100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: something to think about | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
that was not the point,..you can say whatever you want,..it`s a free county,.( I think ) the point was,..it would heal alot of strife,.if people would tend to their own gardens & let others look after theirs,.. granted. However, people who believe that their invisable friends are real can be a danger. Not only to themselves, but to others as well. Especially when they insist others should believe in their invisable friends too, which those that believe most often do. And why is it when someone declares that God speaks to them and that they can "feel" God's presence, it's not considered a mental illness? Change the name to Bob and it most certainly is. What's the difference? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to people to have religion, IF they want it. If it makes them feel safer, more comfortable, or whatever the reason, they need it. It is more important to believe in something than it is to fight and argue to try to prove or disprove it. I don't think she will have any trouble in the afterlife, as she finally realized what is important. She admitted her errors and flaws and passed away peacefully. If we all found that within ourselves, and let people live their own lives, the world would be better off. Is it really? I would submit that, for one thing, true believers almost never believe that leaving others to look after their own affairs is a good thing. They are almost universally compelled to try to convince others of the rightness of their own belief systems. And they are not above using force to insure those around them, even if they don't believe in what they do, will abide by the rules their godthing has laid out. I think it far more important to fight against tyranny than to be accomodating to tyrants. And your whole premise is faulty. I'm sure meth junkies feel safer and more comfortable when they get a shot of meth. Would you say "leave 'em alone too"? If so, I don't think you've met any meth junkies. The point is, just because something makes someone feel safer and more comfortable, that's no reason to accept bad behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to people to have religion, IF they want it. If it makes them feel safer, more comfortable, or whatever the reason, they need it. It is more important to believe in something than it is to fight and argue to try to prove or disprove it. I don't think she will have any trouble in the afterlife, as she finally realized what is important. She admitted her errors and flaws and passed away peacefully. If we all found that within ourselves, and let people live their own lives, the world would be better off. Is it really? I would submit that, for one thing, true believers almost never believe that leaving others to look after their own affairs is a good thing. They are almost universally compelled to try to convince others of the rightness of their own belief systems. And they are not above using force to insure those around them, even if they don't believe in what they do, will abide by the rules their godthing has laid out. I think it far more important to fight against tyranny than to be accomodating to tyrants. And your whole premise is faulty. I'm sure meth junkies feel safer and more comfortable when they get a shot of meth. Would you say "leave 'em alone too"? If so, I don't think you've met any meth junkies. The point is, just because something makes someone feel safer and more comfortable, that's no reason to accept bad behavior. I am talking about the more common everyday people, my roommate for example. He's religious, I'm not, we get along great. He's content with his religion and it gives him joy. Should I take that away from him just because I don't agree with his religion? Meth junkies are a different story, as are religious extremists. The people that have religion and it brings them joy, they aren't hurting anyone nor do they cram it down other peoples throats, if they are happy, who are we to take it away or to tell them their God isn't real. They will believe what they wish anyways. If the thought of going to heaven comforts them, let them have it. As for me I am comfortable with just dying and returning to the earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to people to have religion, IF they want it. If it makes them feel safer, more comfortable, or whatever the reason, they need it. It is more important to believe in something than it is to fight and argue to try to prove or disprove it. I don't think she will have any trouble in the afterlife, as she finally realized what is important. She admitted her errors and flaws and passed away peacefully. If we all found that within ourselves, and let people live their own lives, the world would be better off. Is it really? I would submit that, for one thing, true believers almost never believe that leaving others to look after their own affairs is a good thing. They are almost universally compelled to try to convince others of the rightness of their own belief systems. And they are not above using force to insure those around them, even if they don't believe in what they do, will abide by the rules their godthing has laid out. I think it far more important to fight against tyranny than to be accomodating to tyrants. And your whole premise is faulty. I'm sure meth junkies feel safer and more comfortable when they get a shot of meth. Would you say "leave 'em alone too"? If so, I don't think you've met any meth junkies. The point is, just because something makes someone feel safer and more comfortable, that's no reason to accept bad behavior. I am talking about the more common everyday people, my roommate for example. He's religious, I'm not, we get along great. He's content with his religion and it gives him joy. Should I take that away from him just because I don't agree with his religion? Meth junkies are a different story, as are religious extremists. The people that have religion and it brings them joy, they aren't hurting anyone nor do they cram it down other peoples throats, if they are happy, who are we to take it away or to tell them their God isn't real. They will believe what they wish anyways. If the thought of going to heaven comforts them, let them have it. As for me I am comfortable with just dying and returning to the earth. I also said If they want it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was not the point,..you can say whatever you want,..it`s a free county,.( I think ) the point was,..it would heal alot of strife,.if people would tend to their own gardens & let others look after theirs,.. granted. However, people who believe that their invisable friends are real can be a danger. Not only to themselves, but to others as well. Especially when they insist others should believe in their invisable friends too, which those that believe most often do. And why is it when someone declares that God speaks to them and that they can "feel" God's presence, it's not considered a mental illness? Change the name to Bob and it most certainly is. What's the difference? I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was not the point,..you can say whatever you want,..it`s a free county,.( I think ) the point was,..it would heal alot of strife,.if people would tend to their own gardens & let others look after theirs,.. granted. However, people who believe that their invisable friends are real can be a danger. Not only to themselves, but to others as well. Especially when they insist others should believe in their invisable friends too, which those that believe most often do. And why is it when someone declares that God speaks to them and that they can "feel" God's presence, it's not considered a mental illness? Change the name to Bob and it most certainly is. What's the difference? what exactly is it that you`re afraid of ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to people to have religion, IF they want it. If it makes them feel safer, more comfortable, or whatever the reason, they need it. It is more important to believe in something than it is to fight and argue to try to prove or disprove it. I don't think she will have any trouble in the afterlife, as she finally realized what is important. She admitted her errors and flaws and passed away peacefully. If we all found that within ourselves, and let people live their own lives, the world would be better off. Is it really? I would submit that, for one thing, true believers almost never believe that leaving others to look after their own affairs is a good thing. They are almost universally compelled to try to convince others of the rightness of their own belief systems. And they are not above using force to insure those around them, even if they don't believe in what they do, will abide by the rules their godthing has laid out. I think it far more important to fight against tyranny than to be accomodating to tyrants. And your whole premise is faulty. I'm sure meth junkies feel safer and more comfortable when they get a shot of meth. Would you say "leave 'em alone too"? If so, I don't think you've met any meth junkies. The point is, just because something makes someone feel safer and more comfortable, that's no reason to accept bad behavior. I am talking about the more common everyday people, my roommate for example. He's religious, I'm not, we get along great. He's content with his religion and it gives him joy. Should I take that away from him just because I don't agree with his religion? Meth junkies are a different story, as are religious extremists. The people that have religion and it brings them joy, they aren't hurting anyone nor do they cram it down other peoples throats, if they are happy, who are we to take it away or to tell them their God isn't real. They will believe what they wish anyways. If the thought of going to heaven comforts them, let them have it. As for me I am comfortable with just dying and returning to the earth. oh well, that's different then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, Actually, there is a Bob-God. Though I believe its just a running joke. And lets not forget ... that's how Scientology came about recently, so its not so far-fetched. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, Actually, there is a Bob-God. Though I believe its just a running joke. And lets not forget ... that's how Scientology came about recently, so its not so far-fetched. If either of those books last a thousand years and sell billions of copies,, there may someday be a valid belief in Bob God |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is important to people to have religion, IF they want it. If it makes them feel safer, more comfortable, or whatever the reason, they need it. It is more important to believe in something than it is to fight and argue to try to prove or disprove it. I don't think she will have any trouble in the afterlife, as she finally realized what is important. She admitted her errors and flaws and passed away peacefully. If we all found that within ourselves, and let people live their own lives, the world would be better off. Is it really? I would submit that, for one thing, true believers almost never believe that leaving others to look after their own affairs is a good thing. They are almost universally compelled to try to convince others of the rightness of their own belief systems. And they are not above using force to insure those around them, even if they don't believe in what they do, will abide by the rules their godthing has laid out. I think it far more important to fight against tyranny than to be accomodating to tyrants. And your whole premise is faulty. I'm sure meth junkies feel safer and more comfortable when they get a shot of meth. Would you say "leave 'em alone too"? If so, I don't think you've met any meth junkies. The point is, just because something makes someone feel safer and more comfortable, that's no reason to accept bad behavior. I am talking about the more common everyday people, my roommate for example. He's religious, I'm not, we get along great. He's content with his religion and it gives him joy. Should I take that away from him just because I don't agree with his religion? Meth junkies are a different story, as are religious extremists. The people that have religion and it brings them joy, they aren't hurting anyone nor do they cram it down other peoples throats, if they are happy, who are we to take it away or to tell them their God isn't real. They will believe what they wish anyways. If the thought of going to heaven comforts them, let them have it. As for me I am comfortable with just dying and returning to the earth. I see your point. I understand it too. And I agree that the needless hurting of people, by showing them the folly and waistfullness of their beliefs, is not a good and useful thing. I do not go out in the world and preach the good news that there is no god. Mainly because there will never be enough people convinced of it and I cannot justify causing a few people pain w/o an achievable goal. However, people come HERE specifically for just such a debate. If they don't want to get hurt or be challenged in ways that make them uncomfortable, they shouldn't be here, in this forum, at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was not the point,..you can say whatever you want,..it`s a free county,.( I think ) the point was,..it would heal alot of strife,.if people would tend to their own gardens & let others look after theirs,.. granted. However, people who believe that their invisable friends are real can be a danger. Not only to themselves, but to others as well. Especially when they insist others should believe in their invisable friends too, which those that believe most often do. And why is it when someone declares that God speaks to them and that they can "feel" God's presence, it's not considered a mental illness? Change the name to Bob and it most certainly is. What's the difference? I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, So...what you are actually saying is the only reason you believe in God is because he's popular and has a best seller? Well that's a helleva reason to believe in something. No, wait, God speaks to you and you feel his presence, too.  Well Bob and I have been talking and we agree, that's just crazy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was not the point,..you can say whatever you want,..it`s a free county,.( I think ) the point was,..it would heal alot of strife,.if people would tend to their own gardens & let others look after theirs,.. granted. However, people who believe that their invisable friends are real can be a danger. Not only to themselves, but to others as well. Especially when they insist others should believe in their invisable friends too, which those that believe most often do. And why is it when someone declares that God speaks to them and that they can "feel" God's presence, it's not considered a mental illness? Change the name to Bob and it most certainly is. What's the difference? what exactly is it that you`re afraid of ? umm...I'm not particularly good w/ heights. Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, Actually, there is a Bob-God. Though I believe its just a running joke. And lets not forget ... that's how Scientology came about recently, so its not so far-fetched. Indeed. Kinda sad, actually. A friend of mine wants to start up a religion worshiping the holy coffee bean. That way whenever he spills coffee he can say he's giving a blessing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, Actually, there is a Bob-God. Though I believe its just a running joke. And lets not forget ... that's how Scientology came about recently, so its not so far-fetched. If either of those books last a thousand years and sell billions of copies,, there may someday be a valid belief in Bob God that must be some strange definition of the word "valid" I hadn't heard before. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
darkowl1
on
Mon 04/12/10 06:22 PM
|
|
one problem with this. This would put God on a belief level. God is more then that though, this is demeaning God's name. God is as real as you and I weather one believes in him or not. God isn't just a belief someone came up with one day like the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, or any other fairly tell. GOD IS REAL not just a BELIEF. this is why he said there are wars......forcing people to believe at all costs..... peace is more valuable than this argueing to me  it's also, what started the inquisition, but so be it. santa claus was also a real person. i carry on the yule tradition of ST. Nick, and carry his spirit all year for many reasons. nobody ever went to war over what santa claus does. who he is, maybe, but not what he does. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, Actually, there is a Bob-God. Though I believe its just a running joke. And lets not forget ... that's how Scientology came about recently, so its not so far-fetched. If either of those books last a thousand years and sell billions of copies,, there may someday be a valid belief in Bob God that must be some strange definition of the word "valid" I hadn't heard before. not really, from miriam webster,definition two of valid well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference> much like our beliefs in Columbus, or Michaelangelo or any other historically recorded figure are considered valid because of the mountain of writings supporting their existence,,, The books of the bible stand a similar test to rationalize the belief some have in the validity of its contents,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
donthatoneguy
on
Tue 04/13/10 07:15 AM
|
|
The difference between Columbus and Michaelangelo having "discovered America" (though not really) and Painting the Sistine Chapel are far different than a few collected books written by an oppressed people, especially books that cannot agree on what God is or what God does.
We're here on this continent, so we know someone (we call him Columbus) came over from Europe, which caused the natives a mountain of grief for many of years and then England a mountain of grief for many years and then the USA was born. There was a great artist that lived many years ago and we can see their work ... we call him "Michaelangelo". The Bible is a collection of different books that relate a great many tales that were told hundreds of times over in previous myths like Dionysus and Horus. Books in which not all versions are accepted. When Christianity came to Rome, Constantine held a forum in which the Bible (in somewhat current form) was debated on and what to include ... whether Jesus should be presented as a regular guy or a deity. King James gave us our most recent edition (proven by "King James Version"), taking out things he did not really care for himself. And what of those other books that didn't make the cut? Like the Gospel of Judas or that of Mary Magdalen (and the versions that name her Jesus' wife)? So if its been edited to fit those in powers' idea of what they want in a religion and its not the original word of God ... what makes it valid? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that was not the point,..you can say whatever you want,..it`s a free county,.( I think ) the point was,..it would heal alot of strife,.if people would tend to their own gardens & let others look after theirs,.. granted. However, people who believe that their invisable friends are real can be a danger. Not only to themselves, but to others as well. Especially when they insist others should believe in their invisable friends too, which those that believe most often do. And why is it when someone declares that God speaks to them and that they can "feel" God's presence, it's not considered a mental illness? Change the name to Bob and it most certainly is. What's the difference? I suspect if there were a book from forty different authors , over 1000 years old, selling billions of copies,, regarding the history of BOB and his omniscience, we could change the name God to BOB and it would not be considered a mental illness to believe in him either,,, So...what you are actually saying is the only reason you believe in God is because he's popular and has a best seller? Well that's a helleva reason to believe in something. No, wait, God speaks to you and you feel his presence, too. Well Bob and I have been talking and we agree, that's just crazy. nah,, Im saying the difference in believing in Bob and believing in God is the amount of historical documentation supporting that belief. My knowledge of God, began with a book,,but my Faith in God is something much deeper and not about popularity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'M SURE WE AGREE THERE ARE HIGHER POWERS- BOTH POSITIVE & NEGATIVE- WE ALL MAKE CHOICES GOOD OR BAD- MY POINT IS YOUR CHOICES LEAD YOU DOWN DIFFERENT ROADS, CAUSE YOU TO HAVE DIFFERENT BELIEFS, SO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU CHOOSE- BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT CORRECTLY & BE LOST & CONFUSED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. PEACE-OUT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between Columbus and Michaelangelo having "discovered America" (though not really) and Painting the Sistine Chapel are far different than a few collected books written by an oppressed people, especially books that cannot agree on what God is or what God does. We're here on this continent, so we know someone (we call him Columbus) came over from Europe, which caused the natives a mountain of grief for many of years and then England a mountain of grief for many years and then the USA was born. There was a great artist that lived many years ago and we can see their work ... we call him "Michaelangelo". The Bible is a collection of different books that relate a great many tales that were told hundreds of times over in previous myths like Dionysus and Horus. Books in which not all versions are accepted. When Christianity came to Rome, Constantine held a forum in which the Bible (in somewhat current form) was debated on and what to include ... whether Jesus should be presented as a regular guy or a deity. King James gave us our most recent edition (proven by "King James Version"), taking out things he did not really care for himself. And what of those other books that didn't make the cut? Like the Gospel of Judas or that of Mary Magdalen (and the versions that name her Jesus' wife)? So if its been edited to fit those in powers' idea of what they want in a religion and its not the original word of God ... what makes it valid? it hasnt been Disproven,,,regarding columbus and michaelangelo, I would argue that because I am here, I know Someone or something caused me to be,,,,,,and i can see the nature all around me that either came from accidents or from some intelligence,,, |
|
|
|
|
