FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Bible Verses: Do Disbelievers Go To Hell?






Do they?
Yes. (Christian)
30%
 30%  [ 8 ]
Yes. (Other)
7%
 7%  [ 2 ]
Maybe.
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
No. (Christian)
11%
 11%  [ 3 ]
No. (Other, religious)
15%
 15%  [ 4 ]
No. (Agnostic)
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
No. (Not religious)
30%
 30%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 26

mike1reynolds
Matthew 7:21-23, 1 John 4:6-8, Romans 2:14-16, Luke 12:47-48, and Romans 1:19.
swapnalokam
what is this... numbers and names.... please tell us what the verses are.. or is it a thread that only christians should reply?
HoboPelican
mike1reynolds wrote:
Matthew 7:21-23, 1 John 4:6-8, Romans 2:14-16, Luke 12:47-48, and Romans 1:19.


Text of the above verses....although for the life of me, I don't understand the question and the relevance of all of them. Smile

Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version)
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'


John 4:6-8 (New International Version)
6Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.
7When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" 8(His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

Romans 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Luke 12:47-48 (NIV)
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Romans 1:19 (New International Version)
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Vrythramax
I can see the relevence of some of the listed verses to the topic and not others. My own thought on the subject is that if you believe in your heart, and try to the best of your abiity to do what you know in your heart is right...you should be all set. I don't believe that going to Church every Sunday, praying daily, observing all the religious holidays and trappings is really going to bring you any closer to God if all you are doing is going through a predetermined course of actions (sounds like a kata to me) and have no real love for God in your heart.
mike1reynolds
Indeed, indeed! Well put, Vrythramax!

So, if someone doesn't understand the application of one of the verses to the topic, why don't you say which one it is so I can address the issue?
Vrythramax
@mike1reynolds

if you could explain John 4:6-8 to me I would be appreciate it...and I am not trying to be a smarta**

thanks in advance Smile
HoboPelican
Yep, I'll second that. John 4:6-8, for a start.
a_dubDesign
Vrythramax wrote:
@mike1reynolds

if you could explain John 4:6-8 to me I would be appreciate it...and I am not trying to be a smarta**

thanks in advance Smile

I'm fairly sure I know exactly what he's getting it, but ya really need the whole story, which is really John 4:1-42.

Theres so many cool things going on in that story. A little insight into that story which isn't directly in the text but readers would have picked up on. The 6th hour is pretty much around the middle of the day. Thats significant because all the women go to the well in the morning when its not so hot out, but this woman was out there when everyone was already gone because she was an outcast of her own society, which was an outcast of Jesus's society.

Theres also a paraphrasing by a gentleman named Steve who is a pastor somewhere in chicago which is on his blog which is a dang good read, unless you happen to be one of the people who is convinced that its your job to tell people they are going to hell and/or consider yourself to be the heresy police.

*edited to insert a link I forgot the first time.
Vrythramax
Thank You a_dubDesign, I read the entire passage and I understand mike1reynolds reference now Smile

Thank you also for the very informative link to the searchable Bible Cool
a_dubDesign
Vrythramax wrote:
Thank You a_dubDesign, I read the entire passage and I understand mike1reynolds reference now Smile

Thank you also for the very informative link to the searchable Bible Cool

Hey no problem, I loves me some biblegateway.
mike1reynolds
Well, actually, if you look at the original post more closely, the verse is ONE John, not the Gospel of John. Here is what 1 John 4:7-8 says:

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
a_dubDesign
mike1reynolds wrote:
Well, actually, if you look at the original post more closely, the verse is ONE John, not the Gospel of John.

Thats kinda crazy that it worked out like that.
tidruG
OK just out of curiosity then, I'd like to ask...
How do you define God?
Is God just the one God that is mentioned in the Bible, that all Christians believe in, who is the Father of Christ?
Or is God a universal God, the God of the entire world/universe that the Christians call God, the Muslims call Allah, the Sikhs call Waheguru, etc etc?
It is my firm belief that anyone who experiences God in their own way (more or less) has the capacity to love and to learn to love.

See, in all honesty, I like this quote:
Quote:
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

It may be true that there could be some who do not believe in God, and yet love and care about people around them and the world in general. I still agree however, that anyone who believes in God will (more or less) learn to love. However, I'd appreciate not limiting God to mean the Christian God or the capacity to love coming only from that one source. The Sikh Gurus preached universal love... they (tried their best to) abolish the caste system here, spread equality, ban the outdated and unnecessary social rituals and customs of that time, etc etc.

(Note: I'm not trying to promote Sikhism. I'm just trying to say that the Sikh gurus, who called God as Waheguru, also spread the same message of equality, fraternity and love)
Soulfire
I've often wondered the same theory. Are Allah and the Christian God one? The only thing that would be "wrong" (I use the term wrong loosely, and from the standpoint of a Christian), is that as Muslims, they deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Do we all worship one God?
mike1reynolds
The Allah of the Qur’an is not God since the Qur’an was dictated by a demon, so Allah is an ugly distortion of what God really is. The Qur’an never says anything about the heart. The real God judges you by what is in your heart, Allah does not.

The denial of Jesus’ divinity is another example. No other religion does this. Hinduism explicitly embraces the divinity of Jesus. They say that he is an “Avatar”, which means divine incarnation and world savior. All other religions are silent on the topic. Only Islam explicitly rejects Jesus’ divinity, and this rejection is encoded in the Qur’an.

tidruG wrote:
I still agree however, that anyone who believes in God will (more or less) learn to love.

Not so fast. Jesus contradicts this notion in Matthew 7:21-23:
Jesus wrote:
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

He goes on to say that prideful Christians are people that He never knew. They are not going to be with Him.
tidruG
mike1reynolds wrote:
The Allah of the Qur’an is not God since the Qur’an was dictated by a demon, so Allah is an ugly distortion of what God really is.

I did not know that. I'll have to do some more research on this. Hopefully, when I get some free time, I'll be able to read a translated copy of the Qu'ran.

Quote:
tidruG wrote:
I still agree however, that anyone who believes in God will (more or less) learn to love.

Not so fast. Jesus contradicts this notion in Matthew 7:21-23:
Jesus wrote:
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

He goes on to say that prideful Christians are people that He never knew. They are not going to be with Him.

That was the point I was trying to make. You can't enter Heaven just by proclaiming yourself to be a believer of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, I need you to explain something else as well...
"the will of my Father who is in heaven"
What is this will? What are the rules? And once again, I ask... can these rules be followed only by Christians (what I mean to ask is whether we need to convert to Christianity in order to follow God's will?)

After what you have written about Allah and the Qu'ran, I will refrain from talking about that. However, my question still remains unanswered... is God and the capacity to love exclusive only to Christians and believers of Jesus?

@Soulfire, I do in fact believe in the concept of only one God. Different religions, in my opinion, are just different ways of worshipping that God. This is in tune with my firm belief in equality. We are all, in my opinion, capable of loving and being loved, irrespective of our belief in God and irrespective of the name of the God we pray to.
mike1reynolds
Christians who adhere to liberal theology as well as many Catholics do not believe that only Christians go too Heaven. Christians who adhere to conservative theology think that all non-Christians go too Hell.

I embrace all true religions, so beyond this I can’t exactly speak for those who follow exclusively Christianity.

As to the Qur’an, the entity that dictated the Qur’an to the illiterate Mohammed claimed that it was the archangel Gabriel (Jibriel), but the “gut” reaction is always truthful. The higher mind (soul) thinks faster than the conscious mind, so your first reaction is the most accurate one if it is a powerful one and obviously from some part beyond the intellect. Mohammed’s first reaction to this entity was sheer terror. He ran for miles to get home and was still trembling in fear when he embraced his wife.

Also, the entity came to him while he was in a cave, which is classic dark side symbolism. Hell is usually depicted as cavernous. Heaven is never depicted this way. Caves are full of bats, another dark side Halloween dark side symbol. Demon’s have bat’s wings, for example. And of course caves are dark. Demon’s work better in the dark.

When asked for a sign that this was an angel and not a demon, Muslims will ironically refer to the “Night Journey”. Where the entity carried Mohammed to another city hundreds of miles away and then brought him back in a single night. They never think about the fact that “the devil can do mighty deeds too”, but the main thing to me was that it was at night. A demon’s power is stronger at night.
death_dealer
Quote:
The Allah of the Qur’an is not God since the Qur’an was dictated by a demon,
dude as i havent "prooved" to u that the quran is not donimic never have u proved ur point that it is (continue in the other thread) so plz do go spitin ur garbage
death_dealer
yes i belive that ur god is my god (muslim, jew,cristian)but only do not god has a son etc...
mike1reynolds
Actions speak louder than words. Islam is the most violent religion in the world.

The Qur'an drums a constant beat of hate and judgement against Christians and Jews. Christian religious bigotry is the result of twisting the Bible. By contrast you have to twist the Qur'an, glossing over and ignoring the innumerably statements of religious bigotry in it, to claim that it is not bigoted. Muslim religious bigotry comes straight from the Qur'an.
HoboPelican
mike1reynolds wrote:
Actions speak louder than words. Islam is the most violent religion in the world.

The Qur'an drums a constant beat of hate and judgement against Christians and Jews. Christian religious bigotry is the result of twisting the Bible. By contrast you have to twist the Qur'an, glossing over and ignoring the innumerably statements of religious bigotry in it, to claim that it is not bigoted. Muslim religious bigotry comes straight from the Qur'an.


Dude, actions don't relate to the written(christian or islam) word, so your 1st paragragh is sort of meaningless when we are talking about the teachings, not how different factions interpret them. At different times in the past, the christians could be pointed at as the most violent.

The 2nd paragraph is just rhetoric. I'd be much more interested in your justification for believing that Quran is "demonic".

I personally think that God speaks to different cultures in ways that lead them to God's path. For me, that helps explain the amazingly different tones of the old and new Testaments.

And violent teachings? I don't have to tell you how violent the Old Teastament is, right? But I like to believe that those people weren't ready for a forgiving God and needed "law" to get them on the road to God's Ideal.

Anyway, why the demonic belief?
Vrythramax
I am of the belief that there is but one God and it is man who has chosen to call him (for lack of a better term) by differant names. Many cultures pray to God, by what ever name and in many differant ways...but the end result is always the same...they are praying to God.

Christians have in the past been just as violent as some presant day religions appear to be, but I don't think that is a result of God's will...here again it is man who has [attempted] to interpret God's will and set about on a course of actions that they may very well believe is right and just. Now before anybody starts flaming me, I am not supportive of any violent action in God's name, nor for love of country...I am simply stating that these people who we now call terrorists may truly believe they are doing God's Will here on earth.

When you stop to look at history, in a thousand years they may just be in the place where Christians are right now...accepted, for the most part, and considered respectable, also for the most part. Christians (and I am one) have in history done some pretty horrific things, I can only thank God that they did not have the weapons available to them during the Crusades as we have now. Our history would be vastly differant if they had.
mike1reynolds
I am heavily into Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Lamaism, Christianity, Zen, Nagualism and other forms of shamanism, but Islam is different. The Qur'an is the only scripture I know of that anyone considers holy that is in fact complete garbage. It reads like the hellfire and brimstone sermon of an angry bigoted Southern evangelical minister.

The Old Testament *describes* all sorts of wars and internal purges when the Jews would turn to demon worshiping. But it doesn’t encode a system of religious bigotry in it’s pages. It also has some heavy stuff and talks about selfless love on many occasions. There is absolutely nothing like that in the Qur'an. Prior to my reaching the negative conclusion that I have about the Qur’an I read it for four years. It took me that long to get through the book because it was just such garbage I couldn’t make it through more than a few pages at a sitting. Every paragraph is a different topic. It is a like listening to a con man who is constantly changing the subject in order to avoid being pinned down on his lies, but even more extreme. Only a nut case on speed would talk like that today, changing topics every paragraph.

As to why I think that it was dicated to Mohammed by a demon, if you heard voices speaking in your head, and they talked in the manner that I have described above, what would you make of it? The Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by an unseen entity.
HoboPelican
mike1reynolds wrote:
...The Qur'an is the only scripture I know of that anyone considers holy that is in fact complete garbage.

At least your upfront with your feelings. Smile
Quote:
It reads like the hellfire and brimstone sermon of an angry bigoted Southern evangelical minister.

Again, much like the Old Testament.
Quote:

The Old Testament *describes* all sorts of wars and internal purges when the Jews would turn to demon worshiping. But it doesn’t encode a system of religious bigotry in it’s pages.

When I was talking about 'evil' stuff in the OT, I'm thinking of stuff like:
Lot offering his daughters to be raped to save his guests.
Moses ordering the deaths of non-believers. (Baal worshipers)
Execution of sexual perverts. (sex with animals)
Moses being upset with his warriors not killing the Midianite women
Moses again ordering the deaths of the Midianite boys.

We know there is a lot more, but the point is that there is a lot of vile stuff in the christian bible also. And it is pretty evident that if you aren't a believer, you have no protection/rights and can be killed because of it.

Quote:

As to why I think that it was dicated to Mohammed by a demon, if you heard voices speaking in your head, and they talked in the manner that I have described above, what would you make of it? The Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by an unseen entity.


Well, I would have a tendency to wonder about ANYONE who is listening to voices in his head. Smile But that includes virtually any religious text. But I can understand why YOU think it was demonically inspired. It's not really compelling, though. Unless you are trying to incite debate on that point, it might be prudent to state it as a belief instead of established fact.
lib
mike1reynolds wrote:
As to why I think that it was dicated to Mohammed by a demon, if you heard voices speaking in your head, and they talked in the manner that I have described above, what would you make of it? The Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by an unseen entity.

It is pretty evident, mike, that you are anti-Muslim. But why should a voice speaking in your head (in any manner) be the voice of a demon. If you saw your parents being brutally murdered in front of your eyes, a little voice in your head would probably call out for revenge. Sorry for using an example like this... just wanted to get my point across... anyway, back into it... that voice wouldn't be the voice of a demon. It would be the voice of your anger, of your human reaction to what you have witnessed.

I have also read a few of your other posts concerning the demon story and about caves/bats/night. You seem to thinking along the lines of most Christian cultures. The night isn't seen by all religions to be friendlier towards evil forces. Nor is the bat symbol the symbol of evil/darkness in every culture.

The reason I'm posting about this is because I agree with HoboPelican when he says
Quote:
Unless you are trying to incite debate on that point, it might be prudent to state it as a belief instead of established fact.

which is what you did to that Moderator guy on the other thread. The unseen entity here is believed by all (or most) Muslims to be God, and by one person (or very few persons) to be a demon. If we are going to give weight to an idea based on the number of people who believe in it, then beyond a shadow of a doubt, the unseen entity is God.
johanfh
I am a christian and I guess some people would call me a 'fundamentalist' Wink because I believe the Bible is totally true.
But that's not the issue here. Mike, I don't think you're right about the Qur'an.

About the voice-in-your-head, lib said great things about it. And as far as I know, most religous books are written by people who claim to have had 'voices in their heads'. The Bible also contains prophesies from people who say the had a dream in which God spoke to them.

About the garbage-argument: the Qur'an isn't a 'normal' book. It has surah's which have been ordered by length (as far as I know), so the change of subject isn't that strange. It's a little bit like you reading the Canterbury-tales and then complaining about all the different subjects. It's not mend to read from the first page 'till the last. That doesn't work. Read one surah and think about it. Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred.

About the night: God spoke to Samuël in the night (1 Samuël 3). You wouldn't call Him a demon, would you?

About the carrying: God carried Philip from a road to a city a long distance away (Acts 8). About the cave: God put Moses in a cave when He showed His might to him (Exodus 33:21 )
About the terror: Gideon is afraid he will die when he saw God. (Judges 6:22). So what about his "gut" reaction?

And something more:
Quote:
Christians who adhere to conservative theology think that all non-Christians go too Hell.

I guess I'm a conservatist. But I believe it's not to me to judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe God loves his children, the people who love him. I believe I go to heaven because I believe Jesus has saved me by beating death. And about other people? That's not for me to know, that's between them and God. But I know the love for God is an enrichment of your life, so I hope people will accept His love. And I believe God is more than just 'loving one another'. He is a Person and as such He is a loving Person. But he's not some 'power-within'.
I believe the Qur'an isn't right, but not because it's garbage, but because Jesus is only a prophet in it. I believe He's Gods Son, who saved the earth.

Sorry Mike, nothing personal. I just wanted to react to your posts about the Qur'an. I thought they weren't fair. And other people: sorry for my 'just quoting texts'. I did that because else my post would be so much longer...

Yours,
JohanFH
livilou
johanfh wrote:
I am a christian and I guess some people would call me a 'fundamentalist' Wink because I believe the Bible is totally true.
But that's not the issue here. Mike, I don't think you're right about the Qur'an.

About the voice-in-your-head, lib said great things about it. And as far as I know, most religous books are written by people who claim to have had 'voices in their heads'. The Bible also contains prophesies from people who say the had a dream in which God spoke to them.

About the garbage-argument: the Qur'an isn't a 'normal' book. It has surah's which have been ordered by length (as far as I know), so the change of subject isn't that strange. It's a little bit like you reading the Canterbury-tales and then complaining about all the different subjects. It's not mend to read from the first page 'till the last. That doesn't work. Read one surah and think about it. Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred.

About the night: God spoke to Samuël in the night (1 Samuël 3). You wouldn't call Him a demon, would you?

About the carrying: God carried Philip from a road to a city a long distance away (Acts 8). About the cave: God put Moses in a cave when He showed His might to him (Exodus 33:21 )
About the terror: Gideon is afraid he will die when he saw God. (Judges 6:22). So what about his "gut" reaction?

And something more:
Quote:
Christians who adhere to conservative theology think that all non-Christians go too Hell.

I guess I'm a conservatist. But I believe it's not to me to judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe God loves his children, the people who love him. I believe I go to heaven because I believe Jesus has saved me by beating death. And about other people? That's not for me to know, that's between them and God. But I know the love for God is an enrichment of your life, so I hope people will accept His love. And I believe God is more than just 'loving one another'. He is a Person and as such He is a loving Person. But he's not some 'power-within'.
I believe the Qur'an isn't right, but not because it's garbage, but because Jesus is only a prophet in it. I believe He's Gods Son, who saved the earth.

Sorry Mike, nothing personal. I just wanted to react to your posts about the Qur'an. I thought they weren't fair. And other people: sorry for my 'just quoting texts'. I did that because else my post would be so much longer...

Yours,
JohanFH


Thank you for finding the words I wanted to say but couldn't. It's an excellent post.

As far as "Is love only for Christians?". No, I don't think so. I believe we're given the capacity to love when we're conceived. It's how we use that love that matters. I also believe that with God in our life we have the ability to love differently and deeper. By that I mean, I may dislike someone's actions, but I can still love that person. And like JohanFH, I don't feel it's my place to state wheither someone is going to hell or not. The simple fact is, I don't know. The only person I have any control over is myself.
mike1reynolds
lib wrote:
The unseen entity here is believed by all (or most) Muslims to be God, and by one person (or very few persons) to be a demon. If we are going to give weight to an idea based on the number of people who believe in it, then beyond a shadow of a doubt, the unseen entity is God.

No, Muslims believe that it was the archangel Gabriel.

I suspect that the reason that you don't see that as compelling evidence that it might be a demon is that you don't take it seriously. If you take it seriously then there aren't many options beside archangel if you think it was lying about its identity.
mabuhay
Why do you people keep on posting the same poll question over and over? How old are you amateur theologians anyways? I suggest moving into a monastary and taking a vow of silence.
mike1reynolds
johanfh wrote:
About the garbage-argument: the Qur'an isn't a 'normal' book. It has surah's which have been ordered by length (as far as I know), so the change of subject isn't that strange. It's a little bit like you reading the Canterbury-tales and then complaining about all the different subjects. It's not mend to read from the first page 'till the last. That doesn't work. Read one surah and think about it. Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred.

It is extremely repetitious. I guess you could call that poetic. Confucius would take incredibly profound passages from the Book of Changes and interpret them in the form of meaningless pompous poetry. He created a school of scholarship that did wonderful work, Mencius’ prose commentaries are extremely penetrating and invaluable, but Confucius’ poetry was facile and shallow. Beautiful in poetic terms is a euphemism for superficial and trite when it is nothing dressed up in flowery language.

Beautiful spiritual poetry should speak of selfless love. The Bible does that with great frequency, especially in the New Testament. Just look at what happened earlier in this thread when a_dubDesign quoted the wrong verse and yet it was still about compassion and love. There is absolutely nothing about selflessness or compassion in the Qur’an. Instead it is deeply interwoven with many different strategies for encouraging bigotry against other religions.

A major portion of the Qur’an is alternative Biblical histories. They are told in a very choppy manner, usually it is just a paragraph or two implicitly stating that the Bible is wrong on this particular fact about a Biblical personage and the Qur’an is giving you the real truth on the matter. It is like walking down old familiar streets that are all painted pink. It is a means of impugning Christians and Jews by endlessly implying that they believe in a false religion, even as it deceptively pretends to pay respect to those religions.

The Qur’an slips in an alternate cosmology that encourages bigotry by asserting that there are no demons. Muslims do not believe in demons because angels can’t fall. There are only jinn -- spirits, some of which are good and some of which are evil. In Christianity every soul is a battlefield, but in Islam the dark side doesn’t stand a chance. Anyone that goes to Hell is dishonest and deceptive disbeliever and the individual Muslim reading the Qur’an is only in real danger from such disbelievers. The danger from within is addressed only in the most bland and shallow terms; only in terms of rules like the Ten Commandments, never in terms of what is in your heart. All of the focus is external, almost none of it is internal. It is easy to judge others but much harder to objectively judge yourself; discouraging self examination encourages double standards, which is the root of all bigotry.

It is like the way AIDS first attacks the body’s ability to recognize the virus’ presence. If evil can downplay its strength and take the believers off their guard then it can strike much more effectively. Once there is no room for suspecting evil it can say all sorts of subtly corrupt things that people just absorb without critical analysis and get programmed by. Over and over the Qur’an ironically pretends to pay respect to the “Peoples of the Book” as it condemns most of them to Hell. For example, in the same sentence the Qur’an encourages Muslims to harshly judge Christians and Jews even as it says to forgive them, by impugning their motives with Satanic implications. ‘Forgive those Satanists, God will deal with their sins, which incidentally are the most vile of possible sins’. The Qur’an always expresses forgiveness in exclusively hypocritically terms of harsh judgment.

Another hypocrisy is that along with many virgins for each male Muslim there is alcohol in Heaven, even though alcohol is forbidden. It gets around this ban by not actually saying the word ‘alcohol’ but only implying it with a description of the new and improved Heavenly version as a beverage that doesn’t give you a headache no matter how much you drink. Heaven is portrayed exclusively in terms of carnal sense gratification, primarily for men. Sensual companionship for women in the afterlife is never described. Where all the virgins come from is not addressed either. To be one of many for each man is obviously not an ideal Heavenly fate for a female reader of the Qur’an to contemplate. Heavenly benefits described exclusively in terms of carnal sense gratification are totally contrary to every other religion on the planet.

johanfh wrote:
About the night: God spoke to Samuël in the night (1 Samuël 3). You wouldn't call Him a demon, would you?

About the carrying: God carried Philip from a road to a city a long distance away (Acts 8). About the cave: God put Moses in a cave when He showed His might to him (Exodus 33:21 )
About the terror: Gideon is afraid he will die when he saw God. (Judges 6:22). So what about his "gut" reaction?

That is completely different, Gideon only experiences momentary fright, sort of like jumping when someone comes up behind when you thought you were alone. God says, “you’re not gonna die”, as a mocking hyperbole. Kind of like telling a child crying from a minor tumble, “looks like we’re gonna have to amputate!” Mohammed’s terror was much more prolonged and intense.

The Bible says that the devil can do mighty deeds too, it doesn’t say only the devil can do mighty deeds. Each case is individual. If you have a good argument that these people were deceived by charlatans I’m open to here it. I don’t just automatically assume that locutions are demonic, I have to see some evidence of lying and hypocrisy in the entity’s statements.
mike1reynolds
mabuhay wrote:
Why do you people keep on posting the same poll question over and over? How old are you amateur theologians anyways? I suggest moving into a monastary and taking a vow of silence.

Childish taunts in lieu of meaningful input. How edifying. If you’re not interested then buzz off.
the_mariska
I don't know how to interpret the question in the poll. Does it mean "All non-christians go to hell?", or "Disbelievers go to hell rather than believers?". I disagree with the first senetence. Here's a quote that should confirm this: Matthew 21,28-32.

Vrythramax wrote:
I can see the relevence of some of the listed verses to the topic and not others. My own thought on the subject is that if you believe in your heart, and try to the best of your abiity to do what you know in your heart is right...you should be all set. I don't believe that going to Church every Sunday, praying daily, observing all the religious holidays and trappings is really going to bring you any closer to God if all you are doing is going through a predetermined course of actions (sounds like a kata to me) and have no real love for God in your heart.

Very well said, but there is one thing that you didn't mention. Without the help of God, one could do actually nothing good, cause we all are egoists and we can't overcome this ourselves. Only by having His support could we do something so extreme as 'loving our enemies' or 'turning the other cheek'. I don't know what about you, but I wouldn't have the strenght even to get on with people around me, if I hadn't tried to get on well with God. That's why those practises aren't useless, they help you to have the real love not only of God.

Quote:
Why do you people keep on posting the same poll question over and over? How old are you amateur theologians anyways? I suggest moving into a monastary and taking a vow of silence.

Christians shouldn't lock themselves in monasteries but be the living example of the love of the God for the other people Wink. I'm not a theologian (it is enough for me that my boyfriend is one). I just think that if you claim you do believe in something, you should get involved with all your heart...
mike1reynolds
the_mariska wrote:
I don't know how to interpret the question in the poll. Does it mean "All non-christians go to hell?", or "Disbelievers go to hell rather than believers?". I disagree with the first senetence.

But you agree with the second? Wink
the_mariska
mike1reynolds wrote:
the_mariska wrote:
I don't know how to interpret the question in the poll. Does it mean "All non-christians go to hell?", or "Disbelievers go to hell rather than believers?". I disagree with the first senetence.

But you agree with the second? Wink

No. Only in the context I wrote before. Believing in God does help people to be better (or at least it should). It's very hard to cope with the dark side of your naure on your own, and God does really help with it. Real and deep belief makes you change your mind, your nature and your behaviour. However, there are people who are 'saints' though they don't believe (one for them was Gandhi), I know some atheists who are better Christians than most of Christians. Unfortunately there aren't many 'real Christians' at all, even among those who claim to believe..
johanfh
Mike,

a short reaction to your answer at my post. I think you totally misunderstood what I meant. With
Quote:
Like you read one poem from a collection, not one hundred.
I did not mean the Qur'an is a poem, I just meant it's not made for reading from the first page untill the last, because of the nature of the book. I quote from the Wikipedia:
Quote:
The surahs are not arranged in chronological order (in the order in which Islamic scholars believe they were revealed) but in a different order, roughly descending by size.


I'm not reacting at your statements about hypocrism, because thats a different subject and at this moment I don't have time to read carefully what you wrote and to react. Sorry about that.

About Gideon: in the time of Gideon the people believed they would certainly die when the saw God. You can also read this in Judg. 13:22, where the father of Samson also thinks he will die because he saw God. So the fear of Gideon isn't a hyperbole.

I don't say the devil does all these deeds. I was just reacting to your post where you said that things in the Qur'an were deeds from a demon because of 'fear - a cave - the night - movement over a big distance - voices in your head'. I answered that in the Bible God works in the same way as you said a demon did in the Qur'an. I mean: I believe the Bible. But I think it's to easy to say (like you did) the Qur'an is garbage and written by a demon. It's much more complicated than you said it is.

So please, if you react, read my other post

Yours,
JohanFH
johanfh
Oh, and Mahubay:
Quote:
How old are you amateur theologians anyways?

I'm 26 and I guess after 8 years of study in a theological university my english isn't the queens but I might consider my self little bit of a professional in theology Wink

JohanFH
death_dealer
meh might as well

Quote:
How old are you amateur theologians anyways?


16 and still trying to gain as much knowlage of diffrent belifes as i can
lib
@johanfh, I enjoyed reading your post... especially this part:
Quote:
I guess I'm a conservatist. But I believe it's not to me to judge who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I believe God loves his children, the people who love him. I believe I go to heaven because I believe Jesus has saved me by beating death. And about other people? That's not for me to know, that's between them and God. But I know the love for God is an enrichment of your life, so I hope people will accept His love. And I believe God is more than just 'loving one another'. He is a Person and as such He is a loving Person. But he's not some 'power-within'.

3 cheers, cookies, and a glass of lemonade/beer (as your prefer) for that.


livilou wrote:
As far as "Is love only for Christians?". No, I don't think so. I believe we're given the capacity to love when we're conceived. It's how we use that love that matters. I also believe that with God in our life we have the ability to love differently and deeper. By that I mean, I may dislike someone's actions, but I can still love that person. And like JohanFH, I don't feel it's my place to state wheither someone is going to hell or not. The simple fact is, I don't know. The only person I have any control over is myself.

Another round of applause for another excellent post Very Happy

mike1reynolds wrote:
mahubay wrote:
Why do you people keep on posting the same poll question over and over? How old are you amateur theologians anyways? I suggest moving into a monastary and taking a vow of silence.

Childish taunts in lieu of meaningful input. How edifying. If you’re not interested then buzz off.

Short and effective. Well said. I agree.

the_mariska wrote:
I just think that if you claim you do believe in something, you should get involved with all your heart...

Very well. I quite agree. It's an excellent thing if all the Christians of the world (the largest religion on earth, btw) or of any other religion went around promoting love and peace and all things nice. However, a lot of Christians (and Muslims for that matter... and a lot of other religions too, actually) go around not just spreading their message, but trying to spread their religion. Why not try to propagate the idea without trying to propagate the religion?

Quote:
How old are you amateur theologians anyways?

Forget my age. I'm not a theologian either. I'm just a student of logic, love and idealism. I tried learning about religions (still trying to learn about as many as I can), but got pissed off a lot of times at inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and discriminations. I'm still learning as much as I can, though, and hope to learn a lot more over the course of this summer, when I should ideally have enough free time on my hands to learn a lot of other things as well.
the_mariska
lib wrote:
the_mariska wrote:
I just think that if you claim you do believe in something, you should get involved with all your heart...

Very well. I quite agree. It's an excellent thing if all the Christians of the world (the largest religion on earth, btw) or of any other religion went around promoting love and peace and all things nice. However, a lot of Christians (and Muslims for that matter... and a lot of other religions too, actually) go around not just spreading their message, but trying to spread their religion. Why not try to propagate the idea without trying to propagate the religion?

Yeah, I know some people who are strongly against propagating the religion.. and they even claim that I offend them saying that I believe in God. Roaming into someone's life (like do Jehova Witnesses) is something horrible, I don't know if that could convince anybody. However, it's natural that when we talk about the love of God, we will talk about God, too Wink
lib
Oh no, don't get me wrong. I fully understand that when we talk about the love of God, we will end up talking about God. And if anything in our lives has deeply touched us, we do tend to try and introduce the same thing in other people's lives too. An example can be one of those TV drugs that helped your son get taller and now you want your brother/sister to indtroduce it to your nephew.
However, I think we should keep it objective and state "so and so are the advantages, and so and so are the disadvantages" instead of going something liek "so and so and so are the advantages... you won't find it in any other drink... you JUST HAVE TO take this one... your son's entire future depends on it... he could get a better job, better wide, better sex if he's taller..... etc etc."

I hope you get what I'm trying to say.
horseatingweeds
This is my conclusion from studying the Bible and other works written about the Bible by wiser men than me.

First, hell is not a punishment and heaven is not a reward. The path we choose to walk in life we continue in death.

Second, what are we doing here? We are here because the Lord wanted beings to love him on their own free will.

Conclusion, we can choose to love him and follow him or not. If we do we continue after death and if we don’t we also continue. The difference is that we are not trapped in our bodies here where all have access to the Lord. I think the loss of the access to him is the true pain of hell.

So how do we love and follow him? We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself.

This leaves us with an interesting solution to a universal equation. This way that the Lord would have us live is in fact the best way to live or is true enlightenment. This may be why Buddhists have referred to Jesus as a spiritual genius. It is the ultimate truth.

Now, since this “way” is the ultimate truth, finding it does not require following the teachings of the Lord or Jesus. Buddhists, Taoists and simple intellectuals have found much of this truth using logic. This truth is also in mankind’s heart. This, though, can be quite dangerous. Living by these truths is not following the Lord even though it is the best way to live.

So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord.

I doubt anyone who finally meets the Lord will not be astonished at how much more different and powerful he is than what we expected. And as a further example, what about a person who lives in the US, who works hard, goes to church, cares for his family. Is he on the path to continue serving his creator? I certainly can’t say he is not. But say this way he lives happens to simply be the easiest way and is in fact his awn way and not that of his creator.

This is the danger I see in such religions and schools of thought that pursue simply enlightenment. It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship. And this is certainly not to say that the search for enlightenment is not necessary. I wouldn’t be wearing my keyboard out letting you guys look at my thoughts is I was uninterested in enlightenment and the testing of my conclusions.
lib
Quote:
First, hell is not a punishment

When why do we use the terms like "damned" to burn in Hell's fire forever, etc etc?

Quote:
We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do.

So basically, this is all about sacrifising what you really want to do, and living your life by his rules, obligations, customs, etc.
No thank you... I think I'd rather listen to ROck music that gives me pleasure. I think I'd rather question everything and learn from the answers I get in return rather than jump with blind faith into it all.

Quote:
This way that the Lord would have us live is in fact the best way to live or is true enlightenment.
.
.
.
.
Buddhists, Taoists and simple intellectuals have found much of this truth using logic. This truth is also in mankind’s heart. This, though, can be quite dangerous. Living by these truths is not following the Lord even though it is the best way to live.

I'm having some trouble comprehending this part.
In the beginning, you're saying that the Lord's (shackling) way is the best way to live. Then, later you say that living by truth and logic is the best way to live, but it's not the Lord's way?

OK well, I just tried to restructure your sentences... an alternate meaning to your last sentence could mean that though the Lord's way is the best way, living by truth and logic is not the Lord's way or the best way.
Well, you're saying
Quote:
Now, since this “way” is the ultimate truth, finding it does not require following the teachings of the Lord or Jesus.

THen why is it dangeroud?
You've admitted that Buddhists, Taosists and simple intellectuals have found the truth using logic. THen what's the difference between believing in the Lord and not believing in him. The end result is that we all have to live with love and mutual respect. Some of us get forced to live this way because of the lord, and the rest of us do this because we see logically how this is benefitial to all of us.

Quote:
So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord.

This part of your post re-affirms to me the thought that you believe it is more important to sacrifise everything we want and live to please God. This is hypocrisy to God. Most religions state the same thing... live a life full of love and compassion. Be humble, and do "good" things. All of this is possible without having to sacrifise everything for the sake of "God". Logically, one can state the importance of being kind and good and just and fair with your neighbour and anyone else for that matter. I can be loving and kind and not to evil deeds even if I listen to gothic music or even if I have sex with my brother. As (I think) you're implying, it is our actions and our attitude that counts more than our belief.

Quote:
It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship.

Why must we assume that seeking enlightenment is solely for the sake of enlightenment, or that it is about self-worship? I seek enlightenment about Life, and Death, and God and his existence. Suppose I do get enlightened and find that the truth is that God does exist, and what he really wants is for us to be happy without any rules?
the_mariska
horseatingweeds wrote:
First, hell is not a punishment and heaven is not a reward. The path we choose to walk in life we continue in death.

Second, what are we doing here? We are here because the Lord wanted beings to love him on their own free will.

Conclusion, we can choose to love him and follow him or not. If we do we continue after death and if we don’t we also continue. The difference is that we are not trapped in our bodies here where all have access to the Lord. I think the loss of the access to him is the true pain of hell.

These few lines are quiet wise.. I have my own idea of the same thing. I know a lot of people, that base their lifes on sex (well, they call it love), money, sometimes alcohol/drugs and nothing more (turn on MTv for example to see what I mean). Everytime they hear the word 'god' they start cursing or shouting. It's their choice to do so, and that's not a problem for me.

But I think God would love to give them eternal happiness in heaven (as He has forgived prostitutes and a criminalist), but the only problem is that they don't accept this offer. That's why people who live without any moral law simply wouldn't feel good in heaven. God wouldn't force them to be with Him, if they don't like so.

And about the punishment? I think God doesn't have to punish anybody, those people who decide to decline Him would simply realise how much they have lost.

Quote:
So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord.

Well, I cannot agree with it. I know that every religion (well, except for some sects) is a path to get closer to God, but there is a big difference between natural religions and the revelated ones. In the first ones people come to such conclusions as you said, but in the revelated religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) God is the first one who contacts with people and reveals some truth to them. What is more, the words Jesus or Bible cannot be trated that way, as Jesus is not a lagre shark who created an island but a historical character that has lived on the Earth.
horseatingweeds
lib wrote:
Quote:
First, hell is not a punishment

When why do we use the terms like "damned" to burn in Hell's fire forever, etc etc?


This would be like saying one who does not go to school is “damned” to have a low paying job, I think.

Quote:
Quote:
We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do.

So basically, this is all about sacrifising what you really want to do, and living your life by his rules, obligations, customs, etc.
No thank you... I think I'd rather listen to ROck music that gives me pleasure. I think I'd rather question everything and learn from the answers I get in return rather than jump with blind faith into it all.


Yes, but the trouble is what I want to do is not best for me. For example, I really like to drink. It makes me feel good, but only for a few hours. The “sacrifice” of what I want, alcohol, for what God would want of me, perhaps to do some reading and get some extra sleep, is better for ME.

The Lord does not want us to not have pleasure. He does love us and want us to be happy. We are most happy when we follow his way. He also most certainly would have us question everything, test it by fire. I don’t think the true God would not want his people to do this.

Quote:
Quote:
This way that the Lord would have us live is in fact the best way to live or is true enlightenment.
.
.
.
.
Buddhists, Taoists and simple intellectuals have found much of this truth using logic. This truth is also in mankind’s heart. This, though, can be quite dangerous. Living by these truths is not following the Lord even though it is the best way to live.

I'm having some trouble comprehending this part.
In the beginning, you're saying that the Lord's (shackling) way is the best way to live. Then, later you say that living by truth and logic is the best way to live, but it's not the Lord's way?

OK well, I just tried to restructure your sentences... an alternate meaning to your last sentence could mean that though the Lord's way is the best way, living by truth and logic is not the Lord's way or the best way.
Well, you're saying
Quote:
Now, since this “way” is the ultimate truth, finding it does not require following the teachings of the Lord or Jesus.

THen why is it dangeroud?
You've admitted that Buddhists, Taosists and simple intellectuals have found the truth using logic. THen what's the difference between believing in the Lord and not believing in him. The end result is that we all have to live with love and mutual respect. Some of us get forced to live this way because of the lord, and the rest of us do this because we see logically how this is benefitial to all of us.


I think you need to give my post another quick read. I just read through both of ours three or more times and I think you are simply misunderstanding my conclusion.

To rephrase I could say “the whole truth is the Lords way, partial truth is not”.

Through logic and reason a person can come to understand the “truth”. Besides Buda, and I am not so sure about him as he was never able to put it in simple words, I am unaware of any Buddhist that has reached FULL enlightenment. This is the danger. A man can come to only understand partial truth and his life will be all the better for it. I hate to do this but I an struggling to write a simple explanation. Let me make some examples.

A man can spend his life through logic and reason living a life pleasing to God and not follow God because he never reached to point of enlightenment that would reveal to him that the Lord created him and wants him to love and live for him.

Another man through logic and reason may legalize the Lord and devote himself.

Another may hears Jesus’ message and accept it, then confirm it through logic and reason.

Quote:
Quote:
So what for the people who know nothing of the “Lord” or “Jesus” or the “Bible”? Take a native to some yet undiscovered island. Perhaps his people have come to the conclusion that they and their island were created by a large shark or perhaps the sun. If this native understood this being to be his creator and he lived his life in order to please this being, sacrificing his own wants for that of his creator and his fellow man, this man is certainly on the path to continue serving the Lord.

This part of your post re-affirms to me the thought that you believe it is more important to sacrifise everything we want and live to please God. This is hypocrisy to God. Most religions state the same thing... live a life full of love and compassion. Be humble, and do "good" things. All of this is possible without having to sacrifise everything for the sake of "God". Logically, one can state the importance of being kind and good and just and fair with your neighbour and anyone else for that matter. I can be loving and kind and not to evil deeds even if I listen to gothic music or even if I have sex with my brother. As (I think) you're implying, it is our actions and our attitude that counts more than our belief.

Quote:
It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship.

Why must we assume that seeking enlightenment is solely for the sake of enlightenment, or that it is about self-worship? I seek enlightenment about Life, and Death, and God and his existence. Suppose I do get enlightened and find that the truth is that God does exist, and what he really wants is for us to be happy without any rules?


We don’t have to assume this. It is just how most seekers have explained it to me. As is full enlightenment is not possible but a fulfilling life is spent in search of it. As for finding that God wants us to be happy without any rules, he has already tried this and we failed miserably. He now offers us guidance. The rules and shackles you speak of are not cause you harm as if to “urn” salvation. His “rules” are the best way for us all. At times it certainly feels like this or that would be better. Like a child wanting dessert before dinner. But it’s not.
horseatingweeds
the_mariska wrote:
Well, I cannot agree with it. I know that every religion (well, except for some sects) is a path to get closer to God, but there is a big difference between natural religions and the revelated ones. In the first ones people come to such conclusions as you said, but in the revelated religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) God is the first one who contacts with people and reveals some truth to them. What is more, the words Jesus or Bible cannot be trated that way, as Jesus is not a lagre shark who created an island but a historical character that has lived on the Earth.


This is an area that I would like to discus further. Certainly I do not believe that all religions are the path, but I am almost certain that in many religions the path can be found.

The trouble I see is that many religions are partially true enough to feel very credible.

Also, with my example of the island native, how else would God reveal himself?
mike1reynolds
horseatingweeds wrote:
Most religions state the same thing... live a life full of love and compassion. Be humble, and do "good" things. All of this is possible without having to sacrifise everything for the sake of "God".

It depends on how close you are. The closer you get too God the harder Satan is on you. That is why monastic life tends toward asceticism.

horseatingweeds wrote:
We don’t have to assume this. It is just how most seekers have explained it to me. As is full enlightenment is not possible but a fulfilling life is spent in search of it.

I was never clear on the distinction between enlightenment and balancing one’s karma. It is the later, not the former, that determines one’s final incarnation and ascension. In Hinduism there is the state of Samadhi, union with God, but if you balance your karma and don’t reach Samadhi, then what? I think that these are relative stages.

The Lamas of Tibetan Buddhism teach that the ultimate spiritual goal is the awakening of the oversoul. There is a mind above the soul, which incorporates many souls. There could be higher aspects of the soul still, but this one takes so long to mature that only seven oversouls have awakened in the history of the human race. According to Tibetan prophecy the eighth is to awaken now. The Dalai Lama is a still incarnating member of the last oversoul to awaken.

The soul path, the straight and narrow path of the Middle Way or Tao is a high-wire act. The oversoul path combines many soul paths to weave a network that is a flat surface. It is not nearly as treacherous. That is, if the oversoul is awake. It is a sort of super-enlightenment, a group Buddha. And this new one will be much more powerful than the other 7. Among other distinguishing features it will have Christ as a central member.
lib
I re-read my post from last night. Not upto my standards... probably was too sleepy or something. Anyway, here we go again:

horseatingweeds wrote:
lib wrote:
Quote:
First, hell is not a punishment

When why do we use the terms like "damned" to burn in Hell's fire forever, etc etc?

This would be like saying one who does not go to school is “damned” to have a low paying job, I think.

I meant to bolden a bit more of it. I meant to write it like this : Then why do we use the terms like "damned to burn in Hell's fire [color=red]forever", etc etc?
I'm sure we both agree that eternity is more than life. Being damned to having a bad job (for the rest of your life), is not quite so bad as being damned to burn in Hell's flames (for eternity).

Quote:
Yes, but the trouble is what I want to do is not best for me. For example, I really like to drink. It makes me feel good, but only for a few hours. The “sacrifice” of what I want, alcohol, for what God would want of me, perhaps to do some reading and get some extra sleep, is better for ME.

Anything (almost) done in moderation is good for you. TO have a higher rate of success as a salesman, you have to do some amount of social drinking.
Another scenario... I have a girlfriend I love and she loves me. We both are mature, and we have sex regularly. But we're not married yet. Does that make me a bad person? What if we both don't think marriage is all that important? What if we only think of it as a legal permission to fornicate? What if "love" is more important to us than social permission to fornicate?

horseatingweeds wrote:
I think you need to give my post another quick read. I just read through both of ours three or more times and I think you are simply misunderstanding my conclusion.

You know what? I was very afraid that's exactly what had happened there Laughing Razz

horseatingweeds wrote:
A man can come to only understand partial truth and his life will be all the better for it.

Well, it seems here like you're saying that even if a man partially understands the truth, his life will take a turn for the better. So, what's wrong with that? Again I ask... if a man's life is all the better for it, why is the Lord against this? (assuming that knowing only the "partial" truth is NOT the Lord's way?)

horseatingweeds wrote:
As for finding that God wants us to be happy without any rules, he has already tried this and we failed miserably. He now offers us guidance.

What exactly are you referring to here?

mike1reynolds wrote:
The closer you get too God the harder Satan is on you. That is why monastic life tends toward asceticism.

I agree with that. Another explanation for monastic life tending towards asceticism is that as asceticism gives you time to yourself... to sit and perhaps meditate on God, or to sit and try to think of possible answers and seek enlightenment.
horseatingweeds
mike1reynolds wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Most religions state the same thing... live a life full of love and compassion. Be humble, and do "good" things. All of this is possible without having to sacrifise everything for the sake of "God".

It depends on how close you are. The closer you get too God the harder Satan is on you. That is why monastic life tends toward asceticism.


I didn't write this mike, your getting sloppy.... Laughing

lib wrote:
I meant to bolden a bit more of it. I meant to write it like this : Then why do we use the terms like "damned to burn in Hell's fire [color=red]forever", etc etc?
I'm sure we both agree that eternity is more than life. Being damned to having a bad job (for the rest of your life), is not quite so bad as being damned to burn in Hell's flames (for eternity).


My point is simply that God is not doing the sending. If we choose to live outside of his presents that is the path we have chosen.

lib wrote:
Anything (almost) done in moderation is good for you. TO have a higher rate of success as a salesman, you have to do some amount of social drinking.
Another scenario... I have a girlfriend I love and she loves me. We both are mature, and we have sex regularly. But we're not married yet. Does that make me a bad person? What if we both don't think marriage is all that important? What if we only think of it as a legal permission to fornicate? What if "love" is more important to us than social permission to fornicate?


My point is not that alcohol is bad, but that following the Lords will is better for you.

Sex is a good example. I am very certain that you FEEL what you are doing is right, despite the fact that many of your elders and thousand year old rules disagree. Especially in our current society with its lack of accountability and sitcoms convincing us that sex is a necessary part of adult life.

Here is the fact however. Sex brings about lots of very complicated emotions, produces children and is really good a spreading disease. Nearly every society has found it much better for a single person to make a formal commitment to another person for the duration of their lives before indulging in sex.

Additionally, sex and love are not the concatenations that poetry and 80’s music would have us believe, although it certainly FEELS like it. Loving a person has more to do with sacrifice and protecting that person on a daily basis. Truly loving someone is not using their body for please and assuming a connection otherwise.

BTW, I am not saying that your love is not sincere, just that it is immature. This could be written to horseatingweeds – 10years just as well.

lib wrote:
Well, it seems here like you're saying that even if a man partially understands the truth, his life will take a turn for the better. So, what's wrong with that? Again I ask... if a man's life is all the better for it, why is the Lord against this? (assuming that knowing only the "partial" truth is NOT the Lord's way?)


Nothing, and the Lord is not against it. It is not the Lord’s way only because it is not done for the Lord. We have free will to follow him or not. We also have free will to live the best we can see to live and still not follow him.

horseatingweeds wrote:

As for finding that God wants us to be happy without any rules, he has already tried this and we failed miserably. He now offers us guidance.

lib wrote:
What exactly are you referring to here?


I'm thinking of the time between Adam and Eve getting kickout out of the garden and the 10 comandments.
lib
horseatingweeds wrote:
My point is not that alcohol is bad, but that following the Lords will is better for you.

If you agree with me when I say that social drinking can help boost your career, and this helps you get more comfortable in life... then how is the Lord's will to have us not drink and therefore, possible lose out on some clients, better for us in this life?
(True, your obvious argument to this would be that the Lord's will will help us get into Heaven, which is eternal... life is just temporary... but I believe the discussion so far has been restricted to this life alone.)

horseatingweeds wrote:
Sex is a good example. I am very certain that you FEEL what you are doing is right, despite the fact that many of your elders and thousand year old rules disagree. Especially in our current society with its lack of accountability and sitcoms convincing us that sex is a necessary part of adult life.

I never said that sex was a necessary part of adult life. Priests (most of them, at least) have been successfully celibate. As far as thousand year rules are concerned, I've stated before (probably in another thread) that just because something has been accepted for a thousand years, it doesn't make it right. And just because something has been being done for a thousand years, it doesn't mean we do the same thing. If we never progress beyond age old customs to inculcate modern discoveries or practices, we'd be stuck in a rut forever. I've stated before that I believe the true reason marriage was given so much important was because of man's greed and selfishness, and possessiveness.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Here is the fact however. Sex brings about lots of very complicated emotions, produces children and is really good a spreading disease. Nearly every society has found it much better for a single person to make a formal commitment to another person for the duration of their lives before indulging in sex.

Please don't mistake my post and my idea of sex with your girlfriend (as stated in my previous post) with swinging, wild, indiscriminate, casual sex or one-night stands. Having multiple partners can obviously spread disease, etc. Sex is not the only thing that brings about complicated emotions... love does, too... so does attraction... feelings of jealousy, or in some cases, hatred to the point of irrationality and thoughtless actions.
Also, your point of sex bringing about lots of complicated emotions... let's try to get to the root cause of this... sex (before marriage) is treated as a taboo. Sex after marriage is confined to the bedroom and done in secrecy from your children as if it's something wrong that they should not know about. If we simply accepted sex as an adult in-born urge and learnt to deal with it as if it's no big deal, there wouldn't be any complicated feelings being brought out by it.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Additionally, sex and love are not the concatenations that poetry and 80’s music would have us believe, although it certainly FEELS like it. Loving a person has more to do with sacrifice and protecting that person on a daily basis. Truly loving someone is not using their body for please and assuming a connection otherwise.

Amazing how you can degrade sex to something that is "using someone's body for pleasure". If two people are in love with each other, you would expect their hormones to play an active role. Studies has shown that having a healthy sex life is good for your relationship, and good for your own health as well. Sex is not just about using someone's body for pleasure (at least, not always, and definitely not in the scenario I have painted), it's a physical expression of your love for someone. That's why it's called "making love". I agree that in lots of cases, sex is about using someone's body for pleasure. However, sex as a result of love is not. See my previous point in this post, where I have said the same thing. When I wrote that scenario, I wrote it with 2 people deeply in love with each other... not a couple of kids who think they're in love and will stay together forever who have sex because it feels good.

horseatingweeds wrote:
BTW, I am not saying that your love is not sincere, just that it is immature. This could be written to horseatingweeds – 10years just as well.

I highly doubt it. From the last sentence there, I'll assume you're assuming me to be either in my late teens or very early 20s or so... I'll assume you're 10 years older than the age you've assumed of me. I'll also assume you're happily married. Pardon me if I'm getting a little personal here, but I'll also assume that you fornicate with your wife. You obviously also love her. Now, just picture 2 people in the same stage of their relationship as you and your wife... the only difference is that they're not married. Does this make their love immature? Does marriage give love maturity automatically? Well, Britney Spears got married for 11 hours. Were those 11 hours filled with mature love?

horseatingweeds wrote:
lib wrote:
Well, it seems here like you're saying that even if a man partially understands the truth, his life will take a turn for the better. So, what's wrong with that? Again I ask... if a man's life is all the better for it, why is the Lord against this? (assuming that knowing only the "partial" truth is NOT the Lord's way?)

Nothing, and the Lord is not against it. It is not the Lord’s way only because it is not done for the Lord. We have free will to follow him or not. We also have free will to live the best we can see to live and still not follow him.

So then, there is a way of living that is actually very good for our life, but it's not quite the Lord's way? Does this mean that there could be a better life, but if we choose this better life, we risk not going to Heaven because it's not God's way?
horseatingweeds
lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
My point is not that alcohol is bad, but that following the Lords will is better for you.

If you agree with me when I say that social drinking can help boost your career, and this helps you get more comfortable in life... then how is the Lord's will to have us not drink and therefore, possible lose out on some clients, better for us in this life?
(True, your obvious argument to this would be that the Lord's will will help us get into Heaven, which is eternal... life is just temporary... but I believe the discussion so far has been restricted to this life alone.)


Your missing the point here. Alcohal is ok. The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live. It is the most beneficial to people on earth.

Quote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Sex is a good example. I am very certain that you FEEL what you are doing is right, despite the fact that many of your elders and thousand year old rules disagree. Especially in our current society with its lack of accountability and sitcoms convincing us that sex is a necessary part of adult life.

I never said that sex was a necessary part of adult life. Priests (most of them, at least) have been successfully celibate. As far as thousand year rules are concerned, I've stated before (probably in another thread) that just because something has been accepted for a thousand years, it doesn't make it right. And just because something has been being done for a thousand years, it doesn't mean we do the same thing. If we never progress beyond age old customs to inculcate modern discoveries or practices, we'd be stuck in a rut forever. I've stated before that I believe the true reason marriage was given so much important was because of man's greed and selfishness, and possessiveness.


I am uninterested in debate, only discussion or even argument.

Quote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Here is the fact however. Sex brings about lots of very complicated emotions, produces children and is really good a spreading disease. Nearly every society has found it much better for a single person to make a formal commitment to another person for the duration of their lives before indulging in sex.

Please don't mistake my post and my idea of sex with your girlfriend (as stated in my previous post) with swinging, wild, indiscriminate, casual sex or one-night stands. Having multiple partners can obviously spread disease, etc. Sex is not the only thing that brings about complicated emotions... love does, too... so does attraction... feelings of jealousy, or in some cases, hatred to the point of irrationality and thoughtless actions.
Also, your point of sex bringing about lots of complicated emotions... let's try to get to the root cause of this... sex (before marriage) is treated as a taboo. Sex after marriage is confined to the bedroom and done in secrecy from your children as if it's something wrong that they should not know about. If we simply accepted sex as an adult in-born urge and learnt to deal with it as if it's no big deal, there wouldn't be any complicated feelings being brought out by it.


80's music, sounds nice, very convenient.

Quote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Additionally, sex and love are not the concatenations that poetry and 80’s music would have us believe, although it certainly FEELS like it. Loving a person has more to do with sacrifice and protecting that person on a daily basis. Truly loving someone is not using their body for please and assuming a connection otherwise.

Amazing how you can degrade sex to something that is "using someone's body for pleasure". If two people are in love with each other, you would expect their hormones to play an active role. Studies has shown that having a healthy sex life is good for your relationship, and good for your own health as well. Sex is not just about using someone's body for pleasure (at least, not always, and definitely not in the scenario I have painted), it's a physical expression of your love for someone. That's why it's called "making love". I agree that in lots of cases, sex is about using someone's body for pleasure. However, sex as a result of love is not. See my previous point in this post, where I have said the same thing. When I wrote that scenario, I wrote it with 2 people deeply in love with each other... not a couple of kids who think they're in love and will stay together forever who have sex because it feels good.


Sex is not a physical expression of love. Commitment is and sex is the celebration of that commitment. If you would like to debate this point I will crush you and your three smartest friends but honestly I am uninterested as it would get us nowhere. Do you really believe that a society would be healthier under your described believe than under the long held believe held by so many societies? Do you really think our current generation just happened to have appeared so very originally wise? History can teach us my friend.

Quote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
BTW, I am not saying that your love is not sincere, just that it is immature. This could be written to horseatingweeds – 10years just as well.

I highly doubt it. From the last sentence there, I'll assume you're assuming me to be either in my late teens or very early 20s or so... I'll assume you're 10 years older than the age you've assumed of me. I'll also assume you're happily married. Pardon me if I'm getting a little personal here, but I'll also assume that you fornicate with your wife. You obviously also love her. Now, just picture 2 people in the same stage of their relationship as you and your wife... the only difference is that they're not married. Does this make their love immature? Does marriage give love maturity automatically? Well, Britney Spears got married for 11 hours. Were those 11 hours filled with mature love?


Yes, Yes, Wasn't there.

Quote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
lib wrote:
Well, it seems here like you're saying that even if a man partially understands the truth, his life will take a turn for the better. So, what's wrong with that? Again I ask... if a man's life is all the better for it, why is the Lord against this? (assuming that knowing only the "partial" truth is NOT the Lord's way?)

Nothing, and the Lord is not against it. It is not the Lord’s way only because it is not done for the Lord. We have free will to follow him or not. We also have free will to live the best we can see to live and still not follow him.

Quote:
So then, there is a way of living that is actually very good for our life, but it's not quite the Lord's way? Does this mean that there could be a better life, but if we choose this better life, we risk not going to Heaven because it's not God's way?


This better life only seems better. The Lord’s way IS the best. He would like us to live the best that we can and if we lived by his way we would. Again, when a person views a decision or a thing as something that will make their lives better but it is not in the Lords way, they are simply mistaken. No different that a child wanting dessert before dinner.
lib
Hmm... It appears, mr.weeds, that I seem to have touched (some kind of) a nerve with my last post. Your reply seemed irritated and angry. Unfirtunately, I cannot let your irritation get in the way of my free speech or in the way of my "debating" with you. Right into it, then.. Smile

Quote:
Your missing the point here. Alcohal is ok. The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live. It is the most beneficial to people on earth.

Very well, then... let's leave this at a status quo. Unless you can tell me exactly what God's way is, I will not accept this statement, and it is obvious from your previous posts, that you will not accept any other way but "The Lord's Way" as the best way... and all my logical arguments so far have failed to change your mind.

Quote:
Your missing the point here. Alcohal is ok. The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live. It is the most beneficial to people on earth.

I have repeatedly written many scenarios in which "my way" definitely appears to be better than "The Lord's Way", at least as far as this life here on earth is concerned. You have not written anything about them... instead you state a simply, close-eyed, declarative : "The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live"
I have also created scenarios in which "my way" was more beneficial than "The Lord's Way", and once again, you close your eyes to them, and state, declaratively : "It is the most beneficial to people on earth"

Quote:
I am uninterested in debate, only discussion or even argument.

.....?
Huh?

Quote:
80's music, sounds nice, very convenient.

Ah... hypocrisy... or maybe just ignorance... very well then... let's discuss this "80s music" crap you keep bringing up.
Marriage and Sex.
You keep saying that love is all about commitment and sacrifice. On the other hand, you keep telling me to give up on my "80s music" ideals. Mr.weeds, wake up to the modern age. Marriage and commitment are fallign apart. People fall out of love, people divorce. You call me a dreamer while you preach about life-long commitment? Are you ignorant of the number of couples divorcing, of the number of broken homes, of the number of children who have 2 mothers or 2 fathers, of the number of wives who wish they'd die because their husband doesn't love them anymore, and is a frequent wife-beater? If my idea of love is 80s music, your idea of commitment and how strong and relevant it is today is Utopia.
You're missing my point. I've said, in different words, over the past few posts that sex and love should be on a balance... marriage is a social permission to have sex, but it puts pressure on you because it's "supposed" to last a lifetime. On the other hand, wild swinging, one night stands, sleeping around for the sake of sex is bad for society, bad for health, bad in general. So, draw a line in the middle. 2 people, while they are in love with each other, remain commited to each other, make love with each other, and havea good life until they realize they no longer are in love with each other. And what if they meet other people who're making them happier now? Why not give a free hand to love and life?

Quote:
Sex is not a physical expression of love. Commitment is and sex is the celebration of that commitment. If you would like to debate this point I will crush you and your three smartest friends

Nice sentiment there. ^_^
I still say sex (at least, ideally, and in some cases, practically) is a physical expression of love. Commitment is not physical, it's mental. Sex can be just about as mechanical and loveless as anything else... sex can also be just to satisfy your basic carnal desire. However, I assume we're both talking along diealistic lines of view here... you say, ideally, sex is the celebration of your commitment. I say sex is the physical expression of your love. I don't see, however, why both can't be correct.

Quote:
Do you really believe that a society would be healthier under your described believe than under the long held believe held by so many societies?

Not necessarily healthier. But one that gives space for more love, for more personal freedom and growth? Holy Hell! YES, I DO! If I didn't, I wouldn't be fighting so much for my ideals, would I? My whole life and happiness revolves around my ideals, and what I think is right, and what I believe is perfection.
Society in the past has held long-held beliefs, which later were discarded... such views as the geo-centricity, the keeping of slaves, etc etc were long-held views, and it took revolutionaries to change them for the better.

Quote:
Do you really think our current generation just happened to have appeared so very originally wise? History can teach us my friend.

What is so wise about this current generation? People are still forced into following every religious whim and fancy for fear of Hell or other punishments, instead of following a set of moral values for the sake of what's right and what's wrong... what's logically better for us and what is logically bad for us... people still fighting religious wars... couples divorcing for the smallest of reasons... hate breeding in the form of discrimination... do you want me to take more examples, or would you rather see the "wise" world around you by yourself?

Quote:
The Lord’s way IS the best. He would like us to live the best that we can and if we lived by his way we would.

Once again, your declarative.
And once again, I say... I have painted many scenarios in which life seems better, but is not necessarily in conformity with the Lord's way, and you haven't debated these.

Quote:
Again, when a person views a decision or a thing as something that will make their lives better but it is not in the Lords way, they are simply mistaken.

What if a man likes Rock Music? What if the rock musician is a freethinker and rejects the idea of a God? What if our man in question likes this kind of music so much, that it transports him to another place mentally and gives him great enjoyment? (Music can definitely do that, you know) It would be against God's way to listen to this music because it rejects God and the man in question is not doing it for God, but for his own enjoyment and pleasure. This music, assumably, disturbs no one else... it does not bring evil thoughts into the man's mind, it does not cause him to be selfish or evil or greedy or do wrong deeds. Why oh why then, must he sacrifise his love for music just because the Lord is selfish to want everyone to do everything for Him alone?

Quote:
No different that a child wanting dessert before dinner.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Having dessert after dinner is nothing but yet another social rule/custom/tradition/whatever you want to call it. I see nothing wrong with breaking this tradition... in fact, I wouldn't mind giving my child just a large bowl of ice-cream once in a while before I put him to sleep.
death_dealer
lib you wanna learn the lords way studie islam
lib
death_dealer wrote:
lib you wanna learn the lords way studie islam

Like I said, I'm still learning about religions. I started with Christianity because it is the largest religion in the world (and one of the oldest)... I'm still not an expert on Christianity... and still not as good as I would like to be... but I'll take them as they come. Of course, I have to juggle my learning with the rest of my occupations...

I am, however, keeping an eye out for an English translation of the Qu'ran. Do you have any particular authors who you think have translated it right?
wannabdoc
Vrythramax wrote:
I can see the relevence of some of the listed verses to the topic and not others. My own thought on the subject is that if you believe in your heart, and try to the best of your abiity to do what you know in your heart is right...you should be all set. I don't believe that going to Church every Sunday, praying daily, observing all the religious holidays and trappings is really going to bring you any closer to God if all you are doing is going through a predetermined course of actions (sounds like a kata to me) and have no real love for God in your heart.

untrue. disagree. the reason for going to church to pray is that it is the house of God, and it is also a place where believers come together to worship and fellowship. it is also a place where we can be discipled. if going to church is not important, then why did jesus tell his disciples to "build His church"? why did God keep telling the Jews in the Old Testament to build Him a temple?
the church is also known as the "bride" and Jesus is the "bridesgroom". that shows how important a church is.
however, i do see your point about some people just merely going to church without real love. it is inevitable that there will be people who behave in that way. that said, i wont discount the importance of church or attending weekly services, or even celebrating easter and christmas, which let us remember keystone events of christianity.
brother, do find a good local church and start attending services, instead of giving the lazy excuse about "oh yeah, i can also pray at home". the point is, do you really pray at home?
HoboPelican
wannabdoc wrote:

untrue. disagree. the reason for going to church to pray is that it is the house of God, and it is also a place where believers come together to worship and fellowship. it is also a place where we can be discipled. if going to church is not important, then why did jesus tell his disciples to "build His church"?...

I'm open to being proved wrong, but I thought the use of church here meant the teachings, not a building.

Quote:

...why did God keep telling the Jews in the Old Testament to build Him a temple?...

OT is not germane. The OT allowed marrying blood relatives and sacrifices, also.

The congregation, whether in a special building or peoples home or wherever is a very important part of the christian faith. However, it isn't essential in my mind. Really, the only essential is to accept Christ as your savior. I'm pretty sure that's all there is in the NT.
death_dealer
@ lib

look at the interpertations ask ppl who thay think is good(not me I havent realy read much interpertations) but I say this couse people get the translation mixed up with the interpertation there for wrongly self interpertating what it says
horseatingweeds
lib wrote:
Hmm... It appears, mr.weeds, that I seem to have touched (some kind of) a nerve with my last post. Your reply seemed irritated and angry. Unfirtunately, I cannot let your irritation get in the way of my free speech or in the way of my "debating" with you. Right into it, then.. Smile


Lib Lib Lib, as I said I am uninterested in debate but I am happy to engage in discussion or even argument. If you are attempting discussion I should also warn you that you are showing a reckless tendency to lose sight of the discussion as a whole by retorting my fraises individually rather than within context of the discussion. If you are attempting to debate this is understandable as it is a debating technique, however sloppy.

Also, understand that when I engage in discussion it is for purposes of mutual understanding and enlightenment. A debate is a simple contest between two parties in an attempt to make the ideas that they have to represent seem more valid. A debate is useless to me. I am not here to represent any idea but to test them and understand others so that my own understanding will grow.

Quote:
Quote:
Your missing the point here. Alcohal is ok. The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live. It is the most beneficial to people on earth.

Very well, then... let's leave this at a status quo. Unless you can tell me exactly what God's way is, I will not accept this statement, and it is obvious from your previous posts, that you will not accept any other way but "The Lord's Way" as the best way... and all my logical arguments so far have failed to change your mind.


From this you are almost certainly debating. First, you act as if I blindly think we should follow some mystical way that I have not explained while pretending that your statements are supported by my previous posts. Then you seem to act as if I have not used logic, in other words, you attempt to make the argument seem as if it where blind ideas against logic. You also admit to attempting to change my mind, are you willing to change yours as well? However…..

horseatingweeds wrote:
So how do we love and follow him? We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself.


Quote:
Quote:
Your missing the point here. Alcohal is ok. The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live. It is the most beneficial to people on earth.

I have repeatedly written many scenarios in which "my way" definitely appears to be better than "The Lord's Way", at least as far as this life here on earth is concerned. You have not written anything about them... instead you state a simply, close-eyed, declarative : "The BEST way to live is in the path God wouldlike you to live"
I have also created scenarios in which "my way" was more beneficial than "The Lord's Way", and once again, you close your eyes to them, and state, declaratively : "It is the most beneficial to people on earth"


Here you do almost the exact same thing, however….. my explanations have not been about things SEEMING. I will reiterate it once more just to be clear.

Although something seems to be good for you at the time it can often not. The path of enlightenment is a perfect path where all of your actions create only good and no harm. Following this path based on logic and reason; or love for your creator will produce the best existence on this planet for your earthly life. It is also the path the Lord would like you to follow.

“But horseatingweeds, what for the fellow that enjoys rolling himself up in a blanket, shoving himself in the closet and pretending he is a hotdog at the grocery store. He is not hurting anyone and he enjoys it. Why do you blindly say the Lord maliciously hates him for it?”

“The Lord would have him doing better thing. Better for him and all of the other children that cry out to the Lord constantly. Being rolled in the closet, although to the fellow that enjoys it, it SEEMS good, is not. It is the sin of complacency.”

Quote:
Quote:
80's music, sounds nice, very convenient.

Ah... hypocrisy... or maybe just ignorance... very well then... let's discuss this "80s music" crap you keep bringing up.
Marriage and Sex.
You keep saying that love is all about commitment and sacrifice. On the other hand, you keep telling me to give up on my "80s music" ideals. Mr.weeds, wake up to the modern age. Marriage and commitment are fallign apart. People fall out of love, people divorce. You call me a dreamer while you preach about life-long commitment? Are you ignorant of the number of couples divorcing, of the number of broken homes, of the number of children who have 2 mothers or 2 fathers, of the number of wives who wish they'd die because their husband doesn't love them anymore, and is a frequent wife-beater? If my idea of love is 80s music, your idea of commitment and how strong and relevant it is today is Utopia.
You're missing my point. I've said, in different words, over the past few posts that sex and love should be on a balance... marriage is a social permission to have sex, but it puts pressure on you because it's "supposed" to last a lifetime. On the other hand, wild swinging, one night stands, sleeping around for the sake of sex is bad for society, bad for health, bad in general. So, draw a line in the middle. 2 people, while they are in love with each other, remain commited to each other, make love with each other, and havea good life until they realize they no longer are in love with each other. And what if they meet other people who're making them happier now? Why not give a free hand to love and life?


Yes, the modern age indeed. Yes, broken homes.
Why are they broken? Because the parents made love until they realized that they didn’t “love” each other anymore, married or not.

Marriage is NOT a social license to have sex, it is a commitment between two people to love, protect and care for each other for now on. It has been customary in most societies to make an oath publicly abound close society members in order that those members may assists in holding the couple accountable in the future. A real promise.

Certainly, many of us today in free countries during this rare time of comfort and lack of hardship can view marriage simply as a contract that says you may only participate is a certain type of very popular recreational activity with this one person. The biggest test most couples face is opportunities.

Quote:
Quote:
Sex is not a physical expression of love. Commitment is and sex is the celebration of that commitment. If you would like to debate this point I will crush you and your three smartest friends

Nice sentiment there. ^_^
I still say sex (at least, ideally, and in some cases, practically) is a physical expression of love. Commitment is not physical, it's mental. Sex can be just about as mechanical and loveless as anything else... sex can also be just to satisfy your basic carnal desire. However, I assume we're both talking along diealistic lines of view here... you say, ideally, sex is the celebration of your commitment. I say sex is the physical expression of your love. I don't see, however, why both can't be correct.


Exactly, but commitment and sacrifice, how often are they for pleasure or selfishness?

Quote:
Quote:
Do you really believe that a society would be healthier under your described believe than under the long held believe held by so many societies?

Not necessarily healthier. But one that gives space for more love, for more personal freedom and growth? Holy Hell! YES, I DO! If I didn't, I wouldn't be fighting so much for my ideals, would I? My whole life and happiness revolves around my ideals, and what I think is right, and what I believe is perfection.
Society in the past has held long-held beliefs, which later were discarded... such views as the geo-centricity, the keeping of slaves, etc etc were long-held views, and it took revolutionaries to change them for the better.


You know, whenever I brought up the fact that the institute of marriage is validated by the fact that nearly every society has held it high, I thought for a moment “Maybe I should elaborate further for the slower members of our group who will think to them selves, “lets see…. people usta do slavery, they killed Indians, and declare crusades, that don’t make no sence!”, but know, Lib will realize the glaring difference between historical precedence of a universally beneficial institution and historically intermittently held institution accompanied always by disproportionate distribution”.

Quote:
Quote:
Do you really think our current generation just happened to have appeared so very originally wise? History can teach us my friend.

What is so wise about this current generation? People are still forced into following every religious whim and fancy for fear of Hell or other punishments, instead of following a set of moral values for the sake of what's right and what's wrong... what's logically better for us and what is logically bad for us... people still fighting religious wars... couples divorcing for the smallest of reasons... hate breeding in the form of discrimination... do you want me to take more examples, or would you rather see the "wise" world around you by yourself?


I would like you to make more examples. Here are some, people are throwing out long held institutions that have been the foundation of our societies. Our forefathers built our current society so comfortable that we don’t even understand the need for their silly things like marriage. We feel so entitled that we think it is our right to have relationships based on the fulfillment we are acquiring and as soon as that fulfillment diminishes find a new. It the “love making” we engage in manages to produce a child (silly we don’t call it what it is, I mean the child ‘love’ or the making ‘child’) we feel we have the right to discard it to ovoid the responsibility.

Quote:
Quote:
The Lord’s way IS the best. He would like us to live the best that we can and if we lived by his way we would.

Once again, your declarative.
And once again, I say... I have painted many scenarios in which life seems better, but is not necessarily in conformity with the Lord's way, and you haven't debated these.


Yes, once again you do, sadly. And sadder yet, yes I have.

Quote:
Quote:
Again, when a person views a decision or a thing as something that will make their lives better but it is not in the Lords way, they are simply mistaken.

What if a man likes Rock Music? What if the rock musician is a freethinker and rejects the idea of a God? What if our man in question likes this kind of music so much, that it transports him to another place mentally and gives him great enjoyment? (Music can definitely do that, you know) It would be against God's way to listen to this music because it rejects God and the man in question is not doing it for God, but for his own enjoyment and pleasure. This music, assumably, disturbs no one else... it does not bring evil thoughts into the man's mind, it does not cause him to be selfish or evil or greedy or do wrong deeds. Why oh why then, must he sacrifise his love for music just because the Lord is selfish to want everyone to do everything for Him alone?


A truly enlightened person, a person interested in the benefit of himself and his fellow man, or a person living to please their creator, by listening to music that does not stimulate, motivate or sooth the mind is not benefiting himself, regardless it he is receiving pleasure. The fact that there is no operant harm, or the fact that there is NO harm does not mean an act is good. What could we be doing better?

Quote:
Quote:
No different that a child wanting dessert before dinner.

I don't see anything wrong with that. Having dessert after dinner is nothing but yet another social rule/custom/tradition/whatever you want to call it. I see nothing wrong with breaking this tradition... in fact, I wouldn't mind giving my child just a large bowl of ice-cream once in a while before I put him to sleep.


Yes, you see nothing wrong so you assume there is nothing wrong regardless of the social rules you have such contempt for. In fact, this social rule is a good example. People forever have wanted there children to be healthy. They want them to eat good food and be strong. Now dessert is usually full of sugar. This sugar makes the child not feel hungry. There is a whole explanation to this but the basic point is that. Now that the kid is not as hungry he won’t eat as much good stuff. Sugar before bed is really bad, especially dairy and sugar, for the teeth.

You should experiment with that icecream idea, get back to me on how that works out....just not on a school night.

Soooo, that which you assumed was harmless and GOOD for you and against the Lord’s will was actually bad for you. The Lord’s evil shackling will that you thought was only for his own selfish perverted oppressive fancy was actually in your interest. OR, that which you thought was good for you, after thinking logically, proved bad for you.

In final summary of my original point. God does not want you to have dessert before dinner. One man ‘sacrifices’ dessert for the love of his Lord while the other ‘sacrifices’ dessert because it is logical. This sacrifice benefits both men here on earth. That fact that fact that the first man’s motivation for the sacrifice was an attempt to reach out to his creator makes it the Lord’s path.
lib
horseatingweeds wrote:
I should also warn you that you are showing a reckless tendency to lose sight of the discussion as a whole by retorting my fraises individually rather than within context of the discussion.

Actually, I try my best to avois making a post too long by quoting everything. I quote only how much I think is really necessary for discussion.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Also, understand that when I engage in discussion it is for purposes of mutual understanding and enlightenment. A debate is a simple contest between two parties in an attempt to make the ideas that they have to represent seem more valid. A debate is useless to me. I am not here to represent any idea but to test them and understand others so that my own understanding will grow.

I understand very well the difference between a debate and a discussion, Mr. weeds. I, myself, like discussion to enrich my ideas and to learn from others. However, just "discussing" merely isn't enough. The issues we discuss are big issues... religious ideologies play a major role in most people's lives, whether directly or indirectly. If it's going to be a simple state of "I state this, you state that, and we can both learn and accept something from each other's statements", things would be really simple. However, in order to inculcate some of your ideas with mine, I have to discuss and perhaps argue about them strongly before I accept them. I suppose it is the argument that you are misjudging to be debate.

lib wrote:
Unless you can tell me exactly what God's way is, I will not accept this statement, and it is obvious from your previous posts, that you will not accept any other way but "The Lord's Way" as the best way... and all my logical arguments so far have failed to change your mind.

I quote myself. Let's see where I've gone wrong. We'll come back to the first boldened part later, as I see you've quoted yourself there.
The next part... "you will not accept any other way but "The Lord's Way" as the best way"... is this not true? You have declaratively stated this more than once in many posts. Please don't make me quote them... it takes too much time.
Next ... "my logical arguments"... perhaps if you weren't in a defensive mindset, you would have noticed that I have not mentioned anywhere about you being illogical. I'm merely stating here that my arguments are almost completely (if not completely) logical, instead of religious, or based on blind-faith.
Next ... "failed to change your mind"... Have I not failed to change your mind?

horseatingweeds wrote:
From this you are almost certainly debating.
Call it what you will. I believe this was an argument on which we failed to reach a mutually accepted conclusion.

horseatingweeds wrote:
You also admit to attempting to change my mind, are you willing to change yours as well?
The point of a discussion, like you said, is to learn something new, something more... to go deeper into a subject worth exploring... if you haven't changed your mind about anything, or rather... if you haven't accepted anything since we started this discussion, then it's pointless, isn't it?
And by god! Yes, I have changed my mind based on forum discussions in the past, and perhaps in this thread too. With respect to this thread, I have been contemplating the importance of sacrifice, and I do believe I would sacrifice a lot for the sake of my family... I already do anyway. However, I still think sacrifising everything all the time... putting the next man forward all the time isn't right.

horseatingweeds wrote:
So how do we love and follow him? We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself.

Do you intend to tell me that this is your best explanation for the Lord's way? This over-generalized, seemingly generic explanation? Surely, you know life is complex. It's not just about "doing what He would have us to, rather than what we want to do". I'll restate my example of Goth music. Does sacrifising listening to Goth music make me a bad person, instead of my actions? Putting another man forward... does this mean I should take the life support system off my dying son, just because I want to give it to another man? I quote you without the quote tags here - "A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself." I'm taking the Lord's name and giving my son's life support system to another man to put him before me.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Although something seems to be good for you at the time it can often not. The path of enlightenment is a perfect path where all of your actions create only good and no harm. Following this path based on logic and reason; or love for your creator will produce the best existence on this planet for your earthly life. It is also the path the Lord would like you to follow.

Flip-flop.
Once again, the endorsement of seeking enlightenment. A few posts ago, weren't you stating that seeking enlightenment is not the Lord's way because it is done for selfish reasons, and not for the love of the Lord?
I believe "Gotcha!" wouldn't be out of place here.

horseatingweeds wrote:
“But horseatingweeds, what for the fellow that enjoys rolling himself up in a blanket, shoving himself in the closet and pretending he is a hotdog at the grocery store. He is not hurting anyone and he enjoys it. Why do you blindly say the Lord maliciously hates him for it?”

“The Lord would have him doing better thing. Better for him and all of the other children that cry out to the Lord constantly. Being rolled in the closet, although to the fellow that enjoys it, it SEEMS good, is not. It is the sin of complacency.”

What's wrong with being self-satisfied? Is the fellow rolled up in the closet doing any harm or causing discomfort to anyone else... or maybe causing them to be less satisfied in any way by rolling himself up in a closet?
Does this mean the Lord endorses us getting up off our asses and doing something (anything?) rather than sit and laze around, even if this lazing around affects no one but us, and is something that gives one comfort? But why?

horseatingweeds wrote:
Yes, the modern age indeed. Yes, broken homes.
Why are they broken? Because the parents made love until they realized that they didn’t “love” each other anymore, married or not.

And this is my point precisely. Marriage doesn't ensure that people will stay in love forever.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Marriage is NOT a social license to have sex, it is a commitment between two people to love, protect and care for each other for now on. It has been customary in most societies to make an oath publicly abound close society members in order that those members may assists in holding the couple accountable in the future. A real promise.

Real love should be the promise that companionship is based on, not a public oath. Would you rather try to keep 2 people, who have obviously fallen out of love with each, still married? Do you think that these people should sacrifise their peace by living with each other for the sake of an oath they made to society?

horseatingweeds wrote:
Certainly, many of us today in free countries during this rare time of comfort and lack of hardship can view marriage simply as a contract that says you may only participate is a certain type of very popular recreational activity with this one person. The biggest test most couples face is opportunities.

And if not love, I don't see what else should give couples the strength to overcome this test. It is (or rather, should be) love and a mutual want to be with each other that should be the cause for them to overcome obstacles that may try to separate them, not a public oath taken for the sake of the society.
I would go so far as to call it hypocrisy when a couple who no longer love each other, and no loner wish to be with each other, to stay together for the sake of their marriage.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Exactly, but commitment and sacrifice, how often are they for pleasure or selfishness?

Excellent question. Point noted ^_^
But over-sacrifice and commitment may have other problems, such as those which I have stated above.

horseatingweeds wrote:
You know, whenever I brought up the fact that the institute of marriage is validated by the fact that nearly every society has held it high, I thought for a moment “Maybe I should elaborate further for the slower members of our group who will think to them selves, “lets see…. people usta do slavery, they killed Indians, and declare crusades, that don’t make no sence!”, but know, Lib will realize the glaring difference between historical precedence of a universally beneficial institution and historically intermittently held institution accompanied always by disproportionate distribution”.

Hmm... sarcastic patronization.
*shrugs*
Nevermind.
Important part of your reply being "universally beneficial institution", which is what I was debating. Polygamy was a marriage custom until not too long ago, in some ages. Instead of slavery, I use the historical precedence of marriage itself. Does polygamy tell you anything about sacrifice, commitment, or love? Doubt it.
Polygamy changed slowly in monogamy and marriage as we see it now.
And I think and see (in the distant future, perhaps, if not in the near) that the social norm of companionship will be live-in relationships based on love, instead of marriage.

horseatingweeds wrote:
It the “love making” we engage in manages to produce a child (silly we don’t call it what it is, I mean the child ‘love’ or the making ‘child’) we feel we have the right to discard it to ovoid the responsibility.

Throughout my posts, I have never stated that you even if 2 people, unmarried, are living together and are in love, and are, by all accounts, married, except for the social oath-taking, they have any less responsibility towards their relationship than their married counterparts. It is not the shedding of responsibility that makes me think this way... it is purely the hypocrisy of marriage.

horseatingweeds wrote:
I would like you to make more examples. Here are some, people are throwing out long held institutions that have been the foundation of our societies. Our forefathers built our current society so comfortable that we don’t even understand the need for their silly things like marriage.

From another perspective then... another example of stupidity is people living by age-old customs and traditions that our forefathers based their societies and their children's societies on, instead of evaluating these and discarding those that have become obsolete. (I am not talking about marriage here... the relevance of marriage can still be debated as of now, if not in the future)

horseatingweeds wrote:
We feel so entitled that we think it is our right to have relationships based on the fulfillment we are acquiring and as soon as that fulfillment diminishes find a new.

Is that what love means to you? Fulfillment? That's it? Or do love and lust mean the same to you. Because throughout my posts, I have maintained that a couple should stay together as long as they are in love with each other... not as long as they continue to sexually satisfy each other.
I also am of the belief that love doesn't always last a lifetime. It is for this kind of love that I endorse relationships based on "love".
I have not used "fulfillment" of any kind as a basis for a relationship, in any of my posts so far.

horseatingweeds wrote:
A truly enlightened person, a person interested in the benefit of himself and his fellow man, or a person living to please their creator, by listening to music that does not stimulate, motivate or sooth the mind is not benefiting himself, regardless it he is receiving pleasure. The fact that there is no operant harm, or the fact that there is NO harm does not mean an act is good. What could we be doing better?

And once again, isn't this but an example of over-sacrifice? Am I not being asked to sacrifise doing the things that I enjoy just because God thinks my time can be better spent doing something else? And if so, I think this line is still not out of place:
lib wrote:
must he sacrifise his love for music just because the Lord is selfish to want everyone to do everything for Him alone?


horseatingweeds wrote:
Yes, you see nothing wrong so you assume there is nothing wrong regardless of the social rules you have such contempt for. In fact, this social rule is a good example. People forever have wanted there children to be healthy. They want them to eat good food and be strong. Now dessert is usually full of sugar. This sugar makes the child not feel hungry. There is a whole explanation to this but the basic point is that. Now that the kid is not as hungry he won’t eat as much good stuff. Sugar before bed is really bad, especially dairy and sugar, for the teeth.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I had thought this out. This is why I said:
lib wrote:
in fact, I wouldn't mind giving my child just a large bowl of ice-cream once in a while before I put him to sleep.

And also, sorry to disappoint you, but I accepted it because it makes logical sense to give my children their dessert after their meal to keep them healthy, not because of
horseatingweeds wrote:
The Lord’s evil shackling will that you thought was only for his own selfish perverted oppressive fancy was actually in your interest.

Also, eating dessert after dinner is a social norm, not a religious one, as far as I know.

horseatingweeds wrote:
In final summary of my original point. God does not want you to have dessert before dinner.

I'm hoping you meant that as a metaphor for other social norms. Well, you should know, then, that not all social norms are based on religious ideals. Atheist doctors, who were brought up as atheists, themselves would rather have their children eat their dessert after their dinner.
Alternatively, you could be saying that God wants the best for me when he wants me to eat my dessert after my dinner. Accepted. However, like I said, occassionally eating dessert before dinner doesn't do me harm. Also, note that God doesn't want me to sacrifice my dessert... or does he?

horseatingweeds wrote:
One man ‘sacrifices’ dessert for the love of his Lord while the other ‘sacrifices’ dessert because it is logical. This sacrifice benefits both men here on earth. That fact that fact that the first man’s motivation for the sacrifice was an attempt to reach out to his creator makes it the Lord’s path.

Accepted.
However, let's see... 2 men do the same thing which has the same result. However, one of them does it because he believes God wanted him to do it, whereas the other believes it's logically better for him to do so. So, one man is on the path to God, whereas the other... is going to Hell?
(This has been the summary of my point. When 2 people do the same thing, with the same outcomes, but with 2 possibly different motives, then why should one be blessed while the other is "damned" to hell?)
horseatingweeds
Hey Lib, this discusion is getting pretty good. Laughing

lib wrote:

Actually, I try my best to avois making a post too long by quoting everything. I quote only how much I think is really necessary for discussion.


You misunderstand, I am certainly not asking you to quote anything, personally I ovoid quoting all together, but often, like now, it seems the only way. I was warning that you have a tendency to lose sight of the whole discussion. The example being….

Lib wrote:
Very well, then... let's leave this at a status quo. Unless you can tell me exactly what God's way is, I will not accept this statement, and it is obvious from your previous posts, that you will not accept any other way but "The Lord's Way" as the best way... and all my logical arguments so far have failed to change your mind.


horseatingweeds wrote:
So how do we love and follow him? We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself.


Lib wrote:
I understand very well the difference between a debate and a discussion, Mr. weeds.

......

I suppose it is the argument that you are misjudging to be debate.


No, you misunderstand. An argument is a discussion where each party intends on convincing the other. A debate is where each side attempts to make their side “seem” more credible. Or in other words, it is an attempt to get the most “gotchas”. I will attempt to make a bit of an example for you by answering each part of your post in either a debate or a discussion based on your presentation in reflection, without sacrificing any important points to the discussion.

lib wrote:

Next ... "my logical arguments"... perhaps if you weren't in a defensive mindset, you would have noticed that I have not mentioned anywhere about you being illogical. I'm merely stating here that my arguments are almost completely (if not completely) logical, instead of religious, or based on blind-faith.


I didn’t say you did…..

horseatingweeds wrote:
Then you seem to act as if I have not used logic, in other words, you attempt to make the argument seem as if it where blind ideas against logic.


I said you were using a debating tactic. By describing your idea as logical, you are describing my idea as not being logical. Certainly, both our ideas could be logical simultaneously, but by describing your idea as logical, as the aim of a debate is, you make my idea “seem” not logical. Understand? Like fencing but instead of “tap” “tap”, its, <discredit> <discredit>.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
From this you are almost certainly debating.
Call it what you will. I believe this was an argument on which we failed to reach a mutually accepted conclusion.


No, you still missunderstand much of my conclusion, as much my fault.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
You also admit to attempting to change my mind, are you willing to change yours as well?
The point of a discussion, like you said, is to learn something new, something more... to go deeper into a subject worth exploring... if you haven't changed your mind about anything, or rather... if you haven't accepted anything since we started this discussion, then it's pointless, isn't it?
And by god! Yes, I have changed my mind based on forum discussions in the past, and perhaps in this thread too. With respect to this thread, I have been contemplating the importance of sacrifice, and I do believe I would sacrifice a lot for the sake of my family... I already do anyway. However, I still think sacrifising everything all the time... putting the next man forward all the time isn't right.


Certainly

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
So how do we love and follow him? We love and follow him by doing what he would have us do rather than what we feel we should do. A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself.

Do you intend to tell me that this is your best explanation for the Lord's way? This over-generalized, seemingly generic explanation? Surely, you know life is complex. It's not just about "doing what He would have us to, rather than what we want to do". I'll restate my example of Goth music. Does sacrifising listening to Goth music make me a bad person, instead of my actions? Putting another man forward... does this mean I should take the life support system off my dying son, just because I want to give it to another man? I quote you without the quote tags here - "A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself." I'm taking the Lord's name and giving my son's life support system to another man to put him before me.


Now, we both know this is a ridiculous example, but I will humor you.

Let’s set some assumptions. First, there is only one system available. Second, the other man and your son both, for some magical reason can not be supported by hand. Third, the other man is of no significance to where his work would outweigh you son’s potential, such as a man on the verge of curing cancer or some bizarre thing. Finally, their chances of survival or recovery are the same. If they where, and I am using logic here, you should give the system to the one with the best chance. I also think this is what the Lord would want, interestingly enough.

With all these assumption and everything coming down to “who gets to sacrifice”, I would say that God would be unhappy if you took your son off the ventilator. Remember the “man” you described, assuming he is around thirty, has lived longer than most people. Do your best to save your son, but instead of rolling yourself up in a blanket, do your best to find the other man a system.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Although something seems to be good for you at the time it can often not. The path of enlightenment is a perfect path where all of your actions create only good and no harm. Following this path based on logic and reason; or love for your creator will produce the best existence on this planet for your earthly life. It is also the path the Lord would like you to follow.

Flip-flop.
Once again, the endorsement of seeking enlightenment. A few posts ago, weren't you stating that seeking enlightenment is not the Lord's way because it is done for selfish reasons, and not for the love of the Lord?
I believe "Gotcha!" wouldn't be out of place here.
[/quote]

Actually, in a debate I would currently be being awarded several “Gotchas”. This is how I would respond…..

I believe my opponent is attempting to refer to my statement that…

horseatingweeds wrote:
It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship.


To summarize both of statements, following the path of enlightenment is the best way to live. The path of the Lord is of enlightenment. Following the bath of enlightenment BECAUSE it is the best way to live is, in actuality selfishness. As a side note, my use of the word “selfishness” comes from the explanation I remember made by Mahatma Gandhi that in effect all things, even love are selfish. I will also ask that my opponent please respect our discussion by paying at least enough attention to ovoid miss quoting me.

Now see what I did here? First, I call you on your error. Then, I took your attempted “gotcha” (which by the way although being invalid seems so if you only hear your part so can be effective but risky) and took it as an opportunity to restate my idea. With the word “selfish” being a main loud word of the topic, I then give credit to Gandhi for it origin in MY statement. I finish it up with an attempt to put you on the defensive.

As the debate goes, your only chance after this calamity is to be on a team because in the audience’s eyes, you have been seriously discredited. You could attempt to defend yourself but this would only affirm your guilt, you could apologize and do the same. Your best bet here is a subtle side step like, “I have always agreed…..” or “What my opponent does NOT understand is…..”.

Thankfully however, we are not debating, right Lib, we are discussing or arguing, so this is all useless.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
“But horseatingweeds, what for the fellow that enjoys rolling himself up in a blanket, shoving himself in the closet and pretending he is a hotdog at the grocery store. He is not hurting anyone and he enjoys it. Why do you blindly say the Lord maliciously hates him for it?”

“The Lord would have him doing better thing. Better for him and all of the other children that cry out to the Lord constantly. Being rolled in the closet, although to the fellow that enjoys it, it SEEMS good, is not. It is the sin of complacency.”

What's wrong with being self-satisfied? Is the fellow rolled up in the closet doing any harm or causing discomfort to anyone else... or maybe causing them to be less satisfied in any way by rolling himself up in a closet?
Does this mean the Lord endorses us getting up off our asses and doing something (anything?) rather than sit and laze around, even if this lazing around affects no one but us, and is something that gives one comfort? But why?


Complacency
Yes
Yes
Because of all of the Lord’s children that are crying out to him all day and night. Who do you think does the Lord’s miracles?


lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Yes, the modern age indeed. Yes, broken homes.
Why are they broken? Because the parents made love until they realized that they didn’t “love” each other anymore, married or not.

And this is my point precisely. Marriage doesn't ensure that people will stay in love forever.


Correct obviously. In this world we have no guarantees, only oaths.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Marriage is NOT a social license to have sex, it is a commitment between two people to love, protect and care for each other for now on. It has been customary in most societies to make an oath publicly abound close society members in order that those members may assists in holding the couple accountable in the future. A real promise.

Real love should be the promise that companionship is based on, not a public oath. Would you rather try to keep 2 people, who have obviously fallen out of love with each, still married? Do you think that these people should sacrifise their peace by living with each other for the sake of an oath they made to society?

horseatingweeds wrote:
Certainly, many of us today in free countries during this rare time of comfort and lack of hardship can view marriage simply as a contract that says you may only participate is a certain type of very popular recreational activity with this one person. The biggest test most couples face is opportunities.

And if not love, I don't see what else should give couples the strength to overcome this test. It is (or rather, should be) love and a mutual want to be with each other that should be the cause for them to overcome obstacles that may try to separate them, not a public oath taken for the sake of the society.
I would go so far as to call it hypocrisy when a couple who no longer love each other, and no loner wish to be with each other, to stay together for the sake of their marriage.


Marriage is not a commitment to an oath. Marriage is a commitment to a person that for now on I will love and protect you. Regardless of what happens we will work together.

Understand, marriages don’t fall apart because to people, who were in love just happened to fall out of love. At some point someone broke their promise and did something. Think of all the divorces you know of. Did the couple just wake up one morning and say, “you know, I don’t feel ‘in love’ anymore, this is wrong”,? Not likely.

The real tests in a marriage are not some outside force attacking both people that this “in love” will conquer. The real tests are situations where one of the two would be better off alone, sees an opportunity to gain for himself, or simply is not as ‘in love’ feeling as he once was, yet maintains his commitment to the person he swore to love forever. This ‘in love’, truly does not last and these tests come and go. I is true some marriages are unhappy but this is due to one person harming the other, strife, anger, and or so on.

The benefit for society in marriage can vary in each society but the main ones I recognize are protection for the woman, the family unit (building block of society), allocation of property with inheritance and efficient child production.

I think the difference in our ideas have to do with the perspective we are each taking. Your perspective is that an individual person can be ‘happier’ (I will define this to replace fulfillment, being that which furthers, help, makes happy, brings contentment, etc.) in our current society by avoiding marriage and making only a personal commitment to another person based on the love they share, understanding that if that love then diminishes the commitment is resolved freeing both people to seek further love and ‘happiness’.

My perspective on the other hand is of the social benefits universally among place and time found in two people committing to stay together, work together, and protect each other. This union is truly profound. The couple can now work toward a common goal, usually survival. The woman can bear children with a commitment that the man will protect and provide for her and the child. If the parents are unable the grand parents or aunt and uncles can take over. Property that has been acquired can be passed down to the children.

I understand that this social system of marriage is no guarantee and that it can still be broken, breaking down the whole system. However, I believe that our current trouble with marriage has to do with our society being over comfortable and selfish. Remember that most of the time people live on average to around 25 or thirty, half the world currently suffers from malnutrition, and to MAINTAIN the average civilization all the healthy woman have to bear five healthy children. You could call this system outdated but this would be short sighted. Our society will experience turmoil and it will need the internal strength of the family unit.

I do agree with your system. For a healthy person in a strong society a person could indeed be happier under it regardless of the fact that it breaks down his society. Let me ask you a question. I understand that you are a student of logic so I think I may already know the answer. Perhaps you may not have realized it.

Is what is best for a man’s society also best for him? Or, to quote logical Mr. Spock, are the needs of the few outweighed by the needs of the many? Do you believe that we should all be focused on our own happiness in the decisions we make rather that our society’s strength?

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Exactly, but commitment and sacrifice, how often are they for pleasure or selfishness?

Excellent question. Point noted ^_^
But over-sacrifice and commitment may have other problems, such as those which I have stated above.


Allow me do define this ‘over sacrifice’. Sacrifice that compromises ones ability to provide for ones self or basic responsibilities. I welcome your critique.


Lib wrote:
Important part of your reply being "universally beneficial institution", which is what I was debating. Polygamy was a marriage custom until not too long ago, in some ages. Instead of slavery, I use the historical precedence of marriage itself. Does polygamy tell you anything about sacrifice, commitment, or love? Doubt it.
Polygamy changed slowly in monogamy and marriage as we see it now.
And I think and see (in the distant future, perhaps, if not in the near) that the social norm of companionship will be live-in relationships based on love, instead of marriage.


With regard to your assumption that marriage is currently evolving into live in relationship, I do agree and expect we shall eventually pay the price.

With regard to your assumption that marriage evolved from polygamy, you are very misinformed. With the exception of royalty and the rich who have ‘afforded’ a harem, polygamy can be observed intermittently throughout history. Marriage has been an essential mechanism in maintaining the population of civilizations consistently throughout recorded history. Polygamy is observed in societies enduring high rates of male fatality. It is implemented to allow all society woman to produce new members under the protection and name of a household. We can even observe polygamy in very resent times and close places such as the Mormons of this past century. In the case of the Mormons I will also add that their form of polygamy consisted of a household taking in a widow and her children. The menology of the marital bed was maintained.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
We feel so entitled that we think it is our right to have relationships based on the fulfillment we are acquiring and as soon as that fulfillment diminishes find a new.

Is that what love means to you? Fulfillment? That's it? Or do love and lust mean the same to you. Because throughout my posts, I have maintained that a couple should stay together as long as they are in love with each other... not as long as they continue to sexually satisfy each other.
I also am of the belief that love doesn't always last a lifetime. It is for this kind of love that I endorse relationships based on "love".
I have not used "fulfillment" of any kind as a basis for a relationship, in any of my posts so far.


<ERROR> “fulfillment” undefined

Lest replace fulfillment with ‘happiness’ as defined previously.

Quote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
A truly enlightened person, a person interested in the benefit of himself and his fellow man, or a person living to please their creator, by listening to music that does not stimulate, motivate or sooth the mind is not benefiting himself, regardless it he is receiving pleasure. The fact that there is no operant harm, or the fact that there is NO harm does not mean an act is good. What could we be doing better?

And once again, isn't this but an example of over-sacrifice? Am I not being asked to sacrifise doing the things that I enjoy just because God thinks my time can be better spent doing something else? And if so, I think this line is still not out of place:
lib wrote:
must he sacrifise his love for music just because the Lord is selfish to want everyone to do everything for Him alone?


I think the best was to understand this "selfishness" the Lord seems to display is to first, remember that we are made in his image and second, use the imagination he gave us to put ourselves in his place.

Imagine all of your creations doing all their different things. Some are starving and crying out to the Lord, “please Lord, I need food”, some are being abused, some oppressed, some over worked and they call to you, “Lord, please help, I am powerless”. You also have one of your creations so well fed and free he likes to pretend to be a hotdog, another who is listening to angry music that only makes him feel strong, another is buying a huge SUV, another is fat and making his kids fat, another spend all his time playing fantasy football, these two are bantering on frihost, those people are chronically ill from a factory that make products for lawn care, this child is dieing from bacterial in his drinking water, that man is watering his lawn with drinkable water and spreading chemical so it will be green, and so on and so on.

Now that you are in the Lord’s place what would your “selfish” will have us all do? Should that fellow be concerned about our new term, ‘over-sacrifice’, and be sure to purchase and spend time listening to his anger music? Should I quite drinking? Should Lib embrace the institution of marriage for the sake of his society? Should that other fellow un-role his stupid ass and get after something worth while?

Lib wrote:
Also, note that God doesn't want me to sacrifice my dessert... or does he?


Do you want Lib to sacrifice his dessert?

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
One man ‘sacrifices’ dessert for the love of his Lord while the other ‘sacrifices’ dessert because it is logical. This sacrifice benefits both men here on earth. That fact that fact that the first man’s motivation for the sacrifice was an attempt to reach out to his creator makes it the Lord’s path.

Accepted.
However, let's see... 2 men do the same thing which has the same result. However, one of them does it because he believes God wanted him to do it, whereas the other believes it's logically better for him to do so. So, one man is on the path to God, whereas the other... is going to Hell?
(This has been the summary of my point. When 2 people do the same thing, with the same outcomes, but with 2 possibly different motives, then why should one be blessed while the other is "damned" to hell?)


The key to understanding this is that the Lord sees into men’s hearts and that being “dammed” is not a sentence, like prison. The more I contemplate and read about hells description it sound much more like a description of the torment of being away from God’s presents.

We have free will. If we follow him in life we will continue to follow him in death. If we choose not to follow him in life we will not be forced to in death, not even if we live exactly like a person who is attempting to follow him. It is our right he gave us, to live our lives as we want to, this would include logically finding the ‘perfect’ path in order to live our life to the fullest.
mike1reynolds
As to falling out of love being a broke promise, I would have to disagree. Science has proven that there are two phases to pair bonding. In terms of neurochemistry the first phase is sort of like obsessive compulsive disorder. That phase never lasts, it is the initial romance. What produces life long pair bonding in the second phase is the neurotransmitter oxytocin. Prairie dogs which pair bond for life have very high levels of oxytocin, but if oxytocin is blocked they do not form monogamous bonds and play the field. Anyone who has been in love for a long time knows the difference between the way these two states feel. So if that second phase doesn’t kick in the person is no longer in love when the first phase fizzles out as it invariably does.

I don’t think that bad choices are necessarily broken promises. Sometimes a bond just fails to form.
horseatingweeds
Indeed,
So in our current society we have the opportunity to ‘date’ and develop this next stage in the relationship before a commitment to marriage is made.

The mistake in our society would be to commit to marriage in this first stage. This leaves the opportunity for it to fissile out, which indeed is not under anyone’s control so is not a broken promise. The broken promise occurs when the couple attempt to recover from their mistake by divorce.

The bad choices that ruin marriages, most anyway, are broken promises, such as the promise to love, honor, and protect. ‘Love’, here not meaning anything out of anyone’s control.
Edmonds
It seems to me that the topic has changed here over the past few weeks.
-Do disbelievers go to hell?-

The question itself is a paradox.
Think about it...what's the one constant in the universe?
- How about the fact that everyone in it thinks their belief is the "right" one. So that means that anyone who doesn't completely agree with their oppinions is a disbeliever.

Which means we are all disbelievers.

I think we should all stop concerning ourselves with eachothers souls and focus on our own. You cannot save someones soul through fear and religious dogma.

Remember the golden rule.
-Do to others, what you would have them do to you-
Do not hate someone elses ideas, you can agree to disagree.

And since this all started from bible verses let me end with a quote from the bible made by a very wise man.
"Love thy Enemy"
lib
horseatingweeds wrote:
By describing your idea as logical, you are describing my idea as not being logical. Certainly, both our ideas could be logical simultaneously, but by describing your idea as logical, as the aim of a debate is, you make my idea “seem” not logical. Understand? Like fencing but instead of “tap” “tap”, its, <discredit> <discredit>.

That, certainly, was not my idea. I have never taken classes for debating... nor am I in a debate club of any sort. I generally discuss things with my friends, and I'm approcahing this thread much the same way.
As for the logic/blind faith, my intention was simply as I stated it.... that my posts are based only on logic, and not on religious ideals/rules (at least, in most cases)

horseatingweeds wrote:
we both know this is a ridiculous example
Goodness no! My example was very much within what you said. "A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself." Where have I violated the two clauses of your sentence?

horseatingweeds wrote:
you should give the system to the one with the best chance. I also think this is what the Lord would want, interestingly enough.

You seem to be unsure of what the Lord would want. Like you said, the Lord would want for us to "put your fellow man before yourself", not "put your fellow man before yourself where logically sensible"

horseatingweeds wrote:
Do your best to save your son, but instead of rolling yourself up in a blanket, do your best to find the other man a system.

Common humane spirit would make most people try to find help for the other man too. But this is clearly not a sacrifice. The only thing you are sacrifising, perhaps, is your time, in searching for a way for the other man to recover.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Thankfully however, we are not debating, right Lib, we are discussing or arguing, so this is all useless.

I wouldn't be so sure about that now. However, since you have brought up the air of debating, and called me your opponent, let's continue in this vein then.

I would like to call upon my opponent, to clearly state what he wants to say, sintead of generalizing his statements, and then later adding to them as he sees fit, in order to give himself and his ideas more credit. It would be of much more credit in a debate (such as this, I daresay), for him to use sharper words, and present detailed ideas, instead of blurring up his words, and then later, adding to them, subtracting from them, or altogether changing them as he sees fit. Let us take the exampple of enlightenment. Let us take into context this quote from when it was originally made:
horseatingweeds wrote:
I doubt anyone who finally meets the Lord will not be astonished at how much more different and powerful he is than what we expected. And as a further example, what about a person who lives in the US, who works hard, goes to church, cares for his family. Is he on the path to continue serving his creator? I certainly can’t say he is not. But say this way he lives happens to simply be the easiest way and is in fact his awn way and not that of his creator.

This is the danger I see in such religions and schools of thought that pursue simply enlightenment. It is in fact a pursuit of one’s own enlightenment, for the sake of enlightenment, which is not so enlightening. If any path is being followed it is not that of the Lord but of the person. In actuality it is self worship.

As can be seen, the opponent clearly states that seeking enlightenment, though not unnecessary (as subsequent lines from that post will reveal), is actually dangerous for us as it is not in concurrence with the Lord's way.
Hence to later say
horseatingweeds wrote:
To summarize both of statements, following the path of enlightenment is the best way to live. The path of the Lord is of enlightenment.
clearly re-inforces my point that my opponent changes his words, his pre-mentioned ideas in a manner to suit him in his current line of argument.
Another example which re-inforces my point that the opponent in question uses generalizations to let us think what he wants us to think, while actually keeping a ready alibi to defend himself is this:
Quote:
As a side note, my use of the word “selfishness” comes from the explanation I remember made by Mahatma Gandhi that in effect all things, even love are selfish.
Originally, audience is led to believe that seflishness is a "dangerous" characteristic, one that is very different from the all-liberaing, blessed way of the Lord. Later, in defense of himself, my opponent attributes the perpetually inherent virtue of selfishness to a man whose character is well-known and respected.

Smile
Now, see what I have done here? Not only have I kept up the validity of my "error", I have also taken your own point and used it to destroy your credibility, not only on this one point, but on many points... such as, wherever you have used generalization to promote a vivid idea.

horseatingweeds wrote:
As the debate goes, your only chance after this calamity is to be on a team because in the audience’s eyes, you have been seriously discredited. You could attempt to defend yourself but this would only affirm your guilt, you could apologize and do the same. Your best bet here is a subtle side step like, “I have always agreed…..” or “What my opponent does NOT understand is…..”.
Not being skilled in the art of debate, I cannot advise you on how to proceed further. However, you seem to have been doing a lot of what you suggested to me, with your frequent flip-flops.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Complacency
Yes
Yes
Because of all of the Lord’s children that are crying out to him all day and night. Who do you think does the Lord’s miracles?

Good point. Admittedly, I hadn't thought of that.
However, that still means that in order to carry out the Lord's "miracles", you still have to sacrifise your own happiness.
Also, if there was an equitable distribution of wealth and resources, we perhaps wouldn't have so many of God's children crying out to him.
Actually, if most of the people would stop exploiting others, they'd make as big a difference as a few people sacrifising their own happiness and wants to do the Lord's work.

Coming to the marriage part. Unarguably, what you state about marriage benefitting the society is true.
I'm going to have to think some more over your questions befor attempting to answer them. So far, though, you have convinced me of the importance of marriage to the society, though it is, in some cases, detrimental to personal growth of love.

horseatingweeds wrote:
With regard to your assumption that marriage is currently evolving into live in relationship, I do agree and expect we shall eventually pay the price.

I don't see why it should be paying a price. If the system of marriage is going to evolve, the society will evolve with it. Society, after all, is made up of the basic unti - man. Man is unlikely to be able to not adapt to changes in his living patterns. The reason I am unable to answer your question about marriage and further detail my idea is because I have so far not been able to see as much into the future to be able to describe man's reaction to this new way of companionship... which is why I need some more time to think about it, to contemplate how social strength will be maintained even when live-in relationships replace marriage.

horseatingweeds wrote:
I think the best was to understand this "selfishness" the Lord seems to display is to first, remember that we are made in his image and second, use the imagination he gave us to put ourselves in his place.

The problem with this is that in imagining that we are made in his image is to place upon him the same limitations as those that limit us as humans. My idea of God is to keep him as infinite. If he was able to create the world and humans without needing physical entities, I don't see why he can't help the needy people of the world without having to have a physical presence. Generally, belief in God leads to the belief that there is not such thing as "luck"... it is all a part of God's plan... either that or it is an outcome of karma. Either way, something that happens is not something that just happened to happen. It is a result of either God's mysterious way of getting things done or a result of karma. What we as humans do is simply supplementary to God's ways of getting things done.
Also, as a direct result of believing God to be superior to all men and all things in this world (and universe?) would mean that it would be almost impossible to imagine ourselves in his place solely because we have no idea how it is exactly that he gets things done... what tools he has at his disposal, etc etc. Remember, god has tools to give and take life... so do we, in the form of sex for giving life, and murder for taking it away.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Do you want Lib to sacrifice his dessert?

Huh?

horseatingweeds wrote:
The key to understanding this is that the Lord sees into men’s hearts and that being “dammed” is not a sentence, like prison. The more I contemplate and read about hells description it sound much more like a description of the torment of being away from God’s presents.
This, you have to admit, is your own belief. The Bible however, cearly defines Hell as a state of pain and burning. It definitely is punishment for not accepting God.
Here is a good link where various quotes from the Bible have seen compiled for reference, which enforce the idea that hell is a punishment... and one to be avoided at all costs.
Also cannot be ignored are physical descriptions, such as some of those quoted from the Bible, which are compiled here

mike1reynolds wrote:
As to falling out of love being a broke promise, I would have to disagree. Science has proven that there are two phases to pair bonding. In terms of neurochemistry the first phase is sort of like obsessive compulsive disorder. That phase never lasts, it is the initial romance. What produces life long pair bonding in the second phase is the neurotransmitter oxytocin. Prairie dogs which pair bond for life have very high levels of oxytocin, but if oxytocin is blocked they do not form monogamous bonds and play the field. Anyone who has been in love for a long time knows the difference between the way these two states feel. So if that second phase doesn’t kick in the person is no longer in love when the first phase fizzles out as it invariably does.

I don’t think that bad choices are necessarily broken promises. Sometimes a bond just fails to form.

I value your research. You have explained in scientific terms the two phases I have gone through.

@horseatingweeds, I've been thinking about your views on marriage for some time now. I agree to most of them. However, my idea of a relationship was not exactly a live-inrelationship as we know of it now. Some (or even most) live-in relationships today are based on comfort, ease and practicality, and love, though playing a major role, can take a beating by these other circumstances.
My idea of companionship is a lot like marriage. It does have commitment, it does have responsibility towards making the relationship work, as I have said in one of my previous posts. The only difference is that there is no need to take a public oath. The "oath", as such, is simmply love.
When you lvoe someone really, you honour and protect them automatically... or at least, you ought to. I cannot define love... I have tried it many times, and yet haven't come up with a definition that I was 100% satisfied with. But to me, when you really do love someone, even in the second phase of it as described by mike, you will tend to protect them and be loyal and honour them.

horseatingweeds wrote:
I is true some marriages are unhappy but this is due to one person harming the other, strife, anger, and or so on.
You can't tell me that all unhappy marriages are because of this. Or even if so, what led to one person becoming angry, etc? When one person realizes that he/she is about to spend the rest of his/her life with someone who cannot make him/her happy (as defined by you in the previous post), then that person becomes snappy, bent, unruly, angry or just frustrated. That's when problems start developing. These problems lead to bigger problems, broken homes, etc etc.
If a failing marriage results, it has impacts on the children (and I can tell you this from experience... I have had many many friends from broken homes as well as breaking homes... in homes where the parents obviously wanted to separate but wanted not to break their marriage for the sake of society, etc). This leads to unhealthy growth of habits... unhealthy individuals leads to the growth of an unhealthy social fabric... society ultimately does suffer.

On the other hand, look at companionship from my point of view. THe intial, exciteable, passionate love fizzles out over time. If a couple survive this fizzling out and begin to get comfortable in their mature, calm love (the second phase as described by mike), I don't see why they wouldn't be able to efficiently produce and raise children. I don't see why the family unit has to change at all whether someone decides to marry or not. I don't see why the grandparents cannot try to help them at times of fighting/differences for the sake of their love, rather than for the sake of their marriage?

My precious posts said that marriage need not necessarily mean an undying commitment. Similarly, non-marriage does not mean a lack of it either. An unmarried couple with children can still be committed to each other, based on their respect for each other. The woman can still bear children with the security of knowing that her man will provide for her. As long as the man and woman are commited to their relationship, they're both safe. However, if they stop being committed to it, whether in marriage or without, their security is compromised. I don't think I am able to properly express myself... but I'm sure you're going to have questions on this, and perhaps my answers will help me better express what I'm thinking.

horseatignweeds wrote:
Is what is best for a man’s society also best for him?

I honoestly don't think what is best for a man's society is always the best for him. Society to me is shackles in a way. Society has just given us a way of liiving calmly. There could have been many other ways... But that's for another thread.
dyrtyrice
Even when I was an ignorant christian, I realize that there was no such thing as hell and to research on the subject, you would find that there is very little mention of such a place. Hell was idealized and created by fundamentalist christians who wished to win people over to the side of the divine and saved. It's a load of malarkey, I don't disrespect those that believe in Jesus or God, but the bible is a load of contradictory stories and allegories. If there is a hell, then all you fundamentalists will be going there for clinging so dogmatically to a book. I believe if god is real, he most certainly does not condone the barbaric acts prevelant throughout the bible.
mike1reynolds
The Christian yea votes are up to 8 now. In the other thread of this title the yeas and nays were more equally matched, but this thread is drawing in more Christians, probably because the word Bible was added to the title. It is very sad to discover that a clear majority of Christians are bigots. If Christ were here today He would be repelled by Christianity as a whole.

Edit by tidruG : mike, I reduced the size of your font. Please avoid posting in large fonts unless you want to make it look like you really are shouting Wink
horseatingweeds
Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
we both know this is a ridiculous example
Goodness no! My example was very much within what you said. "A quick summary or what he would have us do is to love him and put your fellow man before yourself." Where have I violated the two clauses of your sentence?


Extreme cases are rarely covered by quick summaries.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
you should give the system to the one with the best chance. I also think this is what the Lord would want, interestingly enough.

You seem to be unsure of what the Lord would want. Like you said, the Lord would want for us to "put your fellow man before yourself", not "put your fellow man before yourself where logically sensible"


Yes, you are correct. I am not sure what the Lord would want. I can only us what I know about him, my conscience, and logic. I believe this is what he intended…..sort of.

Lib wrote:
However, that still means that in order to carry out the Lord's "miracles", you still have to sacrifise your own happiness.


This is assuming that sacrifice removes happiness. In my experience sacrificing something I thought would bring me happiness actually brought me increased happiness.

Lib wrote:
Also, if there was an equitable distribution of wealth and resources, we perhaps wouldn't have so many of God's children crying out to him.
Actually, if most of the people would stop exploiting others, they'd make as big a difference as a few people sacrifising their own happiness and wants to do the Lord's work.


True, but this is the price of free will. Some are givers and some are takers.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
With regard to your assumption that marriage is currently evolving into live in relationship, I do agree and expect we shall eventually pay the price.

I don't see why it should be paying a price. If the system of marriage is going to evolve, the society will evolve with it. Society, after all, is made up of the basic unti - man. Man is unlikely to be able to not adapt to changes in his living patterns. The reason I am unable to answer your question about marriage and further detail my idea is because I have so far not been able to see as much into the future to be able to describe man's reaction to this new way of companionship... which is why I need some more time to think about it, to contemplate how social strength will be maintained even when live-in relationships replace marriage.


Well, we can see how social strength is changing now. Also, I would not really consider this an evolution but more of a de-evolution. Social strength is relatively high and so the mechanisms that have brought it to this hiatus are not a necessary for its immediate maintenance (disease of complacency).

Perhaps the reason you do not see why a price must not be paid is that you have not considered the eventual decline in our current civilization. All civilizations decline and for reasons.

We can see how society is currently ‘evolving’ with these ‘new’ concepts of coupling, social programs such as welfare. Indeed, when the family breaks down, it is the state that must step in. In turn, the individual with his new concepts must still sacrifice and commit but in this evolved system in the form of taxes on his wages regardless of what family he may produce. The giver is now a forced giver to compensate for the taker.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
I think the best was to understand this "selfishness" the Lord seems to display is to first, remember that we are made in his image and second, use the imagination he gave us to put ourselves in his place.

The problem with this is that in imagining that we are made in his image is to place upon him the same limitations as those that limit us as humans. My idea of God is to keep him as infinite. If he was able to create the world and humans without needing physical entities, I don't see why he can't help the needy people of the world without having to have a physical presence. Generally, belief in God leads to the belief that there is not such thing as "luck"... it is all a part of God's plan... either that or it is an outcome of karma. Either way, something that happens is not something that just happened to happen. It is a result of either God's mysterious way of getting things done or a result of karma. What we as humans do is simply supplementary to God's ways of getting things done.
Also, as a direct result of believing God to be superior to all men and all things in this world (and universe?) would mean that it would be almost impossible to imagine ourselves in his place solely because we have no idea how it is exactly that he gets things done... what tools he has at his disposal, etc etc. Remember, god has tools to give and take life... so do we, in the form of sex for giving life, and murder for taking it away.


Indeed, God or karma, but what for man. God has given power to man. In order to produce beings that freely love him he had to give us the power of free will. So, is the Lord ALL POWERFULL? No, his power is limited by the fact that he has granted some of his power. These people you speak of who take advantage of his children who scream out to him for help have also been given the same free will as use. If he were to reach out and crush those people he would be neutralizing their free will. He can certainly strengthen his children to take the oppression, Jesus emanated this when this when he instructed slaves to serve their masters well. ( As a side note, before anyone takes offence to slavery in Jesus’ day or slavery in general do a bit of research on the subject)

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
The key to understanding this is that the Lord sees into men’s hearts and that being “dammed” is not a sentence, like prison. The more I contemplate and read about hells description it sound much more like a description of the torment of being away from God’s presents.
This, you have to admit, is your own belief. The Bible however, cearly defines Hell as a state of pain and burning. It definitely is punishment for not accepting God.
Here is a good link where various quotes from the Bible have seen compiled for reference, which enforce the idea that hell is a punishment... and one to be avoided at all costs.
Also cannot be ignored are physical descriptions, such as some of those quoted from the Bible, which are compiled here


I am certainly familiar with these verses. You may feel free to refer to such thing generally as I am very familiar. Hell is described as a burning painful place. However, the emphasis is more on the darkness and casting out. This leads me to believe that the pain simply describes separation from God.

These assumptions I have gathered from reading the bible. Cast out into darkness where their will be burring and gnashing of teeth.

Another interesting assumption that has been presented to me is that our Lord, due to his being 100% just, requires that all sin be paid for. So, when we die we continue on to hell to receive our punishment for the sins that we have committed on earth in order to bring justice and to the universe. The problem is HOWEVER, that we continue to be sinners in hell and continue sinning. Indentured sinnertude.

This assumption is logical rather that going to hell for eternity for sins committed. If a thief goes to jail and continues stealing he will certainly stay……wont he?

The Lord, not wanting his children to go to hell then made himself a man and went there him self after dieing and taking credit for all of man kind’s sin. He was able to pay the price and not sin while he was there, then leave and instruct his apostles to spread the message that all are free now from their sin, if they wish.

Lib wrote:
@horseatingweeds, I've been thinking about your views on marriage for some time now. I agree to most of them. However, my idea of a relationship was not exactly a live-inrelationship as we know of it now. Some (or even most) live-in relationships today are based on comfort, ease and practicality, and love, though playing a major role, can take a beating by these other circumstances.
My idea of companionship is a lot like marriage. It does have commitment, it does have responsibility towards making the relationship work, as I have said in one of my previous posts. The only difference is that there is no need to take a public oath. The "oath", as such, is simmply love.
When you lvoe someone really, you honour and protect them automatically... or at least, you ought to. I cannot define love... I have tried it many times, and yet haven't come up with a definition that I was 100% satisfied with. But to me, when you really do love someone, even in the second phase of it as described by mike, you will tend to protect them and be loyal and honour them.


If you are ever able to define love I think we should write a book and make a few million.

I think your concept of the ‘live in’ relationship and that of marriage today are not that different. I believe marriage is an ingrained institution. People, when in love feel a need to proclaim and swear their love to their partner. Besides the social benefits of this institution are the personal benefits that both partners receive. To love and honor, for sickness or in health, till death do we part. A partner who will protect and care for you even if you become ill or crippled, unable to provide ‘happiness’. Someone to whom you may dedicate you productivity to for the age to come. Security for your children to know that Mom and Dad are sworn partners.

Indeed, this is all possible without marriage as you have said. NOT, being married does not make this not possible, but it does hold the persons claiming to love accountable. In my opinion, real love is not a feeling of happiness, it is a feeling that for this person you would do anything, including sacrifice. Love is easy when it is happy. Real love is when you through out your own happiness for the sake of your beloved.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
I is true some marriages are unhappy but this is due to one person harming the other, strife, anger, and or so on.
You can't tell me that all unhappy marriages are because of this. Or even if so, what led to one person becoming angry, etc? When one person realizes that he/she is about to spend the rest of his/her life with someone who cannot make him/her happy (as defined by you in the previous post), then that person becomes snappy, bent, unruly, angry or just frustrated. That's when problems start developing. These problems lead to bigger problems, broken homes, etc etc.
If a failing marriage results, it has impacts on the children (and I can tell you this from experience... I have had many many friends from broken homes as well as breaking homes... in homes where the parents obviously wanted to separate but wanted not to break their marriage for the sake of society, etc). This leads to unhealthy growth of habits... unhealthy individuals leads to the growth of an unhealthy social fabric... society ultimately does suffer.


Perhaps not all, but most, I think if you look at most broken home there is a point where one individual has used the homes money irresponsible or has become unfaithful. In other cases hardship as befallen and the couple splits do to one member becoming ill or unable to provide this happiness. Usually, when a person dreads the company of another it is because of an offence.

Lib wrote:
On the other hand, look at companionship from my point of view. THe intial, exciteable, passionate love fizzles out over time. If a couple survive this fizzling out and begin to get comfortable in their mature, calm love (the second phase as described by mike), I don't see why they wouldn't be able to efficiently produce and raise children. I don't see why the family unit has to change at all whether someone decides to marry or not. I don't see why the grandparents cannot try to help them at times of fighting/differences for the sake of their love, rather than for the sake of their marriage?


Neither do I, and you are correct, except for the fact that marriage is FOR love. Marriage is a covenant of love and is little different from what you have described except for the fact that the couple have stood up and said, “We have love, and we proclaim that love before you all, not just for the sake of our children and their society, but so that your eyes will hold us accountable and your words will inspire us for the preservation of our love as we know that we WILL face trails that will threaten to snap us apart.

Lib wrote:
horseatignweeds wrote:
Is what is best for a man’s society also best for him?

I honoestly don't think what is best for a man's society is always the best for him. Society to me is shackles in a way. Society has just given us a way of liiving calmly. There could have been many other ways... But that's for another thread.


hmmmm, yes. But which man? And remember, to say such a thing as ‘living calmly' is a privilege of the particular ‘way’ that society has occurred. Perhaps we could live just as well in teepees, go one red and stop on green. Regardless, we would all still be going, stopping and living.

The fact that society is ‘shackling’ is the reason you are able to devote time to the things that it shackles.

Edit by tidruG : One of your quote tags was messed up. "{/quote]" instead of "[/quote]". Fixed it. Confused me for a few seconds though Razz
lib
horseatingweeds, I enjoyed reading your post this time. It appears we've both fed our tempers by now, and can continue to discuss constructively. ^_^

horseatingweeds wrote:
This is assuming that sacrifice removes happiness. In my experience sacrificing something I thought would bring me happiness actually brought me increased happiness.

Hmm... you're right. There are some things which, when sacrifised, bring greater happiness than when not sacrifised.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Well, we can see how social strength is changing now. Also, I would not really consider this an evolution but more of a de-evolution. Social strength is relatively high and so the mechanisms that have brought it to this hiatus are not a necessary for its immediate maintenance (disease of complacency).

Sometimes I wonder... what has been the price we have paid for this social strength? I don't have much time right now for more detailed ideas... to truly think about this and make a respectable post, I'll need to think properly for at least half an hour Smile... we'll certainly discuss this more though... perhaps in a new thread - Is society a necessary evil that shackles man's personal growth?
"Society", one must remember, is a large word. It supercedes religion, caste, race, peer, etc.

horseatingweeds wrote:
In turn, the individual with his new concepts must still sacrifice and commit but in this evolved system in the form of taxes on his wages regardless of what family he may produce. The giver is now a forced giver to compensate for the taker.

Honestly, I didn't understand what you meant here... I might be a little bit slow today, perhaps.

horseatingweeds wrote:
I am certainly familiar with these verses. You may feel free to refer to such thing generally as I am very familiar. Hell is described as a burning painful place. However, the emphasis is more on the darkness and casting out. This leads me to believe that the pain simply describes separation from God.

These assumptions I have gathered from reading the bible. Cast out into darkness where their will be burring and gnashing of teeth.

This is/was being debated in another thread, I think.
Anyway, I'll go through the verses again looking at them through your line of thought. I'll only be able to comment on them after soing this.

horseatingweeds wrote:
Another interesting assumption that has been presented to me is that our Lord, due to his being 100% just, requires that all sin be paid for. So, when we die we continue on to hell to receive our punishment for the sins that we have committed on earth in order to bring justice and to the universe. The problem is HOWEVER, that we continue to be sinners in hell and continue sinning. Indentured sinnertude.

This, in turn, raises another bunch of questions...
1. Why do we continue to sin when we go to Hell? Maybe we suffer enough and resolve to change for the better?
2. What happens to the mercy of the Lord? Must He not, in his mercy, give us a change to change, at least after He thinks we have suffered enough in Hell?
3. If all sin must be paid for, when why do sinners get forgiven before they die and go to Heaven, irrespective of which/how many sins they have commited (as long as they do not commit the one unforgivable sin)?

horseatingweeds wrote:
I think your concept of the ‘live in’ relationship and that of marriage today are not that different. I believe marriage is an ingrained institution. People, when in love feel a need to proclaim and swear their love to their partner. Besides the social benefits of this institution are the personal benefits that both partners receive. To love and honor, for sickness or in health, till death do we part. A partner who will protect and care for you even if you become ill or crippled, unable to provide ‘happiness’. Someone to whom you may dedicate you productivity to for the age to come. Security for your children to know that Mom and Dad are sworn partners.

I think the only difference in our ideas of companionship is our definitions of marriage. Our idea of love, though, seems to be more or less concurrent with the other. I think this should be discussed more in another thread. (So that would mean 2 new threads... one on society, and the other on marriage ^_^)

Quote:
Usually, when a person dreads the company of another it is because of an offence.

You're right... the operative word there being "dread". However, dreading being with someone isn't the only reason marriages fail. I'll paint another picture, but I'm running out of time today. Unfortunately, 'real' life beckons. I may not be able to log on and post good posts for a few days. I'll look forward to some stimulating discussions when I return.
Have a good day.
horseatingweeds
Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Well, we can see how social strength is changing now. Also, I would not really consider this an evolution but more of a de-evolution. Social strength is relatively high and so the mechanisms that have brought it to this hiatus are not a necessary for its immediate maintenance (disease of complacency).

Sometimes I wonder... what has been the price we have paid for this social strength? I don't have much time right now for more detailed ideas... to truly think about this and make a respectable post, I'll need to think properly for at least half an hour Smile... we'll certainly discuss this more though... perhaps in a new thread - Is society a necessary evil that shackles man's personal growth?
"Society", one must remember, is a large word. It supercedes religion, caste, race, peer, etc.


Good point, although I would rather "Individual, society and sacrifice”. The discussion could be very good. Including slavery, how it has benefited individuals society and slaves them selves, war, infrastructure, discovery, tradition, religion, etc.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
In turn, the individual with his new concepts must still sacrifice and commit but in this evolved system in the form of taxes on his wages regardless of what family he may produce. The giver is now a forced giver to compensate for the taker.

Honestly, I didn't understand what you meant here... I might be a little bit slow today, perhaps.


I sort of referenced several parts of our discussion to make a minor point. Basically, under the idea you propose rather than marriage, the individual is no longer held accountable for his commitment to his family. To compensate for the loose of the benefits of marriage I have highlighted above, the society must step in and provide protection and aid in many instances. This protection and aid is provided by all society member including the individual above.

We should also consider the benefits that the individuals receive from marriage. First, there is an establishment of legitimacy among other society members. In other words, it is and understood and respected proposition that you have made with your partner. Also, due to the social benefits, societies often offer incentives such as leave from the military, tax incentives, etc. There is also the safety of the household for that individual. If he becomes ill and unable to provide his expected amounts of happiness, he will be cared for until he is then able. If he (and I will add here that in this discussion HE is referring to HE and SHE) is committed to his children, he will have help in raising them from the other members of the household and family unit.

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
Another interesting assumption that has been presented to me is that our Lord, due to his being 100% just, requires that all sin be paid for. So, when we die we continue on to hell to receive our punishment for the sins that we have committed on earth in order to bring justice and to the universe. The problem is HOWEVER, that we continue to be sinners in hell and continue sinning. Indentured sinnertude.

This, in turn, raises another bunch of questions...
1. Why do we continue to sin when we go to Hell? Maybe we suffer enough and resolve to change for the better?
2. What happens to the mercy of the Lord? Must He not, in his mercy, give us a change to change, at least after He thinks we have suffered enough in Hell?
3. If all sin must be paid for, when why do sinners get forgiven before they die and go to Heaven, irrespective of which/how many sins they have commited (as long as they do not commit the one unforgivable sin)?


Yes, sorry, I was going over the last post last night some time in my brain and realized I had not finished the final point, it bothered me enough to get up and finish it though.

1. We would continue to sin because we are sinners and not perfect. Only Jesus is.
2. & 3. He has shown his mercy be giving us himself, his son, as a sacrifice. Jesus took responsibility for all of man’s sins, went to hell, paid them off without sinning any more because he is perfect, being God, then returned. However, if we reject this gift it will certainly not be forced upon us. I think this is what is described as the unforgivable sin. The rejection or blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Logically, if refusing to be forgiven is a sin, it would be the only unforgivable sin. (wow, that almost makes me sound like I’m not an idiot…., It will pass)

Lib wrote:
horseatingweeds wrote:
I think your concept of the ‘live in’ relationship and that of marriage today are not that different. I believe marriage is an ingrained institution. People, when in love feel a need to proclaim and swear their love to their partner. Besides the social benefits of this institution are the personal benefits that both partners receive. To love and honor, for sickness or in health, till death do we part. A partner who will protect and care for you even if you become ill or crippled, unable to provide ‘happiness’. Someone to whom you may dedicate you productivity to for the age to come. Security for your children to know that Mom and Dad are sworn partners.

I think the only difference in our ideas of companionship is our definitions of marriage. Our idea of love, though, seems to be more or less concurrent with the other. I think this should be discussed more in another thread. (So that would mean 2 new threads... one on society, and the other on marriage ^_^)


Ok, I’ll do the sacrifice and society thread because I’m not a pussy and you can do the meaning of love one since everyone knows your gay any way. (just kicking your balls. ^_^)

Any way, the institute of marriage has been degraded. That is why I think our two ideas are so close. Ideally, they would be very different, with relentless commitment, but this is rare these comfortable days. With regard to love, I remember feeling the way you do, that is why I refer to your idea of love as immature. It is perfectly valid but I have had the “luxury” (luxury of crisis, illness, betrayal) to see a tested love outside of happiness. A love few in our comfortable society will know. A love that I am certain that our four fathers held sacred. I can’t say that I hope you will ever experience this type of love but if you ever do you will be humbled. (remember, humbling is a great blessing)

Lib wrote:
Quote:
Usually, when a person dreads the company of another it is because of an offence.

You're right... the operative word there being "dread". However, dreading being with someone isn't the only reason marriages fail. I'll paint another picture, but I'm running out of time today. Unfortunately, 'real' life beckons. I may not be able to log on and post good posts for a few days. I'll look forward to some stimulating discussions when I return.
Have a good day.


Hmmm, yes. Real life. I try to limit my time on frihost. For a while I became a little addicted. I think you could easily develop a function using my number of posts to calculate how much actual work I am producing.

Anyway, to get you started. I think there are two main reasons. One is such offenses where one person hates the other and two is differences that make the couple unable to live ‘happily’ but do still love each other.
druidbloke
Well everyone before 60AD must have gone to hell because they had no idea what rules to follow to avoid it lol seriously though heaven and hell are not part of my beliefs so obviously I doubt I will end up there.
Related topics
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Is the Book of Mormon Really True
Abortion or Murder?
Science Confirms Bible?
ALL YOU WILL EVER NEED TO KNOW
Harry Potter and Christianity
Islam & Terrorism
George W. Bush and a Delusion of Biblical Proportions
Aggressive atheism
Christians are pigs?
Bible study
General census seems to be Definately no God.
Is it immoral to write a story where the characters suffer?
Objection to the term 'sect'
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.