boy you got that right!!

i keep forgetting your problems with god.

ELJAY said:


While you may see this as an example of what you are refering to - you are sighting this passage to support a pretext. It is not the context of scripture that God "creates" evil. Also - the text is setting up the extreme of opposites to illustrate a point. The opposite you want this to refer to is "good" - however the text states "peace". Not the same thing. In the NIV the text is translated "I bring prosperity and create disaster". In light of what Isaiah is writing about - this understanding is not that to which you are refering to in your OP.

In order to get an accurate picture to you OP - one should study out the idea of Good and evil, and how these terms are referenced or related to God - to see if in fact this passage is refering to God creating evil. To fully satisfy your interpreteation, shouldn't the passage say "I created evil"? For that is what you are wanting me to interpret it as saying. I can't agree with your conclusion on the interpretation of this passage supporting your argument that this is a biblical concept - it only supports your pretext.

TRIBO:


tell me which one of the translations whether it be the niv, KJV, LXX, YOUNGS, or the myriad of others does not translate evil as - any of the definitions given in strongs? - whether it be evil, disaster, calamity, or several other - are they not all at thier core EVIL things?

Or do you concider any of them good? if so which ones?

it's not pretext my freind it's what i see as the definition - to me all those words are evils not goods or even acceptable as some type of righteousness in favor of gods character as you see or view him. evil is evil be it linked with peace or good or pleasure ad infinitum. are some things concidered more and less evil? by whom - you and me? so what- were not talking you or me's concept or tolerant levels were talking what the word means - unrighteousness, less than perfect , unworthy behavior for me or a god, non virtous actions of some type. etc.. we could continue this for weeks.

But your correct my OP was about whether gods responsible for everything or not - and i still say he is the very fact that he and he alone brought everything about accordint to his wishes based on his scenario and want and needs, there is no one else to blame - the buck stops with him there is no one else to point a stick at and say he did it.

eljay, bottom line is this, you want to believe the agenda, that for what ever reason god set this whole thing in motion to produce a people that would end up worshipping him out of love for who and what he is and what he does. i'm not saying that's a wrong thing for a emotional god, an egotistical god to want, it sounds like any benevolent human put in the same role as him [if there ever was any benevolent rulers].

For me i have an incredibly hard time, no an impossible time believing in a god that's supposed to be perfect - yet is so emotional, to me perfection and emotions dont fit - either for your god or any god. i won't hang my hat on a being that proclaaims to be perfect and yet has the flaw of emotions to be lead by in all that it does. I beleive that emotions are mans not its, that only a flawed being would introduce emotions into the mix of a god.

We see that through-out the history of gods [even if you want to take JB's dracos and others into account - even they have a range of emotions. There cannot exist a perfect god who has or works off of an emotional foundation, it can't work!!


i would expect god to be more like spock of star treck, using his infinie knowledge and power and all else to bring about what he intends without emotions or emotional attachments. you know as well as i emotions can't be trusted.

how many times have you seen a scenario where someone's upset ad crying and you say something to them to get them to laugh for a few seconds and then they go right back to crying again? i've seen it lots! or - loving someone for a time and then have it go bad and feeling the exact oposite towards them for whatever reasons? you know what i'm saying. emotinal people [all of us!] are not capable of perfection and that a big part of the reason why.

to be continued nowhere through with this subject yet - on to the creation scenario next.

God is a Vulcan!

Imagine...

To be human is to experience a "consciousness" (in this context, let's define consciousness as a viewing of the world around us through the filter of good and bad). So, then we assign this same "consciousness" to our creator...

Couldn't it be possible that this kind of seemingly emotional attachment to outcome might just make our "creator" an emotional mess?

It would be more like a co-dependent relationship to/with humanity (this "creator's" creation).

We can easily see this kind of relationship between parent and child and assume that same relationship applies to something we can not comprehend. We try our best to comprehend and look to religion to find a place to land.

It makes sense that many of those who feel grounded in their religion would feel threatened by others' questioning of the logic of religion. Questioning could shake the foundations of a someone's sense of "home".

Don't most of us strive to feel that sense of home?

No wonder we see such battle over religion.

I know you are trying to make a point here but I would like to approach it in a spiritual sense.

When spiritual entities come together and join together (willingly) there is energy passed between them it is a pleasureful orgasmic energy which is shared by both entities.

It is a joyful feeling and vibration. This is the law of vibrational energy. (L.O.V.E.) Like attracts like. It can even result in the manifestation of a third entity which is considered the offspring of the union.

This form of consciousness manifestation was carried down through all planes of existence and on the physical plane that is what you call sex. It is meant to be a pleasurable joining of two conscious entities of like vibrations.

The law of vibrational energy generates more energy. (procreates itself) It is the power of manifestation.

The lower universes which have been somewhat cut off from this energy steal it. In the lower worlds it is all about the battle for energy and power. Energy is power.

The pleasurable state of joining of energies is a powerful state of manifestation. (This is why sex magick is so powerful.)

Those who lack this energy seek to control and suppress it and seek to direct it towards themselves and their organizations. They suppress others power and energy of joy.

Have you ever noticed some churches seem to have the energy of a solemn funeral parlor? The feeling of seriousness abounds and love and joy is replaced with order and obedience.

Not all churches are like this of course. But all churches seem to seek the power to be directed towards them and do not seek to empower the individual.

People are waking up though. They are being drawn to churches who inspire them to live happy and fulfilling lives and churches who give the power back to the individual.

People want joy and love and power. In the past the church has always taken that away from them. Things are changing.

Take back your power.

JB

Krimsa said:Now don’t go putting words in my mouth. I only said “obey”, not “obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own”. When you spin it that way I would agree that it sounds defeatist.

I will say that “follow” is probably a much better term to use than “obey”.

No argument there at all.

I don’t see menstruation as being much of an issue at all. However, as you implied, there seems to be a natural difference in makeup between men and women. Male = aggressive, female = passive. This seems to me to just naturally result in aggressive=lead, passive=follow. I’m not trying to argue for any kind of chauvinistic thing. Just taking the logic where it naturally seems to go.

Maybe the key question would be something like this: What would be the evolutionary benefit to having this male=aggressive, female=passive state of affairs?

I have some uninformed opinions, but you’re much more knowledgeable in the areas necessary to fully and correctly answer that question. I just suspect that the answer to that question points directly to why a “male=leader, female=follower” situation would ever have been beneficial to the survival of the species.

Im uncertain as to how I "put words in your mouth" exactly? This is your own comment I was basing my response on.

"For example, the consideration that it was “good” for a woman to obey her man actually does have some logical survival-related benefits in a very primitive society. But in a technologically advanced, socialistic society, pretty much all of those reasons are completely irrrelevant."

I merely disagree with this viewpoint and found your logic to be considerably flawed. Not only that, you are attempting to make some kind of point without supplying any supportive evidence for your claim whatsoever.If you would like to do that on your next post, then by all means please do. Right now all I am hearing is in primitive culture, sometimes it might have been beneficial for females to subjugate themselves to the will of men. If your finding yourself in need of further explanation or elaboration on this concept of "female subordinace to males", then by all means provide it. I fail to see where exactly I imparted "spin" in any way shape or form to your remarks. If you do not fully have faith in your own assertions, then how can I possibly not challenge you?

The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me.

As far as your continued insistence on "male=leader" and "female=follower." I really need to disagree. The male of the species (as it relates to mammals) is much more aggressive and competitive. The reason for this is that you have a hormone called testosterone. Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid. This is what causes the aggressive and competitive behaviors that we often see exhibited in ALL male mammals. Interestingly enough, females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount. Conversely, males also produce estrogen which is the primary female sexual hormone.

From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it. I see no indication that it would somehow enable human males to lay claim to superior intellect in any way shape or form. You are requiring me to make a very grand leap of faith that is premised on conjecture and has no supportive evidence based in evolutionary biology. In fact, testosterone can actually lead to flawed judgment and irrational behavior in males or have you never been in a honky tonk on a Saturday night when males get to "rough housing" over the affections of a female?

I disagree in this sense doe eyes, the sooner "religion" is done away with, the sooner man will have to take reposibility for his actions and concequences and not look for forgiveness or salvation from an outside source as touted by all religions.

JB:

I know you are trying to make a point here but I would like to approach it in a spiritual sense.

When spiritual entities come together and join together (willingly) there is energy passed between them it is a pleasureful orgasmic energy which is shared by both entities.

It is a joyful feeling and vibration. This is the law of vibrational energy. (L.O.V.E.) Like attracts like. It can even result in the manifestation of a third entity which is considered the offspring of the union.

tribo reply:

i'm not sure i understand you goddess, maybe i should come over there and have you show me personally what your talking of - i find that personal one on one expieirence is the best teacher dont you agree -

Does having that sense of "home" rely upon following any religion?

Not necessarily.

If an agenda of doing away with religion is pushed, won't religion fight back even harder (isn't it already destroying it's self)?

Nature may bring humanity to it's knees... Man may bring humanity to it's knees... Creation may bring humanity to it's knees...

Or...

All of the above.

When humanity sees for it's self that, ultimately, religion has significantly contributed to bringing it to it's knees (it's undoing), perhaps there will be willingness to allow this religious "veil" to be lifted.

Experience is the best teacher. First you need to learn how to get out of your physical body at will to have spiritual union with another entity.

Or we could just get naked. LOL

the first sentence you typed got all messed up for some reason or another, couldn't understand t at all - hmmm?

but the second sentence came through loud and clear as crystal -

well thenpost what i just answered you on your repentence post ok?


From the philly view, it would have to begin with what we teach our young [are very young] not as to words but as to actions. in my book " trueness of being" i talk of the family and how children are taught one thing but really learn from watching their parents/peers actions.

you can tell someone you love them all day long but if your actions towards them are unloving - which will they eventually believe? love can be used as a noun or a verb, it's truth is found in the verb form not that of it use as a noun.

This also holds true of "all" agenda's of mans making. without agenda's there would be no judgement as such - just acceptance - it seems to me the older you get the more aware you are of this. and i believe that is why grandparents make better role models than parents a lot of the time. not always though. they may also be responsible for putting upon them their own agenda's also.

But if and when we begin to get rid of showing our true beliefs to our children [those things they hear and see us or others do]then there could be real perceivable changes. as long as there is potential for mimicking there elders, this will not be the case, if the teachers of the children are prejudice, this will become evident to a child in the teachers mannerisms - kids are a lot smarter than thought, they are our mirrors through which we can see ourselves as we rightly should, when we get upset with them its usually a direct refection of things taught to them by observation and behavior of there teachers [parents'peers' etc] and they often don't understand why we get upset when its our own behavior they are reflecting and we don't like that in ourselves to begin with and find it unacceptable in them, yet it should be a wake up call to us that this is something within us that we should address so as not to reflect it upon them.

so my take on it is as stated it has to begin first within the teachers, then the children will be able to see clearly what is correct as to being non agendic.

Right On, Tribo!

This is exactly where I am with my little one. How AM I being with her? Am I teaching her who she is in this world according to how I was taught or according to what I think I'm learning today? Sometimes I catch myself saying things to her that just appall me. Things that would outwardly seem totally acceptable. Things that could send her down a path I've already taken. Sometimes it just comes out automatically. When I recognize it, I attempt to stop right then and there and restructure / re-frame it. She's gonna be 3 in January.

Being a parent has been teaching me so much more about myself.

She teaches me SO much.

Yikes!

More and more, I've been awakening to the presence of this in my relationship with my girl...

Indeed...

It starts right here with the teaching of our children. Can't teach them squat 'til we start learning for our selves.

All in the name of spiritual enlightenment of course.

What ever gets you through the night.

We're just plain not communicating here.

I said one word: "obey". You took that one word and provided your own, greatly expanded (and greatly misrepresented if I may say so) meanings in several places:

"simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own"

“females to subjugate themselves to the will of men”

“female subordinace to males”

“subjugation of women by males”

And when I see that you appear to be taking the discussion in a direction that had nothing to do with what I intended, and try to get back to my original intention by clarifying through the use of another term (“follow”), you then simply dismiss that attempt at clarification and assume that it has some deceptive purpose and use that assumption to turn the subject back to your own direction.

As ar as I was concerned "our debate" had nothing whatsoever to do with "subjugation of women by males". That was your commnet.

So rather than me trying to “pretty it up”, the actual fact of the matter is that you have “uglied it down”.

If you wish to redefine what I say and then address those redefinitions, you are welcome to do so. But debate is useless, and agreement is impossible, on those terms. So I have no interest in continuing in that direction.

However, I am interested in the strictly evolutionary issue and in your expertise in the area. You say “testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it” and “females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount”, which seems to imply that males have a stronger “drive to procreate” than do females. I have a hard time wrapping my wits around that so could you expound on it for me?

Okay then, if you feel that somehow your position is being "misinterpreted" then by all means explain what you mean sir. You appear to be dancing around terms and back tracking. Explain your own interpretation of the word OBEY. My definitions are clearly founded unless you can demonstrate how they are not in some respect? Otherwise what are we debating here exactly? You seem to be indicating (as best that I can ascertain) that in certain primitive cultures, it would have been beneficial for women to OBEY men or FOLLOW the orders of men. Yet you provide zero in the way of supportive evidence to substantiate this claim. This is my point of contention. I am not dismissing anything. I am taking what you are saying at face value.

Why do you feel compelled to agree with me or that we must agree? That is not the purpose of debate. It is to take two conflicting positions and essentially "weigh" them against one another and this is accomplished through logical and rational argument. You cant achieve this goal by simply whining that you are being "misunderstood." If that were the case, it would clearly be your responsibility to clarify your position. I dont see that happening at all. When you decide you want to work within the parameters of a debate format, we can do that.

Males have a biological drive to procreate. I am not only addressing human males when I say this but ALL male mammals. This takes place due to the anabolic and naturally occurring hormone known as testosterone. In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. What we commonly refer to as "lust" is directly linked to the production of testosterone in both males and females. This is an evolutionary adaptation to get humans together long enough to make more little humans thus insuring the continuation of the species.

oh i can feel the light bulbs glowing brite over my head right now

here comes en-light-enment!!!