Dutch rethink Christianity for a doubtful world by Niki2

Beir bua agus beannacht

I feel that being a Christian is about making a choice, praying and agnowledging Christ as your Savior, making a commitment to Him and to do your best to follow Him, to agknowledge to Him that you know you're not perfect and that you want Him in your life,, then you're saved. I believe that we need to step up and play an active role in that decision for ourselves or else it doesn't really count.

I totally know what you mean about angels Its pretty obvious biblically that they aren't cute or pretty like we think of pretty. I like Faerie figurines and drawings better, I don't believe in faeries and by that very fact it makes faerie pictures more interesting to me, I can imagine faeries however I like because I don't believe they exist, but I like/enjoy them.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:22 PM

Niki,
I'm very curious of your thoughts on the afterlife.
At the expense of not reading every one of your posts in this thread(sorry I'm in a bit of a rush) you seem to me very aware of the possibility that life can continue after death....if only in a spirit form. You are very vocal about the human condition
(you tend to post mainly in the RWED) so I'm inclined to believe you feel strongly one way or another about this.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:33 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

To try to answer your questions, Riona: Buddhism isn't static. It has changed through the ages in each country it has come to. "A distinctive feature of buddhism has been the continuous evolution of the practice as it was transmitted from one country to another. This dynamic aspect is particularly evident today in the West." People's interpretations of buddhism have changed over time and depending on the country and the ethnic background.

I started out and found myself giving you a quick history of buddhism in America, which isn't what you asked. So I deleted all of that, then realized I can't speak to how it has evolved over the millenia unless I research it myself, which would take ages, and which I really shouldn't do anyway (the old "curiosity" thing). One of the ways buddhism has evolved in the States is that since 1974, there are a few buddhist elementary schools, high schools and universities here, as well as the original monasteries. The most obvious "evolution" here in the States is that taught by the Juniper Foundation (founded in 2003, just down on the Peninsula from us in Redwood City), which is an organization that works to adapt and promote Buddhist practice in the modern world. They call their approach "Buddhist training for modern life" and it emphasizes meditation, balancing emotions, cultivating compassion and developing insight as four building blocks of Buddhist training.

Quote:
To benefit from the methods of a Buddhist lineage, Juniper holds that they must become integrated into modern culture just as they were in the cultures of India, China, Japan, Tibet and others. The 14th Dalai Lama acknowledged this principle when, in his book The Meaning of Life from a Buddhist Perspective, he wrote

“It is important to adopt the essence of Buddha’s teaching, recognizing that Buddhism as it is practiced by Tibetans is influenced by Tibetan culture and thus it would be a mistake to try to practice a Tibetanized form of Buddhism."

Because Buddhist ideas value inquiry and critical thinking, Juniper holds that we can apply these to build a bridge from ancient culture to modern life, one that is grounded in tradition but evolved to embrace discovery and modern social norms

There are many different ways to study buddhism, and admittedly, some of the buddhists who come here from Asia, and for whom it was traditional, do treat it more as a religion.

Quote:
American buddhists include many Asian Americans, as well as a large number of converts of other ethnicity, and now their children and even grandchildren. In America, there is "ethnic buddhism" (or "immigrant buddhism"), those buddhist traditions that arrived in America along with immigrants who were already believers and that largely remained with those immigrants and their descendants. The next oldest and arguably the most visible group are "import buddhists", because they came to America largely in response to interested American converts who sought them out, either by going abroad or by supporting foreign teachers.

So I only know Zen buddhism through Green Gulch, our temple/farm here in Marin, and through what I've read, so even if I wanted to, I'm not conversant in how buddhism has evolved over time.

Quote:
It is often argued that the differences between Buddhist groups arise benignly from the differing needs and interests of those involved. Convert Buddhists tend to be interested in meditation and philosophy. On the other hand, for immigrants and their descendants, preserving tradition and maintaining a social framework assume a much greater relative importance, making their approach naturally more conservative.

The latter are the ones who view it as a religion, while we view it as a philosophy, but in neither case is there a god, worship or scriptures.

Quote:
Buddhism had become the fastest-growing religion in Australia and many other Western nations by the 1990s, in contrast to the steady decline of traditional western beliefs such as Christianity). By 2007, they represented the fourth largest "religion" in America, after Christianity, "no religion" and Judiasm.

I imagine Islam figures in there somewhere by now.

Quote:
Accurate counts of Buddhists in the United States are difficult. Studies have indicated a Buddhist population in the United States of between 2 and 10 million. In the 1990s, Robert A. F. Thurman estimated there were 5 to 6 million Buddhists in America.

I got those quotes from Wikipedia.

What I can tell you is that the TEACHINGS probably haven't evolved all that much, but the PRACTICES probably have, as well as the trappings (i.e., whether you have a lot of trappings, fewer, or none) and celebrations. Green Gulch has few trappings and several celebrations (like the Tea Ceremony), but I'm sure more conservative temples have more of both. As far as I know, the basic principles remain the same.

As to reincarnation, I'm still on the fence about that one, as I may have mentioned. I'm not sure how others feel, given as I said I only attend Green Gulch and have only practiced Zen teachings. I hope that helped a BIT, anyway, as I said before, this stuff is very complex and it would probably be just as difficult for you to explain how Christianity differs in other countries or how its beliefs have evolved. I know some of what is in the Bible has been dismissed by many Christians today, but I don't know the details, and there's the differences between Protestant, Catholic, etc., etc. and between evolution, creationism and intelligent design.

Whew! That was TOUGH! It took a long time to keep going back to your question, to edit out extraneous stuff and try to come up with as cogent an answer as I'm able. I hope it helps.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:36 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
In some defense of Christianity, while I myself have met many uncharitable, domineering, and self-righteous types who some to think God exists to grant only their selfish prayers, there is a popular belief that even Christians go to hell. And not just Christians from other sects, but ones who have actually been bad.

The sacrifice thing doesn't exonerate ALL sins, just original sin, which is carried through the paternal lineage. So Christians are supposed to try to still tow the line and not commit too many other sins. And that does take some self-reflection... If you're doing it right. It at least attempts to make someone recognize what their flaws are and when they've wronged someone.

Sometimes. Just as many people use it to try to treat other people like garbage.

There's also the virtues, which people can practice to gain plus signs by their name in the pearly gate's guest list.

Byte, thank you. That post was edifying. I better understand about the "original" sin, and that makes more sense. I gotta ask, tho'; are you serious about the "plus signs"? I never heard of that!

I also agree with the following post. It always makes me smile sadly when I hear "God on our side" (there's a great song about that) and when sports teams pray before a game. If both teams are praying, what exactly do they expect? That always flumergated me!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:44 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Riona,

Quote:
Sorry, I just feel bad for these folk.

I think you're right to feel bad for them; that is the worst form of "striving" or "craving" we've been discussing, isn't it?

That second part is some of what's caused me to be prejudiced against some Christians, too. The stuff we hear from some people, like how this or that event was because of something they did, etc. (like the earthquakes) makes me fume. Judgmentalism at its very WORST, and from my viewpoint, not at all Christian.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:45 PM

I was mostly being clever, but, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Virtues

So Christianity does suggest more than just the ten commandments in regards to how people should act.

Several sects believed that the people who would enter heaven were predetermined, and that all indication of WHO they were would be according to whether they acted in accordance to the virtues (looking at you, Calvinism). But they're highly recommended by all the other sects as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:18 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Just a general comment about religion: if something requires faith, it's my conclusion that it's b/c it doesn't work overall at any level - practically, psychologically, or socially. Faith is the patch that covers the bleeding wound of lack of benefit.

It's possible to posit a set of social rules which are pacific, survivable, and sustainable and which create that exact kind of society as a logical result of following those rules. Such a set of rules would require no faith, since the benefits would be immediately and practically apparent to everyone.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:03 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, Oppy, you're probably long gone by now, given how long it took me to work out my reply to Riona and now to you, but maybe you'll come back. And yes, I post almost exclusively in RWED; I run a forum on mental illness so post most of my personal stuff there, and I've gotten to know the "regulars" on RWED so feel comfortable with them (believe it or not!).

The afterlife. That's a real toughie. I'll give it a try. (I gave it a try and at the end came up with MY answer to your question, so skip all this and go to the end if you want.)

Reincarnation isn't what most people think it is. It's awfully complex and I shouldn't even try to go into it, because I'm going to give you an erroneous picture unless I go into it ALL, which would go on forever! And of course, it's slightly different depending on which buddhist teachings one follows.

Quote:
The basic doctrine is that the evolving consciousness or stream of consciousness upon death (or "the dissolution of the aggregates"), becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new aggregation. The consciousness in the new person is neither identical to nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream. Rebirth is conditioned by the karmas (actions of body, speech and mind) of previous lives; good karmas will yield a happier rebirth, bad karmas will produce one which is more unhappy. The basic cause for this is the abiding of consciousness in ignorance: when ignorance is uprooted, rebirth ceases.

In other words, reaching nirvanna is the end of rebirth, and nirvanna is reached by being able to see the real world (not the one we live in, which is made up of our subjective view). I'm not convinced on this one, as I think karma is more a matter of what we need to learn; even good karma may give us a new life that's hard, so we can learn something we haven't yet.

That "aggregate" thing, let's see if I can dig out something on that:

Quote:
Observation reveals consciousness as a sequence of conscious moments rather than a continuum of awareness. Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state such as a thought, a memory, a feeling or a perception. A mind-state arises, exists and, being impermanent, ceases, following which the next mind-state arises. Thus the consciousness of a sentient being can be seen as a continuous series of birth and death of these mind-states.

In other words, we are all "aggregates", which dissolve to become part of another aggregation. So "death" isn't the way we usually think of death...it's kind of like taking something apart and putting it back together with parts from outside the original and leaving out some of the original parts...do you see why it's impossible to explain?

Plugging on. I'll try to pick out the pertinent parts, because I'm nowhere near able to explain it in my own words:

Quote:
Within one life and across multiple lives, the empirical, changing self not only objectively affects its surrounding external world, but also generates (consciously and unconsciously) its own subjective image of this world, which it then lives in as 'reality'. It lives in a world of its own making in various ways. It furthermore selectively notices from among such objects, and then processes what has been sensed to form a distorted interpretive model of reality: a model in which the 'I am' conceit is a crucial reference point. When nirvana (vanishing of the self-idea) is experienced, though, all such models are transcended: the world stops 'in this fathom-long carcase'.

That doesn't make sense unless you understand that in buddhism, we aren't "IN" the real world; our "realities" are subjective, and only through much effort can we see the REAL world. In Zen buddhism, we meditate trying to use "bare attention" to observe the endless round of mind-states without interfering, owning or judging. This limits the power of desire which, according to the second noble truth of Buddhism, is the cause of suffering. Physically that means sitting still and looking about three feet ahead on the ground, but not FOCUSING on anything. If a bug crawls by, to be AWARE of that bug, but not look at it, engage with it, think about it or act in any way. The same with our thoughts and emotions: to be aware of them, but not "own" them, and if we can do that well enough, we'll see how we've viewed the world subjectively and be able to see the REAL world. In theory, anyway; again, that is nirvana and we don't expect to achieve it.

Again, I'll look to others to explain better than I can.

Quote:
Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person; for instance, John being reborn as a cat in the next life. This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism. Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends down through humans to "hellish beings". These ten realms are "mutually pervasive and mutually inclusive, each one having in it the remaining nine realms." For example, the realm of human beings has all the other nine states (from hellish being to Buddhahood). We are at the same time capable of real selfishness, creating our own hell, or true compassion, reflecting the compassion of Buddha. Buddhas too have the other nine realms in their minds, for how can a Buddha possibly save those suffering if he himself does not identify with their suffering and guide them to enlightenment?

So reincarnation is kind of the soul's karma becoming a "germ of consciousness" in the womb. It's not really "rebirth" as we think of it, it's the concept of aggregates. We are many parts, some of our parts provide the seed, others go out into the universe to become part of another seed, and parts from others come in to join the aggregate that is the seed. Only if one of the aggregates manages to reach nirvana does it cease being reborn.

Ach, I can't do it. And it's a long way around to answer your question. If reincarnation is as the above, I believe in it. But different teaching say different things, and the one that says we come back as a human or an animal or a ghost, depending on our karma, I don't believe. I'm still trying to learn enough to see if I can integrate the two.

But yes, I do believe in "something". Actually, leaving all the buddhist stuff out of it, I CAN explain it, despite the buddhist belief explaining it in more detail. I've mentioned it before; I believe that, given we use so little of our brains, IF we ever evolved to use all of them, we'd evolve beyond the fallacy of subjective reality, which is what causes war, suffering, hatred, all that stuff--the "I" world. Not that all that wouldn't BE there, just that we wouldn't "engage" it. As in meditation, we could let it go but be aware of it. IF the entire species got there, all that stuff just wouldn't "be", it wouldn't be necessary and we'd have no interest in it.

To be clear, I have NO hope of that happening, in my lifetime or probably any other, and I'm quite content to accept the world as it is and people as they are and recognize that the world I see, I see through my own "veils", experience, lessons, etc. Just like nirvana, I have no expectation of getting there, I just know it's "out there" somewhere and worth believing in.

And that's the best I can do. I've spent all day in this forum (bad girl!) and hours trying to explain stuff, and I'm exhausted. Time to eat and go watch something mindless, my brain hurts. ;o) I gotta say before I go, tho', this has been one of the best discussions I've ever been part of here; I've learned a lot about Christianity that I didn't understand before and hopefully shared some of my own faith which might help someone understand buddhism a bit better. And not a snark to be seen anywhere! You guys made my day.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:37 PM

Have a good meal. When you come back, here's some further clarification about original sin.

It wasn't so much eating the forbidden fruit or anything that created original sin, but rather what it represented. Knowledge of good and evil, in way way, CREATES that evil, and unleashed it on humanity. Presumably that's the whole reason why God was trying to discourage the whole defying thing.

So there's two possibilities for Satan's role in all that, angels aren't supposed to have free will, so either God controlled him by manipulating him into corrupting humanity, or that was the plan all along.

Humans, however, were supposed to get free will all along, so whether God was trying to spare them from making that mistake or he was actually encouraging it, he knew it was going to happen.

Now, original sin only is passed down from the father, because it goes back to Adam. Not Eve. Eve was tricked, and so she didn't defy God of her own will. But Adam defied God to stay with Eve.

And either God was angry and threw a hissy fit that Adam didn't have his whole devotion, or, that's the way he wanted it to happen all along.

One last note: the Immaculate Conception doesn't refer to God visiting Mary and whatever, that's the Annunciation. Rather, the immaculate conception was manuevering circumstances so MARY did not have original sin, and so was a suitable host/mother for his son.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:48 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

This has been interesting.

There was a very old cave in S Africa, with a stone that naturally looked like a serpent and human-made high quality stone arrow tips (if I remember right) from 40,000 years ago at least (some believe they are as old as 75,000 years).

I link the 'knowledge of good and evil' with abstract language, and the ability to create ideas of that which doesn't exist.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 4:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I know about original sin and the Adam/Eve stuff. I knew it was "knowledge", but I didn't know it was knowledge of good and evil. That's a very different thing. Interesting to contemplate what the world would be if that hadn't happened, but to imagine that you have to conceive of a world without knowledge of evil, which I think is beyond me. I also can't understand why God would control things so that the knowledge was "given" to them all along anyway, that seems a terribly cruel thing to do. If they were given free will, it would seem more right to let them be tempted down the line somewhere on their own, instead of manipulating it. "God" is very confusing to me.

So, are women free of original sin? If it's passed through the father, sounds like they get a free "pass"! And in only blaming Adam, it seems unfair--given man's, ahem, "drives", it would seem to me HE didn't have totally free will--tho' I get the flaw in that, he should have overcome those drives, etc.

Was the big problem that he stayed with Eve rather than going with God? I never heard that part, could you elucidate for me, please? Or did I just read it wrong?

The whole immaculate conception is beyond me, I'm afraid.

Thanx Byte!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 4:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki:

Quote:
abstract language, and the ability to create ideas of that which doesn't exist.

Are you saying God didn't WANT humans to have that?? Boy, we'd sure be a boring lot, and incapable of evolving past Adam and Eve then, wouldn't we?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:30 AM

Quote:
I also can't understand why God would control things so that the knowledge was "given" to them all along anyway, that seems a terribly cruel thing to do.

Could be, but if you look at God as a parent, then he had to let them go someday.

And when they're "adult" enough to recognize the evils in the world, and love a partner more than big daddy, that's probably a good time.

My WTF @ the Christian God more comes in with the whole apocalypse thing.

Quote:
So, are women free of original sin? If it's passed through the father, sounds like they get a free "pass"! And in only blaming Adam, it seems unfair--given man's, ahem, "drives", it would seem to me HE didn't have totally free will--tho' I get the flaw in that, he should have overcome those drives, etc.

Eve was, Lilith (Adam's first wife) was, and Mary was. All of Eve's children, daughters and sons and their daughters and sons and so on had original sin. Until Jesus' sacrifice.

Before Jesus, believers used to sacrifice animals to try to gain God's forgiveness for original sin. Jesus was another sacrifice, and he didn't get RID of original sin, obviously we clearly still can defy God, and be tempted, and there's still good and evil, and we can still love and hope and create. But the symbolism of that act was supposed to be God creating a new covenant through the sacrifice of his son and absolving humanity of original sin. So it's "Okay" now that we have the potential to do evil, and be flawed, people will just be judged by what evil they DO commit, instead of the sins of the fathers.

Quote:
I link the 'knowledge of good and evil' with abstract language, and the ability to create ideas of that which doesn't exist.

1kiki, I agree, I put those in there as well. You can't tell a story without conflict, you can't paint a masterpiece without feeling.

Quote:
Are you saying God didn't WANT humans to have that?? Boy, we'd sure be a boring lot, and incapable of evolving past Adam and Eve then, wouldn't we?

No, he wanted us to have free will, that's what prompted Satan to "rebel" against God (because angels don't get free will and he was jealous), which God had also planned all along.

Them taking the fruit and gaining knowledge of good and evil had to be a CHOICE or they wouldn't have gotten free will after all. Him forbidding them from the fruit was so they'd have to choose to defy God, and they'd break free and have free will.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 6:22 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I don't know; it all sounds like pettiness, manipulation and taking advantage of his power to me; it's self-contradictory in so many ways, that I'm afraid if I believed in a god, I wouldn't like this one!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 7:24 AM

Well, that's why I didn't get into the apocalypse. Don't want to offend anyone here with my feelings on that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 11:33 AM

And why I am refraining from comment entire.
Interesting discussion, but nothing I can add to it that won't start a needless, pointless brawl.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 11:37 AM

Yeah. I was trying to put as positive a light on it as I could, just to be fair, but there's interpretations of it all that don't sit well with me. And that's why I'll never be Christian.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 2:40 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

Byte, I don't mean to be rude but.

Your writings upon this matter do not reflect how many/most Christians believe. I think you've done some research and combined all the things you've found from all sorts of Judaeism, Kabala included, and some writings you've found about ideas that have been tossed around among people from the middle ages forward. Like Lilith, I've never met anyone who actually believes in that. Sure you might be able to find someone somewhere, but I've never met any. And the idea that Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover our own sins, just innate sin is totally something I've never heard of, I've never met a Christian who thinks that. I know that you're just researching and trying to find out about stuff, but a lot of this is so obscure and, in my opinion, way off the normal belief patterns of any Christians I've known. Of course you can post whatever you want to and I think you're possibly enjoying the research, but I have to qualify to those reading that aren't CHristians that I don't know anyone who believes in some of these things. Some of them of course I've heard of and they are things that theologians have debated for a long time.

I did find it really funny when you said "Here's looking at you Calvinism", that made me laugh, you have a fun way of putting things sometimes.

As for the idea of earning plusses next to your name in the Book of Life, I don't know, I have to admit that my dad does sort of believe in that, he's mentioned it before, but its not something that really concerns me, but it is a common enough belief, at least I think it is.

I've always understood angels to have been given a point in time, or before time but that's another story, where they were given a choice what they wanted to do and that's when the whole Lucifer/Satan thing went down. And yes, the Old Testament does mention that angels were able to come to earth for a time and rut with women and have babies but that was discontinued, apparently it was seen as problematic. I don't know a lot about it so lots of people speculate about what that meant, I don't know so I won't comment, I'm open minded about that one.

About God and gender: I believe God has the emotional and understanding capacities of both. He refers to Himself as male so that's what we call him, but I believe that he has both paternal and maternal feelings for us and the rest of it, He isn't confined or limited. That's something most Christians don't seem to talk about for whatever reason but I don't mind at all and I've thought about it.

I agree Niki, this has been a nice discussion, maybe because the people who seem to be taking part in it are fairly able to discuss things in a "rational" way and not devolve into flaming.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 2:42 PM

Reread Malachite's first post up above, apparently he DOES believe in original sin. In fact, this is the most common interpretation of the sacrifice I've encountered.

Actually, that may be tricky with the program you use, I found it:

Quote:
Christianity built upon Judaism as its foundation and claims to be the fullfillment of Jewish Law. It starts with the same premise, that mankind is not perfect, that we are not only not able to love perfectly, but also actually deliberately choose to defy what God wants of us (starting with Adam and Eve).

...

In order to assuage this punishment, the Jews established a sacrificial system by which the blood of animals acted as a substitute for their own blood.

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Sin

I've never encountered a sect that believes Christ's sacrifice removed ALL sin. Which sect are you?

Perhaps this is only a Mormon thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 3:08 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Christian_views

No, not just Mormons, I found this on wikipeda as well.

Quote:
Almost all Christian groups regard Jesus as the "Savior and Redeemer", as the Messiah (Greek: Christos; English: Christ) prophesied in the Old Testament,[408] who, through his life, death, and resurrection, restored humanity's communion with God in the blood of the New Covenant. His death on a cross is understood as the redemptive sacrifice: the source of humanity's salvation and the atonement for sin,[409] which had entered human history through the sin of Adam.[410]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 4:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Byte, I don't mean to be rude but.

Your writings upon this matter do not reflect how many/most Christians believe. I think you've done some research and combined all the things you've found from all sorts of Judaeism, Kabala included, and some writings you've found about ideas that have been tossed around among people from the middle ages forward. Like Lilith, I've never met anyone who actually believes in that. Sure you might be able to find someone somewhere, but I've never met any. And the idea that Christ's sacrifice doesn't cover our own sins, just innate sin is totally something I've never heard of, I've never met a Christian who thinks that. I know that you're just researching and trying to find out about stuff, but a lot of this is so obscure and, in my opinion, way off the normal belief patterns of any Christians I've known. Of course you can post whatever you want to and I think you're possibly enjoying the research, but I have to qualify to those reading that aren't CHristians that I don't know anyone who believes in some of these things. Some of them of course I've heard of and they are things that theologians have debated for a long time.

Byte's interpretation was pretty much what I was taught when I was young, although I had forgotten most of it, she is promting my memory and it sounds familiar. I had forgotten that the Immaculate Conception referred the fact that Mary was without original sin and not her 'virgin' status.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 4:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Have a good meal. When you come back, here's some further clarification about original sin.

It wasn't so much eating the forbidden fruit or anything that created original sin, but rather what it represented. Knowledge of good and evil, in way way, CREATES that evil, and unleashed it on humanity. Presumably that's the whole reason why God was trying to discourage the whole defying thing.

So there's two possibilities for Satan's role in all that, angels aren't supposed to have free will, so either God controlled him by manipulating him into corrupting humanity, or that was the plan all along.

Humans, however, were supposed to get free will all along, so whether God was trying to spare them from making that mistake or he was actually encouraging it, he knew it was going to happen.

Now, original sin only is passed down from the father, because it goes back to Adam. Not Eve. Eve was tricked, and so she didn't defy God of her own will. But Adam defied God to stay with Eve.

And either God was angry and threw a hissy fit that Adam didn't have his whole devotion, or, that's the way he wanted it to happen all along.

One last note: the Immaculate Conception doesn't refer to God visiting Mary and whatever, that's the Annunciation. Rather, the immaculate conception was manuevering circumstances so MARY did not have original sin, and so was a suitable host/mother for his son.

An explanation of the Tree of Knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil

A puzzling part of Genesis for me. God created man in his own image, but didn't want him to have knowledge of good and evil. It always seemed to me that the OT God was such a domineering father/judge character, who didn't want his 'children' to grow up and think independantly. It is interesting that the serpent promised them wisdom, but what they got was shame about their own nakedness. Kind of reminds me of adolescence and how 'shame' particularly shame around sexuality is such a feature, particularly of course when you've not been informed about your own sexuality and lived in the "Garden of Eden" of childhood. Eve WAS singled out for punishment by God by the way, by being given labour pains for her part of the downfall of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 4:53 PM

Quote:
but didn't want him to have knowledge of good and evil.

Depends on whether you believe a person only has choice and free will if they can recognize good and evil.

Quote:
Eve WAS singled out for punishment by God by the way, by being given labour pains for her part of the downfall of man.

Hadn't heard that one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:26 PM

It's in Genesis

16 To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

I'm not sure that the Bible identifies the Serpent as Satan. It's not in Genesist in any event. According to the text, wasn't the serpent just a crafty animal whom God punishes anyway for his part in the downfall of Man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:30 PM

Well, the second part's been true since he tried to force that crap on Lilith.

Yeah, the Satan/Lucifer/snake thing has never been strongly collaborated, though there is some suggestion of it in Revelations, which was written much later.

The snake is likely a symbol from another pre-Judaic religion, some kinda bronze snake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehushtan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:38 PM

I think that is the difference between certain kinds of Christianity. As a Catholic, the whole Lucifer/Angel thing was never really emphasised or discussed. That seems to be something taken up by the more Pentacostal??? types of christianity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:39 PM

Hmm, no, I don't think that's it. John Milton wasn't a pentecostal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:42 PM

I read somewhere that the serpent may not have been a snake.....

Anyway, it's kind of an odd story when you look at it. God's kind of mischevious, really, especially if you consider the implications of him being the father and adam and eve the children. "Now kids, I've got this special tree with really delicious looking fruit, only you mustn't eat of it under any circumstance." Really???!!! How did he imagine it would all turn out...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hmm, no, I don't think that's it. John Milton wasn't a pentecostal.

I'm not so good on naming sects of Christianity. I could also have just forgotten a lot of stuff.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:46 PM

Quote:
Really???!!! How did he imagine it would all turn out...

I think that might have been the whole point of the "supposed to have free will/ defy him" thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hmm, no, I don't think that's it. John Milton wasn't a pentecostal.

I'm not so good on naming sects of Christianity. I could also have just forgotten a lot of stuff.

Protestant?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 9:37 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I believe that Satan probably came and appeared as a serpent or took over its body or something. Seems a lil unfair to punish snakes for all time, but it isn't my place to decide what is fair and not. Plus snakes are unique and fun to learn about so it isn't such a horrid thing for them to crawl on their bellies really, I doubt they mind. My question as a girl was "If the serpent could talk, then could all of the animals talk before sin? I suspect now that Satan just took the form of a snake and that there wasn't a regular snake involved, but I don't know. Maybe all the animals talked and that's why Eve wasn't too shocked with the whole talking serpent thing. :)) I would like it if animals talked, way to go screwing it all up for us Adam and Eve, :).

Do you guys remember that episode of Star Trek where they land on this planet with no rules, well almost no rules, and Wesley breaks the only rule there is? I guess I think of it a little like that. As people we tend to push our limits. Its easy for me to say "No way would I have eaten from that tree, it was the only thing I wasn't supposed to do so why rock the boat, I could do anything else I wanted." But I wasn't there so I don't really know what I'd have done. I just get annoyed when people think it was an apple, why? What do apples have to do with ANYTHING? I bet it was a fruit that we don't have anymore.

Eve and Adam both got punishments, Eve would have a hard time in childbirth and Adam would have to work very hard to make a living from the earth, no more easy peasy plentiful year round fruit bearing trees.

Mary without sin: That does sound like something some Catholics would believe. I don't believe that though, I believe that Mary was a girl who was devoted to God but who was very much human in all ways. But a lot of Catholics feel differently than I do.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 12, 2011 9:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:

Eve and Adam both got punishments, Eve would have a hard time in childbirth and Adam would have to work very hard to make a living from the earth, no more easy peasy plentiful year round fruit bearing trees.

Given that women have also had to toil in the fields over millenium and in some cultures do all the agricultural work, looks like they got the worse deal

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
But yes, I do believe in "something". Actually, leaving all the buddhist stuff out of it, I CAN explain it, despite the buddhist belief explaining it in more detail. I've mentioned it before; I believe that, given we use so little of our brains, IF we ever evolved to use all of them, we'd evolve beyond the fallacy of subjective reality, which is what causes war, suffering, hatred, all that stuff--the "I" world. Not that all that wouldn't BE there, just that we wouldn't "engage" it. As in meditation, we could let it go but be aware of it. IF the entire species got there, all that stuff just wouldn't "be", it wouldn't be necessary and we'd have no interest in it.

Sorry about the delayed response. Very interesting Niki. I think along the same line you do. Humans are selfish. It is hardwired in our genes as a survival measure(hunter/gatherer) to ensure we survive....but in our present society causes more trouble than good. I figure a hundred thousand years from now we will have evolved away from that completely. Provided we are still on this planet(doubt it).
Regarding the afterlife, I have done much research on it, and it is highly intriguing to say the very least. Many books have I read about people that have been revived after a death experience(some over an hour). Some written by the doctors that brought them back, others by the survivors themselves. Most have euphoric experiences of the pinnacle of happiness. Absolutely spiritual, and 100% unexplainable. This is the spur....this keeps my faith in a higher power. God.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Humans are selfish. It is hardwired in our genes as a survival measure(hunter/gatherer) to ensure we survive....but in our present society causes more trouble than good.

I'd like to see you make a case for that in light of recent scientific evidence completely debunking that claim - humans are naturally COOPERATIVE in order to ensure survival, something both Rosseau and Kropotkin pointed out very effectively, and the reseach of Doctor Bruce M Perry, CITIVAS and many others has all but outright confirmed it - that whole "selfish man" song and dance is a bad bill of goods, a false notion that people need to be controlled "for their own good", that is always, ALWAYS sold by bastards holding a leash in the other hand and a firm idea of who should be doing the controlling.

You can teach people to be like that, condition them to be, and sometimes it might even work, but you're working completely against the natural instincts - which is what I have long suspected is one of the root causes of aberrant behavior amongst public school "educated" is because of the mixed messages from their natural instincts, empathy, trust, cooperation - and what is required to "succeed" in a society gone rabid, exploitation, hatred, deceit... causing all manner of mental static which makes em act out, and we can't admit that so we create cute little labels for it and try to mitigate resistance with drugs or abusive conditioning.

And all that time, all that work, invested in trying as hard as possible, in every way, at every turn and corner every minute of the day via social indoctrination, marketing, so-called "education", mass media - in an effort to create sociopaths, and it FAILS.

Because NATURE ALWAYS WINS.

And humans are, by nature, empathic and cooperative - you can twist it, warp it, but grind it out ?
Unless you're starting with someone already badly damaged upstairs, honestly I don't think you can.

Besides which that whole myth is also part of the "born better - born bad" bullshit spectrum that folks shovel in order to deny their own complicity in systems and social structures that are destructive to humanity.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 4:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oppy, Frem, it's funny, I agree with BOTH of you to an extent, and in other ways, not. I don't thing humans are born selfish per se--tho', Frem, if you look at babies, the "I" this is pretty much what's in charge until they reach the point of recognizing other entites. At the same time, from that moment on they DO attempt to become part of the "pack". That's kind of what I see.

But yes, we are cooperative as a species, without a doubt. That's part of the angst of being a teenager and wanting to "fit in", why psychopaths are often found to be loners, why people can become RWAs so easily, why religion has such a hold, and why nationalism creates wars. To a degree. There's much more to it, of course, but it seems to me to be pretty much our makeup.

Then again, when it comes to the very bottom line, we, like all species, are "selfish" insofar as the survival instinct. Every creature wants to survive, so it goes back to being an "I" thing--obviously with exceptions.

So it's kind of both, as I see it. And I think, Frem, you view the world through the "veil" of your own experiences a lot, too, so I'm not as hard-core against some of the things you are; I think education is much more complex and not as evil as you see it.

No, I don't think we'll be around a thousand years from now. I don't know how you break/lose all the "stuff" we carry around. As our population increased, from Day One forward we have expanded, conquered, etc., and we're running out of expanding room. I look at our ability to move out into the universe as opposed to how fast our population is increasing, and don't see a lot of hope. And maybe that's a good thing; not sure I'd wish us on the universe as we are...

For me, I don't believe in an afterlife per se, it's not logical to me. I do believe in some form of spirit, soul, whatever, which can move on, but as an individual, no. And when it comes to God, I don't buy it at all; this very discussion is an example of why I don't. It's just too much "myth", there are too many similiarities to ALL "religions", one can be an outgrowth of another, two completely different ones can come up with so many similiarities, and mankind needed "something" to explain the mysteries of the universe, so it's not surprising to me that myths would develop along a similar line. But to believe one over another, with all the illogic, discrepancies, etc., inherent in all, isn't something I can invest myself in.

From all I've read here, the concept of Christian God seems to be of a very capricious, selfish, domineering patriarch, which pretty much defines any god of any religion, and depends on worship, submission, unquestioning acceptance on the part of humans. Good way to control them, but not logical at all. That's just how I see it. The final nail in the coffin for me is people being so adamant in every religion that if you don't accept THEIR god, you're doomed. That's an incredibly human concept, and has never turned out to be a good one. So I'll stick with buddhism.

Oppy, no problem with delayed response; I run through the list of topics most every morning, so if it's a topic I've been involved in and followed, I'll check out anything new. On MY side, apologies for the ridiculously long diatribe on buddhist reincarnation; that paragraph was all you needed, I got caught up in trying to explain things I shouldn't have been trying to explain. Thanx for your response.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:03 PM

Well, sure, it's the dichotomy of the human condition, but there's a difference between simple self-preservation and exploiting and/or harming others for deliberate gain.
I mean, we've all done things to preserve our existance or procure our survival that we're probably not real proud of, especially those of us who've been really poor...
But there's a line there, that once crossed, changes the dynamic from self-preservation into predation.

I posit that if the "selfish-man" theory was actually true, then when faced with a choice of cooperation versus competition, humans would not generally choose cooperation - and yet they do, often when there is little to no benefit to them, simply out of social impulse and a desire for mutual company.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:51 PM

THEHAPPYTRADER

Banding together does advance one's self interest and can still be considered the result of 'selfish' motivations. I guess it's all in how you define 'selfishness.'

I like to help people out when I am able. I like helping them, seeing them happier and feeling good about myself, but the case could be made that the manner in which is benefits me makes it 'selfish' behavior.

I also do this because I believe it was what Jesus wants us to do, along with forgiveness and unconditional love. The same behaviors he's shown us. Is that selfish? Domineering? Capricious?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:57 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Y'all Christians bitching about this DO realize that Christ was never a Christian, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 18, 2011 6:48 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I believe that each of us is part selfish and part cooperation. How much of each we are depends on a lot of factors, but we all have both in us, the selfishness and the kindness, those are the two sides in us all and to deny one or the other is simplistic and rather childish and lacks realisticness.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

From all I've read here, the concept of Christian God seems to be of a very capricious, selfish, domineering patriarch, which pretty much defines any god of any religion, and depends on worship, submission, unquestioning acceptance on the part of humans. Good way to control them, but not logical at all. That's just how I see it. The final nail in the coffin for me is people being so adamant in every religion that if you don't accept THEIR god, you're doomed. That's an incredibly human concept, and has never turned out to be a good one. So I'll stick with buddhism.

Personally I have never understood why God, and Organized religion have to be mutually exclusive.

Also, something I find interesting is that Einstein believed(as does Stephen Hawking) that God does not exist. Yet both are certain that somewhere in space aliens abound. Quick to discount people that worship a higher power....yet little green men? Just seems strange to me.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 1:20 PM

One theory says that it would be a pretty huge and empty universe if we were the only intelligent life that ever existed, and the others says that there is a being that created the universe and everything in it /additionally some believe that that being exists and knows all our inner thoughts and watches over humanity and sends help sometimes when we ask for it/ additionally some believe that that being judges us on our thoughts and actions and decides what happens when each of us dies/ additionally some believe that we are joined together with that being and others if we and they have been deemed by that being to be worthy and that place is kind of a different plane that can't be seen or experienced by the living.

so quite different theories and beliefs really

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

Also, something I find interesting is that Einstein believed(as does Stephen Hawking) that God does not exist. Yet both are certain that somewhere in space aliens abound. Quick to discount people that worship a higher power....yet little green men? Just seems strange to me.

1) I have never heard it claimed that Einstein believed that "god" does not exist.

2) I have likewise never heard it claimed that either he or Hawking were "certain" that space aliens abound.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

1) I have never heard it claimed that Einstein believed that "god" does not exist.

2) I have likewise never heard it claimed that either he or Hawking were "certain" that space aliens abound.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422/ns/technology_and_science-space/t
/hawking-aliens-may-pose-risks-earth/

Einstein didn't believe in God.

----------------------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

1) I have never heard it claimed that Einstein believed that "god" does not exist.

2) I have likewise never heard it claimed that either he or Hawking were "certain" that space aliens abound.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36769422/ns/technology_and_science-space/t
/hawking-aliens-may-pose-risks-earth/

According to the article, Hawking believes aliens "almost certainly" exist. Of course, he's also said that the universe doesn't NEED a god to explain its origins. But none of those are hard-and-fast claims of certitude, are they?

Quote:

Einstein didn't believe in God.

I think you mean he didn't believe in YOUR god.

From the Wiki:

Quote:
On 24 April 1929, Einstein cabled Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in German: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[1]

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." Einstein as an "agnostic" has been referred to as an agnostic theist, sometimes called as a form of deism or pantheism. Einstein referred to his belief system as "cosmic religion", and authored an eponymous article on the subject in 1954 which became a book in 1955. The belief system recognized a "miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature as well as in the world of ideas", rejected a personal deity who rewards and punishes, rejected a conflict between science and religion, and moreover held that cosmic religion was necessary for science. "God," he says, "is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified."

And there are his own words, such as "God does not play dice with the universe!" and "My sense of God is my sense of wonder about the universe."

None of those really sound like disbelief in a god or absolute certainty of aliens.

Personally, I've seen more evidence of alien life in the universe than I have of any gods.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 19, 2011 11:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Personally, I've seen more evidence of alien life in the universe than I have of any gods.

Well of course, you live in Texas, and there's governor goodhair as a prime example, right ?

Quote:
"That disguise is terrible, this guy's obviously an alien"
-Agent J

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:13 AM

Good point, Frem. I've been kind of idly wondering, *IF* (big "if" there) Perry did manage to get himself elected President of a country he has expressed a desire to secede from, could Texas still then secede? Bit of bitter irony there, yeah? We send him to DC and then we stick the rest of you unlucky bastards with him and go on our merry way!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:42 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

God is necessarily an extra-terrestrial, as are the angels. By definition.

Any debate between Gods and Aliens is a debate about capability, motivation, and history.

But aliens? That's a concept that Christians and Scientists agree on, even if they don't realize it.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 20, 2011 6:04 AM