Spider, everyone's view of the God of Abraham is equally valid, just like eveyrone's view of the Greek God Zeus is equally valid. Both of those gods exist in ancient stories and everyone is entitled to hold their own perceptions of those stories. No one person owns those stories, or has the ulitmate truth on them because it's been clearly shown throughout history that those ancient stories are quite ambigous and open to personal interpretation.

In so far as my own beliefs are concerned, I believe in my creator. I cannot be wrong, because I do not define my creator. Whatever my creator is, it is. I accept that.

So I know that I can't be wrong. I didn't make up an arbitrary external God to idly worship. I worship my creator and only my creator. Any God who claims to be my creator is automatically being worshiped. Any God who claims that he or she isn't being worshiped by me cleary can't be my creator then because I worship my creator.

I can't be wrong Spider. I have the only infallible religion there is.

Specious. Words can be interpreted in any way you desire, but that doesn't mean every interpretation is valid. Most of your interpretations of scripture are completely off and designed, purposefully by you, to make the scripture look as bad and improbable as possible. It's absolutely ridiculous for you to post this sort of crap. If you really were a professor, contact a professor of literature and ask if every single interpretation of a peice of literature is valid. By High School at the very least, every student knows that is not true. Is there any specious argument which you aren't willing to make?

I see you learned a new word. Good for you.



Everything that you've stated here is entirely your own subjective opinion.

It is true that I point out the greatest fallacies and absurdities in the doctrine. Why should I not?

If the doctrine claims that God asked people to stone other people to death, and I believe that to be an unreasonable thing for God to do, then it is perfectly valid for me to point out just how unreasonable it is.

Why should I support only the good parts of the doctrine and ignore all the bad stuff? That's what most religious people do. But what they fail to realize is that they are supporting the bad stuff whether they like it or not.

I don't believe that our creator would ever tell anyone to stone people to death. Since this doctine claims that this is what God does then the doctrine must be false. At least in part. And if any parts of it are in question, then the whole thing must be in question.

I'm not going to stand by while people use this doctrine to pass judgments on other people when the doctine itself has God asking people to judge others as sinners and to stone them to death.

Clearly this is archaic crude stuff. The whole thing is based on a God who requires blood sacrfices before he can forgive sins in the first place. It's ancient superstitions. And that very notion is precisely what led up to the idea that the crucifixion of Christ washes away the sins of man.

I'm not going to support that kind of nonsense. Especially knowing full well that these very religious beliefs are at the core of modern Middle Eastern political unrest today.

This kind of religious thinking was responsible for burning innocent people at the stake, standing in the way of scientific development, and creating political unrest and war.

It isn't done yet. It still attempts to stand in the way of science by attempting to denounce evolution for no good reason. And it's still causing polical unrest on a very major scale. I see no good coming from it. Why should I support it in any way, including via simply ignorning it.

I think it's about time people started speaking out against these terrible judgemental religions.

I think people should look at the Bible with new eyes and ask the questions that need to be asked in regards to what it means and does not mean. But for centuries, speaking out against that Book has been called blasphemous and people who did so were viciously attacked or shunned.

It should be questioned and people should not be afraid to question it and the doctrines of the church.

So, why, Spider, would you say that it is ridiculous to post "this crap." Why? Why?

Where goes the idea of free thought, and free speech? Would you be one who votes to silence people with different opinions? Would you be one to support killing dissenters?

Or are you going to support freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the freedom to question dogma?

It is called freedom of religion and it includes freedom from religion, and yes, if someone wants to put religion on trial, I say more power to them.

Jeannie

This is the thing that I really wish people could understand.

Questioning a religion is not the same thing as questioning God.

If you never knew your father, and someone brought you a book full of rules and parables about how you should behave, and they claimed that book was written by your father, would you automatically believe them?

And if you questioned the origins of the book would that be the same thing as questioning your father's authority?

Hardly.

You'd want to know if that book was truly written by your father before you started to blindly adhere to it.

Well, that's precisely the way I look at the Bible.

People are trying to tell me that my Heavenly Father wrote this book. Yet this book claims that my Heavenly Father asked people to stone each other to death. This book claims that my Heavenly Father can't forgive sins unless there is a blood sacrifice made to him. This book claims that my Heavenly Father let things get so far out of control that he had to drown out all of civilization including the entire animal kingdom! This book claims that if I don't blieve it was written by my Heavenly Father my Heavenly Father will punish me for not believing it was written by him.

I don't by it for a second.

I toss the book right back at those people and say, "You don't fool me. My Heavenly Father would never write that crap."

That's precisely what I'm doing Spider.

I'm saying that I don't believe that my Heavenly Father had anything to do with the Bible. Just look at all the hatred, rejection and judgments that come out of that book.

I don't believe that my Heavenly Father wrote that book.

I trust that my Heavenly Father is far wiser than what that book claims.

I see that book as having been written by humans with flaws. Humans that wanted to control people by fabricating a story about a Heavenly Father and using that story to make eveyrone feel like they are rejecting their Heavenly Father if they reject the book.

Well I don't buy it. I think the book is a fraud. I don't believe that book was inspired or written by my creator. It's far too ignornant IMHO.

And so I reject that the book has anything to do with my Heavenly Father. I trust that my creator is far superior to that bigoted judgmental nonsense.

if Pantheists worship one supreme God that set forth no laws then wouldn't such a God expect from it's worshippers total anarchy to do as they please without any regards or consideration to anyone but themselves

If there are no laws there can be no anarchy.
Doing what you please is called freedom.
The law is the law of cause and effect and the law of attraction.
There are no written laws like rules. You have to learn the laws of cause and effect through experience.

JB

if there is no laws then how can they be laws of cause and effect ..that's a contradiction ..and even such laws as cause and effect through experience would still be each pantheist worshipper setting their own laws and that is clearly anarchy

First of all, I do not "worship" a pantheist "god."
As a pantheist, I realize that I, in a sense, am god.

That is self realization and also god realization.

Second, I did not state that there were no laws.

What Abra is referring to is rules like the ten commandments etc. that are set up by religious doctrine.

What I am talking about are the natural laws of nature and cause and effect.

Anarchy is rebellion against laws set by one person for another person. It would be hard to rebel against the natural laws nature set up in this reality. Not impossible, but very unlikely.

If you decided to defy gravity and with your body alone, fly across the sky, you can consider that anarchy against the laws of nature, but I doubt that many people could do that. (I'm not saying it's impossible.)

is self-preservation considered to be one of those natural laws of nature and if so do those laws deem it ok to be a serial killer

No and NO.

JB

since what someone "experience" in the childhood can "effect" then and "cause" them to be a serial killer and this is part of the natural laws of nature that constitute human nature then explain who or what makes the rules or laws that being a serial killer is wrong or that being a serial killer goes against the natural laws of nature

There is nothing you can do to a child (purposely) to "cause" him or her to decide to become a serial killer, besides (maybe) massive training and brainwashing.

The decision to become a serial killer comes from the person them self. The choice belongs to them and them alone and they are totally responsible for that choice no matter what happened to them in their childhood. That they had a screwed up childhood is no excuse for their actions.

Society makes the rules and laws that being s serial killer is "wrong" and against the law.

Now, funches, if you are trying to confess that you are a serial killer because you were an abused child, perhaps you should confess to me in private.

And of course if you are a serial killer, I will accept no excuses. You will be punished severely.

JB

so "JennieBean" are you saying that being a serial killer according to pantheist belief isn't wrong



only thing I ever serial killed was a bowl of serial ..

No, I am not saying that.

The question you asked was "who decided that being a serial killer was "wrong," and the answer I gave you was "Society did."

Society is made up of all kinds of different beliefs and they obviously seem to agree that being a serial killer is wrong.

I do not speak for pantheism or pantheist or for what any individual pantheistic person might believe.

I only speak for myself. You seem to assume that because people have labeled me a "pantheist" that pantheism is some sort of structured religion. It is not as far as I know.

People only call me a pantheist because I believe that everything is connected and that belief boils down to the idea that I am god; or at least a part of god.

That being my belief, and having expressed that belief, other people have labeled me a pantheist.

JB

Unless it's people they want to kill.

Then they just call it war instead of "serial killing".

Words are just labels. In a very real sense they are all quite meaningless actually.

"JennieBean" you claimed to worship a supreme God that has not set forth any laws as in a religion and therefore in your belief there is no difference between what may be right or wrong ..then according to your belief doesn't that mean that it is neither right or wrong to be a serial killer

I have never claimed to worship any supreme god so your question is a moot point.

Whether it is considered right or wrong to be a serial killer is a matter of opinion. Most people would say that it is "wrong" (including me) but I don't speak for everyone, only myself.

Didn't you read what I wrote above? Obviously not.

JB



JB

I posed the question to you since you claim your belief has no right or wrong or your God have set forth no moral laws then if that is accurate even if it is your own opinion that being a serial killer is wrong then aren't you contradicting your own beliefs that there is no right or wrong

of course you will answer this by saying that you arise your conclusion because of the natural law of cause and effect but then that natural law would also apply to why the person became a serial killer in the first place and why your belief appears to deem being a serial killer acceptable

No I'm not contradicting my beliefs. It is my understanding that right and wrong are only opinions.

I never claimed that my belief has no right or wrong, and I don't have a belief in a god that sets forth moral laws.

I am my own authority. I realize that on the highest level, there is no right and wrong. There are only points of view.

In this physical space-time world, right and wrong are points of view or opinions and judgments by conscious individuals.

Outside of this world, its all just more like a game of chess. Nobody really gets hurt because everyone is immortal anyway. I don't really expect you to understand that.



Just because my personal opinion is that something is wrong, that does not mean I don't understand that right and wrong are just opinions.

The problem with your argument is that the answers lie in two different worlds. One is spiritual, and the other is a space-time world of duality.


JB