The Horrors of christianity

Physics also teaches us that "all things are possible" just not probable.
So the point of your post is...?

 

You can try but I think experience will ultimately fill the bill.

What I mean by saying it is the breath comes and goes from the body. We are spirit, breath. It is our only real being. The breath goes, the body remains.
No breath, no mind, no animation of animal.

So means it is true. As in it is so.

What about biological breakdown? There are more bodies, many more bodies.
Your body is common currency of the species and your individual body is of no consequence in the life of the species. Your consciousness however can make an indelible impression.

By all means let's be sure to uphold massacres because it's good is that it endures no matter how it is construed.

Accommodation reflex — coordinated changes in the vergence, lens shape and pupil size when looking at a distant object after a near object.
Acoustic reflex or stapedius reflex or attenuation reflex — contraction of the stapedius and tensor tympani muscles in the middle ear in response to high sound intensities.
Ankle jerk reflex — jerking of the ankle when the Achilles tendon is hit with a tendon hammer while the foot is relaxed, stimulating the S1 reflex arc.
Arthrokinetic reflex — muscular activation or inhibition in response to joint mobilization
Asymmetric tonic neck reflex (ATNR) or tonic neck reflex — in infants up to four months of age, when the head is turned to the side, the arm on that side will straighten and the contralateral arm will bend.
Babinski reflex — in infants up to one year of age, and also in older individuals with neurological damage, a spreading of the toes and extension of the big toe in response to stroking the side of the foot.
Baroreflex or baroreceptor reflex — homeostatic countereffect to a sudden elevation or reduction in blood pressure detected by the baroreceptors in the aortic arch, carotid sinuses, etc.
Bezold-Jarisch reflex
Biceps reflex — a jerking of the forearm when the biceps brachii tendon is struck with a tendon hammer, stimulating the C5 and C6 reflex arcs.
Blushing — a reddening of the face caused by embarrassment, shame, or modesty.
Brachioradialis reflex — a jerking of the forearm when the brachioradialis tendon is hit with a tendon hammer while the arm is resting, stimulating the C5 and C6 reflex arcs.
Cervico-collic reflex
Cervico-Spinal reflex
Churchill cope reflex
Corneal reflex — blinking of both eyes when the cornea of either eye is touched.
Cough reflex — a rapid expulsion of air from the lungs after sudden opening of the glottis, and usually following irritation of the trachea.
Cremasteric reflex — elevation of the scrotum and testis elicited by stroking of the superior and medial part of the thigh.
Crossed extensor reflex — a contraction of a limb in response to ipsilateral pain, and extension of the contralateral limb.
Galant reflex — in infants up to four months of age, a rotation of the upper body towards one or other side of the back when that side is stroked.
Glabellar reflex
Golgi tendon reflex
Jaw jerk reflex
Knee jerk or patellar reflex — a kick caused by striking the patellar tendon with a tendon hammer just below the patella, stimulating the L4 and L3 reflex arcs.
Mammalian diving reflex
Moro reflex — only in all infants/newborns up to 4 or 5 months of age: a sudden symmetric spreading of the arms, then unspreading and crying, caused by an unexpected loud noise or the sensation of being dropped. It is the only unlearned fear in humans.
Palmar grasp reflex — in infants up to six months of age, a closing of the hand in response to an object being placed in it.
Photic sneeze reflex — a sneeze caused by sudden exposure to bright light.
Plantar reflex — in infants up to 1 year of age, a curling of the toes when something rubs the ball of the foot.
Pupillary accommodation reflex — a reduction of pupil size in response to an object coming close to the eye.
Pupillary light reflex — a reduction of pupil size in response to light.
Rooting reflex — turning of an infant's head toward anything that strokes the cheek or mouth.
Shivering — shaking of the body in response to early hypothermia in warm-blooded animals.
Sneeze or sternutation — a convulsive expulsion of air from the lungs normally triggered by irritation of the nasal mucosa in the nose.
Startle reflex — see Moro reflex above.
Sternutation — see Sneeze above.
Suckling reflex — sucking at anything that touches the roof of an infant's mouth.
Stretch reflex
Triceps reflex — jerking of the forearm when the triceps tendon is hit with a tendon hammer, stimulating the C7 and C6 reflex arcs.
Vagovagal reflex — contraction of muscles in the gastrointestinal tract in response to distension of the tract following consumption of food and drink.
Vestibulo-collic reflex
Vestibulo-spinal reflex
Vestibulo-ocular reflex — movement of the eyes to the right when the head is rotated to the left, and vice versa.

Uhhhh, and Yawn.

How do you weigh love? You have an idealistic vision. There is no withholding love but there is believing love is not present. Of course barriers erected to the perception of love are imaginary, but no matter how imaginary, they are convincing and the claim to hate is the evidence.

Can be.

I don't find you deficient of love. I think there are some things you will not look at with a whole heart, you can't bear it. You haven't met everyone.

Again you have to see one real thing in the present to know anything to the last.

 

An agnostic is usually considered a somewhat open minded individual, this entire thread has given you plenty of possibilities that I don't think you've even considered.. just because you still think God wrote a book..

 

No it's not. Although God did create that book, the "law" was for the Jews, not all mankind.

Even then, what does creating such a book have to do with God being guilty for crimes didn't commit, especially crimes committed by those who are not following the book he created?

Well, you stated that "Christians" committed various crimes, "the Horrors of christianity", you called it but I pointed out that there is no valid reason to believe that such ones were actual Christians. Yes they did call themselves "Christian" but as I pointed out, calling yourself something does not make it so. As Jesus understood, that is why he said by their fruitage you shall know them and so by their fruitage you can tell they were not Christian.

I already have.

Well, since all you have given is your opinion....

You are welcome.

 

Okay

If they are doing horrific things, they are not followers of the God they say they represent, by their fruitage you will know them. So, logically, you are asking God to curb those who are not his followers.

Lied? Encourages? Have you even read the Bible? It is filled with discouragement for doing what is bad and encouragement for doing what is good.

Well, since I have pointed out that your “logic” is a bit faulty so far, this bit of “logic” doesn’t follow.

So we are to ignore the reality of “free will” and with our hands so tied, we are to try to make sense of this “new universe” and “god” you have created?

The fact is this kind and benevolent supernatural entity, as you call him, does not allow his followers to perpetrate horror in his name.
As for being presented in a fraudulent manner, you are presenting him in a fraudulent manner, what do you want him to do to you?

Demands that its followers perform acts of horror in its name? Like what, the Crusades, Inquisition and numerous pogroms against the Jews that you have mentioned? As I have already pointed out to you, neither God, Jesus nor the Bible authorized such things.

So if your parents don’t talk to you for a week while you’re away in college, it logical to assume they no longer exist and probably never existed? As the Bible points out, God’s view of time is different than ours, a thousand years is but a day and so in his view he spoke to us two days ago.

As I have pointed out, your logic so far has been faulty at best and so this conclusion is not logical either.

 

I agree that an agnostic is usually considered an open minded individual. I also know that an agnostic view is one that understands that we have no proof that a creator of some sort exists, nor do we have any proof that one does not exist. Most agnostics I know are like me, they are always looking for answers. The difference is that most of us use science and logic to arrive at our conclusions, and not something like blind faith, which is an emotional concept.
I am sure that other people here tire of me saying that I want something more than just opinions, but really, how can we prove anything through pointless arguing? By using facts, or at least logic, to arrive at a conclusion at least provides a solid base to start an intelligent inquiry into a subject.

I actually don't think any god wrote a book, if I said that it was a facetious remark. I think people wrote about a belief that is unfounded in either fact or logic and want other people to take it as fact, which I disagree with. If the book cannot be proven to uphold the existence of the entity it purports to support, then the only logical conclusion has to be that the entity does not exist.

Christians change their tune every time a valid argument is made against their book, trying to rationalize it using whatever means they can. This has been going on since the religion was created from tenets found in Judaism and other beliefs of the time. I base this statement on what I have read, and my own hopefully logical assumptions.
I admit that I am open to error just as much as anyone, which is why I enjoy discussing the FACTS surrounding an issue. I want to KNOW why things are as they are, not just guess.

 

OlderWaterBrother

Thanks anyway, but it appears that you prefer to just create more arguments. If you would please post some material that supports your conclusions, I would be happy discuss those.

So far, all you are doing is voicing your opinion that I am wrong, and do not offer anything to support what you say, which will only lead to more arguing, since we cannot verify the statement is valid through supporting evidence.

See, I posted this material earlier:

Theodosius' code:

We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retributions of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment. In regards to Pagans; (Pagans being mostly anyone who did not believe as the christians) We command that all their fanes, temples, and shrines, if even now any remain entire, shall be destroyed by the command of the magistrates, and shall be purified by the erection of the sign of the venerable Christian religion. There was further legislation, resulting in the death penalty for non-Christians in 435. Everyone had to belong to the official "Catholic" Christianity - the only other permitted religion was Judaism, and Jews were isolated as much as possible from the rest of the population. Between 429 and 439 about 150 different laws were passed defining and defending the "Catholic faith." Church lands became exempt from taxation and bishops became immune to any sort of secular oversight or punishment. ​

The Crusades:
In 1208, Pope Innocent III used an army of over 20,000 knights and peasants to kill and pillage their way through France. When the city of Beziers fell to the besieging armies of Christendom, soldiers asked papal legate Arnald Amalric how to tell the faithful apart from the infidels. He replied: "Kill them all. God will know His own."
Followers of Peter Waldo of Lyon, called Waldensians promoted the role of lay street preachers despite official policy that only ordained ministers be allowed to preach. They rejected oaths, war, relics, veneration of saints, indulgences, purgatory, and considerably more that was promoted by religious leaders. The church felt it needed to control the information the people heard, so they would not be corrupted by the temptation to think for themselves. They were declared heretics at the Council of Verona in 1184 and hounded and killed over the course of the following 500 years. In 1487, Pope Innocent VIII called for an armed crusade against populations of Waldensians in France.
The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the slogan "Deus Vult" (God wills it), and had a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land. Gathering crusaders in Germany they first went after "the infidel among us," Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city. Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just and marvelous judgment of God."


Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."


In the Third Crusade, Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives including many women and children to be taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings.




Hatred of Jews:
All through Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales were spread that Jews were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims, Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent , were beatified or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and miracles.


The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer supposedly turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Supposedly, the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany -- the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months.


When the Plague hit Europe in 1348-1349, rumors stated that it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent down the Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, a sick lot of penitents who whipped themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt and massacred the inhabitants. The prince of Thuringia stated that he had burned his Jews for the honor of God.


In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be expelled from the city. The town council disagreed, but the bishop's exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the residents to death.


In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews.


In the late 19th century, with rebellion stirring, the czars in Russia tried to divert attention by helping anti-Semitic groups goad Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued, in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly worse. During the final pogrom, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed.


The Inquisition:
During the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to the establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. The Holy Inquisition was formed to make the efforts more organized and efficient. Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1231, and burning was quickly decided upon as the official punishment. Administrators and Inquisitors all answered directly to the Pope, which essentially made him directly responsible for their actions. In 1245, the Pope gave Inquisitors the right to absolve their assistants of any acts of violence they might commit while fulfilling their duties. Pope Innocent IV authorized torture. During interrogation by Dominican priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken on machines to force them to confess to disbelief and to identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week.


Conrad of Marburg burned every suspect who was brought before him and had the audacity to claim innocence. Bernard Fui convicted 930 people, confiscating all of their property for himself. Inquisitors like him grew rich from their jobs with little or no oversight. Even the dead could be accused of heresy, allowing Inquisitors to confiscate property from their heirs.


In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape persecution, inquisitors hunted those who still practiced their old faith. At least 2,000 of them were burned. In other countries supposed heretics were burned, including scientists such as Giordano Bruno, who pushed Copernicus's theory that the planets orbit the sun.


In the 1400s, the Inquisition focused on witchcraft. Priests tortured thousands of women into confessing that they were witches who flew, engaged in sex with the devil, and performed other impossible acts, they were then burned or hanged after confessing. Witch hysteria went on for three centuries in a dozen nations. The number of people executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000 supposed witches were put to death in the province of Alsace, in France, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg.


"Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the acts of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed 200 Catholics.


Spaniards brought the Inquisition to the Americas. Through the 1500s, 879 heresy trials were recorded in just Mexico. Church leaders supported the suppression, enslavement and murder of native inhabitants, a 1493 papal Bull justified declaring war on all non-Christian natives in the Americas. Jurist Encisco wrote in 1509:

“The king has every right to send his men to the Indies to demand their territory from these idolaters because he had received it from the pope. If the Indians refuse, he may quite legally fight them, kill them and enslave them, just as Joshua enlsaved the inhabitants of the country of Canaan. “​

In keeping with church traditions, Inquisitor Franciso Pena declared in 1578 that “We must remember that the main purpose of the trial and execution is not to save the soul of the accused but to achieve the public good and put fear into others.”
Torture was not removed as a legal option for church officials until 1917 when the Codex Juris Canonici was put into effect.

in support of my assumptions at the start of the thread, and no one has made any attempt to refute it yet.

And then I posted the following, attempting to explain that the sort of activity that is the point of this thread goes on to this day. No one has refuted that either.
Well, really, not just 600 hundred years ago, do you read or watch any news? Let's see, here are a few more recent activities associated with what I am trying to discuss:
Take note of how the level of anger has risen in the rhetoric coming from many Christians, particularly in reference to homosexuality. Senator Trent Lott openly compared homosexuals with thieves, expressing the fundamental assumption that homosexuality is essentially criminal in nature and deserving of similar treatment.

The website for Gary Bauer's Family Research Council speaks of "waging war against the homosexual agenda." The nomination of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg has been held up for months, ostensibly due to his promotion of the "gay lifestyle."

The U.S. Supreme Court also let stand a lower court ruling which upheld the Constitutionality of an amendment to the Cincinnati city charter which prohibited legal bans on discrimination by sexual orientation.
So, in Cincinnati, it became quite legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians. If you have a gay man working for you, you can fire him at will. If you have a lesbian as customer, you can refuse to serve her if you wish. None of it would be illegal. Imagine if such were possible only against Christians.

Coincidentally, this ruling came one day after the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyoming. He was horribly beaten, burned, and lashed to a fence overnight in near freezing rain - primarily because he was gay. Police reports the main motive to be robbery - but rarely is a person beaten and tortured merely for robbery - that kind of act requires more than greed. Such attacks were not new to Shepard - he had been beaten twice in previous months, also because of his homosexuality.
Even as he lay dying in a Colorado hospital, college students there mocked him with a scarecrow atop a float in a parade. Homophobic and bigoted Christians came to Caspar, Wyoming to picket his funeral and dance on his grave, holding signs stating that "AIDS cures Fags." A Time/CNN poll revealed that three-quarters of adults questioned think that the problem of violence against homosexuals is not only serious, but very possible in their own communities.

This incident renewed efforts across the country to pass hate crime legislation which would provide for increased penalties when crimes are committed for reasons of hatred. Mike Massie of the Wyoming legislature has tried four times this past decade to get such legislation passed, but he's been told it won't happen unless sexual orientation is dropped from the list of biases. President Clinton urged Congress to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which would have broadened the definition of hate crimes to include gays, women and the disabled - but conservative Christians strongly opposed the measure.



Government officials in both Canada and the United States have issued warnings to abortion doctors to take extra precautions. Anti-abortion extremists in Britain have warned the public that there "will be casualties" in the coming war, and that they did not intend to "turn the other cheek." As the anti-abortion rhetoric has increased over the years, so has the anti-abortion violence - property is destroyed, people are killed, and women are denied access to medical care.
When Muslim extremists place a bomb at a bus station in Israel, it is justifiably regarded as an act committed by "Muslim Terrorists." When are we going to wake up and recognize that similar acts here are being committed by "Christian Terrorists?"



Katie Couric of the Today Show questioned whether or not the murder of Matthew Shepard might be linked with the increasingly hostile displays of intolerance on the part of various right-wing Christian groups like Focus on the Family. The reaction from members of such organizations was quick and massive - so massive, in fact, that NBC had to ask Focus on the Family to cease and desist with the phone calls. James Dobson, president of the organization, has also asked for an official apology from NBC.
Apparently, he is free to accuse homosexuals of whatever he wants, linking them to crime and drug use, if that is his whim, but any suggestion that his rhetoric encourages a climate of hate and violence is to be considered libelous. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center considers it "one of the most insidious and bigoted attacks against Christians ever seen" for someone to suggest that Christians bear any responsibility for the Matthew Shepard's death. Somehow, I doubt he takes the suggestion that Christians are exhibiting any bigotry towards homosexuality very seriously.





There was a firestorm over witches (wiccans) in Salem, Massachusetts, as Republican Governor Paul Cellucci promoted very degrading stereotypes in his election TV ads.
Cellucci's commercials attacked state Attorney General Scott Harshbarger for his 1992 role in assisting Salem police when Christian evangelists were accused of accosting the city's Wicca followers and Harshbarger threatened to prosecute for civil rights violations. Evidently, Cellucci felt that it's OK to accost Wiccans - perhaps since they don't follow a "real" religion?
Cellucci's commercials featured a police line-up of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and a pointy-hatted, wart-nosed, stereotypical old witch. An announcer called it "scary" that Harshbarger might threaten prosecution on behalf of witches as the witch standing there cackles. Wiccans in the area were understandably upset - imagine the outcry if Cellucci had used a similarly nasty stereotype of a black or a Jew in that line-up. But of course, few in the media took notice of this stereotyping - Wiccans just don't count.
The ad also chastised Harshbarger for banning Christmas decorations from public areas in the office - so he was not only to be condemned for defending the religious freedom and rights of a minority group, but also for prohibiting public offices from becoming promotion venues for Christianity. People who don't toe the line by pandering to Christians in this country have a hard time in getting elected, even in liberal Massachusetts.


In Republic, Missouri, Wiccan Jean Webb has fought a lonely and caustic battle. Although she at times thinks of just giving up and running - times like when she picks up the phone only to hear a Good Christian Citizen let loose with a stream of obscenities and threats. Or like when previously friendly clerks at the supermarket close their registers when she approaches.
Or maybe when a Good Christian Neighbor stands outside and shouts at her that she is an evil witch who will suffer eternal damnation. Or maybe when she sees the vicious attacks painted on a large rock in a nearby field in which her children can no longer play. Or maybe when her daughter received so much abuse at school from Good Christian Children that she now has to be taught at home.
What did Jean do to suffer such torment at the hands of local Christians? What prompted the local newspaper to fire her without explanation, such that she cannot even today find further employment? Did she molest children or beat puppies? Worse: She opposed the officially dominant position of Christianity in local government.



Her community has used the Christian symbol of the fish in their official seal, and since she does not believe that religious symbols belong as part of government business, she decided to challenge it as a violation of church/state separation with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union. Supporters of the symbol claim that it is supposed to represent the deep commitment to religious values - but among those values are apparently things like hatred and mean-spiritedness.
Jean had already left another town, Aurora, because of the abuse her daughter received at school there and had even considered "attending the Baptist church as cover" when she moved to Republic.
What sort of country do we have that religious minorities might feel compelled to hide their faith and pretend to be Christians in order to avoid persecution?


Your opinion is that these people can't be christians if they don't follow what is in their bible. Yet they seem to think they are christians and following the will of their god. What gives you the authority to claim that they are not, and that it is not the christian gods will? Are you a spokesperson for this god? Are you imbued with some sort of divine authority that comes from this god?
Anyone can make an opinion, the only way to satisfy the topic is through facts and logic.

Your bible is full of instances where your god commands others to perform acts of horror, which supports my conclusions for this topic

[SIZE=2]So, if you want to discuss the matter instead of just arguing about it, then ple[SIZE=2]ase [SIZE=2]start by [SIZE=2]provi[SIZE=2]ding supporting evid[SIZE=2]ence for your opin[SIZE=2]ion that I am wrong.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

See, I'm not the only one!

 

Mr Kicking: (can't be assed quoting)

"Blind faith" is your opinion, granted a lot of people follow with blind faith, not understanding or questioning their religion and just doing what they're told. I wouldn't call that faith.. but I wouldn't call what I subscribe to as "faith", either.

I've got nothing to believe in, there's no point. I just get up in the morning and see how incredible this planet is, and everything that surrounds it(though I don't see that in the morning). It's not all daisies, it's pretty fuckin' shit a lot of the time.. but that's part of the weird and augmented beauty.

God is just a word.. it means nothing except what you want it to mean.. if thinking of God as an entity isn't working for you, try something else. The proof for what Is, is staring you in the face. You ARE the friggin' proof.. and the thoughts that drift through your mind.
It's Life.. Existence.. The very ability to question your own reality and the beliefs that have been "forced" upon you. It's everything you can conceive, and everything you can't..
It's so incredibly simple, yet so complex, it's disappointingly awesome.. you can't help but laugh at it sometimes..


Here's another quote by Alan Watts:

"Logic and meaning are the properties of thought and language, not the world itself."


The world is infinite, science has recently proved this, and philosophers have been telling us this for thousands of years. Logically, none of this should be happening.
Science is great, we owe a lot to it, but it's pathetically feeble when you hang all your weight on it.. it's limited to simple measurements and definitions, it can't even explain our existence. If I'm following your logic, by this, we don't exist.

Do you realise how incredible it is that you can even experience your own breath? let alone be able to hold your bowels, release them, and then proceed to wipe your little pink sphincter?
Out of every possible combination of "stuff", this is the shit that happened, and you're part of it, experiencing, interacting.

The details of religion are a hindrance if you take them literally, in my opinion. Subscribe if you want, criticise if you want.. but at least understand what you're subscribing to or criticising.
That means looking further than bits of paper and words that are wide open to interpretation/misinterpretation.


Have you ever watched a sunrise/sunset? Not just glanced at it.. but sat there and absorbed everything your senses could pick up on.. the sight itself, the feel of the grass beneath you and the wind through your hair, the sounds of the birds and the smells of whatever happens to be around you.. If not, I'd like you to.. even if you have, in fact, you should do it again. Whilst you're sitting there, take some deep breaths and rethink your entire concept of what "God" is.

There is no literature than can describe experience accurately, and you probably know that cos you don't actually seem all that unintelligent, so why do you hold so much truth to simple words?


Now, I'm not the best wordsmith - I draw things, not write.. but hopefully that has given you some new options to consider.. I really hope, cos it's taken me a while to iron out all possibilities of misinterpretation, that I've noticed at any rate.

 

Sorry, keep thinking that a person who is arguing against the Bible and Christianity has at least read the Bible. All the supporting evidence is there. For starters, try looking these up: Matthew 5:43-48; 7:12; 7:15-20; 21-23; 19:18-19; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 6:31

I have already refuted it, on face value alone. When you show me that Christians have been given the authority to do any of this by God, Jesus or the Bible then I will concede the discussion to you but until then you have merely shown that there are false Christians and I already knew that. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Once again, by their fruitage you will know them, If people do not even follow the basic tenants of Christianity, how can they be considered Christian? (Matthew 7:15-20)

Oh they are following the will of their god but it is not the God of the Bible.

What authority do I need? If you have read a book and someone says the book tells me to do this and having read the book you know that it doesn't says that, what authority does it take to say it doesn't say that. It is just a fact it, doesn't say that.

You keep saying that but all you are saying is that your thoughts are logical because you say them and others thoughts are opinion because they are not your thoughts on the matter.

Really? Sounds like you want it to be true. Have you ever stopped to reason on what was really taking place? It seems you are the one that keeps asking why God doesn't stop people who are committing these "horrors" but then call it "horror" God does.

I'm not arguing about it, just pointing out the all holes in your reasoning.

 

First do no harm is an expression supposedly from Hippocrates. The christian equivalent is first remove the log from your own eye. Has not whatsoever to do with fear. It has to do with being able to create a world that you want to see instead of one you don't.

Love is what we are, not what we do. We are being. There are no discrete events but how we focus our mind is discretionary. We live in a physical world.

What I mean by those that don't love us is the circumstances of life we may find trouble us. The only thing missing from any moment is a state of being we have chosen for ourselves through agreement. The measure we give is the measure we receive.

Love does not discriminate between love and not love. What discriminates is the critical mind, not love. What ever we imagine our contribution to life to be, it is not needed, it may be appreciated or not. The only thing that is missing in a complaint about the world is appreciation. Reality doesn't need correction.

Everything arises from conception. You cannot help but give and give with utmost abundance in every moment.

I don't find you less than agreeable. I was reminding of a quality of reflection.
We find those most agreeable whom we agree with. The only difference between appealing and unappealing, is our agreement.

You are afraid of your content, thinking your form definitive. Your form is an accessory to spiritual being that speaks condition into existence. It is frightening perhaps to think you are responsible for the conditions you see. Here again you would say condition and existence are the same, yet we exist regardless of the conditions we find.

Indeed! To whomever, I am grateful.

Love goes out as it moves in us, it is not an accessory to life.

Species come and go on this planet. Animal forms, go extinct. The processes that create animal forms, do not.

Not all conditions are existentially necessary to our condition. All conditions beyond our eminent presence that we claim however, are established and upheld by the claimant through the process of conception.
Reality is not relative but our conditioned perspective is.

 

well you did pretty darn good putting your thoughts to word.:2thumbsup:

:mickey:Isn't all just friggin awesome!:sunny:

This play we are all actors/audience in instills me with awe and gratitude every moment.
Plus the set design is just absolutely stellar!

 

thedope:

Of course it's from hypocrites. Who wants to imagine the harm of humorism?
Is it my imagination that there is something wrong if medical practitioners need to remember primum non nocere? Or is it for their accolytes?! Is it a removal of the log from the plainly obvious?

What is it you think I'm not seeing thedope? :-D

Could've at least rhymed, in alarm at what's timed your response, since you say what we see you great ponce. Condition's existence besides, and again, and forever, not whether your pig's in its pen. :-D

If you are not firstly grateful to yourself, I could care less about your gratitude. A lot less. lol

It goes around, not out. It's no accessory, because love is not just what we are but what we do.

Genius! :-D

Reality is not relative?! LOL You're true to life, if you can ever be true to words, we'll have a conversation! ;-D There'll be no need for reminders!

 

thedope:

Your recording an A to Y of reflex is supposed to show me how it's pre-recorded?

ZZZzzzzzz

Mind of a matter... not over.

 

Hippocrates is not the same as hypocrite. Yes it is your imagination.

Are you drunk?

I said first things first. Yes it is for any one who would find their own way.
An unhealed healer is a contradiction in terms. To first remove the log from your own eye is to look always to yourself first for the solution to what ails you.

What are you not seeing? You find what you look for, always. If you find the evidence not so, then the measure of seeking is suspect. We have not because we ask not.

What would it compare itself to?

 

The reflexes are memories. Not your personal memories but biological memories from over the ages.

 

Can't you use your intuition, plus the "logic" you rely so heavily on, to clarify what we're talking about?

You take everything at face value, otherwise this topic probably wouldn't exist.

Not sure what you were getting at with this first bit, but cool.
A lot of us LOVE discussing issues, as well as the uncomfortable ones.. you just don't want to leave your comfort zone of tangible facts and concrete reality.

There's only been some "sniping" because it's very hard to converse with someone who can't converse.. the attempts at conversation were labelled "trolling", posts were deleted because you had a little paddy, and a few of us were ignored. Yes. Generally that kind of behaviour tends to cause a little tension.. thank you though, for un-ignoring me.

I do actually enjoy your threads, but I'm not 100% sure why.

Facts are logic and meaning.. but yes, I agree, they play a fundamental role life and we'd be useless without them.. they let us cross the street.

But to define your existence by what you read in a textbook is a very sad and lonely way to live. Facts are meant to enrich your experience, not be your existence.

I'm disappointed.. as a man of fact I thought this would have been right up your alley. It's heavy shit, but incredibly interesting.. I've had a quick look for some sources, but Wiki is very heavy going.. have a dabble if you like, but this is a good starting point.

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec13.html

Education on some of the "basic" quantum principles will let you see why you've implied this.

You don't need factual evidence to prove this

Include yourself into that, I get the feeling that you view yourself as just an observer.

1) You're not wrong there, I'm making it my job to deal in the abstract.
2) I'd be worried if I didn't
3) Correct
4) It doesn't need to, that's what logic is for.. but ask yourself honestly, what is it that you're trying to solve in the first place? What is the significance? How will it benefit you in any way, shape or form? Is it even worth the energy?
5) You don't understand what your own topic is about, because a lot of people have pointed out, the basis of your argument is flawed. House built on sand kinda thing, you know?
6) I've seen a few official definitions being thrown about, so I'd feel left out if I didn't include one of my own

dis·cus·sion
/disˈkəSHən/
Noun
The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas.
A conversation or debate about a certain topic.
Synonyms
debate - argument - disputation - dispute - controversy

I'd say your being too hard on yourself, of course we're discussing.

There is some weird shit on the sex forums.. gotta admit I generally stay away, but it's good for a laugh.
Glad you don't need drugs, but you probably pop a few pills every now and then at least.. possibly have a cup of coffee.

I would like to ask you to consider one psychedelic experience.. just that once, not to artificially stimulate life for ever.. just so you can rekindle that flame of experiencing life without judgement, and to realise just because it looks so, doesn't mean it is.

Hopefully the quantum stuff will open that door a little bit though..


Edit: Thanks Noxious bit choppy though, never been able to get things to flow.. possibly cos I use double full stops a lot.. .. .. but ideas as well