All Religions Are False.

All searchers feel like that sometimes

 

I would note that the statement seek and you shall is a far different one from, you must accept jesus christ as your lord and savior.

 

Awake out of your slumber and answer your call!

 

I offered you a hawaiian punch and you laughed.

 

Yeah, well, you did hit me with that one....

 

I had heard the name Alan Watts, but never took the time to look into any of his stuff. I just spent an hour listening to him speak and yeah... wow...

 

LOL! That third sentence cracked me up! What do the innocent want with justice? Have you really misunderstood Jesus? :-D I must now reassess my position on your position regarding sin. You think you perceive it! lol I forgive you, poor sinner.

I think Jesus himself would be seeing them as never before were he here reading this. :-D

We 'pass verdict' in everything, even if only not to do so. Our understanding stands. The verdict is innocence.

Everything is its appearance.

:-D You've also stated many times that we don't create ourselves. I've learned to take no stock in your words. So why do you think you're god? Is your self somehow deficient?

Yes. Why I winked. (;-D) Now shut up and be honoured to be among me. :-D

 

lol

 

not that they can't, but that if they do, it isn't because of their beliefs. not their religious beliefs anyway. as for the hate and discontent, that exists primarily BECAUSE of "religious" beliefs. (religious in quotes, because i realize such was never the intent of any revealer of organized beliefs, but rather, none the less, what they almost invariably degenerate into after a very few generations. christianity being the primary glaring example, along with its following itteration; islam.)

and i don't "hate" anybody. i just call em like i see em, and christianity has done more harm then good in this world. which is not to deny that it has done some good also. (mostly by accident, out of guilt, and for the sake of good press). though i don't believe it to be the will of any god for it to have done the harm that it has. (nor other itterations of the same belief before or after)

there is nothing to do with hate, or even passing judgement, to recognize that there is no morality without the avoidance of causing harm, no avoidance of causing harm without the use of logic and reason, and that what christianity has become, discourages, if not flat out forbids, the use of logic and reason, and is therefor, immoral.

that's not discontent with reality, that IS reality.

 

It is said by a lot of people with certainty that christianity has done more harm then good, but this seems really hard to measure it with certainty. I wonder how close all these people looked and became so certain. I have the suspicion a lot of them just say this as if it is an established fact but is it really? Just because we lived in a christian society for centuries all the harm we did in those times is the fault of the religion we were under or the church? Really? Just because we hadn't seperation of church and state all things our society and the christian people in it did wrong is to be blamed on our religion? I doubt that.

Also: most of the good things religion has done was by accident or out of guilt, or to make religion look good? I think you are merely hypothesizing here which is ok, if you wouldn't state it as fact.

Well, by my observance christianity has become a lot of different things, and has always been a lot of difference things for centuries. It was and is quite diverse as are its followers. It seems very clear you are generalizing and oversimplificating the whole religion in your urge to make clear you've seen how bad it is. Maybe though, and I have the feeling this is the case, you have only witnessed a few aspects of christianity, or have been confronted with some negative traits associated with it that are repeated a lot by certain media and/or people who pronounce their opiion as fact but have not looked seriously into it themselves.
I mean, HOW is one to measure if a religion like christianity did more bad than good? Is it because you heard about the inquisition? The crusades? Dude, if you think religion is solely to blame for those escapades maybe you should look into it some more.

 

Well don't let your amusement choke your capacity to apprehend. Sin meaning to miss the sign is an error in perception peri fucking od. Do you suggest that we don't experience errors in perception? Perhaps you think not because you believe perception equals knowledge and it's all perception. The innocent do not perceive injustice. Have you misunderstood me? Do you profess to understand jesus being an atheist? You cannot undo what you have done but you can change your mind about what you will do. Go and sin no more. What you will do always is what you think is righteous.

You do exhibit profound prejudice on the subject. I am a disciple, studious, and am familiar having been baptized with fire and the holy spirit. You find yourself on the outside looking in ;and so you perceive and interpret on this subject, disointedly. What would jesus do is a stupid line of reasoning unless the mind that is in him is in you.

^^ This is a pap smear.

The kingdom of heaven is like a man who finds his treasure buries it there and buys all the land around it.

I am not my reflection in the mirror.

In this world we exist for and with each other, as creator we co-create with god.

Describe to me how we create ourselves please. Something other than we do ourselves create.

 

banter between you and Dejavu, thedope is like watching a comedy.....and lol to you both.....

 

"Sin meaning to miss the sign is an error in perception period." LOL! You are the profoundest of philologists to have sourced the entomology etymology of sin to this degree of distillation thedope! ;-D I suggest that errors in perception are no sin. I profess to understand Jesus as human being.

Truly, I am a much ointed outsider, looking down in this instance, on the conjecture that there are stupid lines of reasoning. :-D

lol You have missed my meaning. Fear not, I am with you. I have not sinned against the father, let alone the son, or the holy goose.

Does he also buy the bit the treasure's been planted in? Why does sunday school suck so much dad? :-D

Very well deduced thedope. Everything is its appearance.

We co-create with eachother.

Well son, when a man loves a woman very much, and she loves him too, they take off all their clothes and run down to the cabbage patch where the stork has delivered a child unto them. He or she is then consecrated in confetti, and the farmer comes along to cut the cake.

 

I agree with the original poster. All religions are fiction.

 

There is only one truth

 

the possibility of god existing or not ... ? please bear, i will try to make an important point about logic.

to make a determination of the logic of some condition (which could be existance or non-existance, but more accurately the state of something) one must perform a conditional test on the parameters of said condition. if the parameters of the test are TRUE, then the state of the condition is logically TRUE (the condition is TRUE and has occurred, is present, etc), any other state of parameters is LOGICALLY FALSE (the condition being tested has not occurred).

if one cannot perform a truth test on some condition then it is mostly likely because they do not clearly know what it is that is being tested for, and cannot define parameters to test.

one can test any integer mathematically for parity, and determine whether it is an even or odd integer by performing division by 2 and testing for a remainder of 0.

if remainder r of n / 2 is 0; the condition is true ( remainder of n / 2 = 0); the integer n is even.

...any other case ( r =/= 0; ie. r=2, r = -1, ... ); the condition is false; n is NOT even, and MUST be odd.

0 *is* an even number, since division of zero by two gives 0 as dividend and 0 remainder.

the concept of parity and "evenness" or "oddness" exists, we are taught in school and most people do not consciously compute the mathematical expression to test whether or not the number 15 is odd, most people have dealth with numbers often enough that they know 15 is odd (it looks like an odd number), and can be tested at any point in time by anyone, but there must exist some definition of what makes a number even or not, which can be tested; otherwise the concept of even or odd numbers cannot exist since it is undefined and cannot be tested.

while most are familiar with 2, 4, 6, 8, ... being even numbers as well as numbers having 2, 4, 6, 8 as the least significant digit being even it may not be abundantly clear whether or not 0 is even since it is not dealt with in the same context but surely all other numbers with 0 as least significant digit such as 10, 100, .. are even. if one is unsure whether 0 is even, it can be tested applying the rules of mathematics, and confirmed that it is TRUE, that 0 is an even integer.

some may be unsure about 0 because surely it possesses some properties that no other even integers possess, however .. those properties can be tested themselves but are not part of the conditions for an even integer. surely -2 is not a natural number, but it is an even integer as well. to test if a number is a natural number you would need to test the sign of the number. seperate tests for seperate things.


How can you subject the idea of GOD to logical test?

for one, you would need well defined parameters on which the condition of could be tested. if you cannot supply these parameters then the "thing" you wish to test is possibly non-computable, and is logically erroneous. if it is the case that it is infeasible to test the parameters, you must still have previously defined parameters, and have some reason for them being included in the expression on which to test for the condition.
in order to test the condition of some "thing", it must be well defined what that "thing" is; so that a test can be constructed around appropriate parameters involved to yield a logically true test if the condition has occurred (or else, false if it has NOT)

without knowing exactly what God is, it is logically impossible to test. in order to attempt to remedy this situation, rationally one must re-assess the problem, and re-assess exactly what it is that lead them to believe that this undefined condition may (or may not) exist in the first place.

edit: fixed the formatting and bold/italic

PS* one could raise the argument that something such as God is a nonphysical entity, and cannot be tested for by physical parameters testable from within this reality. in this case, i would reason that such an entity therefore would exist exclusively outside of the reality that we inhabit and thus may be completely irrelevent in this context as interaction on it's behalf with objects or entities existing within our environment could not occur, as all interactions with objects in this reality interact through known physical mechanisms. the possibility of an unknown mechanism is the same problem [as god], eventually the mechanism will be found if it exists .. was it really the god you were looking for in this case?

 

its much easier then that. how people act creates the kind of world we all have to live in. look at what motivates people to act how they do, think how they think, see things how they see things. i'm talking statistically, not just one person here and one there. of course we're all different, whatever we believe or don't.

 

there is only one reality. has nothing to do with the words we invent to try to describe it. much to unwieldy of a thing to even begin to image being containable in one book, or so many words.