept that becomes POPULAR.....all three----christians, muslims and hindus.....stand up and scream that their holy books already knew what science has only recently discovered. But they offer no proof, only vague arguments like you.
See the pattern? All quackary! Even a quack can write books.....doesnt take much brain to fill up pages with vague talk and get it published and marketed....
In your case, your books are funded/marketed by your religious organisations of course! Hindus do it. Muslims do it. So do you.
Hindus, muslims, christians...all are well known to make tall claims, and twist facts to further their religion. This is called intellectual dishonesty, pseudo science, the stuff that quacks do. The stuff you religious types do (twisting facts to fit your agenda) also has dangerous social consequences, leads to social sickness. But you people dont give a damn! -
(You make tall claims, like other christians do. But do not back them up with anything concrete, just vague talk....one can not just assume that you are providing authentic information.)
As do you. That is the type of debate that you initiated. Nothing you have said has anything at all to back it up. I'm sorry but bad things done by religion and the mistreatment of women does absolutely nothing to prove spontaneous generation. In fact, spontaneous generation was disproven in the 1800s. Why didn't you get the memo?
Your whining about the evils of religion doesn't back up an arguement that religions are fals, either. Te fact that Toyotas kill people does not
disprove the fact that there is a company that makes cars called Toyota, but it doesn't prove that Toyota is evil either. So why do you want God not to exist so bad? And what exactly is your arguement for his non-existence? Do you have even one VAGUE fact to help your rant along? And how do you explain the unmoved mover, which all scientists and philosophers have pointed to a need for in the origin of things since the ancient Vedic times?
(. The bible is God's word....divine relevation...perfect...given to humans by Allmighty allpowerful God!)
That's what the fundamentalists believe, not the average Christian. th average Christian probably sees the Bible as a record of the evolution of their faith, written by man but possibly inspired by visions from God.
That statement is like saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Again, you are stretching...stretching...stretching for something to support your anger.
(. God knows how to protect his word.)
Who says that? Funny, I'm a christian and I haven't heard it. And
you aren't a Christian but you have. Go figure. I guess your stereotype doesn't work, does it?
(. God is the author of sacred scripture.)
Again, you are confusing Christians with certain sects of fundamentalist Christians.
(4 Some christians say 'evolution is wrong'. Some christians, like you, say Bible talks of evolution!)
Actually, I'm the only Christian I know of who says that. Most devout christians are still trying to hold on to Creationism. But luckily for spirituality, that part of the Bible isn't what's important. Our origins aren't important either. Genesis wasn't supposed to be a biology lesson, it was supposed to be a story that imparts spiritual understanding. it's just kind of neat how, if you look at the most ancient texts, without the misinterpretations, they got it RIGHT thousands of years before Darwin when no one else did. -
Vikram, what are you looking for? What are you afraid of? You're searching for truth, aren't you? You should start there. Truth can not be relative. Truth is absolute. If you are thinking that Truth is not absolute, then you have stated a truth, that I'm assuming you mean to be absolute?
My point: it sounds like you've been hurt by someone claiming to be a believer in something. Hurt sucks. But anger is habit forming. The more you get angry and stay angry, the more you will be an expert at it.
Sounds like you might be sure about what you believe. I'm assuming you stand by what you believe? -
Joseph Layden: You write "As do you. That is the type of debate that you initiated. Nothing you have said has anything at all to back it up."
I back nothing up? If you read my posts...you will see I have posted verses every time I have made a statement about your bibles! In one case.. 1 COR 11:5...I posted FIVE different bibles' versions, when my stand was challanged.
I post verses from YOUR BIBLES...each time I comment on the bible!
So do not say I dont back things up, do not twist the conversation through empty talk! It is hurting your credibility and nothing else!
You on the other hand, do not provide a complete picture, and do not back up anything. You do not even provide references...nothing!
This is typical hypcrisy that hindu/christian/muslims, i.e. your types display all the time. Twisting everything. Your types are not interested in the truth, only furthering your agendas. You all talk in the same manner, give the same half baked arguments that are disjointed, vague and weak.
And dont say you are the only christian who talks of evolution. You are not the only christian who tries to *fit* evolution into his agenda. I have seen many, before. Anything scientific that finds credibility in the field of science, your religious types jump on it and try to prove to the world that your scriptures already knew it! -
jorgegoyco, no, I dont build beliefs, I build hypotheses based on observation. There is nothing to 'stand by'.
My hypotheses, if they are proven wrong by time, I build new ones.
We all get affected by the vampirish, hypocritical religious types all the time. They influence our political systems continuously, to further their religious agendas. -
So the Bible talk about inequality between men and Women. Big deal. It NEVER talks about cruelty toward women or justifying treating them badly. The Bible talks about loving your neighbor and your wife. It talks about accepting where you are as you follow God's purpose. I would die for my wife. I would never degrade her. I work, she stays and teaches the kids, we both cook (I think I cook more than she does). We both clean the house. The kids clean the house too. She helps me some with yardwork. I do the heavy lifting. If she picks up things that are too heavy or bulky, I usually end up having to massage her later. She's very soft, I'm scratchy and rough. She is more emotional than I am. I seek her opinion because of that. She's more global in her thinking, I make some silly decisions, but she loves me and goes along with it...unless it goes against what the Bible teaches. It's woking. It takes responsibility on both parts (more on my part I think) and a certain amount of letting go on both parts, but where she's trusting me and the fact that the Lord gave her to me, I'm trusting the Lord and having to go to Him for everything, knowing that my decisions effect my whole family. I've got kids that if they don't obey me, could get hurt.
It all works, and is all about sacrificing myself...ourselves.
So the Bible talks about inequality, you know, the truth of the matter is, nature displays inequality between genders. Why would it be any different with humans? Just because we are "smart" and figure out how to make things more convenient so we can have more time to make things more convinient doesn't mean we are not still bound by the rules of nature.
The male is the leader of the pack in Monkeys, lions, Elephants, etc. Now, we just had a garden spider in our backyard, and that's different. The male was small and didn't eat much while the momma got really big and had a huge web. Then one day, the male was hanging out on the momma's undeside, then next thing we knew, the male was wrapped up and the momma was eating him. Don't know how that relates, but it sure was cool.
Inequality is a truth. But that does not allow for cruelty and degrading.
I think it's more like a TEAM thing that a "I AM KING" thing. Does that make sense?
It was quoted earlier about the curse in genesis about the man having to work the soil and the woman having more sorrow in childbirth. I heard once an interesting thing. If you view the "curse" as active today (which seems to me it is) the man working and the momma having babies, you don't see the man working AND having babies, but you see mommas having babies AND working. That's not right. It's too much. (props to those ladies having babies and working...that's a huge responsibility...bless you) I just don't think we're wired to do things like that. Things have definitely gotten out of hand. -
jorgegoyco,
I don't agree with you....because to me it seems the bible allows for cruelty towards women. There are many verses that allow cruelty towards women, I have already posted some, here are two more.
Exodus 21:7 says you may sell your daughter into slavery.
Exodus 21:8 says what to do with her in case she does not please her 'master'.
Exodus 21:7---> "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."
Exodus 21:8---> "If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her."
Hindu/muslim scriptures are no different. They allow for cruelty towards women too.
Note: I am not saying christians/muslims/hindus are necessarily brutal towards women. I am saying hindu/muslim/christian scriptures allow brutality towards women.
You have a nice blog, by the way! -
Yeah, OK, I see that. You know, it says as much about cruelty to male slaves too.
Seems like a lot of this is talking about old testament stuff, and I know you're gonna say this is bailing out, but the reason for all the rules was because people were bad. So the rules came so that people could see how bad they were and realize that what they were doing was not right in God's eyes. Once Jesus came, he taught that following the rules was no longer the way to salvation...in fact, it never was. No one was able to follow all those rules. So believing that Jesus was the son of God, sent by God and died as the final sacrifice was the way God had wanted it all along. So when you see the verse that says "did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" that's talking about Jesus becoming the sacrifice needed.
So, he closed up the old covenant, and opened a new one. This new one was not about laws and things you had to do and not do, it was a broader, bigger picture that spoke of the heart and love and treating everyone with love and kindness.
I feel like I'm preaching, but it's not my intention. My intention is to explain why those things are written in exodus and deutoronomy etc. Without rules, we can not see that we have done wrong, so rules point out the wrong.
Again, sorry if it sounds like I'm preaching.
Slavery is a whole nother subject, but it looks like these last few verses are what the context is. Maybe. It's hard to tell without looking up the verses and studying it. But my guess is that if it's not talking about slavery, that it was just a different time and culture.
There are other verses that talk about God allowing things to happen just because it points people's hearts to Him.
I can't speak on other religions and their beliefs, but I can sure say that the Bible (the new covenant at least) does not teach cruelty to women.
I have not read the whole Bible, but I know that God wants us to love.
I would venture to say that most Christians are not cruel or degrading to women. That is speculation, but I don't think the women of today (or the men) would buy it.
I don't think believing the Bible is contradictory. The love of God toward his creation is so evident that I can't discount it. I'm not saying I understand all of it, but I still believe that it's God's idea to give us something where we can know him better, even through the times he was angry and frustrated.
I'm glad you like my blog. Thanks. -
Vikram-
I think the conversation has just gone too far over your head.
Sure you quoted the Bible....numerous times....and it backed absolutely nothing up!
All you've done is make wild speculations about Christians that you obviously know nothing about. It's as if you found some 18th century Baptist preacher's memoires and are using them as if they speak for every Christian who ever lived.
Please respond to my post. Now that you know that all Christians aren't Jerry Faldwell, how have you changed your ill-founded accusations against Christians and their religion? -
( I am not saying christians/muslims/hindus are necessarily brutal towards women. I am saying hindu/muslim/christian scriptures allow brutality towards women. )
And what is your point with that? What if the Bible said that we should all be cannibals? Would that mean that God doesn't exist because YOU disagree with cannibalism?
And if the Bible said that we should all murder one another, would that mean that God doesn't exist because some Baptist preacher in the 1700s said that the Bible was the divine work of God and that there has been no mistranslating whatever?
Why do you assume that if one Christian can't admit that men wrote the Bible, none of them can? -
By the way, I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that I don't meticulously provide references. I just failed to get my "nerd" on I guess. To me footnotes and references are for writings that i'm getting paid for, not casual discussion forums. If you want to find the truth behind the things I've said, there's a resource called Google that really works well. I know that you haven't, and won't, do so, because the worst possible thing for your arguement is to find out that what I've said is truth. And if you indeed stumbled upon the truth behind the story of Africa I told, or the truth of the story of India I told, you would just find some way to disbelieve it anyway.
-
(This is typical hypcrisy that hindu/christian/muslims, i.e. your types display all the time. Twisting everything. Your types are not interested in the truth, only furthering your agendas. You all talk in the same manner, give the same half baked arguments that are disjointed, vague and weak.)
Which one of my ideas was half-baked?
The fact that the ORIGINAL text of genesis segregated animals according to elements, not DNA, and that it exactly mirrored the findings of Darwin thousands of years later?
Ok then back it up smart guy. Provide facts that prove that translating the ancient word of the dead language to "birds" or "fowls" instead of "flying things" was the only correct way that it could have been interpretted. Prove to me that "fowls" was what the original word meant and not "flying things."
Prove to me that prehistoric men knew what a whale was, and knew the difference between whales and fish. Prove that the original author's word didn't mean "big fish" or 'sea monsters,' but absolutely HAD to have meant "whales," which is from the version of the Bible that you "happened" to quote because it fits your agenda.
Explain to me how I am erroneous in stating that the Bible was passed on via oral tradition and then later mistranslated over and over again. Explain to me how the books of Paul and John, who were but two preachers in the history of Christianity, make the whole of religion false.
Before the Bible was cannonized, it filled a whole room, and MEN decided what books should stay or should go. There is good evidence that they corrupted some of the writing at that time too. Supposedly, they edited alot out of the Book of Daniel too, threw out the whole Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants and several others, and added some books that weren't considered part of the sacred texts until that time as well.
That's why spirituality is, or should be, more important in Christianity than religion is. -
Joseph Layden:
You write totally disjointed stuff, and then try to put words in my mouth, then accuse me of absurd talk when you are the one indulging in absurd talk!
Your writing style, logic, everything is totally DISJOINTED, illogical and misleading. Just empty claims and disjointed talk!
I dont want to argue with you anymore. But before I end this conversation with you, here is a summary of your vague, disjointed talk. Perhaps you can try to write better...with a little HONESTY.
1. You claimed you are the only christian who talks of evolution. How can you expect anyone to believe that?!!!
2. You, very casually ignored the fact that two biblical verses contradict each other over evolution. You then tried to twist the contradictory verse to fit your tall claim that 'bible endorses evolution....'....you even went to the extent of saying 'bible explains the origin of species down the last T'........based on just one verse!!!! And even that verse is vague!
There is NO continuity in your talk. It is totally disjointed....misleading..! You try to impress people by throwing in fancy terms like DNA, etc.
You can impress others, but believe me, I have seen such games before.....am not impressed!
One last example of your disjointed, bizzare talk before I quit discussing with you...
You write to me:----- 'I'm sorry but bad things done by religion and the mistreatment of women does absolutely nothing to prove spontaneous generation..'
Now the point is.....I NEVER said that mistreatment of women has any connection with spontaneous generation!!! LOL.
Many of your hindu/muslim brothers and sisters do the same thing, impress people by using 'fancy scientific words' combined with disjointed talk.
Have a nice day!! -
Jorgegoyco,
No you don't come across as preaching, infact I enjoyed reading your comments.
You wrote "So the Bible talks about inequality, you know, the truth of the matter is, nature displays inequality between genders." in your second last post.
Yes...you are right....the yin-yang of this world is totally distorted. Very tragic.
A famous spiritual teacher says:
"Creation is composed of both male and female, and unless this balance is restored, there will be no end to cruelty and misery in this world."
Another famous teacher named Eckhart Tolle says the same thing. That suppression of women is the root cause of ALL suffering in this world, and that suppression of women has been going on for thousands of years, and is still going on.
Verses that allow suppression of women can be found in the bible/Quran/hindu texts.
You write about love showing itself in certain parts of the bible. Well, I understand what you are saying, and agree with you on this issue. But I am pointing at another issue.
There are many horribly suppressive, violent verses in these religious books too, including the bible. Very horrible ones that project women in a very bad light. You can check out the ones in the bible in more detail if you want.
And such books are printed, marketed and sent to 100s of millions of people all over the world on a continuous basis.
These 100s of millions read such books, and many come to wrong conclusions about how to treat women, after reading verses that allow suppression of women.
Somebody in this thread, earlier, also wrote that 'religion crushes women in a very harsh manner'. These are the effects of the violence, gore in these books. Religious books reach 100s of millions, billions, unlike other violent books that reach only a tiny majority. -
Jorgegoyco,
I meant 'tiny fraction' not 'tiny majority' (last words in my last post), sorry. -
(1. You claimed you are the only christian who talks of evolution. How can you expect anyone to believe that?!!!)
That's not what I said. You're misquoting me. Here it is:
You: Some christians, like you, say Bible talks of evolution!
Me: Actually, I'm the only Christian I know of who says that.
In other words, I am the only Christian I know with this particular theory of evolution that I know of. There may be others who you have heard that have a similar theory but that I have not. But then, you haven't heard my complete theory. If you'd like to, then stay tuned to
prehistoricfantasy.blogspot.com
(.....Now the point is.....I NEVER said that mistreatment of women has any connection with spontaneous generation!!! LOL.)
You missed the point. The alternative to an Unmoved Mover is spontaneous generation, unless you've figured out something that Einstein and Hawkins couldn't.
So why are you argueing about religious teachings of religions and gods when you haven't yet disproven the Unmoved Mover nor proven spontaneous generation? Until you have, the arguement is useless.
It is not for you to decide whether God should be merciful or fair or just, in the first place.
(Many of your hindu/muslim brothers and sisters do the same thing, impress people by using 'fancy scientific words' combined with disjointed talk.)
And I saw on your blog how you call the Hindus hypocrits for worshipping a naked god, and then condemning nakedness in their fellow mortals.
How is that hypocritical?
Are you a god? -
I know it was a communist scumbag who originally said this, but religion is the opiate of the masses.
My take on the whole thing is that it was necessary in the dark ages, if for no other reason than to discourage murder, incest, and other crimes that endangered the advancement of humankind. Most civilised people now abide by the laws introduced by religious writers. There are now many different priorities that need to be dealt with. Certain species of animal are becoming extinct which directly effects the food chain, the environment is suffering catastrophic pollution which could lead to an end to all life on this planet, and people of different races are mixing so much that the very survival of them all is in danger.
I'm only touching on what I see as a totally fucked up world. Religion is definitely not the answer. -
"Religion is definitely not the answer."
No, God is the answer. For YOU, not the world. The world is doomed, eventually. If we don't do it the universe will.
Do you realize how lucky we are to have escaped this long? Everything had to fall perfectly and precisely in place, at the exact second, billions of coincidences after coincidences in just the right procession, in order to insure that the incredibly fragile unfolding of life and evolution wasn't disturbed.
11,600 years ago 70% of the species on earth were wiped out and the oceans rose 150 meters globally, submerging millions of miles of coast and a continent the size of India in South-East Asia.
If there is no God, how are the terrible things of which you speak even terrible?
If we do like mother nature did and destroy 70% of the life on earth, including ourselves, and cripple the planet, who cares? That's just good Darwinism. Something stronger and tougher will be born. -
Joseph Layden:
I saw your blog and your blog entries do not come across as disjointed. I have no comments on the contents of your blog.
I am not going to comment anymore on your old responses to me, that you posted in this forum, because you were not paying attention to what you were writing.
It is obvious now that you were writing in a hurry.
My apologies if my words were a bit too harsh, in our exchanges.
Your responses to me were written in a hurry, and when one writes in a hurry and does not collect his thoughts before writing, his writing becomes disjointed, confusing, tangential and vague.
My comment on your comment on my blog entry entitled 'hypocrisy':---
You write:
"And I saw on your blog how you call the Hindus hypocrits for worshipping a naked god, and then condemning nakedness in their fellow mortals. How is that hypocritical?"
My point is---hindus on one hand worship a naked goddess, and on the other hand, condemn women for wearing 'tight clothes, jeans, shorts, because they say such clothes are an 'unnecessary display of sexuality.'
Now.....why do they worship a naked goddess, if even the tiniest expression of sexuality, in public, by human women makes them react in negative, angry ways. This is hypocrisy.
To reword what I just said: They worship a naked goddess, but if human women express their sexuality in public even slightly, they get furious. This is hypocrisy. -
Joseph Layden:
You write, in your response to survivalordeath14:--
"Everything had to fall perfectly and precisely in place, at the exact second, billions of coincidences after coincidences in just the right procession, in order to insure that the incredibly fragile unfolding of life and evolution wasn't disturbed."
This is very powerful logic, I have seen this logic before. It points to the existence of higher intelligence that is perfect. But it does not point to the existence of 'God of the bible'.
It does not point to the 'Krishna of the Bhagvadgita' either. Nor does it point to the 'Allah of the Quran.'
Once again---this logic you have mentioned is very powerful, but it does NOT prove that christianity/islam/hinduism are valid and correct!
So survivalofdeath14's assertion stands as it is---'Religion is not the answer'. -
I'm a partial believer. I don't agree to all they teach me. -
I believe my religion. As far as the beliefs are concerned,some are practical while some are not. One needs to apply their brains and follow only the positives of their religion, and not be blindly guided by what is being preached. As for example, my religion, which happens to be Hinduism, teaches me how to become a better human being.On the flip side, there are many undesirable beliefs and rituals attached to it, which may not be followed.
-
Religion is for people who don't know what way they will follow and what they want to reach in their life! I don't need that, because I already know that
-
(Now.....why do they worship a naked goddess, if even the tiniest expression of sexuality, in public, by human women makes them react in negative, angry ways. This is hypocrisy.
To reword what I just said: They worship a naked goddess, but if human women express their sexuality in public even slightly, they get furious. This is hypocrisy.)
I disagree.
Maybe the naked godess doesn't want her children looking at any sexy bodies besides her own.
Maybe the ban on nakedness among mortals is to keep the fallen angels, or Watchers, from being tempted, and not because of pure flesh-hating.
Maybe the ban on revealing clothing among mortals is to keep men and women from being tempted; since you can't have sex with a statue in a shrine or a god who lives on a different plain of existence, a naked godess is posing no threat to the people's salvation.
There could be all kinds of reasons for different sets of laws concerning sexualty among mortals vs. sexuality among gods.
Just because you don't understand their point of view does not necessarilly make them hypocrits. -
(Religion is for people who don't know what way they will follow and what they want to reach in their life! I don't need that, because I already know that
Funny, I've always known what I was going to do with my life, and I still have religion.
How about this:
Religion is for people who are not smarter nor greater theorizers than Einstein and Hawkins, and therefore could not figure out a different explanation for the universe besides "God" either.
I guess you've figured out the greatest mystery of philosophy and science all by your lonesome. Yale and harvard would appreciate it if you'd share it.-
The world will never figure it out, only the few can understand the truth because a person has to granted with wisdom. Just to really figure out what Moses was writing about it takes some wisdom.
The world of collage will never ever, understand what the truth is.
-
-
Nimool...religion is for those people, who need a disciplining force to see them through life. There have been very few saints who have reached such spiritual planes, that religion has become insignificant to them!
-
Very Very True, that is the whole point of religion. There will be a new heavens and new earth. Read this article regarding the three natures of humankind and what needs to be transcended to reach the ultimate goal.
clearlyenlight.blogspot.com/2007/07/three-natures-that-dominate.html -
Ok...
this thread started with a simple question of belief and if people thought that they lived their beliefs or not...
Where did all this other stuff come from?
If you really think the things you have written here (Enlight especially) than what are you doing talking to us low lifes. Obviously you are superior in knowledge because YOU have read this book of whatever and that book of bullshite, and we who just read the bible are sub Level intelligence.
Why do you bother?
I am curious...
then of course there is this guy...
Vakram - "your bible is full of contradictions, bizzare nonsense, and is abusive and derogatory towards women, but I dont expect your christian brothers and sisters to accept it, even if it is proven to you. If it is proven to you, you will either try to divert the conversation, or make personal attacks...and create chaos, confusion. You people are not interested in the truth, you are only interested in defending 'the christian position', no matter how lopsided and self-contradicting it may be..that is all you are interested in.
what do you know? you are the one creating chaos and confusion. YOu are the one disputing the word of God. You are the one presenting a lopsided viesw and contradiction, so why are you asking me to clear that up for you? I've read the bible and you are the one being derogatory to women.
You are the one disputing the word.
MY QUESTION IS THIS?
WHY WOULD ANY OF YOU DISPUTING FACT AND THEORY BE DOING IT ON THIS THREAD?
THE QUESTION WAS
"Do you believe in the religion you follow? OR do you only believe in it coz you were born in it? Did you ever question its beliefs?"
I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT MEANT IT WAS YOURS TO ATTACK ANY WHO RESPOND.
you said:
"but I dont expect your christian brothers and sisters to accept it, even if it is proven to you."
YOU GOT TO PROVE SOMETHING FIRST.
you said: You people are not interested in the truth, you are only interested in defending 'the christian position', no matter how lopsided and self-contradicting it may be..that is all you are interested in.
TRY ME: BRING UP AN ACTUAL TANGIBLE SUBJECT OTHER THAN ATTACKING WHAT YOU THINK CHRISTIANITY IS...-
Justawitness said-"If you really think the things you have written here (Enlight especially) than what are you doing talking to us low lifes. Obviously you are superior in knowledge because YOU have read this book of whatever and that book of bullshite, and we who just read the bible are sub Level intelligence."
Thats your perception, I never accused anyone personally of anything, yes I do attack religion in itself, but not anybody personally. If a person is personally affected from a religion being attacked, it has to do with their attachment.
I have never claimed that I am "superior in knowledge" nor claimed anything about myself. I have never said - I'm a...
What is your definition of " tangible subject"?
-
-
Well..it is not right to say obnoxious things pertaining to the bible or any other holy book for that matter.I agree with you JUSTAWITNESS.We must understand that Christianity, Hinduism and all other great religions of the world are just manifestations of a single belief..the one we have in God..the superior soul.We are worshiping God in different forms in different religions, but all of us finally seek unison with God..which religion we follow is just the surface of the belief we have in God, and how we get to him.
-
Religion does serve for a purpose. Scroll up.
-
-
Religion is a means to guide human beings through life.It has a very important role to play. We can easily get misguided and wrongly channelize our energies if it was not for our religion teaching us good things. At the same time, we must not stop thinking practically. There is no harm in questioning the beliefs of religion, which may have been put forth by normal human beings such as me at some point of time in the past. Those beliefs may have been relevant then, might not apply to present day humanity! So..I think this answers the original question by UPTOWNGAL.
-
Why follow something you don't believe in? At some stage your beliefs are going to be tested and will push you one way or another. I know people say things about beliefs and faith being crutches but I expect if they had an encounter with God they might see things differently. I have a very strong belief and faith and it is backed up by experiences I've had and others I know personally.-
Let me test your beliefs just for fun:
covertmetaphor.com/persuasion/hypnotic-language-patterns-used-by-cults-1/
-
-
I do not beleive in religions and blind faith. What one should do is, you feel what is right and what is wrong. Act according to your consciousness and learn to forgive and forget. -
LOL Allen....that's a great video!
And Justawitness....
It seems you are not very happy with what I wrote in this forum. Well...my response to the grievances you have against what I have written is Allen's (CovertMetaphor) video! Do see it, and let me know your response.
regards-
I watched the video. so what? lol and how is that suppose to answer for you? totally missed it. But no need to respond I don't really want to know.
I have no grievances with anything you wrote. Kind of silly to have a grievance with words that have no power. It was late when I wrote my previous post and I probably should have done the right thing and turned away instead of responding to it anyway... God is great, live and learn
regards? what? rofl
peace
-
-
I feel as if my latest blog is somewhat relevant to the discussion...
www.atheistperspective.com/take-some-responsibility-stop-blaming-dawkins/-
HEhe I have read your blog before
techfaction.com/
-
-
no...not at all!(but I'm born in a Christian family) -
love coming in at the end and seeing how things have sort of devolved.
In answer to the first question - I did do a post about religion a while ago, in fact, my fourth ever blog post! victoryachasegoestotherapy.blogspot.com/2007/06/religion-and-abused-child.h...
Interesting reading that now - but the religion I was brought up in was one that I could no longer follow. I've questioned the beleifs of the religion I was indoctrinated into BUT found there is a difference between religion and 'the church'. Religion in its pure state is great, humans just have the amazing ability to pervert everything they come in contact with.
I of course beleive in what I follow which has become an amalgam of things, and not dependent on a church or group rituals. I also think there is a difference between beleif and knowledge - it's much easier to beleive God or your deity exists than to have proof and firm knowledge. No priest/pastor/minister every told me to know God exists, but to beleive it. I prefer firm knowledge. -
LOL Justawitness!!
-
I was born Catholic, but then converted to Christianity- which many people assume it's the same thing. It's based upon the trinity, however there are different beliefs and standards. I sort of stand out like a sore thumb, since I'm a "Christian lesbian". My blog is based upon that, and how I get a lot of flack from fundamentalists telling me I'm going to hell, due to my lifestyle.
"Religion" itself is a negative word for me. A "relationship with God" seems to fit the bill, in my beliefs. Religion is a set standard for living, rules, regulations and ridid teachings that sometimes scare off people. Spirituality and having a relationship with God focuses on relying on God Himself------not people. In my opinion, people have brainwashed others for so long, that no one has a mind of their own, nor a relationship with God...they have more of a relationship with their pastor...who is also "a sinner". We're all "sinners", in my belief...which is why Jesus died for us on the cross. (Again----all my belief. I totally respect other people's beliefs!)
Great question to open up a forum! -
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That`s kinda my religion -
Humans in general feel the other way. When they do good, they generally do it out of some compulsion and secretly feel bad about it. And when they do bad, they feel good!
No amount of going to churches, mosques, temples, reading holy books etc can restore them to sanity, i.e. feel the way hworang writes a person should feel. -
(Humans in general feel the other way. When they do good, they generally do it out of some compulsion and secretly feel bad about it. And when they do bad, they feel good!)
How did you come to that conclusion? Even if you're an empath or something, I doubt you were able to divine into every person on the planet's emotional reaction to "bad" and "good."-
I agree with Joseph, for most people doing good, they feel good. The only way to conquer the darkness is by doing what is good Genesis 4:6.
For a wicked person, sure they get their rocks off by doing what is bad, but not for your normal type of person.
-
-
Culture is at the heart of religious belief... thus, I am a product of my culture and its religion.
www.theHAPPINESSblog.com -
Enlight....isn't this planet in a state of war, all the time?
There is war/violence in personal relationships.
There is war/violence at the community level. Cops do the rounds 24 hours a day, in any given area, anywhere in the world.
There is war/violence at international borders.
The 'average' person, who you call 'good', put him in the middle of a violent mob, and he will most probably do what the mob is doing---destroy, add to the violence.
The emotional world of the average person on the road is HOSTILE. VIOLENT.
Do you sleep with your house unlocked? Do you leave your house unlocked when you go out? If the average person is good, why not? -
Joseph, read my response to Enlight.
-
The subject we are referring to is, does it make a person feel good, doing something good. The answer is yes.
Now being affected from the energy of a group of people is a different subject.
A person can end up feeling selfish or arrogant if they are around a strong energetic group of people that has a predominating attituded. -
Ok, my response was from a different point of view. I see your point of view now. Yes, the person does feel good, by doing good, from a certain point of view.
This discussion on 'good and bad' makes me put forth a question:
"What is a good person? Is a good person a person who feels good by doing good? Or is there anything more to it?"
Here is my point of view:
There are many people in this world who do good things, and bad things both.
Many people do good things to feel good about themselves. If they do good things, it is out of selfishness. It is an ego trip. They are amusing themselves.
Such people, who do both good and bad, are not necessarily good people. A good person does only good things.
A person who does good things, and knowingly, deliberately does bad things too, is not a good person. -
(Such people, who do both good and bad, are not necessarily good people. A good person does only good things.)
I don't think you can do only good things, no matter how hard you try. You're bound to make a mistake here and there, bound to lose your temper and say or do something mean, no matter how small or rare it is. We just aren't perfect and our emotions and subconscious have so much control.
But I think what Enlight and I were responding to is how a person feels when he does good or bad things. And I see that you have recognized that point of view and understand where we are coming from.
I think most people will feel guilty and "bad" after having gotten caught up in that mob and having done something that they wish they hadn't done.
Now if you do wicked things enough, the bad feelings go away. But I think the average person still feels guilt when he or she sins, even most of the ones who sin regularly.
If I were to go to an extreme to illustrate the point,
Hitler didn't seem like a happy camper to me. Ghandi seemed alot happier. -
hehe..what a discussion ! soon...we will come up with our own religion !
-
I believe in the Religion that I follow because there is actual evidence and proof to me that it is true. I don't follow the leader because I have to but because I choose to. Religion and belief is a personal decision. I have a personal relationship and deep faith in whom and what I believe.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
