imagine.....

just be good for goodness sake ..
and,
derive your strength from family, friends and yourself..
not from an imaginary, mythological friend

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930


The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness. The Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primative, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
- Albert Einstein, Letter to Erik Gutkind, January 3, 1954

Well first, Welcome to the religion part of Mingle 2simleloudly,

Next I guess I can assume you agree fully with the quotes you posted. Some would call that the worship of knowledge over wisdom. Maybe even Einstein.


And I understand your struggle with believing in one creator of the universe, it's many wanders. From it's vastness to the inconceivable balance we call the human body. Even the human brain. Or even the human cell.

Science is working hard at trying to wrap our brains around these wonders and I find that those who seek to prove the creator idea wrong are passionate in there work.

But what I also find is a group of people who are seeking to find the truth. They believe there is a truth to be found. In science, it is a huge error to start with a belief only and try and prove or disprove it without the concept that the belief could be absolutely wrong and another truth is true.

May I submit to you it will always be a challenge for you to seek to find a truth without accepting the possibility that there is a creator. You will not be able to logically or scientifically evaluate that theory without it.

It would also be in error to assume that those who have come to a point of belief that they didn't also have to wrestle with it potentially not being true. That all those people, the vast majority of the soles on earth, believe in a creator.

For me, I wanted to know the truth. In that process, I found that the principals of life described in biblical principle kept proving themselves accurate over and over and over again. That a poor fisherman and a Shepard and a doctor could all write about what there creator imparted in then over hundreds of years and there thoughts, guidance and instruction go hand in hand over and over again.

Every man made science, philosophy and psychological belief cannot claim the same as they change there mantra every year or two when new "discoveries" prove old theories wrong.

But none of this will matter if your only goal is to prove what you already believe with the thought "I cannot believe in a creator".

The book that I fully believe in now tells me that those who dont want to see, never will. Even though The glory of the creation can be seen in everything we see. Science even agrees with this process.

So my belief is not blind. It started with wanting to know the truth. Then it turn into faith in what I was seeing happen before my eyes. I don't need faith anymore because I have seen the proof over and over again. Now I know because I wanted to know. But don't take my word for it. Please don't. Seek truth for yourself.

I just spent some time reading a good portion of your posts here. Basically all of them in the religious section and all of them as a denouncer of all religions with a strong opposition to christionanity. You seem to be on a mission. Why are you on here? You state to date in your profile yet you spend all your time attacking the ideal of a Creator.

Your even claim in your profile to be an ex bishop. An ex chrstian church leader, supposed believer in a Christian church. You have also shown great faith in phycology by using phycological terms many times with no hesitation to its accuracy. A man made gospel based on faith in theorys derived by observing human behavior and reaction.

This isn't about you seeking answers or engaging with others here. You have an agenda. And not a good one. Your hatred of the church blinds you. Yes even phycological figured the blindness hate or pain causes in our ability to seek truth.

Be Angry. Have wrath at who ever hurt you. Its probably more than one person and/or organization. But be ready for that somebody who hurt you to be yourself too.

You have come to the conclusion that the bible is false, embraced the human psychological faith that belief in a creator is a needed tool for the ego or mind. Strangely a subject well covered in the bible by those, what you call them, hut dwellers.

You did not ask for it but you are in my prayers. I have no way of knowing your road to this day. I have no idea what path you were on to become a leader in a church or what changed your choices. Yes we chose what to believe. And I will respect your options to chose and your choices while I call you out and expose your agenda if you chose to continue in the manor that you have.

why not get our 'strength' where we find it?

what is so much different from a scientist or individual advising us in regards to strength and the bible advising us?

good ideas, good advice, good counsel, will still be good ideas, good advice, and good counsel

regardless of the 'source'

Wait a second.....Are you saying....... Imagine....hmmm.....you mean.....like.... imagine there's no heaven....its easy, if you try.....like.... no hell below us?.... above us only sky?....

Yes but the problem becomes when we take that "source" and make it into a gospel when it really should not be one, such as with the Bible. We believe far too much on certain things than we really should be.

I agree with you. We shouldn't quote things that we don't fully believe is true and we should state why we believe it.

the only difference is the label

we have a 'gospel' in america called the 'constitution' which people agree upon as being the 'right way' to do things


who decides what we 'should' believe?

by definition, making a statement about believing what we 'shouldnt' be implies some 'correct' standard for what we 'should be believing,,,

Actually the word Gospel is a biblical term referring to the teachings and life of Christ. It is hard to comment on the concept of the "constitution" as a gospel. Not to split hairs.

The constitution is the foundations, rules and laws of the country. The consitution isn't really a choice. Violation of it risks inprisonment. We are expected to obey it while we live here. We can chose to attempt to change it if we want to but still are expected to obey it while it exists.

But many miss use the concept of freedom to do anything and everything they want with no responsibility to obey
Any rules. And this is what the world rightfully dislikes about the culture that we have developed here and are attempting to force on the rest of the world. This culture isn't even close to what this country was about. Quite opposite. But this is way

My apologies to 2 smile loudly. I miss read your profile. You were referring a un verified quote from a some bissop. It looked like you had claimed to be an x bishop.

Sorry for that mistake.

or not

Gospel:

: something accepted or promoted as infallible truth or as a guiding principle or doctrine <took her words as gospel>


from miriam webster


“Gospel” is from the Anglo-Saxon “godspel,” literally, “glad tidings,” or “good news” (from “god” meaning “good” and “spel” meaning “story”). “Good-gossip” was Samuel Johnson’s translation—which, I have to say, really captures the essence of the idea!

http://parishlife.blogspot.com/2011/03/gospel-etymology.html

we take our CONSTITUTION As a guiding principle

we consider the Constitution 'good'

those who dont blindly and strictly adhere to it are 'bad'


MUCH LIKE the RELIGIOUS (sometimes) CONSIDER THE BIBLE,,,their GOSPEL(good news, taken as an infallible truth and guiding resource)


and EVERYTHING is a choice,, people have started to change the word choice into only those things that will not risk negative consequence

even when the consequence will be negative, if we take ACTION (or not take action), we make a choice,,,

and there are ALWAYS consequences, whether worldly or spiritually

You must be careful Ms Harmony, as you might fall into or run afoul of those followers of Cleon Skousen, including Mitt Rommey and Glenn Beck. As you recall Skousen was the Mormon who spouts the beliefs that White Americans are the direct children of the lost tribes of Israel and that the Constitution is divinely inspired by G-d and that we must return to it. And by that they mean to have a social structure like there was in 1787.

not sure what that has to do with me or the post,,,,

You put the constitution and gospel in the same sentence- that is all, but it may give the wrong impression to the wackos.

You put the constitution and gospel in the same sentence- that is all, but it may give the wrong impression to the wackos.

and what does a white mormon have to do with the constitution or the bible?

my point is people will always have some SOURCE From which they derive their principles

if its their parents, then their parents word will tend to be their trusted GOSPEL

if its the constitution, the constitution will tend to be their trusted GOSPEL

if its the bible,,,the bible will tend to be their trusted GOSPEL

but there will always be a source, and different sources dont mandate that we end up with different principles

many of the principles overlap, regardless of their source,,,

and even before that tangible or identifiable 'source', there is something in the conscience that tells each of us that those principles make sense and are 'correct'



our SOURCE usually validates what is already a part of our CONSCIENSE

1. Merely questioning Skousen as a source.

2. May I suggest an alternative? Just to keep me in practice:

In the Tanakh (Jewish Scripture), when G-d commands by the sweat of your brow you will earn your bread, who defies him? Abel, who becomes a sheep tender. Who does G-d favour, from Abel to David? Those who do not comply with the laws and rules of city living, "civilized society" or the priests, but those that seek him alone in the pasture. Therefore, the Scripture is not about obedience but about finding your own source.

This is just the germ of an idea, do you think it worth fleshing out. I know many Jews who agree with it. What do you think Ms Harmony?

you will have to word it in a way that flows more smoothly

what do I think of WHAT?

Sheep tending, it seems would produce sweat (Especially in warm months)

that God 'favor's' those who do not comply with laws and rules is a fairly vague and subjective opinion, I suppose

as is the opinion that the scripture is about finding your own source

Your a deep thinker miss H.