Then why post such accusatory, judging scripture?
Can God love?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Then why post such accusatory, judging scripture?
or at least think they have the knowledge..
would you agree or disagree with this statement;
most theist do not truly believe what they say they believe.
(i have heard this from a few pastors)
IOW they tend to just parrot what they are told to believe, irregardless of how much understanding they have of that belief.
no..i will admit it is supposition on my part..
this begs the question of why they no longer consider themselves theist, and by extension backs up my point about misinformation and not understanding completely and of the churches failure to teach properly (do as your told vs think for yourself)
read the other threads about gay marriages to answer this..
i do believe that the majority of ppl who oppose gay marriages are church organizations that are just 'doing as they are told' by their pastors.
the critical term in this question (which i believe you meant) is is it the exclusive property of theist..and the answer to that is no..
but the fact remains that the bible does speak out against being Gay, and as you well know some will take a verse and turn it into an irrational issue..
IOW some will use God/the bible as an excuse to condone their own prejudices
and since non-theist do not/will not cite the bible as their excuse, yes it is a theist thing(when they bring the bible into it)
there is a fine line in this question..
i believe the majority of churches focus on 'do as your told', in this respect it is not a theist organization, it is a dictatorship, one man (the pastor) telling his flock what to believe and what to do, claiming that he is more knowledgeable than his flock in matters of God(well..here is the fine line, because his flock EXPECTS him to know more..)
there are the rare churches that teach think for yourself (which i tend to look for) i believe that it is these churches that are filled with true theists..
ppl who actually care more about what God wants than what their pastor wants..
I must confess that i can see where my pastor does not line up with what the bible teaches, where his own humanity influences what he teaches,but so far it is only one issue that i see this,and i believe a pastor IS only human, so i can forgive him on this..
i think my mouse messed up the quote..
but i don't think of evolution as a religion.
i think of evolution as credible but will not get into a debate of which is right, as i can believe them both to be right..
you do know me well enough to see that i do have problems communicating my thoughts in some areas..
that said..
I would like for me to show you what i am trying to get across..
I think its more like i said above about believers not understanding what they say they believe and just parroting what their pastors tell them..
the point is how accurate is it?
NMSquirrel
I agree this goes on.
One cannot be theist unless one believes.
Ot did you mean, as theists, they don't truly believe their current religion?
Result = atheist (often angry)
I don't think they were really theists to begin with.
I don't think a theist is put off by faulty religous institutions.
We've worked out the difference between God and religious institutions.
What's wrong with opposing homosexual marriage?
''Gay'' means ''happy'', the bible describes the sexual act of a man shagging another man as if he were a woman, as an abomination to God, along with other sexual orientations.
What do we know about the canaanites, hittites and so on?
If the manual tells you not outo touch a live wire because it's not in your interest to do so. What happens when you freely disobey it?
And what if there are groups of people advocating that that action is good, and natural,.
What needs to be understood is the reaction homosexual sex has on the spirit-soul of the living entity, along with other sexual orientations. And if they don't think we are essentially spiritual beings, or disregard it altogeher, then what?
No. Its a bible thing.
If I am a so-called theist on monday, condemn a poor person on tuesday, proclaim atheism on wednesday. Is the condemnation theist, atheist, or me.
I think you're right.
What does he actually teach his flock, to do with God?
How does he glorify God?
Evolution is no more a religion than theism, atheism, agnosticism, or any ism's we can think of. What makes something a religion is how we act. Some atheists do appeart to be filling the spiritual void in their lives, with darwinian evolution. That, to me, is obvious.
Then having opened the book on ''atheism'', and narrowed it down to what it actually is, we should perform the same surgery on theism. Of course in a non wynn way, because we actually need to get it off the ground.
jan.
I agree this goes on.
One cannot be theist unless one believes.
Ot did you mean, as theists, they don't truly believe their current religion?
Result = atheist (often angry)
I don't think they were really theists to begin with.
I don't think a theist is put off by faulty religous institutions.
We've worked out the difference between God and religious institutions.
What's wrong with opposing homosexual marriage?
''Gay'' means ''happy'', the bible describes the sexual act of a man shagging another man as if he were a woman, as an abomination to God, along with other sexual orientations.
What do we know about the canaanites, hittites and so on?
If the manual tells you not outo touch a live wire because it's not in your interest to do so. What happens when you freely disobey it?
And what if there are groups of people advocating that that action is good, and natural,.
What needs to be understood is the reaction homosexual sex has on the spirit-soul of the living entity, along with other sexual orientations. And if they don't think we are essentially spiritual beings, or disregard it altogeher, then what?
No. Its a bible thing.
If I am a so-called theist on monday, condemn a poor person on tuesday, proclaim atheism on wednesday. Is the condemnation theist, atheist, or me.
I think you're right.
What does he actually teach his flock, to do with God?
How does he glorify God?
Evolution is no more a religion than theism, atheism, agnosticism, or any ism's we can think of. What makes something a religion is how we act. Some atheists do appeart to be filling the spiritual void in their lives, with darwinian evolution. That, to me, is obvious.
Then having opened the book on ''atheism'', and narrowed it down to what it actually is, we should perform the same surgery on theism. Of course in a non wynn way, because we actually need to get it off the ground.
jan.
i am not talking about the fundamental belief in God..
I am talking about beliefs like (using the current example) Gay marriages being wrong..(will answer more below)
this is an end result, there are loads of things in between that causes problems
and how is the average non-believer supposed to know this?
true, a true theist would not..(at least in my opinion) the focus should be on God not the man behind the pulpit.
(and to continue answer from above)
first off, a persons sex life is nobodies business .
second it encourages hate and discrimination AND
does NOT line up with Gods command to Love one another.
(there is a 'legislating morality' issue with this also)
pickin nits here..it used to mean that..not anymore..
it says don't do it..it does not say prevent others from doing it..
and how many times does a person have to touch the wire to learn not to?
this does not mean we have to pass a law saying 'don't touch the wire'
a logical conclusion of this argument says that being an atheist should be illegal..
<edit>oops didn't finish
its not what he teaches about God, its what he teaches about those in need, that i don't agree with...he has an attitude against those in need and teaches that helping them is enabling them..
not sure what you mean by this..Then having opened the book on ''atheism'', and narrowed it down to what it actually is, we should perform the same surgery on theism. Of course in a non wynn way, because we actually need to get it off the ground.
Sure. But not all teachers despise those they teach.
With many theists, despising those they teach seems to be part of what the theists have to teach.
The way people teach is part of what they teach.
Prejudice is simply a previously formed judgment - ie. a person is judged by an already existing standard, regardless whether the one doing the judgment knows much about the person in private or not. We do that all the time. And so do theists.
Churches are part of institutionalized religion, and institutionalized religion is vital for the spreading of theistic knowledge.
The disciplic succession is a theist organisation and derives its validity from it.
Like you said:
And these people are part of theistic organisations, this is how they appear credible.
Theists are no strangers to this!
They tell us that we are "spiritual beings," but treat us as if we would be robots.
What the hell are you talking about?
I think this is your projection.
However, I consider this -
I'm not sure to how many people who claim to be theists, this applies. But it could to some. It might even be the trend.
One thing one can see is that at some point in a probing discussion, even fervent believers who are very loud and open and definitive about their beliefs and appear and claim to be certain, will say that they are just "seekers, like everybody else" or that they are "in effect, agnostics."
Even at this forum, a fervent Catholic eventually admitted that he is in effect an agnostic, another theist eventually admitted to being a seeker.
Such admissions really put into question everything such a professed theist has claimed up until that admission.
There is such a thing as "pathological altruism."
Just google it.
NMSquirrel,
I didn't say it was wrong.
I implied that it was unintelligent, as is sleeping with your next door neighbours wife despite mutual consent.
???
They realise it after some time. How many atheists on these forums tell of the moment they realised they no longer believed what their pastor or priest preached. Or they didn't relate to the bible.
Male homo-sex acts must mean something spiritually. Would you agree?
Fair point.
So is it to be ignored altogher?
At one time 'wicked' meant horrible, ''dope'' meant drugs, and a ''hoe'' was a gardening impliment. Should we ababndon the real meanings also?
Why do you think it says ''don't do it''?
That's a pretty dramatic conclusion.
There have always been atheists, at the time all scriptures were written.
And it says nothing about them being an abomination because they don't understand they are essentially spritualy beings. Foolish? That's a different thing.
<edit>oops didn't finish
Does God fit into this?
For a good while now ''atheist'' and ''atheism'' have been scrutinised. Maybe we should scrutinize ''theist'' and ''theism'' in the same way.
And as wynn has a seemingly, unshakable, personal problem with theists, maybe her way of scrutiny is not the best way to go.
Then I used a smiley to indicate that the last part was not a serious proposal.
jan.
I didn't say it was wrong.
I implied that it was unintelligent, as is sleeping with your next door neighbours wife despite mutual consent.
???
They realise it after some time. How many atheists on these forums tell of the moment they realised they no longer believed what their pastor or priest preached. Or they didn't relate to the bible.
Male homo-sex acts must mean something spiritually. Would you agree?
Fair point.
So is it to be ignored altogher?
At one time 'wicked' meant horrible, ''dope'' meant drugs, and a ''hoe'' was a gardening impliment. Should we ababndon the real meanings also?
Why do you think it says ''don't do it''?
That's a pretty dramatic conclusion.
There have always been atheists, at the time all scriptures were written.
And it says nothing about them being an abomination because they don't understand they are essentially spritualy beings. Foolish? That's a different thing.
<edit>oops didn't finish
Does God fit into this?
For a good while now ''atheist'' and ''atheism'' have been scrutinised. Maybe we should scrutinize ''theist'' and ''theism'' in the same way.
And as wynn has a seemingly, unshakable, personal problem with theists, maybe her way of scrutiny is not the best way to go.
Then I used a smiley to indicate that the last part was not a serious proposal.
jan.
Last edited:
wynn,
Like you, I'm not a mind reader, so we cannot know what goes through a teachers mind in a personal sense.
Oh! So now it ''many theists''?
Sorry I was under the impression you meant all theists.
Keep them goalposts in one place will ya?
Sounds like nonsense
Why add ''and so do theists?
What is ''theistic knowledge''?
And in what way does the church teach one how to become God-conscious?
Where would one find an organistion called ''Discplic Succession''?
What are you talking about?
jan.
Like you, I'm not a mind reader, so we cannot know what goes through a teachers mind in a personal sense.
Oh! So now it ''many theists''?
Sorry I was under the impression you meant all theists.
Keep them goalposts in one place will ya?
Sounds like nonsense
Why add ''and so do theists?
What is ''theistic knowledge''?
And in what way does the church teach one how to become God-conscious?
Where would one find an organistion called ''Discplic Succession''?
What are you talking about?
jan.
We know it when he says it, and through his actions.
The generalizations are all in your head.
If I would mean 'all theists', I would say "all theists."
Really? Ever heard of "teaching by example"?
For example, a person who smokes, but who teaches others that they should not smoke - is such a person not setting the example of "do as I say, not as I do"? Is such a person not teaching duplicity?
To point out that theists are not exempt from judging a person by pre-existing standards, even without knowing much about the person.
On the topic "God."
By telling people to read and think about the scriptures presented at church, by instructing people to pray, chant, perform various rituals.
Uh. Google
disciplic succession site:vedabase.net
The Catholic Church, too, is based on the principle of disciplic succession (they call it "apostolic", but it means the same) which they claim goes right back to Jesus himself.
Okay. Can we call you "gay" then?
I don't simply have a "personal problem with theists."
It's that theists like you (and all theists that I know) refuse to acknowledge that theism is something personal to begin with; it's something that cannot be taught the way mathematics or geography can be taught.
In teaching things like mathematics or geography, the personality of the teacher and the personality of the student matter very little, and the personal contact they have matters very little as well.
A math teacher can beat his students till they bleed, and that doesn't directly interfere with math knowledge or has anything to do with it.
But when it comes to theistic topics, personal contact and the quality of personal contact is everything.
If a religious/spiritual teacher beats his students, how are the students supposed to believe him that God is loving?
Sure, the teacher can come up with rationalizations and keep blaming the students for not learning, but at some point, the students will probably begin to doubt what he is teaching them.
Yeah, it figures.
And bring upon ourselves the wrath of theists?
And bring upon ourselves the accusation that we offended them?
wynn,
That being said, you don't really want to be taught, as you are well aware of what is being taught to point of subtle discrimination.
Then again, your conclusion of Calvinism, does not appear in Calvinism.
So maybe your discrimination skills need topping up.
Maybe it's just the way you put things.
Every heard of ''religion'' or ''dharma''?
It doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth.
Also he's actually in a good position to tell folks that smoking is a barrel of shite.
I'm quite sure that no theist in the history of human beings, in the 3 worlds, every doubted that. But I could be wrong.
Such a practice does not require one to be a theist.
Sorry, I should have stipulated ''The Church''.
But my point is, it's not an organisation, it just is.
Either we believe this or we don't. It's part of being a theist.
jan.
That being said, you don't really want to be taught, as you are well aware of what is being taught to point of subtle discrimination.
Then again, your conclusion of Calvinism, does not appear in Calvinism.
So maybe your discrimination skills need topping up.
Maybe it's just the way you put things.
Every heard of ''religion'' or ''dharma''?
It doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth.
Also he's actually in a good position to tell folks that smoking is a barrel of shite.
I'm quite sure that no theist in the history of human beings, in the 3 worlds, every doubted that. But I could be wrong.
Such a practice does not require one to be a theist.
Sorry, I should have stipulated ''The Church''.
But my point is, it's not an organisation, it just is.
Either we believe this or we don't. It's part of being a theist.
jan.
See, this is what I'm talking about: you're mind-reading. You're setting up a situation in which I can only lose, never win.
You set up a situation in which I am per default the bad guy.
And now I'm in a bind: If I want to respect you, I have to believe what you say. But if I believe what you say, I have to believe something that I do not think is true.
If I don't respect you, I lose.
If I believe you, I lose.
Either way, I lose, you win.
And setting up such situations is so typical for theism.
Theists blame the non-theists. Theists on principle do not consider that they themselves, the theists, could ever have done anything wrong or substandard.
And to you, this seems perfectly fair and conducive to the spreading of spiritual knwoledge?
I'm not sure about that.
You need to meet some Calvinists and read about Calvinism beyond a mere Wiki article.
See? You want me to trust you, but you do not trust me. And you seem to think that this is a fair arrangement.
Another typical theist move: demand trust, but give none in return.
It's what you read into them.
What about it?
And you think that spiritual teachers are to be treated with the same proviso?
How does that fit with the idea that a spiritual teacher is supposed to be worshipped as God Himself?
Then you're saying that even an atheist academic is suitable to teach about God?
So one either is a theist, or one isn't, and that's it.
And you think this is fair?
That some people are left out of God's mercy?
wynn,
Call me whatever you like.
What I am, is a different matter.
Example please?
Is this type of behaviour an everyday occurrance among the theists you know? It certainly doesn't occurr in my life. And if it does occurr you may want to take it outside of the ''theist'' subject matter, as that can be very misleading. The chances are there are other things going on in that persons life, or he comes from a background where beatings are considered normal.
What's that supposed to mean?
jan.
Call me whatever you like.
What I am, is a different matter.
Example please?
Is this type of behaviour an everyday occurrance among the theists you know? It certainly doesn't occurr in my life. And if it does occurr you may want to take it outside of the ''theist'' subject matter, as that can be very misleading. The chances are there are other things going on in that persons life, or he comes from a background where beatings are considered normal.
What's that supposed to mean?
jan.
How theists treat me directly affects what I will gather is the message they want to send to me.
For example, if a theist promises me something, and then doesn't keep that promise, I take this to mean that he wishes to communicate that theists are free to make empty promises, with impunity. That their theism absolves them from responsibility for the things they do to non-theists.
My parents were both beaten "in the name of God." There are many other people with the same kind of experience.
Then the usual - lying, cheating, killing, stealing, illicit sex, making empty promises, practicing ill will.
I just don't understand how a person can claim to know God and talk about God, and demand other people to believe it all,
and yet this same person engages in lying, cheating, killing, stealing, illicit sex, making empty promises, practicing ill will.
I also do not understand why God set up the world so that we non-theists have to rely for information on God from people who engage in lying, cheating, killing, stealing, illicit sex, making empty promises, practicing ill will, and who preach that engaging in lying, cheating, killing, stealing, illicit sex, making empty promises, practicing ill will, is wrong.
You admitted that you weren't serious.
That's rather telling how willing you actually are to explore things ... namely, not at all.
wynn,
If you argue from the perspective that theists are all those things, and God is only merciful to ''theists'', and hates non theists, like theist do, what is there to explore? :shrug:
If all black people are believed to be criminals, and thugs, with small brains, and therefore not fully human, what scope is there to prove this is not the case?
jan.
If you argue from the perspective that theists are all those things, and God is only merciful to ''theists'', and hates non theists, like theist do, what is there to explore? :shrug:
If all black people are believed to be criminals, and thugs, with small brains, and therefore not fully human, what scope is there to prove this is not the case?
jan.
wynn,
I know me, and I know what I have discussed with youl. I also know the sentiments I express, and have explained things you wanted clarifying, to you, over and over again. I've even invited to speak to a female who is advanced in spritual life, and a very good and nice person, to give far better clarity than I could hope to give you. Yet you label as a certain type of person (very nasty not to speak of insulting).
You're not obliged to do anything, and I haven't told you to do or be anything. Yet you keep projecting this nonsense on to me claiming it is because I am theist. Absolute bollox.
Don't be stupid. I know I'm a theist, and I know other people are theists, because I know them, or can recognise similarities in their writing, or speaking, to my experience. And even then it has to be consistent for me to conclude they are ''theist''. I also recognise theism in folks who prefer to be called atheist, and atheism in folks who prefer to be called theist. All this comes over time.
You pick up what you can relate to, then apply it to your life.
It's not an academic subject. You obviously don't like theism, or theists, because for some time now, you speak nastily about it and them.
How can you listen to, or respect anyone whom you feel so vehement against? You're in turmoil, and it has nothing to do with theists IMO. You're simply projecting that notion. I have no choice but to think that.
You claimed that Calvinism discriminates on the basis of whether one is poor, and lowly, yet it clearly states in the doctrine that it is the fallen who are without Gods' mercy. And the fallen can, and often are, the most oppulent.
Now you're entering into a different argument.
I don't know the people whom you refer to. I know that people claim one thing and act differently, I stated this at least 17,000,000 times.
:wallbang:
LOL!!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113752
You're funny.
It's what people who teach by example are engaged in.
Firstly, truth is truth, and it doesn't matter how you acquire it.
With regard to the spiritual teacher, I suggest you go converse with some.
You can realise God even from a child. We're all part and parcel of God, therefore we have the same essence. Learning how to discriminate between truth and falsehood (a mere distortion) is the way to advance. This can be done in anyway, as long as we're open to it.
Actually, we're all different degrees of theist.
jan.
I know me, and I know what I have discussed with youl. I also know the sentiments I express, and have explained things you wanted clarifying, to you, over and over again. I've even invited to speak to a female who is advanced in spritual life, and a very good and nice person, to give far better clarity than I could hope to give you. Yet you label as a certain type of person (very nasty not to speak of insulting).
You're not obliged to do anything, and I haven't told you to do or be anything. Yet you keep projecting this nonsense on to me claiming it is because I am theist. Absolute bollox.
Don't be stupid. I know I'm a theist, and I know other people are theists, because I know them, or can recognise similarities in their writing, or speaking, to my experience. And even then it has to be consistent for me to conclude they are ''theist''. I also recognise theism in folks who prefer to be called atheist, and atheism in folks who prefer to be called theist. All this comes over time.
You pick up what you can relate to, then apply it to your life.
It's not an academic subject. You obviously don't like theism, or theists, because for some time now, you speak nastily about it and them.
How can you listen to, or respect anyone whom you feel so vehement against? You're in turmoil, and it has nothing to do with theists IMO. You're simply projecting that notion. I have no choice but to think that.
You claimed that Calvinism discriminates on the basis of whether one is poor, and lowly, yet it clearly states in the doctrine that it is the fallen who are without Gods' mercy. And the fallen can, and often are, the most oppulent.
Now you're entering into a different argument.
I don't know the people whom you refer to. I know that people claim one thing and act differently, I stated this at least 17,000,000 times.
:wallbang:
LOL!!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113752
You're funny.
It's what people who teach by example are engaged in.
Firstly, truth is truth, and it doesn't matter how you acquire it.
With regard to the spiritual teacher, I suggest you go converse with some.
You can realise God even from a child. We're all part and parcel of God, therefore we have the same essence. Learning how to discriminate between truth and falsehood (a mere distortion) is the way to advance. This can be done in anyway, as long as we're open to it.
Actually, we're all different degrees of theist.
jan.
If non-theists are believed to be worthless, less than human - what scope is there for them to have any chance at happiness?