Many Paths, One Destination

[Slipped Mickey]

On another thread CPWill has asked an interesting question concerning my statement regarding religion "many paths, one destination". Not wishing to divert that excellent discourse on the other thread I thought CP's question might be addressed here.

CP: ...and if my path is via blowing up abortion clinics or world trade centers?

SM: ...I don't see people who blow up abortion clinics or WTCs in the name of God as religious. They are fanatics, fundamentalists whose claim connection to major religions. In practice these cults have more in common with each other than the faiths they claim to defend.

CP: however, here we definitely have people who are claiming (and truly believing) that "their path" involves these actions; so are you willing to now say that all paths' don't lead to the same destination, that there are limitations at which point your path is not leading to that destination. if so, what are these limits?

SM: Again, I have to say that I do not consider religious fundamentalism (as it is practiced today) to be a religion. Fanatics may think themselves to be following a religion but Jesus didn't teach people to murder abortion doctors and Mohammed didn't teach people to commit suicide in the name of God. Those acts are NOT religious acts.

[ukangel]

There is no doubt that the likes of OBL believe they have a spiritual basis for thier acts in fact the would regard Jihad as a duty and actions like 911 an act of piety. They believe they are the true face of Islam.

I am not sure about Christians who bomb abortion clinics I am not sure what the scriptual basis is for that.

[xexon]

All rivers run into the sea. Some are rapids, some lazy and quiet. We travel whatever path will make us into what we need to become.



x

[CyNix]

There is only one path. Why would a god create many paths that contradict each other; each path painting a different picture of God? Why not create one simple path going in the best direction?

[Slipped Mickey]

All rivers run into the sea. Some are rapids, some lazy and quiet. We travel whatever path will make us into what we need to become.



x
Beautiful and wise. Spoken with the experience, tolerance and the confidence of a soul well traveled.

Thank you,

Mick

[Slipped Mickey]

There is only one path. Why would a god create many paths that contradict each other; each path painting a different picture of God? Why not create one simple path going in the best direction?
God may never have created any paths. If here and now is where we are going we had no reason to leave! The paths are man's creations not God's. You mention people painting a different picture of God. Which picture is not correct? Why? How do you know?

What is more important?

[cpwill]

All rivers run into the sea. Some are rapids, some lazy and quiet. We travel whatever path will make us into what we need to become.

so then in your opinion if part of my religion involved blowing up abortion clinics then that, too, is a good and noble thing and will lead me to heaven?

Again, I have to say that I do not consider religious fundamentalism (as it is practiced today) to be a religion.

then you are inaccurate; religious fundamentalism, is, by it's very nature, religious. whether or not you agree with their interpretation of their respective Holy Texts is immaterial, they still look at it as "their way". the fact of the matter remains that this is their religion; if you wish to look at (say) shiite islam, it is even more pronounced than christianity or sunni islam, but that is only one example.

God may never have created any paths. If here and now is where we are going we had no reason to leave! The paths are man's creations not God's.

if that is the case then all of these paths are equally incorrect and will ultimately lead absolutely nowhere.

[Slipped Mickey]

so then in your opinion if part of my religion involved blowing up abortion clinics then that, too, is a good and noble thing and will lead me to heaven?



[QUOTE]then you are inaccurate; religious fundamentalism, is, by it's very nature, religious.
How?

whether or not you agree with their interpretation of their respective Holy Texts is immaterial, they still look at it as "their way". the fact of the matter remains that this is their religion; if you wish to look at (say) shiite islam, it is even more pronounced than christianity or sunni islam, but that is only one example.

if that is the case then all of these paths are equally incorrect and will ultimately lead absolutely nowhere.
Or is it not possible that ALL paths lead to God? Some paths may be painful to ourselves and to others, some paths may be circuitous, some may be long, some may be uphill, some may take people through darkness, some may be some ridiculously so short that some people don't believe it to the right path, some paths may be joyful and some paths, perhaps many paths are all of these things. In the end perhaps we all take the path that we need to take.

Few of us as it works out are ahead of anyone else. How would we know? How would I possibly know which is your path?

Gandhi, Jesus, the Buddha, Mother Teresa, Dr. Martin Luther King, and others apparently have reached the destination or at least they are much further ahead of the rest of us.

[cpwill]

How?


because it is religious fundamentalism. it's basis is in religion, it is based in their interpretation of religious documents and doctrines.:) if it was, say, political extremism it'd be a different matter.

Or is it not possible that ALL paths lead to God?

it is if you are willing to acknowledge the fact that you are going to dislike, even hate some of those paths. if you make the declaration that "all" paths lead to God then you have no leg to stand on to attack those who bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings based on their "path".

if you wish to disclude these things (you do, don't you?) from the list of paths that lead to God, then you are placing limits to determine the "correct" paths from the "incorrect" ones, and i have to ask how you make this determination and on what authority.

[MikeD4o7]

The problem with making a claim based on religion, is that it's subjective. You could put up fliers for a mass suicide around town, and when the authorities question you about it.. you could claim God told you to.

To anyone that claims God tells them anything, you really can't do anything other than shrug. They can't prove it, plenty of people claim it and claim that God has told them things which clearly contradict what God has supposedly told other people. There's never further explanation offered:

"God came to me and told me to condemn homosexuality"

"God told me I should sacrifice my son as a sign of obedience to him"

"God told me that I should go out and tell everyone who eats pork is going to burn"

The only common link I usually see is that God seems to tell people to do things that they would never be able to find a rational reason to do on their own.

[cpwill]

The problem with making a claim based on religion, is that it's subjective. You could put up fliers for a mass suicide around town, and when the authorities question you about it.. you could claim God told you to.

exactly; and you could even truly believe it.

To anyone that claims God tells them anything, you really can't do anything other than shrug. They can't prove it, plenty of people claim it and claim that God has told them things which clearly contradict what God has supposedly told other people.

yup:)

and since many are self contradictory; we are left with only two possible conclusions:

1) there are no paths to God.

2) there are correct path(s) to God and incorrect path(s) to God.

[Redheat]

and since many are self contradictory; we are left with only two possible conclusions:

1) there are no paths to God.

2) there are correct path(s) to God and incorrect path(s) to God.

3) There are DIFFERENT paths to God, none are all right nor all wrong. They are as personal and unique as the person that walks upon them.


All rivers run into the sea. Some are rapids, some lazy and quiet. We travel whatever path will make us into what we need to become.

Beautiful


I am not sure about Christians who bomb abortion clinics I am not sure what the scriptual basis is for that.

Not sure? What aren't you sure about? Are you implying that bombing innocent people and killing them in cold blood could be justified? I'm curious as to how you can find no justification in the actions of OBL yet you seem to leave room for those who bomb clinics. Clarification of this seemingly contridictory stance would be appreciated. Thanks.

Fundamentalist

2. support for literal explanation: the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted

IMO fundamentalist Christians like Falwell and those who stood outside Matthew Shepards funeral are not religious. They are consumed with being right and that morphs into hate. Hate isn't what religion embraces so when you cross over that line where your "religion" deems it right for you to hate and to not only hate but to destroy those you hate then you are no longer a part of the religion but have gone off onto a path that is far removed from the very thing you claim to speak for. The acts you perform then become not acts for God or in the name of God but for yourself because you are consumed with how YOU feel about God and how YOU feel about those who don't follow your path.

[mataj]

There is only one path. Why would a god create many paths that contradict each other; each path painting a different picture of God? Why not create one simple path going in the best direction?Because that makes no sense. By shunning unknown paths, we'll never find the truth- if there is any.
Peaceful is the ignorant man whose vision of Earth is bounded by hills and the seas behind. Such a man lives on a small island of ignorance, unaware of the oceans of maddening absurdities surrounding this small world. (The Necronomicon Project (http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/books/necro_proj/n_book2.html))


All rivers run into the sea.Ocean is a pretty big thing. Surface is usually featureless, but there are multitudes of interesting things and creatures underneath.


We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. (H.P.Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu)

[DRMIZER]

I am not sure about Christians who bomb abortion clinics I am not sure what the scriptual basis is for that.There is no reasonable explanation for bombing abortion clinics. If you are wondering if there is a rationale for this kind of behavior from any kind of supposed religion, I don't think you'll find one. The only thing I am sure of is that they have taken their religious beliefs to the level of insanity!!

[Slipped Mickey]

because it is religious fundamentalism. it's basis is in religion, it is based in their interpretation of religious documents and doctrines.:) if it was, say, political extremism it'd be a different matter.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Once you depart from the tenets of your faith and began to justify violence and hatred as part of your religion - you no longer have a religion. You may have the freedom to call it what you wish but saying it doesn't make it so.


it is if you are willing to acknowledge the fact that you are going to dislike, even hate some of those paths. if you make the declaration that "all" paths lead to God then you have no leg to stand on to attack those who bomb abortion clinics or fly planes into buildings based on their "path".

Well now, I see where we might be confused. I wasn't specific and it's likely the confusion is my fault. There are many paths, some may be spiritual paths, some may be religious paths, some may be neither. In the end the all lead to one destination. Are Randall Terry, the Pope, Charles Manson, Jerry Falwell, the Dalai Lama, you and I traveling toward one destination? Yep. It will take some of us longer than others but who is to say? All paths eventually lead to the same place. The choice is ours.

if you wish to disclude these things (you do, don't you?) from the list of paths that lead to God, then you are placing limits to determine the "correct" paths from the "incorrect" ones, and i have to ask how you make this determination and on what authority.
There are no incorrect paths. Some paths are painful, some are very long and dark, some are circuitous (I'm fairly certain I'm on that one!), there a no incorrect paths.

[CyNix]

God may never have created any paths. If here and now is where we are going we had no reason to leave! The paths are man's creations not God's.I hold the view that God reaches out to man. Many times man turns his back on God, in search of another god that would best suit his own purposes. That is the origin of nearly all paths.
You mention people painting a different picture of God. Which picture is not correct? Why? How do you know?There is only one God, and only one path to get to him.

[CyNix]

Why would a god create many paths that contradict each other; each path painting a different picture of God? Why not create one simple path going in the best direction?
Because that makes no sense. By shunning unknown paths, we'll never find the truth- if there is any.Why wouldn't a god create only one simple and direct path for us? All that we would have to do would be to find that one path. Only one leads to God. They can not all be right. Most cannot be right. They all lead in different directions. They do not cooperate; or even run parallel.

[mataj]

Why wouldn't a god create only one simple and direct path for us? How do you know there's only one god? Yea, allright, Jesus, for example, says he's the One (John 14:6, and such), but that's what they all say.

[Redheat]

There is only one God, and only one path to get to him.

So your faith dictates however Faith is not matter of fact. It's different for everyone, so you cannot claim something is "fact" when it's based in faith and you have no moral authority to speak for everyone's faith.

[Slipped Mickey]

I hold the view that God reaches out to man.
I don't know that God reaches out so much as God is loving compassion. Before we were born we were closer to the center of the Life Force or God. As we grow older we drift further away.

Many times man turns his back on God, in search of another god that would best suit his own purposes.
We are God. God is ALL. But do we look for an easy way to find God? Sure we do, we're human. We already have all the answers within us, it's that simple. But being human beings for the brief time we are here we'll look for a shortcut. I don't see as turning one's back - it'd be a little hard to do turning your back on yourself!

That is the origin of nearly all paths.

Maybe. I don't see that it matters, but you could be correct.

There is only one God, and only one path to get to him.
If God is ALL then we might assume that there is but one God. Your "one path" belief is fine with me. It doesn't harm me. And you are correct, I'll get you there.

[Larani]

I think as many can clearly see on this thread the distinction between Religion and Spirituality needs to be not only defined but also included respectfully.

Spirituality is one understanding of God and the universe. If one were to come upon a man sitting alone and ask what they were doing and he replied communing with God. That is a spiritual man. If on the other hand that same man came down built a building and started ordering and commanding people about based upon what God told him that is a religion.

I am not saying that Spiritual men do not share themselves and their beliefs or faiths the simply difference is how one goes about sharing themselves.

How do I distinguish men of spirit and men of religion? Simply I look for the Authority clause. For me by my spirit I have learned one thing God trusted us enough to be free whether that be to make mistakes or not. He could have Used his power, his Authority and imposed upon us and taken away our freedom but he did not.

I Know some might bring up the Great Flood to say Yeah he did. To which I would reply yeah even God makes boo boo's did he not admit it and say he promised not to do it again. What parent has never screwed up with their kids just once?

Now I know some will say that just a story, to which I would so OK but does the meaning / moral of the story change any knowing it is a story vs being real. Isn't the meaning / moral of the story real, and doesn't it stand on it own? And if it is just a story where did the writer get his or her inspiration to write such a story? Could he or she have been Communing with God?

I believe and I know many religious who want the power who want to be the right way who wants the bucks it provides being the way. Will claim Blasphemy but I believe God works through all of us whether we acknowledge it or not. This is how a atheist can be a good man and do good works even though he doesn't go to a particular church. In fact I find more spiritual men who are atheist and who do great works more then I find religious men.

So watch out for those imposers for I truly believe there imposters Wolves in Sheeps clothing.

[cpwill]

Saying it doesn't make it so. Once you depart from the tenets of your faith and began to justify violence and hatred as part of your religion - you no longer have a religion. You may have the freedom to call it what you wish but saying it doesn't make it so.

wrong; you have a religion by all definitions of the word "religion". it possibly could be argued that you no longer have the original religion, but instead a warped version of it, (in fact this is what i would argue) but to simply blithely label it "not religion" is to ignore all empirical evidence.

Well now, I see where we might be confused. I wasn't specific and it's likely the confusion is my fault. There are many paths, some may be spiritual paths, some may be religious paths, some may be neither.

we are talking about path's to God? how could a path to God not be spiritual?
and if you accept that non-spiritual paths lead to God, then how does this tie in with your (innacurate) claim that fundamentalists are not practicing a religion.

In the end the all lead to one destination.

which is what?

Are Randall Terry, the Pope, Charles Manson, Jerry Falwell, the Dalai Lama, you and I traveling toward one destination? Yep. It will take some of us longer than others but who is to say? All paths eventually lead to the same place. The choice is ours.

again, if all paths lead to the same place, then the logic also allows that suicide and abortion bombers will get to the same place.

There are no incorrect paths.

so then violence in the path wouldn't be a factor at all.

Some paths are painful, some are very long and dark, some are circuitous (I'm fairly certain I'm on that one!), there a no incorrect paths.

again, the idea that there are no incorrect paths naturally includes those who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings as individuals who are now on a "correct" path.

[Slipped Mickey]

wrong; you have a religion by all definitions of the word "religion". it possibly could be argued that you no longer have the original religion, but instead a warped version of it, (in fact this is what i would argue) but to simply blithely label it "not religion" is to ignore all empirical evidence.
There's nothing humorous about it. I don't know how I've given you that impression. I define religion as service to and faith in God. When people commit and support acts of murder and viloence as an expressed service to God they are no longer practicing a religion.


we are talking about path's to God? how could a path to God not be spiritual?
and if you accept that non-spiritual paths lead to God, then how does this tie in with your (innacurate) claim that fundamentalists are not practicing a religion.

If you'll recall I said earlier that I believe all paths lead to God. Certainly the path that Charles Manson has taken is not a spiritual path. It is a painful one and certainly a long and dark path but eventually it will lead to God.

Fundamentalists who commit and support acts of murder and violence as an expressed service to God are not practicing religion.

which is what?
God, the Life Force, Nivanah, Oneness, whatever you choose to call it.


again, if all paths lead to the same place, then the logic also allows that suicide and abortion bombers will get to the same place.


Either God is ALL or God is less than ALL. If God is ALL where else would these unfortunate people be? Sooner or later they will return to God.


so then violence in the path wouldn't be a factor at all.

Violence is a huge factor. IMHO violence is a path that leads one far, far away before it returns ever so slightly to begins to lead down the long, long and dark journey toward God.

again, the idea that there are no incorrect paths naturally includes those who bomb abortion clinics and fly planes into buildings as individuals who are now on a "correct" path.
IMHO there are neither correct nor incorrect paths. The choice is yours to make. I've yet to meet anyone who purposely wants to take the path of great and intolerable length, of pain and suffering.

[cpwill]

There's nothing humorous about it. I don't know how I've given you that impression. I define religion as service to and faith in God. When people commit and support acts of murder and viloence as an expressed service to God they are no longer practicing a religion.

they are living their life based upon their interpretation of religious texts and documents; attempting to live as God would have them live; i fail to see any reason to label what they are doing "not a religion". history is full of religions which killed, they do not become non-religions because they do not fall under your impression of what a religion should be, they simply become violent religions.

If you'll recall I said earlier that I believe all paths lead to God. Certainly the path that Charles Manson has taken is not a spiritual path. It is a painful one and certainly a long and dark path but eventually it will lead to God.

so in your opinion, abortion clinic bombers and islamic fundamentalist terrorists who murder civilians are also headed towards God? and if they are moving towards God, how is that not a spiritual path? that's like saying that just because you're driving down the road it doesn't mean you are operating or riding in a vehicle.

Fundamentalists who commit and support acts of murder and violence as an expressed service to God are not practicing religion.

no, they are not practicing what you think religion should be, because you have somewhat more pacifistic ideals of what religion should be. who makes you the judge of what is a faith and what is not. they are deliberately risking or sacrificing their lives in the trust and faith that God will take care of them in the afterlife; how is this not a faith.

God, the Life Force, Nivanah, Oneness, whatever you choose to call it.

so we become God? move into heaven? what?

Either God is ALL or God is less than ALL. If God is ALL where else would these unfortunate people be? Sooner or later they will return to God.

post death? then where do they go in the meantime? after they die and before they "return" that is. if your argument that God is All holds true through this, then they must have been God when they did their terrorist actions.

Violence is a huge factor. IMHO violence is a path that leads one far, far away before it returns ever so slightly to begins to lead down the long, long and dark journey toward God.

oh, so if i lead a nonviolent life then i will get to God quicker? if i live a violent life then i do (something) for a long time after i die before i return? what if i do violence for Good, stop a rape or a murder through violence? does this count as an anti-God diversion, or a pro-God diversion.

IMHO there are neither correct nor incorrect paths. The choice is yours to make. I've yet to meet anyone who purposely wants to take the path of great and intolerable length, of pain and suffering.

well of course, however, many people don't seem all that interested in pursuing much of a path at all. and recognizing humans as fallible creatures, would it not be rather safe to assume that their desire to be on a correct path does not necessarily translate into being on one? i wish i was 6'2 and 250 lb of pure muscle and that i had a million dollars and that pam mctear would show up at my door one day holding a bottle of champagne and wearing a smile. this in no way means that any of these things is likely at all to happen. even were i to try to make these things happen, i am not at all garunteed success.

the idea that because a person does not want to suffer means that they won't is utopianism.

[Jard]

they are living their life based upon their interpretation of religious texts and documents; attempting to live as God would have them live; i fail to see any reason to label what they are doing "not a religion". history is full of religions which killed, they do not become non-religions because they do not fall under your impression of what a religion should be, they simply become violent religions.

Violence has nothing to do with tadays estabilshed religions; this is a misconception "i am doing good by attacking" this is not true (could you imagin the pope using aggression if he could, jesus also never attacked anyone).

This is probably how the islamic extremists reason; they are doing good for the world by attacking america, and now guess what america thinks it is doing good by attacking terrorism both are wrong in my eyes.

Its always about good vs evil; but then everyone resorts to using evil. :confused:

aggression should not have a place in religion. Religion preaches love, tolerance and self sacrifice.

[mataj]

Violence has nothing to do with tadays estabilshed religions; Violence had everything to do with today's established religions. How do you think they became established? By fire and sword, there was no other way. Fire and sword won the initial moral capital. Now, when they are living on interest, old established religions can afford the luxury of being peaceful, loving, an tolerant, while upstarts are still being violent.

[Jard]

well then they should not call themselves religions, but extremist establishements and people who follow them are fools :mad:

[mataj]

well then they should not call themselves religions, but extremist establishements and people who follow them are fools :mad:Um... let's say former extreminst establishments & fools. I imagine, that Christians in ancient Rome were looked upon similarily as islamaniacs in the Western world today.

If Islam ever manages to become world's prevailing religion, 911 will become a noble act of sacrifice, and Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and such will be looked upon similarly as throwing Christians to the lions in Roman Empire. Anyone, who would disagree with this, would be burned at a stake, or at least frowned upon for his rudeness.

[cpwill]

Violence has nothing to do with tadays estabilshed religions; this is a misconception "i am doing good by attacking" this is not true (could you imagin the pope using aggression if he could, jesus also never attacked anyone).

except, of course, in the courtyard of the temple. furthemore if one were to gauge his verbal attacks you come across a much more aggressive jesus. if you take into account old testamet text you find more of this as you go along.

furthermore, the idea that you can never do good by attacking someone is also rather idealistic. if i witness a rape, and there are no police around, i cannot see how it would be moral for me to merely try to reason the rapist out of it. no, God would expect me to run over there at top speed and rip that man off of that poor woman. to act violently. you can use this justification for any number of examples; fighting wwII, a violent series of actions, yet rarely has anyone attempted to tell me that stopping hitler was immoral. same goes for police shooting a hostage taker before he detonates a bomb that would kill innocents.

This is probably how the islamic extremists reason; they are doing good for the world by attacking america, and now guess what america thinks it is doing good by attacking terrorism both are wrong in my eyes.

Its always about good vs evil; but then everyone resorts to using evil. :confused:

if one considers fighting evil to be evil, then yes, we are forced to resort to evil to fight evil.

aggression does not have a place in religion. Religion is about love, tolerance and self sacrifice.

then you haven't studied many religions. that or you have an incredibly odd definition of religion, one which precludes the vast majority of the world's believers.

my Oxford American Dictionary defines religion thus:

re-li-gion (ri-lij-on)n 1. belief in the existence of a superhuman controlling power, especially of God or gods, usually expressed in worship. 2. a particular system of faith and worship the christian religion. 3. something compared to religious faith as a controlling influence on a persons life football is his religion.

where does it say anything about violence being a determinating factor there?

[Jard]

furthermore, the idea that you can never do good by attacking someone is also rather idealistic. if i witness a rape, and there are no police around, i cannot see how it would be moral for me to merely try to reason the rapist out of it. no, God would expect me to run over there at top speed and rip that man off of that poor woman. to act violently. you can use this justification for any number of examples; fighting wwII, a violent series of actions, yet rarely has anyone attempted to tell me that stopping hitler was immoral. same goes for police shooting a hostage taker before he detonates a bomb that would kill innocents.

If a rapist sees you coming i would bet he would run off, if you stop the bomb that is going to kill thousands, no one dies; i'm not saying that not asking for retribution is hard, (nion impossible somtimes) however hitler came out of frances retribution to WW1.


if one considers fighting evil to be evil, then yes, we are forced to resort to evil to fight evil.

i reiterate - well then those who groups who reason like this should not call themselves religions, but extremist establishements and people who follow them are fools for believing in such a hypocritical system

[cpwill]

If a rapist sees you coming i would bet he would run off, if you stop the bomb that is going to kill thousands, no one dies;

in a perfect world, yes, however, in a perfect world there are no rapes, no bombs. so what do you do when your only chance to stop a murder is through a killing, what if the rapists doesn't leave but continues, what if hitler is slaughtering jews, what if the south is seceding so that it can continue to beat, murder, and treat human beings like cattle, what if a country or an organization is killing and continuing to kill innocents.

what then.

i reiterate - well then those who groups who reason like this should not call themselves religions, but extremist establishements and people who follow them are fools for believing in such a hypocritical system

the fact remains that these people are religious, albiet we both think it is an illigetimate faith. religious extremism is religious just as political extremism is political. to deny the roots is to live in a world of make-believe.

[Jard]

the fact remains that these people are religious, albiet we both think it is an illigetimate faith. religious extremism is religious just as political extremism is political. to deny the roots is to live in a world of make-believe.

A lot of weeding needs to be done and to do this the roots need to be removed.

Extremism is not going to be conquered by extremism just as evil is not going to to be the exterminator of eveil.

i guess you need "faith" in the world we live in a bit like with religion, this is exactly why i disagree with us foreign policy; the policy believes that fighting harder against extremism is going to work, it is not it just creates more extremism both internally and for the islamics.

Finding the The cause of the terrorism and treating it is the answer

[cpwill]

A lot of weeding needs to be done and to do this the roots need to be removed.

you are talking about the extermination of religion; in which case be prepared for the fact that i am going to fight you to the death.

Extremism is not going to be conquered by extremism just as evil is not going to to be the exterminator of eveil.

historically you are innacurate; this world is full of examples of one extremism conquering another, of one evil exterminating another evil.

i guess you need "faith" in the world we live in a bit like with religion, this is exactly why i disagree with us foreign policy; the policy believes that fighting harder against extremism is going to work, it is not it just creates more extremism both internally and for the islamics.

i don't think you are grasping US foriegn policy. we are not "fighting" some loose concept such as "extremism". we are hunting down all the members of a few extremist organizations and killing them. if this causes (temporarily) more to join their ranks, then they too shall die and so on, because it is either us or them; and it sure as heck aint' gonna be us.

Finding the The cause of the terrorism and treating it is the answer

and it never occured to you that perhaps terrorists cause terrorism?

[mataj]

Extremism is not going to be conquered by extremism just as evil is not going to to be the exterminator of eveil.Extremism will never be conquered, because it's in ourself. It could be controlled, but not eliminated.

[mataj]

you are talking about the extermination of religion;Religion, communism, some other ideology- it doesn't matter. Brand of extremism is about as important as colour of the bombs used. You wouldn't believe, how easy did multitude of people around here swithched from commie to catholic extremism.

It's the way of thinking and acting that defines the extremist, not the flowery phrases he uses.

[MikeD4o7]

i don't think you are grasping US foriegn policy. we are not "fighting" some loose concept such as "extremism". we are hunting down all the members of a few extremist organizations and killing them. if this causes (temporarily) more to join their ranks, then they too shall die and so on, because it is either us or them; and it sure as heck aint' gonna be us.


Or you could eliminate the real political greivances that they hide their murderous acts behind so that everyone in the world will be able to see their acts for exactly what they are... then you treat them as you would any ordinary psychotic criminal.

[cpwill]

however, since many of the "political grievances" are either illigetimate (we support the existance of israel), or innacurate (we are responsible for all their failures), or oppressive (we are not wahhabi muslims); then the fact remains that unless we are willing to mass-convert, have an islamic theocracy in america, send all of our money over there to make sure that everyone has a job and that nobody is poor and that islam rules the world under the Laden Caliphate; then we are just going to have to kill them.

[MikeD4o7]

however, since many of the "political grievances" are either illigetimate (we support the existance of israel), or innacurate (we are responsible for all their failures), or oppressive (we are not wahhabi muslims); then the fact remains that unless we are willing to mass-convert, have an islamic theocracy in america, send all of our money over there to make sure that everyone has a job and that nobody is poor and that islam rules the world under the Laden Caliphate; then we are just going to have to kill them.


No matter what we do there will be a small number of people that will hate us no matter what... the problem is when a very significant portion of the population in any given part of the world is saying things like "I don't agree with their methods, but I agree with what they say" in respect to terrorists. It's one thing to support the existence of Israel... it's quite another to turn a blind-eye to any wrong-doing on Israel's part. It's one thing to say "we're not responsible for all of your failures", it's quite another to deny any wrong-doing on our part in the Cold War.

I just disagree with the notion that our country is the archetype of international responsibility and that anyone who hates the US does so only because of "jealousy", or something along those lines.

[cpwill]

however, to simply claim that we are responsible for the failures of others, or that we are secretly controlled by jews (to whom 80% of our taxes go) is rather ludicrous.

the problem being that these terrorist organizations are extremely good at propaganda, and are convincing many many people of their ludicrous ideas.

[MikeD4o7]

however, to simply claim that we are responsible for the failures of others, or that we are secretly controlled by jews (to whom 80% of our taxes go) is rather ludicrous


I agree.

the problem being that these terrorist organizations are extremely good at propaganda, and are convincing many many people of their ludicrous ideas.


What organization isn't? Besides, I don't think that Al Qaeda is spending quite enough money on tv ads over here to be all too influential on the perception of the American public. Maybe they've managed to somehow influence some people's opinions to a certain degree... but definitely nowhere near the extent that the two parties here have.

[Slipped Mickey]

so in your opinion, abortion clinic bombers and islamic fundamentalist terrorists who murder civilians are also headed towards God? and if they are moving towards God, how is that not a spiritual path? that's like saying that just because you're driving down the road it doesn't mean you are operating or riding in a vehicle
No, that's not what I said. If you'll recall earlier I said that abortion clinic bombers have taken a path has led them away from God.

[Jard]

"historically you are innacurate; this world is full of examples of one extremism conquering another, of one evil exterminating another evil."

you are right perhaps conquer was not the right word, it should be erradicate.
What i meant to say was; you cannot erradicate extremism with extremism.

[Redheat]

the problem being that these terrorist organizations are extremely good at propaganda, and are convincing many many people of their ludicrous ideas.

How far away is that from the Moral Religious Right who use propaganda to convince people of their "ludicrous" ideas? both do it for more political reasons then spirtiual ones and both twist the meaning to fit their agenda and convince people of something that doesn't exist.

[Slipped Mickey]

they are living their life based upon their interpretation of religious texts and documents; attempting to live as God would have them live; i fail to see any reason to label what they are doing "not a religion". history is full of religions which killed, they do not become non-religions because they do not fall under your impression of what a religion should be, they simply become violent religions.



It's simple really. God is love. God is pure and total love. That is my definition of God. Webster defines religion as: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural". That's close enough for me.

In order to serve God and worship God - who is love - Christians and Muslims would then act as the tenets of their religions direct and would act out of love, would they not? When people commit and support acts of murder and violence as an expressed service to God they are no longer practicing a religion. If you want to be nitpicky CP people commit violence and murder as an expressed service to God may be worshipping Satan but Satan is not God - not in my book anyway.

Now if you want to consider fundamentalism itself a religion some people may agree but I maintain fundamentalism is not Christian or Islam or Buddhist or any religion that serves and worships God - who is love. Fundamentalism is an entity unto itself. Fundamentalists who call themselves Christian have much more in common with fundamentalists who call themselves Muslim than they do with Christians of Christian faith.

so in your opinion, abortion clinic bombers and islamic fundamentalist terrorists who murder civilians are also headed towards God? and if they are moving towards God, how is that not a spiritual path? that's like saying that just because you're driving down the road it doesn't mean you are operating or riding in a vehicle.

No. If you'll recall earlier I said that an abortion clinic bomber is on a path that leads away from God. They will however - eventually - return to God. How can they not? God is ALL, unless you disagree that God is ALL.


no, they are not practicing what you think religion should be, because you have somewhat more pacifistic ideals of what religion should be. who makes you the judge of what is a faith and what is not.

Actually I don't practice a religion by Webster's definition. If you advocate violence, hatred, murder in the name of love then I most certainly have more pacifistic ideals of what religion should be. I make me the judge of what my "faith" is.


they are deliberately risking or sacrificing their lives in the trust and faith that God will take care of them in the afterlife; how is this not a faith.


Murdering people in order to please God is not an act of love. It takes one further from God not closer. It is blind faith, not religious faith.

so we become God? move into heaven? what?

If you'll recall earlier I stated that we are God. God is ALL. Either that or God is less than ALL. We are God. Now I don't know about you but I damn sure ain't in the center of the life force, the place (not physical) where all things are known and where there is nothing but loving compassion. Here's a hint: You don't murder people to get there. In fact you get there more quickly if your thoughts, your intentions and your actions are based in loving compassion. How do I know this? From experience just as you know it.

post death? then where do they go in the meantime? after they die and before they "return" that is. if your argument that God is All holds true through this, then they must have been God when they did their terrorist actions.
Well they certainly don't remain in the material world. They return to the spiritual plane. Yes IMHO God is ALL. The terrorists are having to go through great pain to learn a spiritual lesson. What the lesson is I cannot say. It is a lesson I have apparently learned as I don't need to commit such violent acts.


oh, so if i lead a nonviolent life then i will get to God quicker? if i live a violent life then i do (something) for a long time after i die before i return?

Non-violence would help hasten your journey wouldn't you agree. But there are many lessons to learn and violence is just one. How far we travel from the ultimate destination and how hard we work to correct our mistakes I believe might determine how long it takes to return.

what if i do violence for Good, stop a rape or a murder through violence? does this count as an anti-God diversion, or a pro-God diversion.

Does it take you closer to or further away from God? IMHO there is much too much involved in the question to give you a blanket yes or no response. We must face that decision asking if there is no other way, what amount of violence would be necessary to prevent the murder or rape from happening, there are many variables involved. I know where you are going with this and the answer CP is not as obvious as you might suspect.

[Slipped Mickey]

well of course, however, many people don't seem all that interested in pursuing much of a path at all.

But we don't know that. I have my own path, I know where it came from, I know where it is now and I think I know the direction it leads. How can I possibly know where others are on their paths?


and recognizing humans as fallible creatures, would it not be rather safe to assume that their desire to be on a correct path does not necessarily translate into being on one?

If you'll recall I don't believe there are correct paths, all lead eventually to the same place. There can be short cuts for sure and we all want them. I for one think the short cuts are so obvioius we often miss them or dismiss them as being to easy.

i wish i was 6'2 and 250 lb of pure muscle and that i had a million dollars and that pam mctear would show up at my door one day holding a bottle of champagne and wearing a smile. this in no way means that any of these things is likely at all to happen. even were i to try to make these things happen, i am not at all garunteed success.

You say you want those things but aren't you really saying that what you really want is to be happy, content, fulfilled?


the idea that because a person does not want to suffer means that they won't is utopianism.

At least. I agree. We all suffer. It is a fact of life, no escape.

[CyNix]

We are God. God is ALL. But do we look for an easy way to find God? Sure we do, we're human. We already have all the answers within us, it's that simple.We are God?! :eek:

Who are we? So small and insignificant. We can not even predict the weather accurately; not to mention control it. We were not around when the earth was formed; and we only guess as to how it was done.

How are we God? If we truly were God, I would want nothing to do with the corupt and evil abomnation that God would be.

[Slipped Mickey]

We are God?! :eek:

Who are we? So small and insignificant. We can not even predict the weather accurately; not to mention control it. We were not around when the earth was formed; and we only guess as to how it was done.

How are we God? If we truly were God, I would want nothing to do with the corupt and evil abomnation that God would be.
As I said earlier, either God is ALL or God is less than ALL. You seem to think God is not ALL. That's fine by me. I don't agree, but if you want to believe in other Gods that's your business.

We all have the ability to predict the weather, that and more, but most of us don't. We are bogged down in the material world and we've forgotten what our spiritual selves can do.

[cpwill]

I agree.

hmmm.... this is twice in one week; perhaps we to take need beach vacations.....?

What organization isn't? Besides, I don't think that Al Qaeda is spending quite enough money on tv ads over here to be all too influential on the perception of the American public. Maybe they've managed to somehow influence some people's opinions to a certain degree... but definitely nowhere near the extent that the two parties here have.

not even that, rather, i was discussing the much more fertile soil (for them) of the middle eastern mind. we are forced to deal with this mindset (that cannot be negotiated with unless we are willing to do things we are unwilling to do) on a much larger scale because of this.

[cpwill]

It's simple really. God is love. God is pure and total love. That is my definition of God. Webster defines religion as: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural". That's close enough for me.

ahhhh..... so you're limiting is done by how you define religion, the definition of which you create via your own religion. interesting. alright, using this logic i quickly announce that there is no religion/path but Christianity, and that all those who are not following religion are not headed towards God.

;) God is love, yes, but don't allow that to blind you to the fact that God has other emotions as well, nor should it blind you to the fact that He's willing to do things that seem unloving now in order to help us later on.

In order to serve God and worship God - who is love - Christians and Muslims would then act as the tenets of their religions direct and would act out of love, would they not?

one would hope, however, this is only if you are willing to declare that only a very few muslims and a very few christians and (to a much smaller extent) a very few jews are actually following a legitimate "religion", and that all the hindus', buddhists, confucianists, etc. in this world are not.

i had you tottally mis-pegged, instead of being (like i thought) an uber-inclusionary you're an uber-exclusionary; now i see where we have been talking past each other, i apologize.

When people commit and support acts of murder and violence as an expressed service to God they are no longer practicing a religion.

if you define "religion" completely within the bounds of modern pacifistic christianity, then yes.

If you want to be nitpicky CP people commit violence and murder as an expressed service to God may be worshipping Satan but Satan is not God -not in my book anyway.

no he is most certainly not. :)

[CyNix]

As I said earlier, either God is ALL or God is less than ALL. You seem to think God is not ALL. That's fine by me. I don't agree, but if you want to believe in other Gods that's your business.No, my God is an independant, all powerful, all knowing, self-sustaining being; with no need for us corrupt humans or our perverted egos.

We all have the ability to predict the weather, that and more, but most of us don't. We are bogged down in the material world and we've forgotten what our spiritual selves can do.I have never seen a human do great things such as you describe. I have heard of witches who do things, but even they do not claim to use their own power; and I know (first hand knowlege, seen with my own eyes) of Christians who perform great miracles, but they do it through God. Us humans are weak, and unstable corruptable beings; powerless to even stop our own self-destructive nature.

[Slipped Mickey]

ahhhh..... so you're limiting is done by how you define religion, the definition of which you create via your own religion. interesting. alright, using this logic i quickly announce that there is no religion/path but Christianity, and that all those who are not following religion are not headed towards God.

That's not what I said. I said that using a conventional definition of religion is to serve and to worship God - God who is love. People who commit violence and or murder as an expression of service to God are not by definition practicing a religion based on love.

;) God is love, yes, but don't allow that to blind you to the fact that God has other emotions as well, nor should it blind you to the fact that He's willing to do things that seem unloving now in order to help us later on.

I don't know that God has emotions.

one would hope, however, this is only if you are willing to declare that only a very few muslims and a very few christians and (to a much smaller extent) a very few jews are actually following a legitimate "religion",
How so? I don't personally know any Christian, Jew or Muslim who advocates violence and murder as an expressed service to God.

and that all the hindus', buddhists, confucianists, etc. in this world are not.

I'm sorry CP but you've lost me here.


i had you tottally mis-pegged, instead of being (like i thought) an uber-inclusionary you're an uber-exclusionary; now i see where we have been talking past each other, i apologize.


No I think you were correct in you opinion of me. I'm actually neither including nor excluding anyone. I can wear the hat, jeans and talk the language and declare myself a cowboy but in reality I wouldn't be one unless I did what cowboys do. That's not limiting people. If however you want to broaden the term to include more people the definition changes.

[Slipped Mickey]

No, my God is an independant, all powerful, all knowing, self-sustaining being;
That's fine by me. Are you also saying your God is not ALL? That there is another God? Another creator?

I have never seen a human do great things such as you describe. I have heard of witches who do things, but even they do not claim to use their own power;
Neither have I but then why would you see it or know it? Such ability is simply the result of a state of being and not the purpose of a state of being. Witches doing things? It's interesting but I don't know that we are talking about the same thing. I suppose Pagans could depending on their spiritual level.


and I know (first hand knowlege, seen with my own eyes) of Christians who perform great miracles, but they do it through God. Us humans are weak, and unstable corruptable beings; powerless to even stop our own self-destructive nature.

I am quite certain miracles happen everyday. We have to be aware to seem. Miracles happened through loving compassion - not through hate - and they happen to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and people who have no religion.

[xexon]

I believe it was Jesus who stated "these things, and greater, shall ye do".

Everything is God. Without exception. It is the inability for us to realize our divine origins that bars us from heaven. Jesus KNEW he and God were one and the same. At the end of his earthly existance, he came to realize this for himself.

We are not apart from God. It is our illusions in our own minds that separate us from God.

When you learn how to see the mind for what it really is, you'll see for yourself.

It will be made "plain" for you.




x

[Larani]

;) God is love, yes, but don't allow that to blind you to the fact that God has other emotions as well, nor should it blind you to the fact that He's willing to do things that seem unloving now in order to help us later on.


Very strange indeed. I have often wonder why people do not see the obvious. One can never have a choice ie free will without two options so if one were to devise a system of free will would it not go that for every possible choice there would need to be a equal and opposite choice, or else the system wouldn't work.

ie Love or Hate, Peace or War, Create or Destroy, Abandon, Care for.

Now of course just because we follow these natural laws I think it is possible though that we may be in error to assume that God actually does.

Wasn't it Jesus who said in Heaven there would be no Divorce or Marriage. Hence maybe these laws of opposites do not apply there.

[Larani]

I believe it was Jesus who stated "these things, and greater, shall ye do".

Everything is God. Without exception. It is the inability for us to realize our divine origins that bars us from heaven. Jesus KNEW he and God were one and the same. At the end of his earthly existance, he came to realize this for himself.

We are not apart from God. It is our illusions in our own minds that separate us from God.

When you learn how to see the mind for what it really is, you'll see for yourself.

It will be made "plain" for you.




x

Hee Hee Imagine if you will devising a system upon which to learn a model if you will the difference between What is Good and What is Evil. If it were a computer simulation how would you go about doing it and how long would it have to run before all possible combinations had been explored.

We now send you back to your regular Televised Programming. :lol:

[CyNix]

I believe it was Jesus who stated "these things, and greater, shall ye do". But Jesus also said we were all sinners and that we need to be reborn. According to Jesus, without this "rebirth" we are all fit for hell. Jesus was questioned: "who can be saved". He responded by saying that with it is immposible for man, only with God is it possible.

Jesus endorses the Jewish Torah. According to the Torah, God existed before men and is completely independant of men. God created men. God always was, and always will be.

Jesus also seperated himself, as God, from men.And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

It is not by our own power that we can perform miracles. Jesus commanded his followers to go out in his name.

[CyNix]

That's fine by me. Are you also saying your God is not ALL?No my God is not everything. Simple logic can reason that. My God is good and perfect. If God is everything, then everything is God. Is everything good and perfect?

And no, there is no other creator. My God said: I AM. Forever past and forever future he IS. He is a timeless entity; the creator of time.

[CyNix]

Xexon...
Jesus said:
18"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 "These are the things which defile the man...
If evil comes from the nature (the heart) of man, then we are most certainly not part of, or one with God; unless God himself is a flawed and evil entity.

[cpwill]

That's not what I said. I said that using a conventional definition of religion is to serve and to worship God - God who is love. People who commit violence and or murder as an expression of service to God are not by definition practicing a religion based on love.

however the mass of all religions throughout history have had violent threads within them; and not all of them illigetimate of the text. God is love, yes, but God also has wrath. Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace, but a sword.

your definition of "religion" would reduce it to "pacifism", in which case only a very very very few people can be included in the group that worship a religion.

I don't know that God has emotions.

well He says He does. furthermore, i've felt them.

How so? I don't personally know any Christian, Jew or Muslim who advocates violence and murder as an expressed service to God.

hello, my name is cpwill and i apparently am the first christian you've ever met who thinks that it would be God's will for me to commit violence (if i had to) in order to stop a murder or a rape.;) and i'm just one individual; if we were to take a historical look and trace the threads of religious trends, we find that only a very very very few (and typically short-lived) ever actually advocated anything along the lines of no-violence. typically they advocated rightful application of violence.

I'm sorry CP but you've lost me here.

then i think we're both stumbling in the dark as i'm having a hard time accepting that youre saying what it sounds like your saying too.:)

No I think you were correct in you opinion of me. I'm actually neither including nor excluding anyone. I can wear the hat, jeans and talk the language and declare myself a cowboy but in reality I wouldn't be one unless I did what cowboys do. That's not limiting people. If however you want to broaden the term to include more people the definition changes.

i'm not broadening the term; i'm going with the current definition; it's you who are trying to add in qualifiers based on what your opinion of God is.

[MikeD4o7]

Based on the gospel stories, I think Jesus' story is one of extreme pacifism. Think about this... you say you would commit violence to stop a murder. Well if there was one time in all of history when it would have been just to use violence to stop something from happening... wouldn't it have been to stop the brutal, unjust execution of the only human being in history that never did a single thing wrong? The fact that the stories have Jesus declining any sort of defense or any sort of violence to interfere with the most unjust act in human history seems to me to be the ultimate declaration of pacifism.

[cpwill]

nope, Jesus specifically allowed evil to happen so that evil might be defeated. had he (rightfully) destroyed those who were executing him, we would still be without hope today. furthermore, as a man, Jesus himself was not pacifist; only in comparison. "i come to bring not peace but a sword".

[MikeD4o7]

nope, Jesus specifically allowed evil to happen so that evil might be defeated. had he (rightfully) destroyed those who were executing him, we would still be without hope today. furthermore, as a man, Jesus himself was not pacifist; only in comparison.


I still can't comprehend the whole purpose of that drama. Why was it necessary for Jesus to be executed to save humanity? Before you answer that... keep in mind that my question to your answer will also be "why?".

Why would human sacrifice be the only way to cleanse humanity of sins? Was that some natural law that God installed in the universe at the same time as gravity? "objects with mass will be attracted to each other... and humanity's sins can only be cleansed with a human sacrifice... now back to this tree planting in the garden of eden."

How could we possibly figure that a death and resurrection (personally witnessed by only a few), would be a better way to make people aware of our loving God then to say... put food on everyone's table for an entire year, or cure all their loved ones illnesses just once... I mean these are things I'm thinking of off the top of my head and they seem like better ideas.

I see no sense in any of it.

[Jard]

nope, Jesus specifically allowed evil to happen so that evil might be defeated. had he (rightfully) destroyed those who were executing him, we would still be without hope today. furthermore, as a man, Jesus himself was not pacifist; only in comparison. "i come to bring not peace but a sword".

It would not have been right

6th Commandment; Verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill."

The deadly sins are sometimes known as “capital” or “cardinal” sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, anger, and sloth.

i guess he was trying to show us how to act.

[Slipped Mickey]

No my God is not everything. Simple logic can reason that. My God is good and perfect. If God is everything, then everything is God. Is everything good and perfect?
I don't know that that is logical but I understand your position. So what are the other Gods or supernatural beings?


And no, there is no other creator. My God said: I AM. Forever past and forever future he IS. He is a timeless entity; the creator of time.
Well if God is forever past and forever future a timeless entity God can still be ALL, no?

[Slipped Mickey]

Xexon...
Jesus said:

If evil comes from the nature (the heart) of man, then we are most certainly not part of, or one with God; unless God himself is a flawed and evil entity.
Hmmmmm, if God is creator of all things then who created flawed and evil things?

[CyNix]

I don't know that that is logical but I understand your position. So what are the other Gods or supernatural beings? Any other supernatural being is just a creation of God. They are beings that exist outside of our three dimentional space. Angels, Demons, ect... all created by God.


Well if God is forever past and forever future a timeless entity God can still be ALL, no?
My God is good and perfect. If God is ALL, then ALL is God, then ALL is good and perfect. Is everything good and perfect? If not, then God is not ALL.

[Slipped Mickey]

(harrybrowne@eircom.net)
however the mass of all religions throughout history have had violent threads within them; and not all of them illigetimate of the text.

If God is love, loving compassion and if religion is the service and worship of God then once people of a religion commit acts of violence and murder in an expression of service to God they no longer practice the tenets of their faith.

God is love, yes, but God also has wrath. Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace, but a sword.


CYNIX would disagree with you.

your definition of "religion" would reduce it to "pacifism", in which case only a very very very few people can be included in the group that worship a religion.
It has been my experience that most people of any religion prefer peace to war. Are you saying that it is OK to bomb an abortion clinic for God if you are really pissed?

well He says He does [have emotions]. furthermore, i've felt them.


I think that's a personification of God. If God is ALL and I believe God is then God certainly is also emotion but I find it hard to understand how God would experience emotion. If God is all powerful and all knowing how then could God become angry or sad or giggly or depressed?

hello, my name is cpwill and i apparently am the first christian you've ever met who thinks that it would be God's will for me to commit violence (if i had to) in order to stop a murder or a rape.

I have no doubt you would CP as I hope most people would. But your actions would not constitute violence as an expression of service to God. Your actions would be violence in expression of service to your fellow man.

if we were to take a historical look and trace the threads of religious trends, we find that only a very very very few (and typically short-lived) ever actually advocated anything along the lines of no-violence. typically they advocated rightful application of violence.

I like the quote by some dead white guy - "Man was created in God's image and man has been returning the favor ever since."

I doubt you'd find many people in any religion who would tell you that their idea of heaven includes violence and murder. I believe violence is something we all would like to live without. All the serene and peaceful people that we know of including Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, the Buddha and on and on were non-violent people. Yes of course there were times when all were angry, they were human. But the overwhelming characteristic of their lives was peace. We consider them to have been close to God even while here on earth. They did not kill people for God, quite the opposite.

I am sorry but I cannot accept your assertion that God intends for people to kill each other in service to God when we know the opposite to be true.

[Slipped Mickey]

Any other supernatural being is just a creation of God. They are beings that exist outside of our three dimentional space. Angels, Demons, ect... all created by God.
If God created all the evil and bad things as well, how could that happen if those things didn't come from God? Are you saying God created things that God didn't know about?

[CyNix]

If God created all the evil and bad things as well, how could that happen if those things didn't come from God? Are you saying God created things that God didn't know about?No. God has allowed things to become evil and bad. Evil, or "badness" (if there is such a word) is the opposite of the nature of God. There is evil in the hearts of men because God allowed us our own will. In order for men to truly love God, as he desires for us to do, we must have the option to turn against him. That is what so many of us have done. Not only have many turned against him, many of us have created our own gods in our books, or carved out of wood or stone, and we loved them instead of God. We humans brought evil into this world, not God. This evil has saturated us. I grows in us. It spreads like a cancer and is even more difficult (even impossible) to eradicate than even the most terrible of physical cancers. Christ, my God said that it is impossible for us to completely clean ourselfs of this selfish, self serving, corruption that daily eats at our souls. My God says only he can cure our disease, and that he is more than willing to do so.


EDIT: Spelling... i om a bab speeler :D

[xexon]

Hmmmmm, if God is creator of all things then who created flawed and evil things?

This is the great illusion.

We are children, spiritually speaking. We have a long way to go before we gain enough maturity to understand that duality is a part of the gameplan here. We will never know the value of good without evil. All our lessons here on earth use duality as a teaching tool.

Think Satan is seperate from God? He isn't. God is also Satan. But Satan has to anchor the negative end of our existance, since we do not yet have the ability to see the universal "oneness" that is just under our noses. Nothing here is really flawed or evil, but if we expect to gain the knowledge of our own divinity, we have to complete the lessons in front of us. You'll get your spiritual degree someday, but right now, you're hardly out of preschool.

Small children believe in monsters under the bed. Spiritual children have the same fears. If God puts on his devil mask, know that you're still recieving a blessing, eventhough you may get the holy bejesus scared out of you. This will help to to grow into a beautiful being someday.

Look at the world as a school, and every event in your life as a lesson. You won't be here forever, but every lesson placed in front of you is there because of the amazing love your creator has for you. Complete it to the best of your abilities and move forward.

A good parent sometimes scares their child for their own good. Don't think God has it in for you just because you don't understand the lesson.




x

[CyNix]

This is the great illusion.

So, do I misunderstaend you? Your God is not a singular entity; not a personal being. Instead your god is more a "force"; a communion of creation.

Does your god have an idea of self? Can your god speak for himself? Does your god have emotion? Does your god depend on life forms such as humans for his existance? If everything that is was to die, what would your god be?

If your god is also evil, how does he go on? A house divided will not stand.

[Slipped Mickey]

This is the great illusion.

We are children, spiritually speaking. We have a long way to go before we gain enough maturity to understand that duality is a part of the gameplan here. We will never know the value of good without evil. All our lessons here on earth use duality as a teaching tool.

Think Satan is seperate from God? He isn't. God is also Satan. But Satan has to anchor the negative end of our existance, since we do not yet have the ability to see the universal "oneness" that is just under our noses. Nothing here is really flawed or evil, but if we expect to gain the knowledge of our own divinity, we have to complete the lessons in front of us. You'll get your spiritual degree someday, but right now, you're hardly out of preschool.

Small children believe in monsters under the bed. Spiritual children have the same fears. If God puts on his devil mask, know that you're still recieving a blessing, eventhough you may get the holy bejesus scared out of you. This will help to to grow into a beautiful being someday.

Look at the world as a school, and every event in your life as a lesson. You won't be here forever, but every lesson placed in front of you is there because of the amazing love your creator has for you. Complete it to the best of your abilities and move forward.

A good parent sometimes scares their child for their own good. Don't think God has it in for you just because you don't understand the lesson.




x
There's little I could add to that. Excellent post, and I completely agree. I would add that we are here to learn, and learn we will. We will continue to see the same lesson - presented to us in different forms - until we finally experience an aha! moment and learn the lesson. There are many, many lessons going on and once one lesson is learned there will be another one to take its place. :D "Idle hands" and all that.

[xexon]

So, do I misunderstaend you? Your God is not a singular entity; not a personal being. Instead your god is more a "force"; a communion of creation.

Does your god have an idea of self? Can your god speak for himself? Does your god have emotion? Does your god depend on life forms such as humans for his existance? If everything that is was to die, what would your god be?

If your god is also evil, how does he go on? A house divided will not stand.

What I'm saying is that the feeling of seperation from God is a mental product, not a spiritual one. You are connected to God in a way you cannot yet perceive. You are NOT your mind, but it controls your life right now

Until you control your mind, the spirit cannot shine through. And when it does, all the questions you are now asking of me will be revealed to you.

It is a process of unlearning. Not learning.

You are God, but you are hiding from yourself. :)



x



x

[CyNix]

You are God, but you are hiding from yourself. :)
Who should I worship? ...me? :confused: :eek:

[cpwill]

I still can't comprehend the whole purpose of that drama. Why was it necessary for Jesus to be executed to save humanity? Before you answer that... keep in mind that my question to your answer will also be "why?".

yes, it was necessary for Jesus to be executed for our sins to save humanity. if you wish, think of it as a sacrifice; almost via the old testament. as people used to sacrifice lambs and bulls in order to try (vainly) to cleanse their sins, God sent his own sacrifice, his own Lamb of God, to be the sacrifice for us all.
that's a very rough aproximation, and if you like, i can try to do better.

Why would human sacrifice be the only way to cleanse humanity of sins?

it wasn't human sacrifice.;)

How could we possibly figure that a death and resurrection (personally witnessed by only a few), would be a better way to make people aware of our loving God then to say... put food on everyone's table for an entire year, or cure all their loved ones illnesses just once... I mean these are things I'm thinking of off the top of my head and they seem like better ideas.

because God is now available to everyone, directly. were he to adopt your plan, then He would only be available to the hungry or those with sick relatives, firstly, it would remove our free will for him to simply order everything that goes well. secondly; there is no way for him to order everything to everyone's benifit. if my dad lives healthy forever that means that no one junior to him will ever be able to move up. (just one example) thirdly, were He to do these things; people would not appreciate it. we humans are very quick to come to a sense of "entitlement" when it comes to God.

I see no sense in any of it.

i would suggest The Problem of Pain to you, a very nice little book, if meaty.

[xexon]

Who should I worship? ...me? :confused: :eek:

You are not the whole package. You are a grain of sand on a large beach.

There is something beyond what you believe yourself to be. Worship? Just love yourself, and see everyone around you as the same. Love them too.

God will lift the veil that now blinds you.




x

[Slipped Mickey]

So, do I misunderstaend you? Your God is not a singular entity; not a personal being. Instead your god is more a "force"; a communion of creation.
If I may and please disagree where you will Xenon, God isn't an entity or a force or a communion. God is ALL.

Does your god have an idea of self? Can your god speak for himself? Does your god have emotion?
There actually is no self. Self is a comparison. How do you compare ALL? Emotion? Does God have a favorite country? Football team? Political party? Is God sometimes angry? No. How could that be if God is ALL?

Does your god depend on life forms such as humans for his existance?
Everything has the same components - rocks, trees, cars, humans, fish. I personally believe that nothing is permanent except God.


If everything that is was to die, what would your god be?

There would be no difference. God is ALL.


If your god is also evil, how does he go on? A house divided will not stand.
Evil is the tool man uses to measure his distance from God.

[CyNix]

Xexon, Slipped Mickey, do you agree with this:
The Pantheist Creed (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm)

[xexon]

No, they do not go beyond the physical world in their statements.

I will agree that they have some points, but it appears they don't know what to do with it.


x

[Slipped Mickey]

Xexon, Slipped Mickey, do you agree with this:
The Pantheist Creed (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm)
I don't disagree with it but it seems to omit God or a Life Force or Supreme Being, whatever you might call it. I believe in God and I am not sure the creed recognizes that.

[CyNix]

Well... My God said: "My ways are not your ways..." . God is not me. I am no part of God.

- I choose to worship my God because he loves me. He said so. This does show emotion; emotion is a sign of inteligence, and a sign of independance. No one on WS "loves" me, (no fault... you don't even know me :) ) yet God does. Read the Song of Solomon. How can you be a part of God and not share his emotion?
- The nature of God is not selfish, but instead is perfect and just. Not one human alive can claim to be what God is. If we do not even share the same nature, how can we claim to be any part of God?
- My God said: "I AM". He did not say: "WE ARE". He is a singular being. YHWH.

[cpwill]

If God is love, loving compassion and if religion is the service and worship of God then once people of a religion commit acts of violence and murder in an expression of service to God they no longer practice the tenets of their faith.

murder, certainly, violence is a different matter. what you are missing is rightful violence. if we are to assume 1) that God is sinless and 2) that violence is sin then we have a bit of a problem justifying a God that commits violence. the same God that spoke through Paul spoke through Ezekial Ez 7:8 "Soon now I will pour out my wrath upon you; I will spend my anger against you. I will judge you according to your ways, and punish you for all your abominations."
do not mistake the fact that God is love with the fact that God does not (therefore) practice or condone rightful violence. does a parent not grab a child away from a fire when the child is a baby? does not a mother sometimes have to spank a child to get it's attention? certainly mine did, and i challenge any here to try to argue that my mother does not love me (anyone who didn't would have thrown me to the wolves long ago). you aren't looking for a God, you are looking for a Grandfather.

CYNIX would disagree with you.

if CYNIX chooses to acknolwedge only the pacifistic strain of Christianity, that is his own decision, but i fail to see how cynix's posts contradict the doctrine of rightful violence.

It has been my experience that most people of any religion prefer peace to war.

mine as well, however, it has also been my experience that war is preferreble to some things as well.

Are you saying that it is OK to bomb an abortion clinic for God if you are really pissed?

that is precisely what i am not saying; i am using it as my point, if all religious paths lead to God, then this must necessarily include paths we dont' agree with, and for you and i this means paths that use what we would think of as incorrect violence.

I think that's a personification of God.

which, since God is a person (or, rather, is both person and entity) is really easy to do.

If God is ALL and I believe God is then God certainly is also emotion but I find it hard to understand how God would experience emotion.

how He does it, i don't know. heck, we don't know how humans feel emotion, much less God. however, this does not change the fact that He does.

If God is all powerful and all knowing how then could God become angry or sad or giggly or depressed

in my experience, you and me:)

I have no doubt you would CP as I hope most people would. But your actions would not constitute violence as an expression of service to God. Your actions would be violence in expression of service to your fellow man.

they are one and the same, according to Him.
Matthew 25: 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
serving our fellow man is serving God.

I like the quote by some dead white guy - "Man was created in God's image and man has been returning the favor ever since."

cts, funny, i like it. who said it; i'll pass it on to one of my friends who likes to think like you:)

I doubt you'd find many people in any religion who would tell you that their idea of heaven includes violence and murder.

murder, yes, violence no, imo.

I believe violence is something we all would like to live without.

depends on what you mean by violence; personally i like football (american), and enjoy a good wrestle with my brother; nor do i think that these are somehow evil activities. however, wrongful violence, certainly. i'd also like to live in a world without taxes, and while we're at it, i never got that shetland pony.....;)

All the serene and peaceful people that we know of including Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, the Buddha and on and on were non-violent people. Yes of course there were times when all were angry, they were human. But the overwhelming characteristic of their lives was peace. We consider them to have been close to God even while here on earth. They did not kill people for God, quite the opposite.

and we honor them for it. not seeing how this contradicts.

[cpwill]

I am sorry but I cannot accept your assertion that God intends for people to kill each other in service to God when we know the opposite to be true.

how in the world do you decipher that "we know the opposite to be true"? what text are you deriving this from? because it's certainly not the christian bible, and every religion i can think of offhand has had violent threads within it from it's inception. one of the first things Peter does in his position as head of the new church was to have two of it's members killed. Jesus himself said he came not to bring peace but a sword, and there is of course there famous scene of him chasing people out of the temple with a whip. and if you want to go into the old testament..... well, let's just say the quote from ezekial aint' half of it; check out the last of the plagues in egypt. if you like, compare it to the death rates listed in the book of Revelations; and you see that throughout the bible God has used violence to achieve His ends just as He has used anything else. the Evil is not in the tool itself, but rather in misaplication of it.

saying that violence is wrong is like saying that electricity kills, because no, it doens't, only misapplication of electricity kills, and correct application of electricity saves lives.

[CyNix]

...but i fail to see how cynix's posts contradict the doctrine of rightful violence.Yeah... I am lost on that one too.

[heel31ok]

[QUOTE=xexon]All rivers run into the sea. Some are rapids, some lazy and quiet. We travel whatever path will make us into what we need to become.





all run to [a] sea but some are dammed!

[cpwill]

Yeah... I am lost on that one too.

:lol: :thumbsup:

[Slipped Mickey]

how in the world do you decipher that "we know the opposite to be true"? what text are you deriving this from?
I'm not into the whole proof texting thing. It's circuitous logic. Saying something is true because it is written in the Bible and the Bible is true because it says it is proves nothing. Tell me who you think is closest to God, Randall Terry or Mother Teresa? Eric Rudolph or Bishop Spong?

saying that violence is wrong is like saying that electricity kills, because no, it doens't, only misapplication of electricity kills, and correct application of electricity saves lives.
Give me some examples of good violence in the name of Jesus.

[MikeD4o7]

yes, it was necessary for Jesus to be executed for our sins to save humanity. if you wish, think of it as a sacrifice; almost via the old testament. as people used to sacrifice lambs and bulls in order to try (vainly) to cleanse their sins, God sent his own sacrifice, his own Lamb of God, to be the sacrifice for us all.
that's a very rough aproximation, and if you like, i can try to do better.


Why, what exactly does a sacrifice DO?

it wasn't human sacrifice.

Human sacrifice, God sacrifice, spirit sacrifice.... human/god/spirit all as one sacrifice... whatever you wanna call it.

because God is now available to everyone, directly.

How so? and why was a sacrificial death the only way to accomplish it?

were he to adopt your plan, then He would only be available to the hungry or those with sick relatives, firstly, it would remove our free will for him to simply order everything that goes well.

No, everyone would have this great holy meal on their table mysteriously appear. We could still choose not to eat it if we didn't want to. I just want to know what did dying do exactly? How do you get from... "Jesus is crucified" to "humanity is saved"? Where are the logical steps?

secondly; there is no way for him to order everything to everyone's benifit. if my dad lives healthy forever that means that no one junior to him will ever be able to move up. (just one example) thirdly, were He to do these things; people would not appreciate it. we humans are very quick to come to a sense of "entitlement" when it comes to God.


I'm not asking for that. I'm asking why is Jesus' sacrifice the ultimate reminder or the ultimate sign or whatnot as opposed to some other miracle that could have been performed.

would suggest The Problem of Pain to you, a very nice little book, if meaty.

I've read some excerpts and some summaries of Lewis' arguments... never found them to be anything more than an eloquent sidestep of the actual questions.

[cpwill]

I'm not into the whole proof texting thing. It's circuitous logic. Saying something is true because it is written in the Bible and the Bible is true because it says it is proves nothing. Tell me who you think is closest to God, Randall Terry or Mother Teresa? Eric Rudolph or Bishop Spong?

oh....so what you really meant to say was you think that it's not the case.

Give me some examples of good violence in the name of Jesus.

i suppose ending slavery is always an obvious option.

[cpwill]

Why, what exactly does a sacrifice DO?

pays for something, gets you something, allows you to reach something; a sacrifice does many things.

Human sacrifice, God sacrifice, spirit sacrifice.... human/god/spirit all as one sacrifice... whatever you wanna call it.

it was a bit of a one-of-a-kind:)

How so? and why was a sacrificial death the only way to accomplish it?

because of human nature and the nature of sin.

No, everyone would have this great holy meal on their table mysteriously appear. We could still choose not to eat it if we didn't want to.

you've had something even better than food appear, and you've still chosen not to indulge "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst."

furthermore, it wouldn't produce any realistic results, and secondly, it would remove free will. God already has given us the ability to feed ourselves, He expects us to meet him halfway.

I just want to know what did dying do exactly? How do you get from... "Jesus is crucified" to "humanity is saved"? Where are the logical steps?

humanity is separated from God, and is unable to reconnect through sin. because we sin, we die. God, then, in order to be with us, had to cross that chasm himself to provide for us a way out.

I'm not asking for that.

yes you are, you want meals to magically appear when we're hungry, all of our sniffles to be fixed, cars not to have wrecks, accidents at work to only end in funny stories...

I'm asking why is Jesus' sacrifice the ultimate reminder or the ultimate sign or whatnot as opposed to some other miracle that could have been performed.

personally i can't think of anything greater than God Himself undergoing a tortured death just in order for the chance to hang out with me, can you?

I've read some excerpts and some summaries of Lewis' arguments... never found them to be anything more than an eloquent sidestep of the actual questions.

then i suggest you read the entire book before you make a full decision, in particular make sure you're not dismissing something without looking at it.

[Battousai]

No, everyone would have this great holy meal on their table mysteriously appear. We could still choose not to eat it if we didn't want to. I just want to know what did dying do exactly? How do you get from... "Jesus is crucified" to "humanity is saved"? Where are the logical steps?



To me, Christ dying for our sins is the ultimate love for us. That would be a reminder and motivator to try and be saved so his death would not be in vain.

Christ blood was shed. My church believes that baptism saves (not sprinkling,but immersing). The water represents Christ blood and when we are dunked in the water and raised out it symbolizes our washing away of sins and the resurrection of a new person(sinless and pure).

Other miracles(healing, raising people from dead) may have worked for the short term for certain people but even the Bible states that the Pharisees witnessed his numerous miracles and still didn't believe. His death made it possible for all people to be saved...which would makes the Jews jealous that the Gentiles had the ability to be with God also...but thats another tangent.

Anyways hope this is somewhat clear, if not i'll try and elaborate.

[MikeD4o7]

pays for something, gets you something, allows you to reach something; a sacrifice does many things.

Only in loose terms as far as I see it. Sure if you "sacrfice" your time towards a goal or if you "sacrifice" your money towards a purchase then it gets you something. I don't see how allowing a death.... be it human, bull, or bunny "buys" you something. There's no logical steps that can presented like there are if I was to show you how when I sacrificed my time I did certain works or that sacrificing my money is an accepted form of barter among humans.

humanity is separated from God, and is unable to reconnect through sin. because we sin, we die. God, then, in order to be with us, had to cross that chasm himself to provide for us a way out.


??? The same omnipotent, omniscient God that created the universe and knew exactly how everything works and how everything would happen couldn't for the life of him understand humans enough to be with them without turning himself into one? Couldn't figure another way out of that problem? Something doesn't seem to fit there to me.

you've had something even better than food appear, and you've still chosen not to indulge "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst."

furthermore, it wouldn't produce any realistic results, and secondly, it would remove free will. God already has given us the ability to feed ourselves, He expects us to meet him halfway.


With the food on the table idea I was thinking more of a one time thing, where everyone on Earth at that time would have at least realized "wow, this God thing is for real"... then they would have the choice to follow or not... instead, there are still more disbelievers than believers in Jesus' story... and always has, been despite every imaginable attempt to convert the masses through history by other humans.

There's still no reason for me to believe that God couldn't just grant those who want to follow him eternal life without having to sacrifice himself/his son/whatever.

yes you are, you want meals to magically appear when we're hungry, all of our sniffles to be fixed, cars not to have wrecks, accidents at work to only end in funny stories...

In my example I was actually thinking of a one time thing... but now that you mention it. Why aren't we all allowed our shot in the garden of Eden? Do you think that you or I should be punished or have to pay reparations because some our ancestors may have been slaveholders? Why do you think it's just that we are punished for the sin of Adam?

personally i can't think of anything greater than God Himself undergoing a tortured death just in order for the chance to hang out with me, can you?


It's not too shabby... but if you've ever seen the movie What Dreams May Come, then there's an example of a greater sacrifice right there in that movie. Jesus knew he was going to be sitting in the nicest chair in heaven for the rest of his existence after he died, Robin Williams' character was willing to spend the rest of eternity in hell just to be with the one he loved. Besides, in comparison with eternity... Jesus suffering would be less than a blip on the screen.

then i suggest you read the entire book before you make a full decision, in particular make sure you're not dismissing something without looking at it

Hopefully I'll get around to it.

[Slipped Mickey]

oh....so what you really meant to say was you think that it's not the case.
Actually I said what I meant to say. I was trying to be polite by saying that I don't accept the Bible as the ultimate source of all truth.

suppose ending slavery is always an obvious option.
The War Between the States was not fought as an expression of service to God, it wasn't a "religious" war. I don't know that the best way to solve the issue of slavery was war. Most Blacks will tell you the issue still today isn't really resolved.

[cpwill]

Actually I said what I meant to say. I was trying to be polite by saying that I don't accept the Bible as the ultimate source of all truth.

oh heck, don't worry about that; i assumed that.:) the point remains that you are putting your own qualifications on God and your own qualifications on what constitutes a religion.

The War Between the States was not fought as an expression of service to God, it wasn't a "religious" war. I don't know that the best way to solve the issue of slavery was war. Most Blacks will tell you the issue still today isn't really resolved.

.....does this sound familiar to you?

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.

I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free;
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.

He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.

christians led the emancipation movements, and they most certainly considered that freeing the slaves was Gods' Will.

[xexon]

George Washington didn't think too highly of it.




x

[cpwill]

of what, slavery?

no, as i recall, i don't think he did; he did wait until after his death to manumit them, though.

[MikeD4o7]

christians led the emancipation movements, and they most certainly considered that freeing the slaves was Gods' Will.


Really christians were on both sides. The majority of the population was christian, so you can say that christians technically led the emacnipation... but really it was society in general... which just happened to be made up of mostly christians. There definitely non-christians that were at the head of the emancipation movement as well, like Frederick Douglas.

[Slipped Mickey]

oh heck, don't worry about that; i assumed that.:) the point remains that you are putting your own qualifications on God and your own qualifications on what constitutes a religion.



.....does this sound familiar to you?


christians led the emancipation movements, and they most certainly considered that freeing the slaves was Gods' Will.
CP, If you will recall the war began when South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumpter. The South seceded from the Union and the war was on. The North did not attack the South in a fit of religious fanaticism. It was by no means a religious war. It certainly was not the battle of a religion in an expression of service to God.

[cpwill]

well the christians of the time disagreed with you;)

[cpwill]

and are you suggesting, perhaps, that freeing the slaves was not God's Will?

[Slipped Mickey]

well the christians of the time disagreed with you;)
Which Christians? Southern or Northern? The South did not attack the North because somewhere it was written in the Bible that the North needed attacking to prove Dixie's devotion to God.

[Slipped Mickey]

and are you suggesting, perhaps, that freeing the slaves was not God's Will?
Are you suggesting that the continued racism and bigotry against Blacks is God's will?

[cpwill]

Which Christians? Southern or Northern? The South did not attack the North because somewhere it was written in the Bible that the North needed attacking to prove Dixie's devotion to God.

yes.:)

[cpwill]

Are you suggesting that the continued racism and bigotry against Blacks is God's will?

heavens no, what makes you think that?

[2ruballa]

It certainly was not the battle of a religion in an expression of service to God.

I'm sure many of all the soldiers throughout the world that die in any conflict think they are doing a service to God, because there isn't such thing as an atheist in a foxhole. I disagree with you there. Even when it is not officially branded as a "holy war" I'm sure many of the soldiers risking their lives see it as such when they are in the heat of battle. They want to feel that God is on THEIR side so they can have the mental strength to achieve their task.

NOTHING IS WRONG WITH FUNDAMENTALISM itself. Jesus can be considered a fundamentalist. EVERYBODY IS THEIR OWN FUNDAMENTALIST. THEY FUNDAMENTALLY STAY TO THEIR OWN FUNDAMENTALS.

In the civilized world...
Peaceful fundamentalism = tolerable
Violent fundamentalism = intolerable

[cpwill]

hmmm.... worthy take on it; i'll give it a run through and see if i like it.

[Slipped Mickey]

I'm sure many of all the soldiers throughout the world that die in any conflict think they are doing a service to God, because there isn't such thing as an atheist in a foxhole. I disagree with you there. Even when it is not officially branded as a "holy war" I'm sure many of the soldiers risking their lives see it as such when they are in the heat of battle. They want to feel that God is on THEIR side so they can have the mental strength to achieve their task.

NOTHING IS WRONG WITH FUNDAMENTALISM itself. Jesus can be considered a fundamentalist. EVERYBODY IS THEIR OWN FUNDAMENTALIST. THEY FUNDAMENTALLY STAY TO THEIR OWN FUNDAMENTALS.

In the civilized world...
Peaceful fundamentalism = tolerable
Violent fundamentalism = intolerable
Certainly some feel may feel called upon by God to kill other human beings. By and large the "no atheist in the foxhole" is a misconception. It is part of the bargaining process when facing death, Kubler-Ross's Stages of Grief. When imminent death is averted most of the born-again warriors are back to their old ways. I've seen it and experienced it many times.

As to dying for God, I doubt many feel that way. You actually go through stages of acceptance or purpose; you need a meaning for why you might die. The longer you are in the s*** the less it has to do with lofty ideals and the more it has to do with your mates, your buds. That is ultimately who you feel connected to, each other. You would do more for your buddies than for anyone and in the end THAT is ultimately who you are fighting for. Most don't die for God, they die for each other.

As far a fundamentalism goes it doesn't bother me as long as it stays to itself. Once fundamentalism begains intruding on others I have a problem with it.

[DRMIZER]

Certainly some feel may feel called upon by God to kill other human beings. By and large the "no atheist in the foxhole" is a misconception. It is part of the bargaining process when facing death, Kubler-Ross's Stages of Grief. When imminent death is averted most of the born-again warriors are back to their old ways. I've seen it and experienced it many times.

As to dying for God, I doubt many feel that way. You actually go through stages of acceptance or purpose; you need a meaning for why you might die. The longer you are in the s*** the less it has to do with lofty ideals and the more it has to do with your mates, your buds. That is ultimately who you feel connected to, each other. You would do more for your buddies than for anyone and in the end THAT is ultimately who you are fighting for. Most don't die for God, they die for each other.

As far a fundamentalism goes it doesn't bother me as long as it stays to itself. Once fundamentalism begains intruding on others I have a problem with it.A great pointer towards research! Finally a fact or two surfaces.

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but everyone doesn't have a right to their own facts." Senator Pat Moynahan

Good job!

[2ruballa]

lol lol lol

[2ruballa]

Most don't die for God...haha.. talk about misconception.

Dying for your friends is dying for God too!

The movie "Men of Honor" showed a good example of this.

and even better the Word of God.

[Slipped Mickey]

Most don't die for God...haha.. talk about misconception.

Dying for your friends is dying for God too!

The movie "Men of Honor" showed a good example of this.

and even better the Word of God.
I believe the discussion has left you behind or somehow you've missed the topic. Men of Honor was a fine movie and lousy reality. Movies and reality don't often work well together.

[Slipped Mickey]

A great pointer towards research! Finally a fact or two surfaces.

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but everyone doesn't have a right to their own facts." Senator Pat Moynahan

Good job!
Thank you and I like the quote by Sen. Moynahan.