100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Throw down | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Given reincarnation as a viable truth - why aren't these people commiting suicide. Why would children with down syndrome be allowed to live - surely a better reincarnated life await them. It is easy to think of reincarnation as a viable truth when one lives a normal, secure life with a job, a home, good health... It starts to loose it's validity when those who have deformities, those incarcerated, or those in abject poverty enter the equation. You totally miss the whole point to karma thinking this way. If you think that karma would allow you to get out of a bad situation by committing suicide, then you don't understand karma at all. It was karma that got you into that situation in the first place. This is really no different whatsoever from the Christian belief that everyone who goes to hell only goes there because it is their choice. They have chosen to reject God. Well, karma's no different. If you have bad karma it's because that's what you've chosen whether you realize it or not. From a philosophical point of view there is absolutely no difference between the idea of being responsible for your own karma and the idea of being responsible for choosing to reject an omniscient intervening God. A lot of people who are in hellish situations believe in the biblical God. So where's the difference Eljay? Is an omniscient righteous God who can intervene to save people from their terrible situations but refuses to do so any different from karma? I think not. There's no difference whatsoever. You claim that karma loses its validity in these cases but then you refuse to accept that a supposedly omniscient righteous intervening God doesn't lose validity in these same cases? Where's the logic behind that? You're just trying to argue against anything that doesn't agree with your picture of God. But from a logical point of view your arguments doesn't hold any water. The picture of karma has absolutely no less validity than the picture of a supposedly intervening God who promised to answer prayers but doesn't answer them. In fact, broken promises are a real good sign that something isn't true concerning a book that claims to be God's word. It's as story about a God who promises that he will answer prayers asked in his name, but then never does. I'd say that idea lost its validity a very long time ago. Over the course of history, we've seen entirely communities praying to the biblical God to save them from droughts, disease, and natural disasters with absolutely no results whatsoever. Prayer has been proven to not work. The biblical God's promises have been broken. He didn't keep the promises he supposedly made. Where's the credibility in that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay on reincarnation: However if one hypothesis' that Reincarnation is a valid explination for our existance on this earth - why life in a situation that is - for a lack of a better word - unpleasant. I would say that - even by an extremely conservative estimation - that 25 per cent of the population of America alone - lives in abject poverty. Given reincarnation as a viable truth - why aren't these people commiting suicide. So is it your opinion that poverty is a good reason to commit suicide? This question begs an answer in line with my world view, as I accept reincarnation as a fact. It is my belief that individual souls who incarnate into the earth game come here by choice to experience all manner of things; to include pleasure and pain, wealth and poverty, life and death. It is the adventure vacation of the spheres. It is the best game in the galaxy! Eternal spirits love games, they live and thrive for games and adventure. Spaces are limited, not everyone gets in. Very few are brave enough to incarnate as human simultaneously because they have to suspend the knowledge of who they are and their other lives in order to live one life at a time. They retain all memories of all lives here upon return to their higher true self. Now if what you think is the case I guess I'll just go shoot myself, because in comparison to most Americans, I am poverty level. Now if I lived in a third world country or ran naked in the jungle, I probably wouldn't know what I was missing and I would probably love my life just the same. Exactly. Why haven't you shot yourself to get a better station in life? And please explain to me how you know there's a "waiting" list to get on earth? If this were the case - the population would be a calculable number that would never change. If this is so - how do you explain the differnece in world population now, than that of the first century? Why would children with down syndrome be allowed to live - surely a better reincarnated life await them. It is easy to think of reincarnation as a viable truth when one lives a normal, secure life with a job, a home, good health... It starts to loose it's validity when those who have deformities, those incarcerated, or those in abject poverty enter the equation. There is a world where everyone lives secure normal lives with no care in the world. I have seen it. It is like heaven. But there is no adventure there. Eventually souls crave adventure and that is where they go as they continue their journey through all the worlds of the Prime source. JB What adventure does a child with down syndrome experience? Where is the "adventure" in solitary confinement on Alcatraz? Shouldn't your definition include everyone - not just the people who seem to be using the "system" to their advantage? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday, you were yelling at me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but JB and a couple others called you on it. I will not post your rhetoric again for you. Besides, I would rather debate. You become very insulting whenever someone does not agree with what you have to say or can offer a logical debate using the scripture at hand. Abra and I both do this while you need to invent meanings. It has not gone unnoticed or unchallenged and you have yourself admitted to this shortcoming. I also won’t post FC person's insults because I refuse to re-iterate that nonsense. I don’t agree with giving people permission to act with absolute disregard for others simply due to their own personal problems. I wasn't yelling at you yesterday, I thought we cleared that up. I suppose you need more time to get your feelings under control. Quite honestly, I am surprised you are bringing that up again. You said that you had misunderstood and wished to continue the debate. I have admitted that I used to lose my temper, but I never admitted to inventing meanings. If you have noticed, I source my definitions. My source is Strong's Concordance. There is no stronger literary resource available for Bible studies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see this thread has moved on to new arugments. So was it ever settled then about birth causing a woman to be spiritually unclean? The last I saw Krimsa had it biblically nailed and all the opposing arguments were non-biblical speculative mumbo jumbo. What's the score on that one Tribo? You seem to be the most impartial observer here. To catch up - it was determined that Krimsa did not do an exegesis on the subject - and was formulating an idea about the matter of "unclean" from the portion of Leviticus that she had read. At least that is the perception from her own testimony. The idea that unclean was a spiritual reference (which came from who knows where) was brought in from another part of scripture that did not relate to the passage. But - hey, believe whatever you want. Cain killed Abel - judaism is a murderous religion. Everyone has to kill there brother. The bible says so. That isnt true Eljay. There was no such determination. If there was, no one told me about it. That would be important. If anyone can rebut, please free to. I reponded to this - go back and reread the thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Thu 08/07/08 03:24 PM
|
|
I hate to sound like a 2 year old but this is a valid question in fact. You hear it often. If god, like all you Christians claim, is omnipotent, why would he create this document that’s so full of holes and open to so many loose interpretations and causes so much arguing and heated debate? Wouldn’t he just stream line it so we all get it telepathically and it all makes perfect sense to every man, woman and child? Dogs and cats even? You know how picky cats can be? I mean it’s far too vague for thinking people to accept with a straight face... It would be a tremendous help if all of the people who express continual doubts about it actually read it. I do not mean this as a slight Krimsa - nor am I directing it specifically at you, in my experience discussing the validity of the bible 2 out of 3 people who tell me they do not believe the bible is true have not even read it. Even simply the New Testiment - let alone the whole thing. I have found quite the opposite to be true. The people who read the bible with an open mind, not believing or being told it is a revered text, tend to not believe it. It is a book of stories of old, that is what their conclusion is usually. If told before hand that it is " the word of god" they are usually less likely to read it objectively. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I don’t like just relying on believing what someone tells me to believe. Sorry. That’s just the way it is. I question. Krimsa, keep right on questioning, it is the only path to the truth. Buying into the "accepted" "truth" will never lead you anywhere except to frustration. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said it. I then responded to you and you never replied. Shouldnt the judges be making that call anyway? You are a Christian and always take the side of anything "pro-Christian" however based in emotion,the person's invented language, or nonsensical rhetoric or faith based wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you Dragon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However Abra - Jeannie's reference to God being "too busy" is pulling Him into the time continuum. It would take God but a blink of an eye to know every sin that everyone who ever walked on this earth had ever, is, or will ever commit. Else we're redefining omniscience here. Which it seems like is happening anyway. Does anyone here know what omniscience mean -who could share it with the rest of us - because no one is agreeing on what it means. Where's Creative! Funches? Anyone got a definition here? From my point of view, in order for God to truly be omniscient God would need to be everywhere and everything at once. He would need to experience everything that we experience. That can only lead to pantheism as far as I'm concerned. Only pantheism offers a truly omniscient picture of god. The biblical picture of God genuinely doesn't loan itself to the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical picture of God is a picture of a God that is separate and distinct from its creation. That's not an omniscient God. I personally hold that it's an oxymoron to even suggest that the biblical stories convey the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical God would need to have a presence in hell to be truly omniscient. But hell is supposed to be separation from God. The whole biblical picture is a "have your cake and eat it too" picture. It's just yet another contradiction. They want God to be omniscient but they demand that it's possible to be separated from God thus blowing away the very idea that God is omniscient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given reincarnation as a viable truth - why aren't these people commiting suicide. Why would children with down syndrome be allowed to live - surely a better reincarnated life await them. It is easy to think of reincarnation as a viable truth when one lives a normal, secure life with a job, a home, good health... It starts to loose it's validity when those who have deformities, those incarcerated, or those in abject poverty enter the equation. You totally miss the whole point to karma thinking this way. If you think that karma would allow you to get out of a bad situation by committing suicide, then you don't understand karma at all. It was karma that got you into that situation in the first place. This is really no different whatsoever from the Christian belief that everyone who goes to hell only goes there because it is their choice. They have chosen to reject God. Well, karma's no different. If you have bad karma it's because that's what you've chosen whether you realize it or not. From a philosophical point of view there is absolutely no difference between the idea of being responsible for your own karma and the idea of being responsible for choosing to reject an omniscient intervening God. So if one is responsible for their own Karma and circumstance of reincarnation - why not get out of a bad situation - come back and do it all over again, only the next time, get it right. Jeannie says you retain the knowledge of your past lives when you get back here. Are you telling me Jeannie is wrong? A lot of people who are in hellish situations believe in the biblical God. So where's the difference Eljay? They are not stuck in an endless loop. Is an omniscient righteous God who can intervene to save people from their terrible situations but refuses to do so any different from karma? I think not. There's no difference whatsoever. You claim that karma loses its validity in these cases but then you refuse to accept that a supposedly omniscient righteous intervening God doesn't lose validity in these same cases? Where's the logic behind that? Because with an omniscient rightious God you don't have to balance the scales with your resolving your Karmic debt. There's no "forgiveness" or "atonement" in reincarnation. All bad Karma must be balanced with good Karma until the good karma overtakes the bad - then you get your ticket to nirvana, or valhala or whatever "ana" or "ala" your headed for. So who's the score keeper? Where's the logic in that? You're just trying to argue against anything that doesn't agree with your picture of God. But from a logical point of view your arguments doesn't hold any water. No - actually - I'm trying to make sense out of reincarnation. I haven't said anything about God - you did. The picture of karma has absolutely no less validity than the picture of a supposedly intervening God who promised to answer prayers but doesn't answer them. In fact, broken promises are a real good sign that something isn't true concerning a book that claims to be God's word. It's as story about a God who promises that he will answer prayers asked in his name, but then never does. I'd say that idea lost its validity a very long time ago. Over the course of history, we've seen entirely communities praying to the biblical God to save them from droughts, disease, and natural disasters with absolutely no results whatsoever. Prayer has been proven to not work. The biblical God's promises have been broken. He didn't keep the promises he supposedly made. Where's the credibility in that? You just want to turn this around to discredit the biblical God - how is this justifying reincarnation. God has nothing to do with reincarnation - why did you bring it up? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However Abra - Jeannie's reference to God being "too busy" is pulling Him into the time continuum. It would take God but a blink of an eye to know every sin that everyone who ever walked on this earth had ever, is, or will ever commit. Else we're redefining omniscience here. Which it seems like is happening anyway. Does anyone here know what omniscience mean -who could share it with the rest of us - because no one is agreeing on what it means. Where's Creative! Funches? Anyone got a definition here? From my point of view, in order for God to truly be omniscient God would need to be everywhere and everything at once. He would need to experience everything that we experience. That can only lead to pantheism as far as I'm concerned. Only pantheism offers a truly omniscient picture of god. The biblical picture of God genuinely doesn't loan itself to the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical picture of God is a picture of a God that is separate and distinct from its creation. That's not an omniscient God. I personally hold that it's an oxymoron to even suggest that the biblical stories convey the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical God would need to have a presence in hell to be truly omniscient. But hell is supposed to be separation from God. The whole biblical picture is a "have your cake and eat it too" picture. It's just yet another contradiction. They want God to be omniscient but they demand that it's possible to be separated from God thus blowing away the very idea that God is omniscient. Omniscience means to know all information, not experience all information. God knows that what you are experiencing, God doesn't experience it with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to sound like a 2 year old but this is a valid question in fact. You hear it often. If god, like all you Christians claim, is omnipotent, why would he create this document that’s so full of holes and open to so many loose interpretations and causes so much arguing and heated debate? Wouldn’t he just stream line it so we all get it telepathically and it all makes perfect sense to every man, woman and child? Dogs and cats even? You know how picky cats can be? I mean it’s far too vague for thinking people to accept with a straight face... It would be a tremendous help if all of the people who express continual doubts about it actually read it. I do not mean this as a slight Krimsa - nor am I directing it specifically at you, in my experience discussing the validity of the bible 2 out of 3 people who tell me they do not believe the bible is true have not even read it. Even simply the New Testiment - let alone the whole thing. I have found quite the opposite to be true. The people who read the bible with an open mind, not believing or being told it is a revered text, tend to not believe it. It is a book of stories of old, that is what their conclusion is usually. If told before hand that it is " the word of god" they are usually less likely to read it objectively. Well - that is the circle you are involved in. I have had this discussion with hundreds of people in Harvard square - to the Haight Ashbury. 2 out of 3 of this circle of people who held the opinion that the bible was a myth had never read it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said it. I then responded to you and you never replied. Shouldnt the judges be making that call anyway? You are a Christian and always take the side of anything "pro-Christian" however based in emotion,the person's invented language, or nonsensical rhetoric or faith based wishful thinking. Is this a response to me? Eljay? Without addressing the post, it's confusing to whom and about what the post is directed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However Abra - Jeannie's reference to God being "too busy" is pulling Him into the time continuum. It would take God but a blink of an eye to know every sin that everyone who ever walked on this earth had ever, is, or will ever commit. Else we're redefining omniscience here. Which it seems like is happening anyway. Does anyone here know what omniscience mean -who could share it with the rest of us - because no one is agreeing on what it means. Where's Creative! Funches? Anyone got a definition here? From my point of view, in order for God to truly be omniscient God would need to be everywhere and everything at once. He would need to experience everything that we experience. That can only lead to pantheism as far as I'm concerned. Only pantheism offers a truly omniscient picture of god. The biblical picture of God genuinely doesn't loan itself to the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical picture of God is a picture of a God that is separate and distinct from its creation. That's not an omniscient God. I personally hold that it's an oxymoron to even suggest that the biblical stories convey the idea of a truly omniscient God. The biblical God would need to have a presence in hell to be truly omniscient. But hell is supposed to be separation from God. The whole biblical picture is a "have your cake and eat it too" picture. It's just yet another contradiction. They want God to be omniscient but they demand that it's possible to be separated from God thus blowing away the very idea that God is omniscient. That's all fine and well. Now - could you define omniscient. A definition doesn't need your opinion. As a matter of fact - it should have nothing to do with your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting spider...sure is a lot of flip flopping going on here. God is nice, god is mean and evil. Hmm, just like man? Interesting. Still waiting for you to explain how that defines an "unchanging character" as you put it. Also to rebut JB. You have done neither. Im not really sure here who contradicts themselves more, god or you? That is assuming you are still trying to argue that the bible was written by this "omnipotent being" Sure is a LOT of evidence piling up here to the contrary. "Fear and doubt would only be appropriate if something could threaten God or if God didn't know everything. God is omnipotent and Omniscient, so God cannot feel fear or doubt." So he is omnipotent? Yet he seems to be angry enough to feel plenty of fear and doubt. Can you explain this one also? Those would appear to be very human feelings. Please provide a definition of omnipotent where fear and doubt are listed as part of the definition. Sure - as soon as you or spider provide the same as to omniscient or omnipotent being ""limited by contradiction"" - "outside of monotheistic thought", ok? try websters or E. Britannica first then you can slowly work your wasy down goodhouse keeping. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Given reincarnation as a viable truth - why aren't these people commiting suicide. Why would children with down syndrome be allowed to live - surely a better reincarnated life await them. It is easy to think of reincarnation as a viable truth when one lives a normal, secure life with a job, a home, good health... It starts to loose it's validity when those who have deformities, those incarcerated, or those in abject poverty enter the equation. You totally miss the whole point to karma thinking this way. If you think that karma would allow you to get out of a bad situation by committing suicide, then you don't understand karma at all. It was karma that got you into that situation in the first place. This is really no different whatsoever from the Christian belief that everyone who goes to hell only goes there because it is their choice. They have chosen to reject God. Well, karma's no different. If you have bad karma it's because that's what you've chosen whether you realize it or not. From a philosophical point of view there is absolutely no difference between the idea of being responsible for your own karma and the idea of being responsible for choosing to reject an omniscient intervening God. A lot of people who are in hellish situations believe in the biblical God. So where's the difference Eljay? Is an omniscient righteous God who can intervene to save people from their terrible situations but refuses to do so any different from karma? I think not. There's no difference whatsoever. You claim that karma loses its validity in these cases but then you refuse to accept that a supposedly omniscient righteous intervening God doesn't lose validity in these same cases? Where's the logic behind that? You're just trying to argue against anything that doesn't agree with your picture of God. But from a logical point of view your arguments doesn't hold any water. The picture of karma has absolutely no less validity than the picture of a supposedly intervening God who promised to answer prayers but doesn't answer them. In fact, broken promises are a real good sign that something isn't true concerning a book that claims to be God's word. It's as story about a God who promises that he will answer prayers asked in his name, but then never does. I'd say that idea lost its validity a very long time ago. Over the course of history, we've seen entirely communities praying to the biblical God to save them from droughts, disease, and natural disasters with absolutely no results whatsoever. Prayer has been proven to not work. The biblical God's promises have been broken. He didn't keep the promises he supposedly made. Where's the credibility in that? the god of the book always answers prayers abra - it just most of the time the answer is NO! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, I don’t like just relying on believing what someone tells me to believe. Sorry. That’s just the way it is. I question. Well then maybe you are questioning the wrong sources? My point was to ask God Himself. "Discussion" or "Debate" does not show proof of anything...if it's about life & living then it takes REAL LIFE examples. Not just book knowledge or what tickles the ears. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure - as soon as you or spider provide the same as to omniscient or omnipotent being ""limited by contradiction"" - "outside of monotheistic thought", ok? try websters or E. Britannica first then you can slowly work your wasy down goodhouse keeping. I find it very interesting that so many non-Christians make insulting and condescending remarks like this one, but it's the Christians who get called on their bad behavior. It truly is a miracle that Christians here aren't losing their tempers left and right. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11251c.htm Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. From what I read, this article is very well written and comprehensive. Hopefully, we can agree that this is the definition of Omnipotence that Christians use when they call God Omnipotent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Eljay, if you would like to insult the people who simply disagree with you and only ask that you actually show proof to reinforce your conclusions, rather than ask that I buy into this blindly? How to you expect that to be received? I have been willing and able to bring forth several inconsistent passages and a couple actual contradictions to the table thus far. If you have read the bible from ear to ear, as you seem to be implying, shouldn’t you be able to debate me successfully? No slight intended of course. Um... nothing wrong with banter... or do you expect some to have their hands tied behind their backs & blindfolded too??? Besides...your defense of abra not having proof of his own shows you have no credibility as a self proclaimed moderator. Just sayin'... I think you need to check your partiality at the door if you want to lord it over the rest. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You said it. I then responded to you and you never replied. Shouldnt the judges be making that call anyway? You are a Christian and always take the side of anything "pro-Christian" however based in emotion,the person's invented language, or nonsensical rhetoric or faith based wishful thinking. Really? Where's YOUR proof about the wishful thinking part? That doesn't fly in the face of miracles & signs & wonders. LOL |
|
|
|
|
