Duty to Convert

[Neildo]

Neildo; You say you do not want to add to the confusion. Well, then what was that, other than a mix of nonsense and good sense? What is that but an effort to pursuade others to think like you?

Oh yes, I'll go out and try and make people think differently, but that is different from preaching any religious beliefs I may have. Telling people to think for themselves rather than following other people's words blindly applies to EVERYTHING, not just religion, and that's the key point. But as far as my religious beliefs, I'll go ahead and share them when I post, but I won't try and convert people because I don't want anyone following my views (unless they come to the same conclusion themselves) because I am no more right or wrong than any other person when it comes to knowing the unknowing. Why? Because well, it's unknowing! This is why I'm Agnostic. I believe we have no way of knowing. I do believe in an Almighty and I read about various religions; however, who or what that Almighty is, we have no way of knowing.

You wrote: All I would be doing is adding more crazy beliefs in the religious chaos that exists today. We have many mainstream........

Would you? Well, that would not be good.

Yes, I would be adding to the chaos. Why? Because how can I know the answers to something which we will never have an understanding of? God is unimaginable and uncomprehensible. If one day the truth were revealed to us, we'd be blown away and probably wouldn't even believe it.

So if I claim that I know all about God and here other people and their religions do too, who is correct? I mean we each think we're right.. right about something which we'll never know. Does that not sound silly to you?

You wrote: Because nobody knows the true inner workings of life, the spiritual realm, or anything else beyond our mental capacity.

What do you consider our "mental" capacity? Do you presume that brain and mind are one and the same, and that spirit and soul are just other ways of expressing our mental capacity.

We can only understand things as we see and experience them. If you read or know about Buddhist way of thought, you'll kind of understand what I mean. Since we're on a physical plane and the Almighty is in another plane of existance, way ahead of ours, there is just no way of understanding what goes on up there. If we saw some of the things that happened up there, we may find it odd and wonder why "they" do what "they" do up there. Heck, we might not even be able to realize anything is going on in the first place, heh.

Here's a quick comparison. Take ocean life and compare it with what goes on the surface. Imagine if some fish from deep down below all of a sudden had an intellegent brain and was able to survive up here. Do you think that fish would be able to realize what the hell is going on up here? That fish would probably have it's jaw dropped the entire time, speechless. And this is all on the same plane of existance.. the physical. So just imagine how it is between two seperate planes of existance or many planes to finally the realm where the Almighty resides. Uncomprehendable.

You wrote: And since no person is anymore right or wrong in their beliefs towards truth, ....

What kind of a statement is that? Surely, you do not mean this.

What kind of statement is that? A true statement. Yes, I do mean that. Nobody knows who or what God is. For those that preach he/she/it is all about love, for all we know, he/she/it could be all about hatred or playing games. We would like to believe the Almighty is all about love because that's the highest form of pleasure for *us*. And since we can only understand things as we see and experience it, we apply that to the Almighty. Someone who says the Almighty is a flying pink elephant is no more wrong than one who says the Almighty is Satan, who says the Almighty is all, who says the Almighty is a caring person, who says the Almighty loves to play games, who says the Almighty is a group of various Gods. Why? Because we have no way to prove or disprove it! It's all beyond our state of comprehension.

Even with me saying that God is on another plane of existance which leads me to believe it would mean it's beyond our understanding, I have no way to prove or disprove the Almighty being on another plane of existance either. That's all mere philisophical speculation as well. There is just no way to prove or disprove one's beliefs. Who is the one to say who is correct in one's beliefs? All we have are people judging each other and saying so-and-so is correct. But who is the official judge? Surely not us; even moreso if you believe other's beliefs where they say God tells us to judge not.

So hopefully you see what I mean when I say nobody is any more right or wrong than the next person.

- N

 

[Jenyar]

So hopefully you see what I mean when I say nobody is any more right or wrong than the next person.

That's equal to saying nobody knows more or less than the next person, because being right or wrong is a matter of knowing the difference.

The strength of your argument is that is concurs with the truth that we are all on the wrong side of justice, and therefore in no position to point fingers at each other from a position of self-righteousness - but that doesn't mean we are not supposed to build up each other's knowledge or make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes.

Your argument also uses a bit of reversed logic, based on your view that we created God. We hold love and justice to be the truths we need to adhere to, and since we were created in God's image He must embody those truths. Just look at the gods mankind did create - they all fight among each other like children, throw tantrums and demand things only the rich, powerful or enlightened can give. But did we invent Christ? No, people understood the need for him, but we could never supply what He had: the perfect atoning sacrifice, an unflinching relationship with God, and a love beyond any we could hope to receive. His Father wasn't a pink elephant or a hateful tyrant.

 

[Neildo]

That's equal to saying nobody knows more or less than the next person, because being right or wrong is a matter of knowing the difference.

Well that's true. When it all comes down to it, we don't know jack shit. NOTHING can be 100% confirmed, whatever it may be. But that's all another topic, I'd prefer to just refer to the Almighty in that regards. Nobody is able to prove or disprove who or what God is so what makes the next person more correct in their views? Seriously, think about that.

The strength of your argument is that is concurs with the truth that we are all on the wrong side of justice, and therefore in no position to point fingers at each other from a position of self-righteousness - but that doesn't mean we are not supposed to build up each other's knowledge or make sure we don't repeat the same mistakes.

Hey, I'm all for building up everyone's knowledge so we don't repeat the same mistakes, but as to God, there is no way to prove or disprove who or what he is. So why should I go around telling people to follow my beliefs and that MY way is the right way when.. I have not little proof, but NO proof. Heck, not even proof.. but no EVIDENCE period. The most logical (if you can call it that, heh) belief is that yes, there is an Almighty creator, but none of us are in a position to say who or what that Almighty is.

This is why I say God should be an inner-spiritual journey. Nobody is wrong in their beliefs. So long as someone believes in an Almighty, that's all that matters because any belief after that, is most likely going to be wrong. So why preach falsehoods, as good as our intentions may be? It'll just continue to add to the religious chaos in which we have.

And since you want us to build up our knowledge to not make the same mistakes, that is the best solution, to have it be an inner personal journey for each person. Look at all the wars that have happened because of religion, to this very day no less, all because of DIFFERING religious beliefs. At least when you have every single person with differing beliefs, if a war starts, they're just a one man army. Get masses of people together who are wrong in their differing beliefs and that's when things get dangerous into full-fledged war.

Your argument also uses a bit of reversed logic, based on your view that we created God.

I'm not saying we created God. I believe there is an Almighty. However, what we ARE doing is trying to DEFINE God. And well, that is just something we cannot do because we'll never know the answers until we finally graduate up the various planes of existance to be with him/her/it.. if that view of the afterlife is even correct for that matter.

and since we were created in God's image

Were we created in God's image? Man is the one who said that, not God him/her/itself. And even assuming that were true, who or what was the God who created us in his/her/its image? Was it THE Almighty God who did so or some demi-god with biological creative powers who did so? Whoever creates another being technically IS "their" god, but not THE Almighty.

But did we invent Christ? No, people understood the need for him, but we could never supply what He had: the perfect atoning sacrifice, an unflinching relationship with God, and a love beyond any we could hope to receive. His Father wasn't a pink elephant or a hateful tyrant.

After all the crap the Jews went through.. endless tribal wars, losing land, etc etc, where everything was hopeless for them, and then having John spout off their being a Messiah to save them, you will see why Jesus wanted to be that Messiah so badly so he had that unflinching relationship with God. When everything is hopeless and there is going to be one person who supposedly will save their people, damn right someone is going to do their best to try and make it happen. But hey, guess what? Jesus died and their people weren't saved so his Apostles had to make up the "Second Coming of the Messiah".

And no, I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist or anything like that, just pointing out how his seemingly relationship was so good with the Almighty, heh. Oh yeah, HIS version of the Almighty, no less. He's no more correct in who or what God is than we each are. And no, his Father wasn't a pink elephant or hateful tyrant because that was what he ENVISIONED His Father to be. Other than what he personally felt the Almighty to be and look like, he had no way of knowing so. That's not to say he might not finally know since a couple thousand years of passed to allow him to work his way up the other planes of existance.

Damn and here my thoughts in this folder was supposed to be short and to the point, but now questions are being asked so it sounds like I'm preaching and trying to convert which I'm not, heh. My original post here is the only one that should be paid attention.

- N

 

[eddymrsci]

No I don't think we should have the duty to convert people to our beliefs. Everybody has the freedom of belief, choice, and religion; they can believe in whatever they think is right or whatever they want.
However, I think it's okay to discuss and debate about our different beliefs.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

NEILDO WRITES: This is why I'm Agnostic. I believe we have no way of knowing. I do believe in an Almighty and I read about various religions; however, who or what that Almighty is, we have no way of knowing.

Though I differ somewhat, I respect that concept.

God is unimaginable and uncomprehensible. If one day the truth were revealed to us, we'd be blown away and probably wouldn't even believe it.

Goodness. That is a rather dramatic statement, and without much foundation.

So if I claim that I know all about God and here other people and their religions do too, who is correct? I mean we each think we're right.. right about something which we'll never know. Does that not sound silly to you?

Not at all. I do not mean to imply that anything you have said sounds silly; notwithstanding, I may believe that a statement is unfounded. Obviously, you believe that many statements made by others (including mine) are unfounded as well, right?
As for who is right or wrong about particulars, I cannot see that as a big factor, except inasmuch as it seems to be a huge obstacle. We ever said that we all had to get together and agree? I have been exposed to a lot of disbelief, and many denominations, and quite a few religions, and God has never been more real. Once you truly understand and know that God is, you do not fear. And as for me, I think you and everyone else can find your own way without my persuasion. Nevertheless, it is interesting to share thoughts on various things. (?)

“Since we're on a physical plane and the Almighty is in another plane of existence…”

Woe! God is in us; we are his creation. Things to do with eternal matters are a mystery to us, but whether God is must not be a mystery to us, except inasmuch as the universe is a mystery to us. Even so, we (humankind) are part of the universe, of course, and therefore a part of God’s creation. Nothing can separate us from God except our own disbelief.

“there is just no way of understanding what goes on up there”

We do not need to know what is going on up there. I doubt that we could handle it. It would probably make us so lonesome for home that we could not bear it. Have you not ever felt that something was missing, or have you ever had a longing that you could not quite understand?
That happens to us all at one time or another, and we are longing for HOME. Remember this, the next time this happens, or when it happens, if you have not thus far experienced it, and talk to God about it, just like you would talk to a trusted friend. (I won’t tell anyone. )

“Heck, we might not even be able to realize anything is going on in the first place, heh.”

Interesting, and amusing, thought.

Here's a quick comparison. Take ocean life and compare it with what goes on the surface. Imagine if some fish from deep down below all of a sudden had an intellegent brain and was able to survive up here. Do you think that fish would be able to realize what the hell is going on up here? That fish would probably have it's jaw dropped the entire time, speechless. And this is all on the same plane of existance.. the physical. So just imagine how it is between two seperate planes of existance or many planes to finally the realm where the Almighty resides. Uncomprehendable.

I do understand what you are saying, but, we are not fish, and you cannot know what a fish would think. There have been many good teachers to show us a better way to make it through this life with some purpose. How many will it take before we catch on. What would it take ~for you to know, beyond all doubt, that God is? What could He do to prove to you his existence? How would He convince you? [You need not post your answer, unless you just want to. That is very personal, but is something you might want to think about.]

“ We would like to believe the Almighty is all about love because that's the highest form of pleasure for *us*. And since we can only understand things as we see and experience it, we apply that to the Almighty.”

Oh my! That is almost a point. You surely have an imagination. That is good, but sometimes less imagination and more knowledge is helpful. Love is an overused word, so what kind of love are you talking about? Do you know what it is to love humankind? Because, I am not so sure that we understand it so easily, or experience it so often. You said it is the “highest form of pleasure,” and I question what you mean by this, because pleasure is not to be sought. Happiness is not to be sought. These things ensue, when we seek first the kingdom of God. Another way to say this is to go for things that truly matter. Even Francis Bacon sees the wisdom in this. Once we really set our hearts and minds on the things that count, the other things will fall into place, things like joy and peace, and that spiritual strength that lifts us up and keeps us going.

So hopefully you see what I mean when I say nobody is any more right or wrong than the next person.

I still totally disagree, and submit that you have a closed mind about this, because it makes no sense. As someone else pointed out, if one person is just as right, or just as wrong as another, then this means that everyone has the same volume of knowledge, and this is simply not so. You think about that some more. Okay?

Here I am again, past the witching hour. I really enjoy reading your thoughts. You have a marvelous imagination, and make some interesting statements, but you truly must give this matter more deliberate thought. Slow down a bit, and think it through, maybe without discussion for a while. Getting too much feedback and be confusing, or maybe distracting.

Whatever you choose to do, I wish you well.

pmt

 

[johnahmed]

all Quranic verses referring to instances of conflict and war but No where ever does the Quran says to kill innocents or women and children, there is only 1 book in the world that has a verse wich has a verse that says "KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN", and many other verses wich promot genocide,rape,murder of innocents, THAT BOOK IS THE "HOLY" BIBLE

1Samuel 15:3 "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare {them;} PUT TO DEATH MEN AND WOMEN, CHILDREN AND INFANTS, cattle and sheep

Holy Bible Numbers 31
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

The "Holy" Bible logic in support of the slave bashing "that is salve is a PROPERTY of his master", is worth noting. (Refer Exodus 21:21) So an European is NOT LIABLE if a "nigger" manages to get up with a broken leg, and an amputated arm, after all that "nigger" is property of that European.
The god of Bible teaches his followers various methods for dealing with the natives such as killing woman and children of indigenous population (refer Joshua 6:21, 8:25, 10:40, 11:14, Deut 32:25), raping the native woman (refer Deut 21: 10-14), raping virgin girls (refer Numbers 31: 35), plunder the cities (Deut 13:15, 21:14), killing innocent children (Number 31:17), those natives that somehow escaped annihilation to subject them in slavery and forced labour (Judges:1:28, 1:30, 1:35) etc.

Yes, a book that promotes mass rape and murder of innocent and women and children is ascribed to God..

 

[Neildo]

What would it take ~for you to know, beyond all doubt, that God is? What could He do to prove to you his existence? How would He convince you?

As I said in my previous posts, I believe in an Almighty. Nothing would have to be done for him/her/it to proove his/her/its existance.

Oh my! That is almost a point. You surely have an imagination. That is good, but sometimes less imagination and more knowledge is helpful.

I still totally disagree, and submit that you have a closed mind about this, because it makes no sense. As someone else pointed out, if one person is just as right, or just as wrong as another, then this means that everyone has the same volume of knowledge, and this is simply not so. You think about that some more. Okay?

There is no such thing as knowledge when it comes to trying to know the unknowable such as God; only speculative thoughts. That is my point. Since God cannot be proven or disproven, ANY belief one has towards him/her/it is no more wrong or right than the next person. You're trying to make it sound as if that's my viewpoint to everything in general which it's not.

Even with one who's studied religion for all their life, they are no more knowledable towards God than the next person. They only have vast knowledge in regards to other people's beliefs. But when it comes back to knowing however much about the Almighty? The only knowledge they have is their personal beliefs. And in that case, EVERYONE has the same volume of knowledge about God. And how much is that? None -- other than what they believe inside themselves.

And exactly how am I being close-minded when I look at differing views towards religion and do not dismiss them? I am not the one holding ONE viewpoint such as Christianity and spouting it off as if it's correct. I'm the open-minded one because I take in various sources and have never once said a person's beliefs are wrong. Close-minded? Laughable. You're doing EXACTLY what many other people do. They try and DEFINE God and ASSume that their belief is the correct one and when other's don't agree with them, they're called either wrong or close-minded.

Here I am again, past the witching hour. I really enjoy reading your thoughts. You have a marvelous imagination, and make some interesting statements, but you truly must give this matter more deliberate thought. Slow down a bit, and think it through, maybe without discussion for a while. Getting too much feedback and be confusing, or maybe distracting.

I have thought everything through. And what imagination? It's no different than everyone elses. Every single thought towards God is just that, philisophical imagination. Why? Because again, nobody can PROOF or DISPROOVE their beliefs towards the Almighty. Even when people spout off passages from various holy texts, that does not make their position any more right or wrong because those holy texts are written beliefs of another man. And even if one may agree with someone else's beliefs, or even hundreds of people, it does not make them anymore right or wrong because still, as much as they may agree in their thought, they can't prove or disprove jack squat.

Millions of people follow this religion, millions follow that one. Two people follow this one, and 50 follow that one. One has this belief, one has that belief. Thousands have this belief, more have that. They're all holding the same Trump card of "This is the Word of God, only my beliefs are correct". So if they all claim theirs is correct yet all say differing things, uh, WHO is the correct one, sir?

Think it more through? Pssh. Thinking is what created all the self-doubt about the Almighty as well as this whole religious mess we have today. If one thinks about something in which they have no knowledge of, a mess of thoughts will happen. You know, sort of like a Christian giving their thoughts on Satanism. They know nothing about the teachings of Satanism but because it has the word "Satan" in it, they brand it as evil and the like.

The same thing applies to trying to think about the Almighty. When we think about something which we have no knowledge of -- other than personal beliefs --, lots of brain-wracking will occur. One may think God doesn't exist because there is no proof. And then others will try and DEFINE God, which they still have no knowledge of. And how do they define God? I love this quote: "We don't see things are THEY are, we see them as WE are." Only an arrogant fool tries to define something they have no knowledge of. And because we have no knowledge of the Almighty, this is why religion is the biggest philosophical debate there is. We can think and seek to our hearts content, but we can't prove or disprove those feelings. And that's why I say nobody is any more right or wrong in their beliefs. Oh, but hey, I'm the one that's crazy and needs to think things more through.. *smirk*

- N

 

[Neildo]

Johnahmed,

Mohammedanism is no better than Christianity. You do realize that while many wars have been faught for Christianity and the Bible has a few bad things written in it, those are ALL the words and actions of Jesus' followers and NOT the words and actions of Jesus himself? This has happened with every religion once their founder died. Many things which were preached against were now started up again once their founder died. Basically, everything went down the drain and turns out to be nothing like it was supposed to be.

Now with me saying that part about all those bad actions being done by so-and-so's followers after their follower died, do you realize that Mohammed is the ONLY founding prophet to have actually gone to war and FORCED others to convert to their religion through violence? Buddha never did. Zoroaster never died. Confucious never did. Abraham never did. Jesus never did, etc etc. That is actually the ONLY problem I have with Islam. Any bad things that may be done in their name is no different than other religious battles so while it's still stupid and bad, it's ignorant to make it out as if only Islam is bad. BUT, heh, Mohammed was full of hypocrisy and contradictions. At least any bad doings done in other religion's names were done by their idiotic followers many years later, not their founding prophets themselves. Something we can't say for the Flaming Sword of Islam. Tsk tsk.

- N

P.S. That's not to say I don't agree with what you're saying about the bad things of Christianity or anything else. I'm just trying to keep you from tooting your horn of "we're better than so-and-so".

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Neildo.....wrote: There is no such thing as knowledge when it comes to trying to know the unknowable such as God; only speculative thoughts. That is my point. Since God cannot be proven or disproven, ANY belief one has towards him/her/it is no more wrong or right than the next person. You're trying to make it sound as if that's my viewpoint to everything in general which it's not.

Then you should have qualified your statement. Yes, now that you put that more specifically, I can understand your reasoning.

Even with one who's studied religion for all their life, they are no more knowledable towards God than the next person.

That is simply not true, and your saying so makes it sound like a cop-out. God forbid that you should assume any responsibility in this, right?

They only have vast knowledge in regards to other people's beliefs.

That is ridiculous. Not everyone allows others do their thinking.

But when it comes back to knowing however much about the Almighty? The only knowledge they have is their personal beliefs. And in that case, EVERYONE has the same volume of knowledge about God. And how much is that? None -- other than what they believe inside themselves.

I think I understand what you are saying, but again, your ambiguity rules out reason. Knowing THINGS ABOUT the Almight God is one thing. Much of that, we do not know. Knowing that God is, is quite a different matter. I know that God is, and I also know that nothing you can say will make it not so.

And exactly how am I being close-minded when I look at differing views towards religion and do not dismiss them? I am not the one holding ONE viewpoint such as Christianity and spouting it off as if it's correct. I'm the open-minded one because I take in various sources and have never once said a person's beliefs are wrong. Close-minded? Laughable.

How easy for you to take that stand, when you deem it commendable. In other words you are for nothing and against nothing. How nice.

I have thought everything through. And what imagination? It's no different than everyone elses.

Oh, it is too, and that was truly meant as a compliment.

"And even if one may agree with someone else's beliefs, or even hundreds of people, it does not make them anymore right or wrong because still, as much as they may agree in their thought, they can't prove or disprove jack squat."

Nor can you, fella! Get off your high horse. It matters not to me what you believe. I thought you wanted to discuss this, but apparently you just want everyone to be equal in knowledge about the God you believe exists, but yet like to belittle anyone who believes in Him. You are leaving yourself wide open to a lot of things much worse than believing in God. Anytime, you say that someone believes in something that cannot be proven, that is a belittling statement. I can understand, therefore, why it would be so important to you to sound all-knowing.

Thinking is what created all the self-doubt about the Almighty as well as this whole religious mess we have today. If one thinks about something in which they have no knowledge of, a mess of thoughts will happen. You know, sort of like a Christian giving their thoughts on Satanism. They know nothing about the teachings of Satanism but because it has the word "Satan" in it, they brand it as evil and the like.

So, now you are going to stick up for Satan. Hokus pokus. Go for it. I do not care. Believe what you like, but do not try to tell me that I am stupid to believe in God, when there is so much evidence. And you know what? If you want to find the evidence, you can, without me. Apparently, you would rather say how confusing everything is and how out of reach. I thought you were serious, but you are playing a game, a very very old one.

Only an arrogant fool tries to define something they have no knowledge of. And because we have no knowledge of the Almighty, this is why religion is the biggest philosophical debate there is. We can think and seek to our hearts content, but we can't prove or disprove those feelings. And that's why I say nobody is any more right or wrong in their beliefs. Oh, but hey, I'm the one that's crazy and needs to think things more through.. *smirk*

My beliefs are one thing. My knowing that God is, is quite another.

Perhaps you have become overwrought by your wish to make sense. No one said you were crazy except you. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed your last post, and enjoyed your example. I do not have to agree with someone to enjoy and exchange of thoughts, but your last post is pitifully lacking in genuineness. Sorry you mistook my compliment.

 

[Neildo]

Even with one who's studied religion for all their life, they are no more knowledable towards God than the next person. - me

That is simply not true, and your saying so makes it sound like a cop-out. God forbid that you should assume any responsibility in this, right? - PMT

Someone who studies religion all their life is not more knowledgeable towards God than the next person. Why not? Because ANYTHING they read and study about God are OTHER PEOPLE's beliefs. And since we have no knowledge of God, everything written about him is speculative. Now if, somehow, God DID show himself and DID write about himself, and that religious person read his/her/it's work, then he WOULD be more knowledgable about God. But everything a religious person reads in regards to God, is MAN-WRITTEN speculative, philisophical thoughts.

They only have vast knowledge in regards to other people's beliefs. - me

That is ridiculous. Not everyone allows others do their thinking. - PMT

See above.

Millions of people DO allow others to do their thinking for them though. Once a person is coverted to another's belief, they follow that person's belief. You know the type, those that quote their scripture left and right, especially in discussions, with nary an original thought of their own and then also claim it all to be 100% true?

But when it comes back to knowing however much about the Almighty? The only knowledge they have is their personal beliefs. And in that case, EVERYONE has the same volume of knowledge about God. And how much is that? None -- other than what they believe inside themselves. - me

I think I understand what you are saying, but again, your ambiguity rules out reason. Knowing THINGS ABOUT the Almight God is one thing. Much of that, we do not know. Knowing that God is, is quite a different matter. I know that God is, and I also know that nothing you can say will make it not so. - PMT

Well knowing things ABOUT God and knowing that he IS actually go hand-in-hand, even though I did not specify it. We cannot prove or disprove God's existance just like we cannot prove or disprove anything about him/her/it. Knowing there is a God just like trying to find out about him/her/it is something only each individual person can figure out for his or herself since it's all unproovable. At least rely on one's personal beliefs than someone else's because they're no more right or wrong than you may be.

And exactly how am I being close-minded when I look at differing views towards religion and do not dismiss them? I am not the one holding ONE viewpoint such as Christianity and spouting it off as if it's correct. I'm the open-minded one because I take in various sources and have never once said a person's beliefs are wrong. Close-minded? Laughable. - me

How easy for you to take that stand, when you deem it commendable. In other words you are for nothing and against nothing. How nice. - PMT

What, are you saying it's a bad thing for me to remain neutral? That's what an Agnostic is. Since I believe we cannot PROVE or DISPROVE God's existance or anything regarding him/her/it for that matter, you want me to try and act like every other religion and DEFINE which that I do not know?

I have thought everything through. And what imagination? It's no different than everyone elses. - me

Oh, it is too, and that was truly meant as a compliment.- PMT

Lol, sorry, I was thinking you were calling me a whacko or something since differing beliefs usually results in that, heh.

"And even if one may agree with someone else's beliefs, or even hundreds of people, it does not make them anymore right or wrong because still, as much as they may agree in their thought, they can't prove or disprove jack squat." - me

Nor can you, fella! Get off your high horse. It matters not to me what you believe. I thought you wanted to discuss this, but apparently you just want everyone to be equal in knowledge about the God you believe exists, but yet like to belittle anyone who believes in Him. You are leaving yourself wide open to a lot of things much worse than believing in God. Anytime, you say that someone believes in something that cannot be proven, that is a belittling statement. I can understand, therefore, why it would be so important to you to sound all-knowing. - PMT

Eh, why the sudden explosion? I do want to continue discussing this. Nor am I acting high and mighty. It may seem so because I continue posting in response so you. I originally intended my first post in this thread to be my only one. I figured that would have explained my position clear enough but I guess not. So as I continue to post, it's only in response to you, NOT to try and "convert" people to may way of thinking or anything like that.

All I'm doing is telling it like it is in that nobody can prove or disprove one another's beliefs so that means nobody is any more right or wrong in their beliefs. I am not saying I WANT everyone to be equal in knowledge about God, I'm saying we all ARE equal in our knowledge about God which is zip, zilch, nada. We have NO way to prove or disprove our individual beliefs about the Almighty so YES, that puts us ALL on an even playing/thinking ground. Can you refute that?

The reason why I mention the various numbers of people up above is because people tend to think might makes right or the bigger the number, the better. Just because millions of people follow such and such religion, it doesn't mean they're any more correct than one person with their own beliefs. When it all comes down to it, those millions of people are following the beliefs of ONE man -- whether it be Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or whomever. So here instead of a million to one, it's back to one person's beliefs vs one other person's beliefs.

And when I say something cannot be proven true or not, I do not mean it in a belitting manner to insult one person's beliefs. I am just telling it like it is. You know the phrase, "the truth hurts"? I guess that applies here. Remember, I prefer that seeking the Almighty should be an inner-spiritual journey for each person. So if each person has their own beliefs (which turns out to be in the billions range), WHO is correct? Neither is right OR wrong. Why is that a bad thing to you?

If one feels their beliefs to be true, then it's all good. However, it ONLY becomes a bad thing when people start dictating that THEIR belief is the one and only true way. THAT is why I dislike organized religion. It no longer becomes an inner-spiritual journey, it's just a bunch of child-like "I'm better than you are" where all those peoples beliefs are rooted to ONE person (Jesus, Mohammed, etc); one person who is no more right or wrong than the next person in their beliefs.

Thinking is what created all the self-doubt about the Almighty as well as this whole religious mess we have today. If one thinks about something in which they have no knowledge of, a mess of thoughts will happen. You know, sort of like a Christian giving their thoughts on Satanism. They know nothing about the teachings of Satanism but because it has the word "Satan" in it, they brand it as evil and the like. - N

So, now you are going to stick up for Satan. Hokus pokus. Go for it. I do not care. Believe what you like, but do not try to tell me that I am stupid to believe in God, when there is so much evidence. And you know what? If you want to find the evidence, you can, without me. Apparently, you would rather say how confusing everything is and how out of reach. I thought you were serious, but you are playing a game, a very very old one. - PMT

Heh, no, I am not sticking up for Satan, but rather the religion. By you saying that is the exact reason why I said what I said right there. Research what Satanism is. It's not evil stuff with sacrafices and all that garbage people think. It's actually quite interesting. Anyhow, enough of that.

But my point does remain in why I mentioned Satanism. Problems arise when people try to think and dictate their beliefs about something in which they have no knowledge of. Differing views will arise which they each claim is the right way yet neither can prove or disprove their beliefs. You may say this and this about Satanism (the religion) which is not true just as people say this and this about God which is most likely not true.

Now exactly WHERE (???) did I say you are stupid for believing in God? Have I not said a thousand times already that I believe in an Almighty? It seems my whole point keeps flying over your head even though you continue to quote and reply to it. It's simple, in a nutshell:

Since one cannot prove or disprove their personal beliefs about the Almighty, keep it to yourself; for if you begin to preach about it, you are then most likely preaching falsities for the simple fact of millions of people having differing views so nobody is in a position to say theirs is the correct way.

That is exactly how these various mainstream religions started. Each preached their own personal views so sides began to form. And once their founders died, words were taken out of context and people began to add their own feelings to it. And also since there's various sides with differing beliefs, and many have views of "ours is the right way and if you don't follow it, you're damned to hell", wars began to broke out to convert everyone to THEIR way of thinking rather than letting people continue to have their own personal outlooks on the spiritual realm. Again, only an arrogant fool tries to define and dictate that which they do not know (in this case the Almighty). And not just dictate, but force through violence to convert others. C'mon, that hypocracy at least deserves a mighty WTF (!!!).

Perhaps you have become overwrought by your wish to make sense. No one said you were crazy except you. As a matter of fact, I enjoyed your last post, and enjoyed your example. I do not have to agree with someone to enjoy and exchange of thoughts, but your last post is pitifully lacking in genuineness. Sorry you mistook my compliment.

In that case, I apologize for anything that may sound wiseass or similar in nature. I'm not used to having the privelege of having a normal, civil discussion. Usually if something "iffy" is said, alarms go off on each side. Not to mention that all these posts in various folders are starting to get tiresome because there's so many and it's starting to all seem like repeats. I can only find so many ways to change the wording around to help clarify things before going nuts, heh.

- N

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Here is my response to Neildo:

A couple of days ago, I had your post about halfway answered and stopped. Now, I cannot find where I stored it; regardless, I fully intended to rewrite. It is so easy to just go back and forth on these types of issues and never get anywhere. With this in mind, I am going to start with your last paragraph of the post to which I am responding:

“In that case, I apologize for anything that may sound wiseass or similar in nature. I’m not used to having the privilege of having a normal, civil discussion. Usually if something “iffy” is said, alarms go off on each side. Not to mention that all these posts in various folders are starting to get tiresome because there’s so many and its’s starting to all seem like repeats. I can only find so many ways to change the wording around to help clarify things before going nuts, heh.”

I enjoyed reading that paragraph the most of all, not particularly because of the apology, but because of the seeming sincerity of it. This, I think is what is so often lacking in these quicky back and forth things. Some time ago in this life I passed the point of wanting to sound cool, and more recently I reached a point of wanting to enrich my appreciation for God’s creation. So, whether anyone cares about my feelings about God or not, I do. Not to win brownie points, or to escape any type of hell or outcast, but because it appeals to me. Therefore, what I write, I write not to show how much I know, because to tell you the truth, you would not be impressed. I just write what years of living, studying, learning, forgetting and replacing have brought to me. I had honestly felt that your previous post lacked genuineness, and lo there it was in your paragraph of this last post, cited above. As soon as I read it, I knew I ought to rethink before I answered further. How shall I respond to this fellow who seems stuck on two thoughts? Well, I came up with no miracles, but here goes.

YOU WROTE: "Someone who studies religion all their life is not more knowledgeable towards God than the next person. Why not? Because ANYTHING they read and study about God are OTHER PEOPLE's beliefs."

I will stop there for now. The key word, Neildo, is “study.” You did say read and study, so I assume that you know and appreciate the difference. If, we study religion, then it stands to reason that we will read many and varied points of view. With this in mind, I have to question whether we would simply be believing what was written; otherwise studying was in vain. One has to deduce, one has to ponder and deduce again, until one sieves through the mass of words and finds his truth.

YOU WROTE: And since we have no knowledge of God, everything written about him is speculative. Now if, somehow, God DID show himself and DID write about himself, and that religious person read his/her/it's work, then he WOULD be more knowledgeable about God. But everything a religious person reads in regards to God, is MAN-WRITTEN speculative, philosophical thoughts.

This portion of your thoughts is a bit confusing at first, but taking it slowly, I will try to respond in a way that might make some sense to you. For the most part, I have no opposing argument. It is the first phrase with which I might take issue, if! you are including me, in the word “we.” I should have no choice but to argue that I do have knowledge of God, and far more than a little bit. Now, anyone who wishes to can twist that around any way that makes that one feel good, but it will change nothing, Neildo. If it were not so, I would never ever have written it here.

It pleases me that you understand that the Bible was written by man, and is therefore to be read carefully and scrutinized. Spinoza does an excellent job of this in Volume I of his chief works. (I have the translation by R.H.M. Elwes.) " .....as I marked the fierce controversies of philosophers raging in Church and State, the source of bitter hatred and dissension, the ready instruments of sedition and other ills innumerable, I determined to examine the Bible afresh in a careful, impartial, and unfettered spirit, making no assumptions concerning it, and attributing to it no doctrines, which I do not find clearly therein set down. ……………I know that I am a man and, as a man, liable to error, but against error I have taken scrupulous care, and striven to keep in entire accordance with the laws of my country, with loyalty, and with morality.” from the Preface to A Theologico-Political Treatise.

This man, well educated in Hebrew history as well as the Hebrew language, and a student searching for truth, had the desire and found the time to write things that have and still do capture the minds of many. (He was a scientist and a philosopher, as you probably know. Mostly people talk about Volume II),The Ethics, and simply say that he was a lense grinder. Oh well!)

I have to wonder why Christians and non-Christians alike mostly shun this man's comments on the scriptures, which could offer some reasonable explanation for the errors and the contradictions of the Old Testament, and possibly could do the same for the New Testament. To say the least, his words give us food for thought. However, he did cite errors in the scriptures, and that is a “no-no” to many!

I admit that I am quite taken with Spinoza, as many are, ~not only for the life he led, but also for his sincere effort in making some sense of the reasons and for his willingness to point out (mostly obvious) errors, while yet preserving the good in them, lest wise why would he bother? Ah, but he took away some of the superstitious mystery that has been attached to scriptures over the years; and then dared venture into the Greek language, to study the New Testament, and by so doing possibly alienated forever the Christians with his admission that the resurrection made no sense to him. (Like, how dare anyone admit he cannot understand, and therefore cannot accept a notion so precious to the Christian belief.)? I can and do understand it being precious, but I cannot understand such a total lack of respect and/or caring for the honest assessment of such a gentle, studious man, whose own life is one of the best examples of Christ’s teachings ever. His belief in Christ’s teachings, it would seem, was not nearly enough for any credibility among those who clinged to their superstition and fear.

YOU WROTE: Millions of people DO allow others to do their thinking for them though.

And, I have lived long enough to know that you are correct, and that many of these who do . . . are not religious at all!

YOU WROTE: Once a person is converted to another's belief, they follow that person's belief. You know the type, those that quote their scripture left and right, especially in discussions, with nary an original thought of their own and then also claim it all to be 100% true?

VERY GOOD OVERALL ANALYSIS! Yes, I have seen it, too many times. The search for truth has ended, and they have it!

YOU: What, are you saying it's a bad thing for me to remain neutral? That's what an Agnostic is.

That may be what you are, but that is not exactly the definition of an agnostic; however, I very much dislike labels. For the most part, they tell me little about a person. Are you saying that "neutral" is good?

YOU WROTE: Since I believe we cannot PROVE or DISPROVE God's existance or anything regarding him/her/it for that matter, you want me to try and act like every other religion and DEFINE which that I do not know?

Now, see! Please do not do that! I do NOT WANT YOU to do anything in particular. Anyway, your words seem defensive and "picked on," and I am sure that was not your aim.

IN ANSWER TO MY ASSURANCE THAT I TRULY MEANT YOU HAD A WONDERFUL IMAGINATION, YOU WROTE: Lol, sorry, I was thinking you were calling me a whacko or something since differing beliefs usually results in that, heh.

Naw, says I!

YOU ASKED: Eh, why the sudden explosion?

Because you were sounding like someone, who had either just read a book, or was who was stomping out your own biased statement.

YOU WROTE: I do want to continue discussing this. Nor am I acting high and mighty. It may seem so because I continue posting in response so you. I originally intended my first post in this thread to be my only one. I figured that would have explained my position clear enough but I guess not. So as I continue to post, it's only in response to you, NOT to try and "convert" people to may way of thinking or anything like that.

I can understand that; me too, insomuch as I am not trying to convert you. Admittedly, I would like to get you to consider that there just might be another way to look at those who claim to know God. We are not all from one mold, not by a long shot! I just wish you would/could step away from your old prejudices about the Bible and Church, and know God as I do, because you seem disgruntled with it all. Let me tell you this much: I do not really believe in miracles as such; I am not proned to sign and wonders. I never do devotionals as such, I read the Bible when I want to. When I do read it, I often read a book at a time, or more. When I pray, I mean business, and have no form for it. I swear sometimes, especially if I hit my elbow, and I have a bit of a temper, but I love God, and I love people. I believe in moderation and kindness. I love music, dancing and walking. I love philosophy and history. I have a little dog, named Boomer, and would have a cat too, if I could afford the upkeep of a second animal. In other words, Neildo, I am entirely human just like you, but with more wrinkles. There is no magic, but God is! So, see! If numbers decided things, I would be lost, because I know no one who thinks quite like I do, but this is okay. There is always enough to love and appreciate to some degree, even with those who think I am way off on my concepts.

You wrote that you prefer an inner-spiritual journey. That is beautiful, me too. In fact, it is the only way for me, because I am not a joiner, and not much of a group person. My mother used to say that I would argue with a sign board, because to her, you should just believe what you are told. So, where did I come from?

You also wrote this: “Since one cannot prove or disprove their personal beliefs about the Almighty, keep it to yourself; for if you begin to preach about it, you are then most likely preaching falsities, etc.”

Gosh, I hope you were venting. When you use the word “you” so much, it confuses me. I think you are accusing me of something, but you commenced with “one” and then switched to “you.” Therefore, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I think, I am not preaching anymore than you are. So there!

You are also right about how the “mainstream religions” got started. However, when you say that “only a arrogant fool tries to define and dictate that which they do not know (in this case the Almighty).” Again, it sounds like you might be including me in that; notwithstanding, if I am “not stupid” then surely I am not an arrogant fool, so once again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, (and does WTF mean what I think it does)? Hmm.

That about wraps it up. We are still sort of in different corners, but I did resist bawling you out about anything this time. Just teasing. You come across to me like someone with much to vent. You might enjoy reading at least that Preface of Spinoza’s I mentioned above. There is some really firey stuff in there. It is only nine pages, but he vents considerably about the religious nonsense of his day. Also, the Introduction by Elwes (just before the preface) is worth reading. I first got the books (Vol. I & II) from the library, so you could do that, but I wanted to read them entirely, and quickly discovered that I wanted no time limits to do so. As Durant said, "one cannot read Spinoza, but must read it again and again, then read commentaries on his works, and then read Spinoza again, and after this will be forever a lover of philosophy." paraphrased, because it is too late to look it up, okay?

In any event, for this dialogue, I can only hope that we have made progress. Again that last paragraph was very telling. I think you are about where I was when I first read Spinoza preface. I was so overjoyed. They could have been my words.

It is late. . . Chow.

 

[Neildo]

I will stop there for now. The key word, Neildo, is “study.” You did say read and study, so I assume that you know and appreciate the difference. If, we study religion, then it stands to reason that we will read many and varied points of view. With this in mind, I have to question whether we would simply be believing what was written; otherwise studying was in vain. One has to deduce, one has to ponder and deduce again, until one sieves through the mass of words and finds his truth.

Yes, when it comes down to it, studying about God IS in vain. Why? Because anything that may be studied (of any sort) is all various individual, and many non-individual (sheep-like, etc), philisophical thoughts of man in which there is no proof. It's only in vain if trying to find out the truth about God, because we will never find out the truth in this plane of existance. This studying applies to any and everything from living the religious life with others, trying to experience it yourself, or whatever. However, if you want to study people's beliefs in God and the like, that's not in vain because that's a whole different subject much-like sociologiy. But if trying to find out WHO and WHAT God is, we'll never know so THAT quest will be in vain.

And again, to repeat myself for the billionth time, the only evidence we have is various peoples thoughts and well, those are millions of differing beliefs so WHO is the right one that has found that truth? And since nobody can prove or disprove someone's beliefs because God resides in a spiritual realm (or wherever he may be), nobody's beliefs are any more right or wrong due to not being provable. The Bible is just that, my post right now is just that, your post right now is just that. It's all SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY trying to think of what God may be. We're trying to define that which we do not know. That's the only problem I have with people trying to covert others to their beliefs because they're most likely preaching falsehoods because out of billions of people here on Earth, to have that one person be correct in their views is well, highly unlikely.

I do have knowledge of God, and far more than a little bit

What knowledge do you have? Have you personally met with him/her/it? If not, that knowledge you may have is only your personal beliefs or the beliefs of others in which you've read, listened to, watched, and whatnot. All of which is unprovable for others. This is why I say nobody is any more right or wrong in their beliefs and that seeking God should be a personal journey. You may very well in fact have met with God, but you have no way of proving that other than to yourself. But if I say I've met God and he's totally different than what you describe, now I'm a liar when we both have the same amount of proof, just personal, on our sides?

Note: I'd really like to know what knowledge you have of God, just to hear your side of it all. And it's not to help prove or disprove any argument and whatnot. Send me a PM or something.

I have to wonder why Christians and non-Christians alike mostly shun this man's comments on the scriptures, which could offer some reasonable explanation for the errors and the contradictions of the Old Testament, and possibly could do the same for the New Testament. To say the least, his words give us food for thought.

Yeah, I don't like close-minded people either. I don't know why one would shun another's beliefs or view-points about something which is unknowable (God). To me, it's fine to try and dig deep into the Bible and to not agree with the majority on what it may explain. Why? Because their beliefs are no more right or wrong than the next. Neither side has, or can know, the truth. It's all speculative. And yep, it's food for thought. The more viewpoints one reads and hears about, that's the way we'll get closer to truth (closer, but not get the answer) rather than just flat out taking any ol' holy book and claming that one unprovable viewpoint as truth.

Are you saying that "neutral" is good?

Neutral is good when it comes to the unknowable. Otherwise if trying to define the unknowable, one is going to be a fool.. at least when trying to define and dictate that belief to others. Philosophy is as close to God as we're ever going to get (in this plane of existance).

Repeat time: Assuming there's 100% no chance of us ever seeing God in this plane of existance which means nobody can prove or disprove their beliefs, then why should I be a fool and preach to others my beliefs which are most likely going to be wrong? And why would I preach against someone else's beliefs and say they're wrong when I have no more proof than them about who's beliefs are correct other than what I may personally feel inside? So since nobody is anymore right or wrong in their beliefs, I choose to remain neutral and let everyone have their own unprovable beliefs and won't call them liars.

YOU WROTE: Since I believe we cannot PROVE or DISPROVE God's existance or anything regarding him/her/it for that matter, you want me to try and act like every other religion and DEFINE which that I do not know? - me

Now, see! Please do not do that! I do NOT WANT YOU to do anything in particular. - PMT

If you do not want me to do that, and you now understand that line I just said, that sums up my whole point of my not wanting to convert others to my beliefs. This is also why I prefer others to not preach their beliefs to others because it's all most likely going to be false.

This is why I say religion and trying to find God should be a personal journey. Since nobody can prove or disprove their own personal beliefs, and millions of people will have various differing beliefs, keep it to ourselves. Otherwise once one preaches their differing beliefs which are unprovable, that's when war starts and people are then forced by violence to convert.

That's the whole story of religion since the begining of time. Once other's may feel their beliefs are wrong, especially when people are told their way is the only way and any other thoughts will send your soul to hell, that's some serious shit there. So people are going to get HIGHLY defensive not wanting to lose their soul so they WANT and *NEED* their beliefs to be correct so they go to war over it to keep their beliefs in the majority since many think that might makes right and the more numbers that are on their side, it somehow makes it correct. Religious wars would NEVER have happened if nobody ever preached their differing beliefs.

Admittedly, I would like to get you to consider that there just might be another way to look at those who claim to know God.

I've never looked at those types in any false light. I take and absorb everything. I don't dismiss ANY viewpoint, as absurb as it may be.

I also never claimed that people CANNOT know God (even if that may be my belief, but I have no proof that my belief is the right one, which is why I preach nothing nor claim it as fact), but rather if and when you do know him/her/it, you won't be able to prove any of that to others. And since there are those that will claim that they know God as well and if it differs greatly from your knowledge of him/her/it, then heh, what is going to be done? Play "my god is better than your god"? That's why I say be humble and keep everything inside, as great and wonderful as your god may be that you want to share it with the world. That's why I'm against preaching. Nobody can prove their differing beliefs, so who is the correct person when each feel deep down inside that their view is correct?

I just wish you would/could step away from your old prejudices about the Bible and Church, and know God as I do, because you seem disgruntled with it all.

Well I DO hate the corrupt Church, yes, but as for having prejudices against the Bible, I have none other than my belief that it is a book written by man and are his thoughts, not Gods. The prejudices I may have are from the FOLLOWERS. And this isn't just Christianity, it's about ALL followers that aren't humble in their beliefs. Other than not being humble, the only other thing I do not like about them is when they claim that their way is the correct way and everyone else is wrong. They take The Bible (same with every other religion.. I'm just using Christianity to speak in general since you brought it up) and with that, and only that, say it's 100% proof of God's existance and to who and what he is.

Gosh, I hope you were venting. When you use the word “you” so much, it confuses me.

Whoops, sorry. 99% of the time I say "you", it's meant to be in general.

You are also right about how the “mainstream religions” got started. However, when you say that “only a arrogant fool tries to define and dictate that which they do not know (in this case the Almighty).” Again, it sounds like you might be including me in that

That only includes you if you're going out and preaching and trying to convert others to your beliefs. That's why I have the "and dictate" part in there. However, if one keeps their personal beliefs about God to themselves, they can go ahead and think whatever they want about him/her/it. I say one is an arrogant fool because the person is preaching to others as if they know the truth behind it all and that theirs is the only way yet again, they have no proof behind their beliefs. If one is preaching and trying to convert people to most-likely false beliefs, is that not being a fool? And then arrogant for thinking only they know the truth?

(and does WTF mean what I think it does)? Hmm.

Lol, probably, yeah. What.. the.. [bleep]. I basically use that in a discussion as if I were flailing about my arms in disbelief. When something seems like common sense to me and it won't go through someone's head or they may not understand it, or someone is acting very stupid it's like.. ARRGGH!

So in the case of when I used it:

That is exactly how these various mainstream religions started. Each preached their own personal views so sides began to form. And once their founders died, words were taken out of context and people began to add their own feelings to it. And also since there's various sides with differing beliefs, and many have views of "ours is the right way and if you don't follow it, you're damned to hell", wars began to broke out to convert everyone to THEIR way of thinking rather than letting people continue to have their own personal outlooks on the spiritual realm. Again, only an arrogant fool tries to define and dictate that which they do not know (in this case the Almighty). And not just dictate, but force through violence to convert others. C'mon, that hypocracy at least deserves a mighty WTF (!!!).

The actions of what those people did, is just stupidity beyond comprehension, to me. Forcing people to follow their most-likely false and made-up beliefs through violence is just an UGH and a half. Or in other words, as Gilbert Godfried (ha, notice the last name, lol) would say, WTF!?!?!?!?!?

You come across to me like someone with much to vent.

I don't have much to vent. I'm a humble guy, really. It just seems like I have a lot to vent because of all the repeating in how it becomes nerve-wracking trying to reword it to help clarify things a bit. If you notice all my posts, it basically says the same thing every other paragraph and each of your responses to them are different to the point of finally understanding. It's like a word or two can make all the difference. And with this part down here, I'm begining to wonder why this long discussion even happened :

YOU WROTE: Since I believe we cannot PROVE or DISPROVE God's existance or anything regarding him/her/it for that matter, you want me to try and act like every other religion and DEFINE which that I do not know? - me

Now, see! Please do not do that! I do NOT WANT YOU to do anything in particular. Anyway, your words seem defensive and "picked on," and I am sure that was not your aim.

You wrote that you prefer an inner-spiritual journey. That is beautiful, me too. In fact, it is the only way for me, because I am not a joiner, and not much of a group person. - PMT

This is basically what my original post was saying and it seems we agree.

You might enjoy reading at least that Preface of Spinoza’s I mentioned above. There is some really firey stuff in there. It is only nine pages, but he vents considerably about the religious nonsense of his day. Also, the Introduction by Elwes (just before the preface) is worth reading. I first got the books (Vol. I & II) from the library, so you could do that, but I wanted to read them entirely, and quickly discovered that I wanted no time limits to do so. As Durant said, "one cannot read Spinoza, but must read it again and again, then read commentaries on his works, and then read Spinoza again, and after this will be forever a lover of philosophy." paraphrased, because it is too late to look it up, okay?

Yeah, I'll have to do that. I haven't read any original works by Spinoza. The only knowledge I really have of him is from Will Durant's Story of Philosophy, in which you too mention, heh.

It is late. . . Chow.

Grub, or ciao? I think I'll do both.

- N

P.S. Another thing I should clarify is my stance on organized religion since it seems like I'm totally against it due to saying other's shouldn't preach their beliefs. It's not organized religion I don't like but rather the followers of WHY they follow the religion they do.

It's fine for people to willingly have a discussion and share their religious beliefs, but not openly preach it to others. Having a discussion about it is at least agreed upon, civil, and nothing is being forced (heh, with exceptions as seen in this religion forum by some ). And with a religious discussion, you may find out that wow, we share the same beliefs, and then cool, go ahead and form an organized religion together. The key part is that we at least had our beliefs BEFOREHAND, and then we saw that we matched and basically agreed upon everything rather than having it being preached, forced, and brainwashed into our spiritually undeveloped minds.

With preaching and regular organized religion, most people don't follow the religion they do as if they already had the same viewpoint. They follow it "just because" everyone else does or their parents told them to. I'd rather people do the things they do because they came to their own conclusion of why they do it rather than "just because".

 

[jcarl]

Well, okay, Jay Carlson! Good grief. That was fast. [/B]

Well, at least that one was.

I have not done the other half yet. But! I think I will answer this first. If I can be more clear. Somehow I lost you on this: You wrote: Ok a little illumination, but I'm still not quite sure about what point you're trying to make. Do we not tell them about the whole afterlife thing? That is my interpretation of what you're saying, but that really has no bearing on what is the right interpretation is.

No, no, no, no.........that had nothing to do with witnessing. Let me put it a different way: I was just saying that (AND THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, BUT JUST SAY IF IT COULD), we found out that there is no hereafter, and then you and I say, Well, rain on that, then I can live anyway I want to. What would that say about us. All I am saying, I suppose, is that even if..if, if if...you and I found out right now that there is no life for us hereafter, would we choose to live differently. I would not! I believe with all my heart that Jesus, and others have taught us the best way to live this life. Besides I am already doing WHAT I WANT TO. I do not live the way I live for brownie buttons. I live this way, because I am convinced that it is the best way to live. --------Now, tell me, does that make sense. If not, by golly, I will try again!

JCarl: I was saying that our life and the things we do should be out of obedience and love for Christ, NOT because we might get something in return.

Good! Got it!

yay, now we can put that behind us and move to more pressing things.

This is why I try to pull God a bit away from the religious (church and others) organizations, and even a bit away from the Bible, (do not cough and spurt),

Sorry I had to do it, but how do you pull God away from the Bible?(I couldn't care less about the rest)

because so many become disgusted with "religion" that anything that is related thereto becomes a no-no. And/or they suddenly decide that the bible is not "the word of God." So, what happens next? Well, something like Jesus was just a man like the rest of us....he got married and had kids and someone else was on the cross. Or, if that does not heal their wounds, "Jesus never lived; there is no proof that he lived, and Paul was made up, and so was Josepheus." Whomever cannot be proven as fictitious is trashed! Then, if one who goes so far even gets an inkling that he has left the good stuff behind, all those things that did not add up, hover close and say, "do not make a fool of yourself; there is no God."

I'm not sure how this answers the question. You said that it isn't your job to tell people about Jesus(I refer to it as witnessing), and I don't see how/why you say that.

See, what we have now. No matter which way such a one looks, it is a long way back to basics. This is why I stress so much living the way you do, because it makes sense to you. Not because this is what you are told to do. That is okay in the beginning, but it should be working within time, and one should see that it makes sense. And this, my dear young friend is what I was trying to tell you about Spinoza. One avid religious lady, met me in the field where I was walking my dog, when I was in Texas, to warn me about reading philosophy. I "should be reading the bible; she told me she was praying for me.

Now that was a woman who felt compelled to set people straight, according to her own idea of straight! No attempt at conversation, or reasoning, just an admonition about my reading philosophy.

Hey I got no problem with philosophy and the reading/studying of it. But I feel if you--by "you" I mean anybody who is a Christian--want to take some philosophy and apply it to your life, it should line up with what the Bible says and stand up for what the Bible says to be true.

What a pain in the butt she was, but I answered slowly and with as much grace as I could muster. Yet, after that, I was ever aware that she considered me not quite spiritual enough. There were other comments, but that one took the cake. Do I always act like a follower of Christ? No. Am I always in a state of prayer? No. Do I read the bible every day? No. Do I ever say something out of anger. Uh huh. Do I ever get discouraged? Yeah. Do I feel that God deserts me? No. Do I think he is angry with me? No. Do I think he loves me. Absolutely, and everyone else too.

But you don't take this stuff and say,"Oh well, thats just the way I am," and don't make an attempt at making it better. Thats the idea. We're flawed(the reason we need grace) but we strive to grow in Christ, in a way that we can do only with the help of the Holy Spirit. We mess up, but we keep trying.

Do I have joy in sorrow? Yes Sir. Peace in turmoil? You bet. Strength in weakness? I do.

That's what the first part of James is all about. We're only able to have this stuff by the Holy Spirit guidance. It can't be on our own.

How do I pray? From the bottom of my toes. Does He answer. Oh yeah.

So! Do you see what I am saying? I am flawed, oh boy, am I. Do I worry about it?

Worry about it? Nah. But I personally strive to become more complete in Christ. I am always in need of grace, but I work to become more like Him, for His glory.

Here I go again. Most of my earliers years were in California, and I can tell you that sometimes an apple tree will not bear apples. (See how annoying that is.) All kidding aside. I agree with a sufficient amount of that statement. Sometimes we do not know for sure, but when we see the fruit...the nurishment that comes from that tree, we can have a fairly good idea of what that person is about. (Mixing things a bit, like trees and people, but I think you will know I am saying, right?)

We just did a thing about this in youth. Three "tests" of living out Christianity are: 1) Can the person tell you when they began a relationship with Christ? 2) Did their life change in anyway at all? 3)Does their lifestyle--their everyday lifestyle--reflect Christ.

Of course, He can. The biggest problem is that there are too many who have no more idea that a goose what His will is for that day and time

Well theres the problem right there. If someone doesn't have a clue concerning God's will, or has some idea about it, it seems unlikely that they've actually tried to find it out.

[B}JCarl: Because there is a new testament, does that mean that we are no longer responsible for delivering the Gospel?

Noooo. Here I am again, getting me into this, but what is gospel, I ask? Is it not "good news?" If so, then, "If you want to go to heaven, you must be saved;" and, "If you do not become saved you will, of course, go to Hell," brings us to: Oh boy, thanks! That is really good news!

Here's my idea. The idea that we are flawed is obvious to anyone who is honest with themselves. Rom. 3: 23 tells us that. There's nothing we can do by ourselves to overcome that. By sinning, we have turned against God in some way shape or form. Thus if we were to die we would have no right to enter into the prescence of God. This is where Hell comes into play.
BUT, Hell does not have to be our destination. By the grace of God we have been given a detour away from Hell. That detour--or whatever analogy you wish--is Christ. Accepting Him takes you off the dead end, literally, road that leads to Hell. The Gospel I think can be summed up like this: Right now you are a sinner who by you're own sin have condemned yourself to Hell. But that doesn't have to be your fate. Christ has given you a way out of Hell. All that is left for you to do is accept Him as your way out.
Now I think that's good news.

 

[jcarl]

I wrote: It means discipline and readiness to accept what is.
Then you wrote: “I think it means submitting to Christ, obeying Him.”

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? If so, what?

Depends on what you mean by "accept what is". To just say that," I'm imperfect," and to accept that as is isn't the same thing as submitting to Christ. To submit to Christ, I would say ,"I'm imperfect. Thus I need grace. With that said, how can I allow God to work in me to make me more like Christ, for His glory?"

JCarl—wrote: and even crucify it (the world) in order to follow Christ.

Exactly what does that mean to you … crucifying the world?... Could you please explain?

Sure. By crucifying the world, I mean not submitting to the morally corrupt system of the world, the one that is willingly infected with sin. The world is just a macrocosm of the flesh, the sinful nature of man.
With that said, as professing Christians we have a choice: we can embrace the world(see defn.) and the flesh. We cannot serve two masters so if we serve the world, we cannot Christ at the same time. So we get rid of Him, we rid Him from our lives.
Or, we can do the exact opposite: we can embrace Christ and what He has told us through the Bible. To sincerely do that means we must forsake the world and the flesh. The Bible uses the analogy of crucifying the flesh, in essence, killing it and doing away with it.
Does that clear the waters up a bit?

Oops, fear! Let me ask you this: How can you learn anything at all if your mind is closed? Are you afraid to open your mind, or are you misunderstanding my meaning. I am not advocating a broad-mindedness, okay? I am advocating an open, receiving mind.

A violent hurricane would not uproot a mighty tree. Why? Because it is rooted deep. The same with Christians: if we are to expose ourselves, or anyone else for that matter, to stuff that can sweep us away from Christ's teaching before we are firmly planted in the Word of God, we are making a big mistake. My point, and I think you'll agree with me: don't subject yourself to something that will lead you away from Christ if you're not firmly planted in Christ. Check out Col. 2:8--"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the basic principles of men....the world, and not according to Christ."
I'm not saying be close-minded, I'm just saying what Paul told the Colossians, be careful.

Therefore, as people are far more educated in general than in the days of Christ’s physical presence, we should make our meaning clear. Are we talking about the earth, the people, or are we referring to the ungodliness of certain secular things?

the latter, the secular things, as I mentioned above.

We remember there was no United States when these verses were written; that is, no “nation founded by people who believed in Christ,” no “God Bless America,” song. Much of this nation (USA) is Christian, at least in name. To get our intent across—I think, using the word –world- too freely could seem contradictory. If you disagree, so be it. This is just another of my pet concerns. (I suppose if no one questions you, then go for it.)

I looked in Strong's Concordance and I didn't see that phase "nation founded by people who believed in Christ," so if you could tell me where that is I would be most appreciative.
Nevertheless, I think I know what that verse is probably saying. It's probably saying that there is no nation that is founded by man's principles that at the same time, believed in Christ. That's my guess.

Not at all. That was indeed a quote from Paul. My memory failed me. Actually, I almost said Peter, and then thought it must have been James. He is so big on works! Peter did say something that I will quote here: I Peter 1:9 “……obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls. This connotates progress, which would be from a process, right?

Maybe not. When Peter says, "the end result,"(what my translation says) or ,"outcome of," he doesn't neccesarily mean that salvation is a process. It's more of a you did this, and thus get this. It's a cause and effect that doesn't need anything between the cause and the effect (does that make sense?) Peter is saying that because you received Christ in your heart--this is the cause--you receive the salvation of your soul--this is the effect.

Also, if you say that salvation is a process, then what are the steps in this process?

Now sanctification is a process; this is the working out of the faith that is within us. Sanctification is the process wherein we strive to become more like Jesus, for His glory.

Now, another interesting observation: the word work used in vss to do with say “a work of faith,” is (ergo)..deed, doing, labor, to work, toil as an occupation, whereas, the word used in Phil. 2:12 is (katergazamoi) ..to work fully, accomplish, finish.

When you read Phillipians 2:12,or at least when I read it, the phrase that sticks out most is the "work out" phrase. This has to do with sanctification, which is the process of displaying one's salvation Now when I read this, I think of exercising. When I exercise, I am making something that I already have stronger, so that it shows more. In Phillipians, Paul is saying ,"work out[or exercise] your faith", so that it may become stronger and seen more. Does that make sense?

Chapter and verse, please, kind Sir.

James2:22.(This is refering to Abraham and God telling him to sacrifice Issac)"Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect."
Imagine if Abraham said that he would do what God wanted him to, and then when God tells him to kill Issac, Abraham says,"No." Wouldn't that be kind of hypocritical of him? Wouldn't it show that he didn't really have faith at all? Instead, He backed up his faith with his actions. As a result it was counted unto him for righteousness. It was added to his inheritance. Had he not done it, would he still have been saved? Yes, but he wouldn't have been as esteemed by God.

“Working out” surely implies some thought and time. As for “proving it, I have already given my take on that.

They're the same thing, all synonyms of the sanctification process.

What is in process is growth; and being delivered or having the victory is a day by day thing.

Remember when I mentioned "getting saved" and "being saved"? You just restated the "being saved" part. When we "get saved" is when we accept Christ in our hearts. Being saved is the day-to-day thing of showing it and acting it out. Some of the stuff below this gets a little more specific, but you get the idea.

Though sin no longer has dominion, it is with us. It has affected us and still does; therefore, we learn to overcome those lingering signs, those sneaky little bouts of ungodly behavior. Those troublesome moments when we want to feel sorry for ourselves rather than enjoying that victory that is ours, because He that is within us is greater…. What we do, I think, is fail to stay full of good stuff; otherwise, there would not be . . . room for all that gloom! This, I say, is the good news!

Exactly. Remember what I said about the good news being the detour out of Hell? What you just said is an extension of that idea.

JCarl: I agree with all but the witnessing. If witnessing were a ritual, then it would only have one way in which to do it. …………… I don't see much symbolism in prayer or witnessing and thus don't consider it to be a ritual.

Where do you get those definitions?

I cannot think of one ritual that doesn't have some symbol behind it.

JCarl: I cannot show them, but the Bible can.

Excuse my saying so, but that smacks of superstition.

Let me clarify. I, by myself with no help whatsoever, can't show them.

[B}Come on! If the bible can show them, then you can. I say that you cannot and that the bible cannot. I think it takes the Spirit of God to show us things like that. [/B]

Yeh the Holy Spirit works in both the Bible and me. But just speaking of myself, I couldn't by myself show others Christ. It would take the Holy Spirit, and a Bible is helpful.

JCarl: Therforefore we can conform to His example by being submissive to His teachings. Having the "Mind of Christ" and conforming to His example I think are one in the same.

Ah, it is a matter of words, but I still prefer the word “transformed,” because if that does not happen, there will be no conforming to his teachings. Right? Of course, it is right!

I simply take the two as synoyms and leave it at that.

Oh stop! If it pulls you away, it is only because you allow it.

Exactly!!

I believe that is the hard part.

Oh buddy is that the truth.

JCarl: My point was this: if one believes in Christ, then what somebody believes--whether it be Spinoza or Norman Geisler--ought to match up with what the Bible says.

Spinoza was not a Christian! At least, not in the sense that you would call him a Christian. ( Who knows what conversations he had with God before he died.) But for the sake of argument, he was an excommunicated Jew, who could not accept the story of the resurrection of Christ. So, you would toss him out, just like many other Christians I have encountered. That is okay, Jay, you do what you have to do, but I love Spinoza, and I would bet you a mountain top that God does too, and this scientist/philosopher inspires me to have the courage to be more like Jesus taught. Is that too strange?

If you can study Spinoza to glory of God, hey, I got no problem.

JCarl: Oh indeed, but we can say, through any hardship,:"I know that my redeemer lives, and that at the end He shall stand upon the Earth. And even though my body is destroyed, yet in this flesh I will see God.

JCarl writes: Then what are we to make of the Judgement? What are we to make of Lazarus the rich man and Luke 16:19-31(Which doesn't seem like a parable.)? What leads you to think that eternal Hell is metaphorical?

Can we save this for a while? It is not a simple matter. Thanks.

Alright. I'll email you or something.

So, you like ending with a verse. Here is one of my favorites, and has been since I was fourteen. See what you think.

“Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the Lord said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.” For what ever reason, that verse had a real impact, even at that young age.

Different I will say that.
Phil 2:3--"let nothing be done out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility let each esteem others greater than themselves.

RJ to the C

 

[Neildo]

Remember how I said it’s fine to organize and convert to a religion that shares the same beliefs in which you already established before hearing about it? Well after you (PMT) mentioning Spinoza, I decided to read up on him again in Durant’s book and wow, in the captions Durant quotes of him, everything he says follows my personal philosophy. And those are pure thoughts of mine that match up with his. So in that regards, I’m going to read a lot more about him, not necessarily convert per say, but study him a lot more since we seem to have similar beliefs. I already had those thoughts he has so it wasn’t as if I had an undeveloped mind and decided to join or read up on him “just because”. My thoughts are similar to his so joining brains is what I’ll do.

When it comes to philosophy, 99% of my thoughts are my own (as I personally feel it should be), and not inspired by someone else's. And whatever I may read or hear, it's all common sense, to me anyways, so those are still things I've thought about on my own as well. I have quite a few books on philosophy and of various people, but heh, I haven't read them yet because I have so many darn books to read that others end up coming before them. It's cool to find someone with similar beliefs.

- N

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Neildo

Remember how I said it’s fine to organize and convert to a religion that shares the same beliefs in which you already established before hearing about it?

Well, many find a denmonition of the Christian religion in which to dwell, but many are discontent. That is to say, though they seem okay in the Christian religion, a good percentage flounder a bit in choosing a denomination, and many have come to choosing a congregation instead, which may lead them from one denomination to another of rather similar beliefs. Yet, not every believer finds church a must. I do not, and yet I have no great hatred or anamosity toward those who do. Some churches are doing great things, as is the Red Cross, another organization that serves humankind, but I have not joined it. Right?

Well after you (PMT) mentioning Spinoza, I decided to read up on him again in Durant’s book and wow, in the captions Durant quotes of him, everything he says follows my personal philosophy. And those are pure thoughts of mine that match up with his. So in that regards, I’m going to read a lot more about him, not necessarily convert per say, but study him a lot more since we seem to have similar beliefs. I already had those thoughts he has so it wasn’t as if I had an undeveloped mind and decided to join or read up on him “just because”. My thoughts are similar to his so joining brains is what I’ll do.

Interesting, that you bother to explain that this is something you already believed. This is what made it so good for me. Not that I have not grown in my exploring of Spinoza; I have, but yet, in so many ways, I find myself feeling more like he is validating my proiorities than converting me to any new thoughts. Of course, I am older, and am fairly settled in what I believe, but we must never get so settled that we cannot learn. You know the old addage. "As long as we are green, we are growning, but once we ripen, we commence to rot."

When it comes to philosophy, 99% of my thoughts are my own (as I personally feel it should be), and not inspired by someone else's. And whatever I may read or hear, it's all common sense, to me anyways, so those are still things I've thought about on my own as well. I have quite a few books on philosophy and of various people, but heh, I haven't read them yet because I have so many darn books to read that others end up coming before them. It's cool to find someone with similar beliefs.

Woe, Neildo. Let me interject something here, okie dokie? Being "inspired by someone else" may be taken in more than one way; so, let me tell you my thoughts on this. I am inspired most of the time, and what I think this is . . . is being open. All manner of things inspire me; this does not necessarily mean that I am getting new thoughts, or changing my thoughts. To inspire...that is, to stimulate or impel, is to give one a push, and Spinoza does indeed inspire me. You, to some degree, inspires me; otherwise, my response would be more boring than it is!

You are so right; it is cool to find someone with similar beliefs. One particular concept comes to mind, from our mutual friend: He says that passion, though a good motivator, must not be our guide. Those are not his exact words, but the same meaning. See, we both know this, but to hear someone else declare it, not only reinforces this truth, but makes us want to paraphrase, so that we may have it as our own, or something like that. I love his three rules for life too. I can tell you where to find some of this stuff, if you like. I used to get so confounded trying to find stuff, but have become more familiar now, and, thank goodness, he wrote the way he did, making it easier to identify locations. I wish all serious publications would give us similar tables of contents. Also, in the Ethics, the Propositions, Corollaries, and Proofs, together with the Table of Contents help.

Well, enough about that. I will respond to your other posting soon. I am really tickled that I hit on something you might like. Durant introduced me to Spinoza, and I have quotes all over the place from Spinoza's works, but I cannot overdo this on this thread, they would toss me off.

pmt

 

[P. M. Thorne]

JCarl: I just clicked on your name for your initial information. When you click on an email option, and it tells you that a person did not wish to receive emails, you can click on "administration," I think it was, and send an email to them. This is what I did, authorizing them to give you my email address, should you inquire. Hope this works.

It is just that some things should not be discussed in a public forum, I think, and my feelings about the existance of Hell is one of them. To go toe to toe about that on this formum seems moronic, because of the way it would be perceived. Further, even though we are both familiar with the scriptures, not everyone is, and why subject others to it. My take!

Anyway, there you go. Give it a try, and if that does not work, I will have to think some more! pmt

 

[Neildo]

"As long as we are green, we are growning, but once we ripen, we commence to rot."

Ha, I've never heard that. That's a good one!

Woe, Neildo. Let me interject something here, okie dokie? Being "inspired by someone else" may be taken in more than one way; so, let me tell you my thoughts on this.

Sorry, when I said inspired, it was mainly in defense to the argument of how we don't have free will and how everything we do is in our genes and/or because subconciously someone else told us so that's why we think what we do. Well, I've never read Spinoza or similar thoughts of his, these are all conclusions I came to on my own, so I don't want someone saying they're not and that I only have that mindset because of reading him which I haven't, ya know? And when I start reading Spinoza, people will then think my thoughts are his so I'll be labelled but it's like whoa buddy, I had these same thoughts before I ever read him, it's why I chose to read him. This is how religion should be too. Join a religion because it follows your similar beliefs in life, not "just because" everyone else is following that religion.

I find myself feeling more like he is validating my proiorities than converting me to any new thoughts.

Yeah, same here. No new thoughts, just making me feel that mine are more validated in that I'm not crazy, lol. Not just his thoughts on religion but other things in general, as you mention later, his three rules of conduct.

See, we both know this, but to hear someone else declare it, not only reinforces this truth . .

Yeah, I know whatcha mean.

. . but makes us want to paraphrase, so that we may have it as our own, or something like that.

And yep, that too. Heh, what's the saying in regards to quotes? Why botch something explaining it yourself when someone else said it so much better?

I love his three rules for life too.

Yeah, I like that too. His three rules and why he gave everything up for philosophy (which I read from Durant last night) is what made me go whoa, due to similar beliefs. I'm a simple person and don't care to amass great wealth or anything like that. I'm happy how I am. To some, people call me crazy because of that. But hey, this is a capitalistic and materialistic society (USA) so I don't blame them for having that viewpoint. But his three rules of conduct is basically how I am too.

I am really tickled that I hit on something you might like. Durant introduced me to Spinoza, and I have quotes all over the place from Spinoza's works, but I cannot overdo this on this thread, they would toss me off.

Lol, yeah yeah, three cheers for PMT! My being introduced to him is sort of the same way but you started it off first. You mentioned Spinoza and then I recalled he was in Durant's book and since I had that book, I read about Spinoza from him too.

Well, enough about that. I will respond to your other posting soon.

Eh, no need to. It's all basically the same stuff said, just clarified a tad. Let's not ruin our Spinoza buzz right now.

- N

 

[P. M. Thorne]

N-

Sounds good to me. I am a bit curious as to which book by Durant; like is it the Story of Philosophy or from the eighth Volume of The Story of Civilization? Must be the former. Anyway, it does not matter.

Stay cool.
pmt

 

[Neildo]

I am a bit curious as to which book by Durant; like is it the Story of Philosophy or from the eighth Volume of The Story of Civilization? Must be the former.

Story of Philosophy. Pages 113-151 are about him and pages 127 and 128 have the reason why he left philosophy and his rules of conduct. And then there's other amusing writings in the rest of the pages as well. I've yet to left without a grin on my face.

- N