Discussion in 'Religion' started by Greatest I am, May 21, 2015.
you keep saying that, is that your mantra?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Does that win you points in your little game.
i didnt realize i was playing a game, what game am i playing?
It isn't taking offense that's a threat to world peace; it's acting on the offense that's a threat to world peace.
The same could be said for anything. Religion is not a threat to world peace; actions based on religion can be a threat to world peace. Poverty is not a threat to world peace; actions taken to alleviate poverty can be a threat to world peace. You can be as offended as you like, you can be as religious as you like, you can hate poverty all you like - but you will only be a threat to world peace if you DO something that threatens world peace.
i guess we should teach people more self control. i wonder if kids these days know much about that.
i suggest we help those parents who seems to think their kids are their boss, but i think its easier just to convince people not to get offended when someone disagrees with them
To your last statement :
That is the most important Observation ; Understanding that can be brought into the open ; for not the few that knew already but for the many that haven't.
The question about the golden rule and God is really; why doesn't God treat everyone like they are small children, instead of teens and adults? Parents are more likely to use a golden rule approach with their smallest children. The little ones are being natural and spontaneous and their mischief is not planned. The parent will use gentle patient.
With teenage children, who often become rebellious finding their own place in life, the same golden rule attitude can reinforce bad behavior. If the teen borrows the family car, without a having a drivers license, and you show unconditional love and smile at his mischief, he will do it again and maybe kill himself next time. The little child does not push it that far so gentle is all that is needed.
In paradise or the Garden of Eden, the golden rule was the case in the beginning. There were no rule beyond one rule, which was not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once they ate of this tree, they would know good and evil. This meant they were no longer just being spontaneous, with no prior knowledge, therefore innocent. Eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil meant they now had knowledge such that the childhood of man was over. The teen will plan more than the small children due to prior knowledge. After that, you can't reward the teen for stealing the car, even if you want to, less you reinforce bad behavior with acceptance of potentially dangerous actions.
With willpower comes choices. It is up to the teenager and adult to choose good and apply the golden rule to his fellow humans.
That isn't the Golden Rule at all.
You can treat childern with respect , understanding and empathy without god having any place in your life.
One of these days I went to ask for a checkup from a doctor and witnessed a beggar on a bus asking for money, saying that he could have been doing bad things, but was only asking for a little help. Then a woman gave him money and said "Jesus loves you".
I think it's amusing that this person views Jesus as a communist/hipster, that "love" is something unconditional that should be given to the most wretched thing, that doesn't want to improve by his own efforts, only manipulate and use others.
That's why I said I lean towards atheism (I am an agnostic-atheist), even though I am fully aware the definite answer to that fundamental question will not be known. Or at least I tend to believe a lot more in an indifferent God rather than a personal one, due to all these distortions and lies spread everywhere.
Christ, for anyone that can actually read and interpret texts, knew this world was doomed, decadent. That's why he actually said that in our hearts we should be looking for God, which means exactly that - to not care about the material world like we do today.
Why do you think some people have their lives fully changed when they start to believe in this paragon of virtue? For some who happen to be inteligent, God is not something greater that created an inferior thing, so that you should tithe to one of his "agents" on Earth that know his word better than you.
It's up to us to decide what our fate is going to be, when we don't follow the commandments, it's not God, Jesus or whatever that are (or will) punish(ing) us, we do that to ourselves.
Many atheists hate only all that I talked about, not the true message that should be known and spread.
Why is suffering allowed? Because we are products of biological and physical laws, otherwise we would not even exist.
As Rocky Balboa would put it, "The world isn't made of sunshine and rainbows. It is a very mean and nasty place It will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me or nobody is going to hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard you're hit, it is about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, how much can you take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done."
How would we even recognize what is good and bad otherwise?
To attribute to women the same mindset/character/etc. of men is something we always did, even though anyone can see both sexes are totally different.
Let alone human features to God...
What ignorants defend doesn't make any sense, an invisible man that can solve all our problems whenever they arise.
If God really exists, we can't conform it to our narrow-minded ideas of space and time.
Can't we see the straw-man fallacy when a subject like this is discussed?
If a being is defined as omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient, immaterial, atemporal and transcendental, can we really attribute our human flaws (and also desires) to it?
No matter what the truth about all that is, one thing we can safely assume: that we will never understand ANYTHING if we aren't honest in seeking the answers.
Anyone that is satisfied with quick solutions and is incapable of admiting his own prejudice is a fool. Suffering drives us to surpass it. If were not for the mistakes and wrongdoings, we would never make things right.
Life has no purpose if the reality in which we live is absolute. None of these people pondered over these questions.
Atheists claim that religious are satisfied with easy answers, and that we may derive purpose from looking at stars, yet what I observe is exactly the opposite. They want us to stop thinking and accept their dogma and think that all life has to offer is restricted to this material realm, to our senses.
As for free-will: we are free in the sense that we are autonomously able to make decisions that are not caused by anything. A tsunami is free to kill me. On the other hand, if I sense one is coming to get me, I may decide to leave or stay and be killed by it.
I know that constraining causes force people to act against their will. For example, a person being robbed at gunpoint is constrained in this sense. And I am not free to decide to never eat or drink again.
That means, clearly, that I don't have UNLIMITED free-will, yet that does not preclude me from having at least some. Which is better than having no choice at all.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that homeless people don't want to improve by their own efforts.
Would you improve by your own efforts if everything in your life was given to you in a silver platter? I sense this is what everyone is trying to say (not directly, of course) when complaining about suffering and things they deserve, because the Universe is mean and cold and does not conform to our desires.
I think a more interesting question would be: what kind of reality would you expect to live if God did follow this golden rule? Would anything be created if didn't die, in the first place? If there was only happiness and no suffering? It doesn't make any sense.
The act of giving someone what it wants without asking anything in return is, in my opinion, the worst thing someone can do. If you approach one of these parasites and give them intangible things or want to improve them in any way that does not include giving them money, they will refuse your "help".
The worst thing about charity isn't giving people things. It's giving people things to make you feel better about not giving people things. Homeless people exist because you and I are selfish greedy pigs who hoard the wealth of the planet that all have a right to. Personal property is a crime against nature.
Why do you restrict your comprehension of God to the Bible?
Do you like Richard Dawkins?
Your view is based just on one of the participants in the exchange in question.
Fact is that those who give get just as much if not more benefit from the giving than the taker does.
The do unto others idea is just as important and beneficial to the giver as the taker.
If you can walk by a needy person and have the wherewithal to help and do not, then you would not be a moral man, nor would you gain the benefits of your natural altruism.
I do not.
As an esoteric ecumenist, I gain knowledge and comprehension wherever I find it and I look in many diverse places including nature.
I use the bible here because what, 95% of people are Westerners who know the bible and are willing to debate and discuss it.
If I used the Qur'an for instance, all I would get would be brain dead Muslim literalists who cannot discuss or debate in a worthy way.
Your question is God related, not people related.
Your question implies that God is a hypocrite, because He does not follow His own rules.
Correct and that God is the same God that the vast majority follow be they Christian of Muslim.
That God is a lying hypocrite who says, do as I say and not as I do.
Do you believe in God?
Separate names with a comma.