I'm a deeply spiritual person Terry despite what many people on these forums think.

We very seldom speak of "God" in these threads. All that is ever argued for is the idea that the ancient Greek stories are the "Word of God", and that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God who was crucified to pay for our sins.

You suggest that life isn't an accident and that we were made to be us.

I have no problem with that philosophy abstractly speaking. I feel much the same way.

However, should they send me running of to WORSHIP the Greek mythology of Zeus? Or Thor, or Odin, etc?

No, absolutely not. Just because there might be a creator doesn't automatically imply that any particular ancient fables of Gods are true.

And the very same thing applies to Hebrew folklore and legends.

These kinds of conversations ALWAYS lead to the same end.

~~~~~

1. A Christian is trying to make a case for the idea that we should accept the Bible as the "Word of God".

2. I explain why I feel that the biblical stories do not represent the thoughts and actions of a genuinely all-wise being that could be capable of creating this universe.

3. Then I'm accused of "hating God", bashing Christianity, etc, etc, etc.

~~~~~

It ridiculous.

I'm not even an atheist! I believe that spirituality is more likely than not. I confess to being agnostic (i.e. without absolute knowledge of this), but that my friend is nothing more than pure honesty, I would be a liar to claim to know whether or not life is truly spiritual or not. I can only guess.

But I'm with you on the guess that it probably is ultimately spiritual in essence. I certainly believe that this is not only plausible, but it's also highly likely to be the case, IMHO. That is certainly not an atheistic position.

All honest people must necessarily confess to being agnostic (i.e. without absolute knowledge of spiritual truth), to claim otherwise is to claim to have divine knowledge and to be far different from MOST PEOPLE.

By why push a Hebrew legend as the "Word of God"?

Believing in it for yourself is fine. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to believe in those stories for themselves.

However, in my honest view, those stories represent a nightmare to me, not a wonderful dream. I see no value in a spiritual story that has me at such odds with my creator. Even if I confess my so-called 'sins' and accept God's blood sacrifice on my behalf it doesn't help, it would still be an eternal nightmare.


All this would do is get me into a heaven where I clearly DON'T even belong because I was only given entrance through GRACE, not because I'm worthy on my own merit.

How is that such a great dream of spirituality? Quite honestly it sounds like a nightmare to me.

So just because I recognize that the essence of existence may very well be ultimately spiritual that's not going to send me running to worship the legends of the ancient Hebrews. Those stories just don't represent what I could consider to be a worthy situation.

On the contrary, I much prefer Eastern Mysticism. It's just a far more positive picture of spirituality, IMHO.

So these conversations are truly never about whether or not life is spiritual. What they truly amount to is which legends, if any, should we accept as being potentially true, or associated with any possible supreme beings?

I just don't see the Hebrew portrait of "God" as being anywhere near divine or wise enough to be a true reflection of any infinitely wise being.

That's a valid concern.

And so I point out things that I feel aren't so hot about it. The Bible claims that Jesus brought "good news" and then it goes on to have Jesus saying that only few will make it into the kingdom of God.

That's supposed to be "good news"?

I just personally don't see that as being good news, sound like pretty bad news if you ask me.



In the Eastern Mystical picture all children of God return to God without exception. No souls are lots. None.

How can that not be a better picture of spiritual essence?

And so I point out things that I feel aren't so hot about it. The Bible claims that Jesus brought "good news" and then it goes on to have Jesus saying that only few will make it into the kingdom of God.

Cowboy wrote:

That is your choice my friend. Be my guess, live your life pointless and meaningless. When it ends, it ends. And or you come back and try again. There will never be an end. There will never be a completion of your life. Hey if that makes you feel good, go for it abra. I can't show or prove God to you. That comes from within you. And since you're willing to let it pass, there's nothing I can do. I can't save you, I can't show you the truth, I can't do anything for YOU. Only you can do anything for YOU.

Cowboy, these conversations have nothing at all to do with my personal fate. And your extremely limited views of Eastern Mysticism concerns me not.

Also, what are you trying to 'save' me from? The wrath of your bully God? Why should I believe that God is a bully in the first place?

That's ridiculous, IMHO.

Cowboy wrote:

This is why you like eastern mysticism. You don't wish to accept the consequence for the deeds you've done in your life. You want to just live your life the way you wan to, then come back and redo it. Yes if you do bad things, bad things then happen in your life. But then all you have to do is some good things to get your life back on track. Then go back on with the bad things, drinking, drugs possibly, sexual immoralities.You can't stand to think you get one chance at this. You wish to live your life to how you wish rather then how someone else has instructed you. This exactly is the reason only a few will make it into the kingdom of God. It's not because of God himself, it's because of people's selfish actions that they choose to do. The reason it is selfish is because there actions are purely for their enjoyment. Not the bettering of the world, your neighbour or anyone other then you. But it's ok if you do some bad things, you'll do better next time in your next life to correct that.

This is why you like eastern mysticism. You don't wish to accept the consequence for the deeds you've done in your life.

If I was concerned with not having to accept the consequences for the deeds I've done in my life, then Christianity would be attractive to me. All I would need to do is accept Jesus as my "savior" and all my sins will be forgiven and washed away.

With Eastern Mysticism I have no choice but to take full responsibility for everything I do, and I must work out all of my karma on my own with no instant forgiveness through the mere acceptance of a "savior".

So if I want to shirk the consequences of my actions, Christianity would be the far better religion to turn to. It promises a FREE RIDE on Jesus.

So clearly your wrong about my motivations for viewing Eastern mysticism as a wiser picture. It's just wiser from a creator's point of view because no children are ever lost this way. So I'm looking at it from the creator's point of view, not from my point of view. If I was seeking "instant salvation" with no need to work at it Christianity would be the FREE RIDE not Eastern Mysticism.

So clearly I'm choosing a spiritual philosophy that I feel is more likely to be true, not necessarily one that would simply make things EASIER for my own personal salvation. Clearly Jesus is offering the easiest 'salvation' possible. Just ask, and you are forgiven.

What could be EASIER?

If I was concerned with not having to accept the consequences for the deeds I've done in my life, then Christianity would be attractive to me. All I would need to do is accept Jesus as my "savior" and all my sins will be forgiven and washed away.

With Eastern Mysticism I have no choice but to take full responsibility for everything I do, and I must work out all of my karma on my own with no instant forgiveness through the mere acceptance of a "savior".

So if I want to shirk the consequences of my actions, Christianity would be the far better religion to turn to. It promises a FREE RIDE on Jesus.

So clearly your wrong about my motivations for viewing Eastern mysticism as a wiser picture. It's just wiser from a creator's point of view because no children are ever lost this way. So I'm looking at it from the creator's point of view, not from my point of view. If I was seeking "instant salvation" with no need to work at it Christianity would be the FREE RIDE not Eastern Mysticism.

So clearly I'm choosing a spiritual philosophy that I feel is more likely to be true, not necessarily one that would simply make things EASIER for my own personal salvation. Clearly Jesus is offering the easiest 'salvation' possible. Just ask, and you are forgiven.

What could be EASIER?

So clearly I'm choosing a spiritual philosophy that I feel is more likely to be true, not necessarily one that would simply make things EASIER for my own personal salvation. Clearly Jesus is offering the easiest 'salvation' possible. Just ask, and you are forgiven.

Cowboy wrote:

hmmm you should have kids. Since you feel punishment to your kids is "bullying" them, i'd love to see how they grew up.

I actually know people who have kids and who have never employed punishment as part of their parenting strategy. Their kids are extremely productive, creative, and have never gotten into trouble that I'm aware of. At least not of the serious rebellious type of trouble. I'm sure they've made their fair share of innocent mistakes just like everyone does.

The concept of "punishment" is simply not even required to properly educate and raise a human being. In fact, if you have a child who is so rebellious that you feel that you might need to resort to "punishment" as a means of correcting the child, I would suggest two things:

1. Either you haven't truly communicated with the child intimately enough to understand why they feel the way they do.

OR,

2. Your child may potentially have mental health problems in which case the approach of 'punishment' as a method of correction isn't going to help anyway.

So from my point of view, any parent who feels a need to resort to punishment as a means of "teaching" children are already either lacking in parental skills (or patience), or they are unable to recognize serious mental problems and have them treated.

Clearly an infinitely wise and all-powerful God would have neither of these human faults, therefore there would be absolutely no need for a God to resort to punishment as a means of trying to teach anyone any lessons.

That very concept is only valid for inferior parents who are restricted in terms of being able to communicate with their children properly, or they are restricted in patience and a desire to truly work with the child.

So to even suggest that the creator of this universe needs to resort to means of punishment as a method of teaching children implies that he is an extremely inept parent already, IMHO.

You keep trying to compare God with human parents but you seem to keep forgetting that God would not be as LIMITED as human parents are.

So your analogies never stand.

You think in extremes. You don't think moderately. Punishment doesn't have to be beating your child or something of such. Punishment can be a grounding, when they are little can be having a toy taken away at least for a certain amount of time. If punishment is not done in some form or way they will just continue on doing such actions. Say a little child steals a piece of gum, that child will continue to steal throughout their life if they are not shown the consequence for their actions. Again doesn't have to be beating the child, can again just be simple punishments. But nevertheless some form of punishment has to be used in order for the child/person to learn.

to love god is to love people.

if there is no limit to god, than there is no limit to how much one can want to help another.

it seems the tell of all things, is to search one's own heart, to see if there is any reason or thing self wants back in return for what itself does for another.

does it want to enlighten them to the self way, as mo better.

no problem with that, if that is WHAT THEY WANT.

it would seem remisss not to see there is no mention in the question posed of ANY CONCERN IN SUCH MATTERS BASED UPON WHAT ANOTHER WANTS AS THE TELL.

why would self's want be better or more important than what they want?

if oen wants to HELP ANOTHER, than another WANTING HELP, IS THE FINAL SAY OF GOOD.

if that other person is seen as equal in smarts, value, wants, perceptions...


but, as far as helping another to walk more "in the light"...

this would be to assume self as having "more light", which would be easy to see is what makes people BELIEVE NOT IN THEIR OWN ABILITES, or the energy of other's thinking they are making dumb descisions, are stupid, idiots, needing some light...

to be able to help another to achieve more "living in light"...

would be to get behind them IN WHAT THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE, FOR THEMSELF.

if such is not so, such would be to assume self as more 'righteouss',or good, or better, in it's wants, values, aspirations, and reasons and motivations for living it's own life...

to love another, or love god, which god is love, unconditional love, would be then to have NO CONDITIONS, or strings attached, so then no WANTS FROM ANOTHER IN RETURN, for anything self does for them.

which would be doing it with no want of affection in return, gratitude, favor, friendship for self, certainly with no ties to any relationship self wants with another for itself...

nothing in return.

that seems to be the only "loving" of god, if one asks of how to love another "as god would want"...

willing to die for another...

many say sure, no problem, i'll die for ya, but then they are not willing to take the trash out without sex in return, or accolades in return, lol....

not that any is SUPPOSED to love unconditionally, or as some HAVE TO, just that such would be THE TRUE FEELINGS SELF WOULD HAVE, if it was really in love, unconditionally, which would be the only helping that would be self motive or self interest free.

and of course, if self sees the value of another as EQUAL TO ITSELF, such would mean to deem the intellect of another as equal to self, so as smart as self...

so, how could one think itself could be capable of "sharing it's self light"?

is not self light, caring endlessly for another, without any give or do to get mentality?

pure motive.

not tainted with some self agenda?

if another, does what harms themself, then they value not themself, and if they value not themself, then they value not others, so cannot see their own value, and so do many things to hurt themself, and if they do this, they believe not in themself, and their own power, nor value, but, if another tries to help them see the VALUE OF OTHERS, TO INCREASE THEIR OWN SELF VALUE, how can one declare to aonther IT'S VALUE, TO MAKE ANOTHER SEE SELF VALUE?

lol...

such would create the OPPOSITE SELF WOULD WANT TO HAVE FOR ITSELF ANYHOW.

another must see the value of ITSELF, CERTAINNLY NOT BE ANOTHER DECLARING IT'S OWN VALUE.

if another cant see it, such is what they must EXPEREICNE IN REALITY FOR THEMSELF, AND NO AMOUNT OF DIRECTION OR BRAIN SMARTS AS IN DOCTRINE, DOGMA, RELIGIOUS BELIEF, CAN CREATE THAT, in fact, stunts the process totally.

mans gravest woe is to not leave god out of the picture.

what SELF DOES, AND HOW IT DOES IT, AND WHAT MOTIVE IT DOES IT WITH, DECIDES HOW OTHER SHALL TREAT SELF.

humans use some "god" theory, and blind themself with trying to figure out GODS WILL...

god will is what another human wants, UNLESS THEY BREAK THE LAWS OF THE LAND, AND INDUCE INTENTIONALY PHYSICAL HARM ON ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

if they wanna be a prostitute, then help them be the best damn prostitute that ever lived.

lol...

and they will soon want more, and want more much FASTER, THAN TRYIGN TO TELL THEM ABOUT SELFS REALITY, of how self walked to the store twenty miles in the snow, and expect this to help them.

humans learn from REALITY, WHICH IS SELF EXPERIENCE, OR SELF DOING IT.

tell a child they can't have what they want, they shall live their whole life to aquire it, when if they were given as much as much as possible, they would come faster to see what is of MOST VALUE TO THEM.

how can what is of value to self, BE THE GUIDE FOR WHAT SHOULDBE OF MOST VALUE TO ANOTHER?

that is unequal.

using self as the bar and measure of WHAT THEY SHOULD WANT.

that would be self serving.

and if self tries to help them come to SELF LIGHT, this does not help them to believe in themself MORE, so then believe in others more, a parodox, since the amount of caring for oneself, is directly proportionate to the value one places on others, regardless of anything as in affection, loyalty, love, friendship, respect, all those things, they give to self...

it seems if there is any knowing of 'god', or loving god, than that would be loving love, and the only thing said to be true love is unconditional love for others.


of course, such spoken only due to the op stating belief in "god".
since god is called all love, then it would be most to value what they want, and help them achieve it, even if self see's it will not BENEFIT SELF.

for the human natural inclination, is but to only LOVE WHAT WILL BENEFIT SELF, OR GIVE TO SELF, OR PRAISE SELF, OR HAVE AFFECTION FOR SELF, OR SPEAK HIGHLY OF SELF, OR NOT CRITIQUE SELF...

with any of these motives in the heart, and not admitted to oneself, and and most to THEM, then the opposite self wishes to happen will happen.

to some degree in all cases.

just one asssholes one cent.

lol...

this would be to assume self as having "more light", which would be easy to see is what makes people BELIEVE NOT IN THEIR OWN ABILITES, or the energy of other's thinking they are making dumb descisions, are stupid, idiots, needing some light...

to be able to help another to achieve more "living in light"...

would be to get behind them IN WHAT THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE, FOR THEMSELF.

if such is not so, such would be to assume self as more 'righteouss',or good, or better, in it's wants, values, aspirations, and reasons and motivations for living it's own life..

Cowboy wrote:

You think in extremes. You don't think moderately. Punishment doesn't have to be beating your child or something of such. Punishment can be a grounding, when they are little can be having a toy taken away at least for a certain amount of time. If punishment is not done in some form or way they will just continue on doing such actions. Say a little child steals a piece of gum, that child will continue to steal throughout their life if they are not shown the consequence for their actions. Again doesn't have to be beating the child, can again just be simple punishments. But nevertheless some form of punishment has to be used in order for the child/person to learn.

Excuse me?

You seem to be the one who thinks in extremes Cowboy.

There is no need to punish anyone to teach them good morals.

That'ss extreme thinking in and of itself.

Apparently you have no comprehension of the intellectual approach to teaching.

I'm afraid I can't help you with that. I hope you don't have any children, is all I can say.

Excuse me?

You seem to be the one who thinks delusional Abracadabra.

That is again why we have police. If the world worked as you like to present it as, there would be no need for police. People would just obey the law for the sake of being obedient. Yeah heck with it, go have a talk with all the people in prison then we can just let them all out and not have to spend valuable tax money on the prisons and jails :D. Since punishment is so wrong, I think you should run for president. You could turn this country totally around. Go for it abra :D you got my vote.

Cowboy wrote:

Excuse me?

You seem to be the one who thinks delusional Abracadabra.

That is again why we have police. If the world worked as you like to present it as, there would be no need for police. People would just obey the law for the sake of being obedient. Yeah heck with it, go have a talk with all the people in prison then we can just let them all out and not have to spend valuable tax money on the prisons and jails :D. Since punishment is so wrong, I think you should run for president. You could turn this country totally around. Go for it abra :D you got my vote.

I didn't raise everyone in the world.

Also being president wouldn't help. What good would it do for me to run for president? A president doesn't get to raise anyone's children.

And yes, if all parents raised their children the way I suggest (and if there were no problems with mental illness and that sort of thing), then yes, we may very well live in a world that would have absolutely no need for any police, or any wars either for that matter.

That's right.

the essence of unsanity is but to prove what one wants to prove about itself.

this creating a losing touch with the cause and effect of human words and deeds, and their impact or effect on self and others, and how such will HARM, or bring PAIN FOR ANOTHER.

if there is true caring in something, than it does not even think or speak thru a "faults" perception at all.

but, the words chosen by any human, show how ITSELF THINKS ABOUT ITSELF.

but anyhow, if denial of self effect, most by proving to self what it but wishes to prove to itself about itself as true, creates one to do things that will harm itself, and make it sad.

if one thinks itself there to spot and point out faults of another, than it prove itself is not about CARING ABOUT OTHERS AT ALL, for if there was true caring motive, IT WOULD THOUGHT OF, AND SO SPOKEN OF, AS A TRUEW REALITY, AS HELPING OTHERS TO RELIEVING THEM FROM PAIN, and sadness, not from faults.

so fucck the self declared self righeous, who but use "god" to prove to themself they are caring people, lol...

but, the self declared better thans, whom deem it all about faults, when no word or mention of faults was made, see spotting faults as creating others to """better themself""", and nothing could want to help another BETTER itself, lest it thought it's OWN WAY AND SELF WAS BETTER...

so, they can proclaim anything they wish.

their own words give them away.

but the self validators but prove what they wish to be so, but make no mmistake, such practice renders the brain clinically unsane in due time.

AND IF IT WAS ABOUT CARING, SO THEN HELPING ANOTHER, THEN ONLY IF ANOTHER DECLARED THEY WERE SAD, OR IN PAIN, WOULD THERE BE HELP GIVEN.

so again...

bullshitz that flows like rivers of hypocrisy, which really would be better called unsanity, since it leads to unsanity, or but brain delusions about oneself and it's true motivations.

these need restrained and detoxed as wouldbe terrorist, as each day, the wouldbe terrorist mentality shall get larger, as even the terrorist see's itself as HELPING THE WORLD BY REMOVING OTHERS FROM THE WORLD WHOM HAVE FAULTS, who have not chosen the self enlightened path of their GOD...

fuccck their notions of god, but used to prove themself as gods mouth and brain as speakers of whom be at fault, and what GOD THINKS BE A FAULT, lol...

fantasies of the unsane.

We all have faults. Not one person is greater then the other. We all fall short of the glory of God. No one's here to prove themselves to be greater, more important, or anything of such. I'm not better then you, nor are you me. There is no hypocrisy. What is wrong for me is wrong for you, what is wrong for you is wrong for me. What I am not to do, you are not to do, what you are not to do I am not to do. We are all in the same boat.

We all have faults. Not one person is greater then the other. We all fall short of the glory of God. No one's here to prove themselves to be greater, more important, or anything of such. I'm not better then you, nor are you me. There is no hypocrisy. What is wrong for me is wrong for you, what is wrong for you is wrong for me. What I am not to do, you are not to do, what you are not to do I am not to do. We are all in the same boat.