100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Hypothetical question... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Sun 03/15/09 09:30 PM
|
|
elijay, my words need no interpreter but what the hearer of each access them as, and if your profound insight, see contradiction, then this damn well should be pointed out, if you are choosing to to be responsible for how they are to be defined???
put your money where your mouth is, and speak out the contradiction??? if you speak for me, i shall speak for you??? that fair??? that equal??? i do not say what you mean to another, as this would be but childish on my part, and most even audacious, and if you deem so fit to do, then so be it, but if i speak for you, giving you back the equal you have given me, then my sting will have a more insideous effect, and sting from the inside out. do we have a clear understanding, as equals, as to our positions??? do not do unto me, what you do not wish to come back to yourself??? that pretty fair??? what more does a professed christian and scholar as yourself practice anyhow??? as indeed, this be the very essence of what was written, that you heard not one word of. peace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Separation from God is a awful thing. Not for everyone. I let religion go years ago and my spirit has never been healthier or happier. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 03/15/09 10:04 PM
|
|
Separation from God is a awful thing. Not for everyone. I let religion go years ago and my spirit has never been healthier or happier. Separation from religion is not separation from God. Religion is not God. To be void of Love, and refuse love and reject love and life... that is an attempt to be separate from God. But that separation is not that simple. To rid yourself of God (Life and Love) you must shrink from the light and from all that is good. To rid yourself of God (life and love) you must do more than run from or refuse life and love, you must also choose death and darkness by your own conscious will. Life or Death of Spirit When the Universe spins And the north star sins And the sun sits still in the sky, We will laugh at our science And declare our alliance And decide if we live or we die. For the darkness is long And the memory strong And all that we know is a lie. We will look for a savior To forgive our behavior And a God to answer our cry. But we made our choice And it’s time to rejoice And accept what we want to deny. We have chosen life’s breath Or decided on death; And now it is time to comply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Separation from God is a awful thing. Not for everyone. I let religion go years ago and my spirit has never been healthier or happier. Separation from religion is not separation from God. Religion is not God. To be void of Love, and refuse love and reject love and life... that is an attempt to be separate from God. But that separation is not that simple. To rid yourself of God (Life and Love) you must shrink from the light and from all that is good. To rid yourself of God (life and love) you must do more than run from or refuse life and love, you must also choose death and darkness by your own conscious will. Life or Death of Spirit When the Universe spins And the north star sins And the sun sits still in the sky, We will laugh at our science And declare our alliance And decide if we live or we die. For the darkness is long And the memory strong And all that we know is a lie. We will look for a savior To forgive our behavior And a God to answer our cry. But we made our choice And it’s time to rejoice And accept what we want to deny. We have chosen life’s breath Or decided on death; And now it is time to comply. Your concept of god and mine are different. God is religion to me and visa versa. As for love and life, I give that to myself everyday with my attitude and respect of my experience everyday. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A man is born and spends his entire life free from sin, helping and loving others. He doesnt commit even one little sin. Never smokes, drinks, cusses, steals, lusts after another woman, etc... He doesnt even THINK about these things. He is unaware of any religion, and therefore has no reason to repent or accept Jesus as his savior. Is he going to hell? Well there is no such thing as hell, so no. The way I interpret the scripture is that Jesus = LOVE. The term "Jesus" means the same as Love. There is no difference. Jesus represents Love. He is not a man or a savior. The savior is Love itself. Live in love and you are saved. They only salvation is Love. Its very simple for me. While I'm not going to try to argue a point that you're wrong - I would presume that the pretext of the original hypothesis is that one consider the parameters those of scriptural domain. Else there's no point of creating the hypothesis. I believe he is attempting to prove a negative point with a rediculous hypothesis that has premises that are contradictory. So - just play along.  No, I don't play along. I am sworn to speak the truth as I see it. I am the High Priestess of the First Universal Life Church of Brutal Truth and Honesty.  I don't go down those paths of deception. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your concept of god and mine are different. God is religion to me and visa versa. As for love and life, I give that to myself everyday with my attitude and respect of my experience everyday. I don't think it is our concepts that differ, it is semantics and the meanings of words that differ. The term "God" actually is a word that an individual can define for them self. By your meaning of the word, I would have to say that I don't believe in God (religion.) But by my meaning of the word I do believe in God (Life and Love.) Very interesting indeed.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not lusting after women does not mean the person is gay....
since that would mean that all women are gay..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was born into sin. All of creation fell. 1. This is not in the Bible, it was developed by Saint Augustine when he mistranslated Paul. 2. IDK, but that deaf, dumb and blind kid, sure plays a mean pinball. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Sun 03/22/09 02:06 AM
|
|
Hypothetically, when he dies and his soul leaves his body... he shall meander to the Pearly Gates, see a tiny signpost with three arrows that say, "Christians, born again christians, god botherers"
"Christian decided sinners" and "Others". Following the sign marked "Others", he discovers that the "Christian decided sinners have joined his queue, and when he walks through the Green Door...his own personal Nirvana awaits him. Just outside the Green Door, to his left, he spots a veiw of the valley below...a creek, a couple of willows, the BIGGEST Church he has EVER seen, and many many gilt robed bearded MEN, and at their feet, dressed in sackcloth, VERY angry women... and all the other people all with bowed heads, and averted eyes, walking in to take their place. Shaking his head, he wonders what those poor souls did for them to be sent to HELL. Hypothetically of course the above story could NEVER happen...because all the dead people have told all the Christians what it is really like. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. See that you are just as perfect and imperfect as your "Father in Heaven". See that you are just as "Jesus". There is no sin punishable by "Hell" in the afterlife. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Separation from God is a awful thing. Not for everyone. I let religion go years ago and my spirit has never been healthier or happier. Same here. I nearly died twice and if anything, those experiences made me even more of a secular humanist. To that end, here's something from one of my hard drives that seems like a humanist's prayer (if there is such a thing) to me: Do not stand at my grave and weep. I am not there, I do not sleep. I am a thousand winds that blow; I am the diamond glints on snow. I am the sunlight on ripened grain; I am the gentle autumn's rain. When you awaken in the morning's hush, I am the swift uplifting rush of quiet birds in circled flight. I am the soft star that shines at night. Do not stand at my grave and cry. I am not there; I did not die. -- Unknown -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. But if the Father in heaven is the creator of this unviverse then the Father cannot be perfect because his creation is not perfect. So much for the idea of a 'perfect' doctrine. In fact, the doctrine these words came from is so horribly flawed that it's the most imperfect docrtine even created by men. That's the irony of this doctrine. It claims to be the word of a perfect God yet the word itself is absurdly imperfect. Quite the oxymoron. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. But if the Father in heaven is the creator of this unviverse then the Father cannot be perfect because his creation is not perfect. So much for the idea of a 'perfect' doctrine. In fact, the doctrine these words came from is so horribly flawed that it's the most imperfect docrtine even created by men. That's the irony of this doctrine. It claims to be the word of a perfect God yet the word itself is absurdly imperfect. Quite the oxymoron. Imperfect is the magic ingredient we get to use for comparison. How else could we ever have any clue of what perfect might be? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Sun 03/22/09 10:16 AM
|
|
Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. But if the Father in heaven is the creator of this unviverse then the Father cannot be perfect because his creation is not perfect. So much for the idea of a 'perfect' doctrine. In fact, the doctrine these words came from is so horribly flawed that it's the most imperfect docrtine even created by men. That's the irony of this doctrine. It claims to be the word of a perfect God yet the word itself is absurdly imperfect. Quite the oxymoron. Imperfect is the magic ingredient we get to use for comparison. How else could we ever have any clue of what perfect might be? This is true. Also, in what way would the God of Abraham have been 'perfect'?  In the old testament he taught people to stone each other to death. I don't personally feel that a "perfect" God would ever do such a thing. This God also condoned slavery, he condone male superiority or male chauvinism against women. He is appeased by blood scrifices. That's no perfect IMHO. He leads people to a "promised land" that's already occupied by 'heathens' and then tells his people to murder the 'heathens'. That's far from a perfect God IMHO. He floods out an entire planet to try to wash away sin supposedly knowing full well that water can't wash away sin. He's an absolute terrible "Fatherly Figure" not even coming close to what I would consider to be an even mediocre mentor much less a perfect mentor. He even created animals that eat each other. It seems to me that if God were perfect he would have created a very distinct difference between plants and animals and created all animals to be herbivores. In what way would this God supposedly be "perfect"? I don't see anything 'perfect' about the God described in the Old Testament. Not even close. In all honestly (and this is clearly my own personal opinion), but when I read these stories this God appears to me to be a bumbling idiot. Not even close to being reasonable much less "perfect". So where does the assumption that God is 'perfect' come from? And what are we supposed to understand that means? It certainly can't mean anything related to the behavior of this God as told by the authors of the Old Testament. And beyond that we really know nothing of this God other than what we might conjure up in our very own imaginations. My idea of a 'perfect God' would be a God who has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical stories at all. There's just nothing perfect about the behavior of that God in any of those stories. So where does this idea that God is perfect come from? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
splendidlife
on
Sun 03/22/09 10:38 AM
|
|
Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. But if the Father in heaven is the creator of this unviverse then the Father cannot be perfect because his creation is not perfect. So much for the idea of a 'perfect' doctrine. In fact, the doctrine these words came from is so horribly flawed that it's the most imperfect docrtine even created by men. That's the irony of this doctrine. It claims to be the word of a perfect God yet the word itself is absurdly imperfect. Quite the oxymoron. Imperfect is the magic ingredient we get to use for comparison. How else could we ever have any clue of what perfect might be? This is true. Also, in what way would the God of Abraham have been 'perfect'? In the old testament he taught people to stone each other to death. I don't personally feel that a "perfect" God would ever do such a thing. This God also condoned slavery, he condone male superiority or male chauvinism against women. He is appeased by blood scrifices. That's no perfect IMHO. He leads people to a "promised land" that's already occupied by 'heathens' and then tells his people to murder the 'heathens'. That's far from a perfect God IMHO. He floods out an entire planet to try to wash away sin supposedly knowing full well that water can't wash away sin. He's an absolute terrible "Fatherly Figure" not even coming close to what I would consider to be an even mediocre mentor much less a perfect mentor. He even created animals that eat each other. It seems to me that if God were perfect he would have created a very distinct difference between plants and animals and created all animals to be herbivores. In what way would this God supposedly be "perfect"? I don't see anything 'perfect' about the God described in the Old Testament. Not even close. In all honestly (and this is clearly my own personal opinion), but when I read these stories this God appears to me to be a bumbling idiot. Not even close to being reasonable much less "perfect". So where does the assumption that God is 'perfect' come from? And what are we supposed to understand that means? It certainly can't mean anything related to the behavior of this God as told by the authors of the Old Testament. And beyond that we really know nothing of this God other than what we might conjure up in our very own imaginations. My idea of a 'perfect God' would be a God who has absolutely nothing to do with the Biblical stories at all. There's just nothing perfect about the behavior of that God in any of those stories. So where does this idea that God is perfect come from? The idea that "God" is only perfect comes from the idea that we HAVE to be only perfect. That idea has been manufactured by people (us) all along. Everybody must get stoned... It's all in the interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be ye perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect. But if the Father in heaven is the creator of this unviverse then the Father cannot be perfect because his creation is not perfect. So much for the idea of a 'perfect' doctrine. In fact, the doctrine these words came from is so horribly flawed that it's the most imperfect docrtine even created by men. That's the irony of this doctrine. It claims to be the word of a perfect God yet the word itself is absurdly imperfect. Quite the oxymoron. Why do you say that his creation is 'not perfect'? Perhaps it is our creations that are not 'perfect.' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So where does this idea that God is perfect come from? Very good question. I think that everything is as it should be and that would mean that everything is 'perfect.' If everything is NOT perfect, then Nothing is perfect including God. The depiction of the God described in the Bible is not "God" at all and if so, he is not a perfect God, just a god who places himself above the law of mankind hence no one can dare question him or his law. He would be above the law simply because he created the law. I am the ant goddess and my ant slaves don't dare question me or else I can pour gas all over them and reek havoc with their measly little ant hill.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
elijay, my words need no interpreter but what the hearer of each access them as, and if your profound insight, see contradiction, then this damn well should be pointed out, if you are choosing to to be responsible for how they are to be defined??? put your money where your mouth is, and speak out the contradiction??? if you speak for me, i shall speak for you??? that fair??? that equal??? i do not say what you mean to another, as this would be but childish on my part, and most even audacious, and if you deem so fit to do, then so be it, but if i speak for you, giving you back the equal you have given me, then my sting will have a more insideous effect, and sting from the inside out. do we have a clear understanding, as equals, as to our positions??? do not do unto me, what you do not wish to come back to yourself??? that pretty fair??? what more does a professed christian and scholar as yourself practice anyhow??? as indeed, this be the very essence of what was written, that you heard not one word of. peace Just getting the chance to catch up here - sorry it took so long. In the OP's original hypothesis - we are to "assume" that He lives a life free from "all sin", and yet never follows a religion (okay - I'll buy that one for the moment) and has never heard of Jesus. Well - since it is a sin to reject the Holy Spirit's testamony about Jesus - the ONLY unforgivable sin by the way - it is quite contrary to think that using the bible as our standard to determine what sin even is (Else where does the term Heaven come from as the presumed destination) than we are confronted with presumtions that are contradicting the boundries of the original premise. Since the bible says that ALL have sinned, te original premise is already defeated - but since it is an HYPOTHESIS (that is - assumed to be TRUE) it would naturally follow that given biblical parameters - it is hardly unlikely that he would be rejecting Jesus - given that he has NEVER sinned - so we can safely conclude that he HAS accepted Jesus, else he stands in self-contradiction and HAS sinned by rejecting Him. Since heaven is an eternity spent with Jesus and God - it is a fooloish assumption to assume that the original individual in the original hypothesis incapable of knowing who Jesus was. One doesn't need to be a scholar to see this David. All one needs do is read the text. A child can reason this out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just getting the chance to catch up here - sorry it took so long. In the OP's original hypothesis - we are to "assume" that He lives a life free from "all sin", and yet never follows a religion (okay - I'll buy that one for the moment) and has never heard of Jesus. Well - since it is a sin to reject the Holy Spirit's testamony about Jesus - the ONLY unforgivable sin by the way - it is quite contrary to think that using the bible as our standard to determine what sin even is (Else where does the term Heaven come from as the presumed destination) than we are confronted with presumtions that are contradicting the boundries of the original premise. Since the bible says that ALL have sinned, te original premise is already defeated - but since it is an HYPOTHESIS (that is - assumed to be TRUE) it would naturally follow that given biblical parameters - it is hardly unlikely that he would be rejecting Jesus - given that he has NEVER sinned - so we can safely conclude that he HAS accepted Jesus, else he stands in self-contradiction and HAS sinned by rejecting Him. Since heaven is an eternity spent with Jesus and God - it is a fooloish assumption to assume that the original individual in the original hypothesis incapable of knowing who Jesus was. One doesn't need to be a scholar to see this David. All one needs do is read the text. A child can reason this out. I thought the only unforgiveable sin was despair? You guys change things all the time. Glad your religion is not written in stone. |
|
|
|
|
