Communication between God and man

[Meriweather]

So you're saying that the bible was dumbed down for the times?

Not saying that at all.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Brigham Young married around 55 times, which makes him a total nutcase. That he was the successor of a con man is no surprise. That you're impressed by him is also not a shock. Birds of a feather...

How.did you like the parts where brigham wrestled with the bear and fell out of the salt lake temple window into the great salt lake

 

[Mudda]

None of the big things in the bible can be proven, and like you say, believers can't even agree on its meaning. So it's a book of hearsay, with cartoonish elements thrown in to entertain.

No, not really.

Ok then, let's start on page 1, do you have any proof that a god made the world in 6 days, which goes against all scientific knowledge?

 

[sealybobo]

One of my buddies is a conservative catholic. He feels way too guilty for being as good of a man as I know him to be. Doesn't seem happy in fact it seems the lord is a great stress to him. He's constantly worried he's not living up.

So he certainly isn't living life to the fullest here and now. And if you ask me, this is all he's got and all he's ever going to have.

I can take religion out of your post and substitute in any profession. Many people are excellent at what they do, yet strive to be even better and seem stressed/worried that they are not living up--even when they are atheists.
Neither you nor I can judge what people's lives would be like if they dropped their ideals, whatever these ideals might be.

I don't think you can assert, "My friend would have a much better life if he dropped his faith," any more than I can assert, "My friend would have a much better life if she stopped being a teacher." What is safe to say is this life and any profession is a journey. With a bit of tweaking and more experience both might end up saying, "I ran the race, I fought the good fight, and I have my crown." This holds true whether they hold a belief in the afterlife or not.

How do you know he isn't living his life to the fullest? In your opinion, what would make his life even more full?

He's an angry conservative. He's made a lot of money but blown it all somehow. Blames Clinton, Carter and Obama. LOL.

His wife has leukemia and he has diabetes. He just had a leg cut off. I'm trying to think of other examples. Oh yea, his daughter is an atheist and him and his wife snuck the baby out and had it baptized.

It's just the way he views life and the bible. Fire and brimstone. He's says he's not living up to what he thinks is a good man but I'll tell you, he really is a good man.

He's ignorant. Hates government programs and planned parenthood and medicaid but then revealed to me that when his father died he got to go to good catholic private schools on the governments dime and clearly they indocrtinated him with a hard line approach to religion.

It's like the gay Christian who's unhappy with himself. Why? Because the church makes him or her feel bad about themselves.

I feel he is living for the afterlife not for the here and now.

 

[sealybobo]

[That's what we say about your stories!

And I'm sorry if the real god doesn't sound like the god in the bible or book of mormons. After all he's the real god. Not a made up story about him.

What people can't seem to stop doing is reading the Bible through the lens of twenty-first century modern American culture through the prism of modern English. The Bible was written for a culture that lived here thousands of years ago, and in a non-subjective language.

Yes, and God didn't feel the need to tell them to give women equal rights? It took Christians 1900 years to even let them vote. Explain that.

 

[sealybobo]

[That's what we say about your stories!

And I'm sorry if the real god doesn't sound like the god in the bible or book of mormons. After all he's the real god. Not a made up story about him.

What people can't seem to stop doing is reading the Bible through the lens of twenty-first century modern American culture through the prism of modern English. The Bible was written for a culture that lived here thousands of years ago, and in a non-subjective language.

So you're saying that the bible was dumbed down for the times?

And yet they'll claim it was "way ahead of it's time" but now admit it was primitively written by sheep herders.

But you have to admit it is the greatest bullshit story ever told.

 

[Meriweather]

Ok then, let's start on page 1, do you have any proof that a god made the world in 6 days, which goes against all scientific knowledge?

First, I never believed God made the world in a literal six days. That is a literal interpretation of the English translation from the original Hebrew. We can see (supported by other Bible passages by the way) that the word translated as "day" in English also means an indefinite period of time, but one signifying a beginning and an end.

 

[Meriweather]

He's an angry conservative. He's made a lot of money but blown it all somehow. Blames Clinton, Carter and Obama. LOL.

His wife has leukemia and he has diabetes. He just had a leg cut off. I'm trying to think of other examples. Oh yea, his daughter is an atheist and him and his wife snuck the baby out and had it baptized.

It's just the way he views life and the bible. Fire and brimstone. He's says he's not living up to what he thinks is a good man but I'll tell you, he really is a good man.

He's ignorant. Hates government programs and planned parenthood and medicaid but then revealed to me that when his father died he got to go to good catholic private schools on the governments dime and clearly they indocrtinated him with a hard line approach to religion.

It's like the gay Christian who's unhappy with himself. Why? Because the church makes him or her feel bad about themselves.

I feel he is living for the afterlife not for the here and now.

From the religion point of view, a couple of things in this post jump out at me. First, it is rare for any Catholic homily to be about fire and brimstone. I'm not just speaking from the experience of one parish as I've been to Mass in parishes in all parts of the country: East, West, North, South. Second, a priest will not baptize a child without parents first attending classes on baptism. What you speak of is an invalid baptism and your Catholic friend should know this. Third, the Church doesn't make people feel bad about themselves--quite the opposite. The teaching is that we are loved by God and redeemed by God.

Now from a scientific point of view, a couple of other things stand out. The assertion is that your friend isn't living life to the fullest.

1. He is an angry conservative
2. He made lots of money which he lost
3. His wife has leukemia
4. He has diabetes and has had a leg amputated
5. He hates government
6. His daughter is atheist
7. He is Catholic

Your conclusion is that your friend isn't living life to the fullest because he is Catholic. Is there anything else on that list that might be a factor as well? Looking solely at your description of the man and his life, it is apparent he didn't apply some Catholic basic teachings in his life. The word "Disciple" has the same etymology as the word "Discipline". This discipline isn't merely about showing up for Mass every week. That is simply a person showing up at a Catholic place. The trick is for Catholic teachings (which are the teachings of Christ) to show up in a person's life.

 

[sealybobo]

He's an angry conservative. He's made a lot of money but blown it all somehow. Blames Clinton, Carter and Obama. LOL.

His wife has leukemia and he has diabetes. He just had a leg cut off. I'm trying to think of other examples. Oh yea, his daughter is an atheist and him and his wife snuck the baby out and had it baptized.

It's just the way he views life and the bible. Fire and brimstone. He's says he's not living up to what he thinks is a good man but I'll tell you, he really is a good man.

He's ignorant. Hates government programs and planned parenthood and medicaid but then revealed to me that when his father died he got to go to good catholic private schools on the governments dime and clearly they indocrtinated him with a hard line approach to religion.

It's like the gay Christian who's unhappy with himself. Why? Because the church makes him or her feel bad about themselves.

I feel he is living for the afterlife not for the here and now.

From the religion point of view, a couple of things in this post jump out at me. First, it is rare for any Catholic homily to be about fire and brimstone. I'm not just speaking from the experience of one parish as I've been to Mass in parishes in all parts of the country: East, West, North, South. Second, a priest will not baptize a child without parents first attending classes on baptism. What you speak of is an invalid baptism and your Catholic friend should know this. Third, the Church doesn't make people feel bad about themselves--quite the opposite. The teaching is that we are loved by God and redeemed by God.

Now from a scientific point of view, a couple of other things stand out. The assertion is that your friend isn't living life to the fullest.

1. He is an angry conservative
2. He made lots of money which he lost
3. His wife has leukemia
4. He has diabetes and has had a leg amputated
5. He hates government
6. His daughter is atheist
7. He is Catholic

Your conclusion is that your friend isn't living life to the fullest because he is Catholic. Is there anything else on that list that might be a factor as well? Looking solely at your description of the man and his life, it is apparent he didn't apply some Catholic basic teachings in his life. The word "Disciple" has the same etymology as the word "Discipline". This discipline isn't merely about showing up for Mass every week. That is simply a person showing up at a Catholic place. The trick is for Catholic teachings (which are the teachings of Christ) to show up in a person's life.

I can't wait to tell him, the most devout, that he's not doing it right! LOL

And no, Churches/religions aren't all about making people feel better about themselves. I always thought my Greek Orthodox church was different but it is not. The priest told the kids at summer camp last year that gays and muslims are bad. Luckily the kids all know muslims and gays personally and they know this isn't true. So eventually these kids will grow up to learn their church is full of crap.

 

[irosie91]

From Mereweather >>>
""From the religion point of view, a couple of things in this post jump out at me. First, it is rare for any Catholic homily to be about fire and brimstone. I'm not just speaking from the experience of one parish as I've been to Mass in parishes in all parts of the country: East, West, North, South. Second, a priest will not baptize a child without parents first attending classes on baptism. What you speak of is an invalid baptism and your Catholic friend should know this. Third, the Church doesn't make people feel bad about themselves--quite the opposite. The teaching is that we are loved by God and redeemed by God.""

thanks for your pov. mere, I am not catholic------I have KNOWN many many catholics ----from the usual
average ----ho hum-----to the religious ----to two former priests and one former nun. My experience in
catholic churches is MID NITE MASS-----no fire-brimstone----very pleasant. I take exception to some of
your sweeping generalizations------one exception is SENSE OF GUILT. Even proud adherent catholics
have told me about that GUILT ISSUE. and proud adherent catholics about the cruelty of the nuns in the
"catholic schools" No baptism without prep course for the parents? C'mon now------I read a book----ISSUED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (well---kinda long ago-----like the 1930s) It was a guide for catholic nurses. (I used to get bored sitting in the stacks to read as a student and would grab random books----that seemed short and easy and old)
The INSTRUCTION to catholic nurses included the BAPTISM of sick kids----
especially when their religion was NOT KNOWN. ------prepped parents? invalid? ??? Feeling bad about ones self seemed to me that primary reason that the doc who was once a priest LEFT FOR GOOD---
lock stock and barrel. Very nice man-----he made himself into an excellent ---very secular physician.
------lots more------some other time. -----you seem to like to candy coat stuff

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, and God didn't feel the need to tell them to give women equal rights? It took Christians 1900 years to even let them vote. Explain that.

Voting down through the ages varied widely--interesting stuff. For example, often it wasn't individuals who voted, but a group associated in some way with public life. Groups voted against or with each other, but it was one group, one vote. One of the more interesting qualifications of voting is that in order to vote, one had to own a pot. And, of course, in America's past, in order to vote, one had to own property. If you were male and did not own property, no vote. Women property owners could vote in some areas, whereas men who did not own property could not.

What we see is an evolution of voting methods. In the time Jesus lived, Romans (and those who showed up in Rome for the vote) and who were part of a public civic group, could participate in voting, meaning the group vote. If Jesus were interested in voting rights, he probably would have had to start with getting the Romans to embrace the idea of individual vote instead of the method they were using.

If he were living in early America, he would have had to start with letting everyone--not just property owners vote. Once people agreed on the individual vote, the next step was to allow everyone the vote. (Even those without a pot. )

 

[hobelim]

Ok then, let's start on page 1, do you have any proof that a god made the world in 6 days, which goes against all scientific knowledge?

First, I never believed God made the world in a literal six days. That is a literal interpretation of the English translation from the original Hebrew. We can see (supported by other Bible passages by the way) that the word translated as "day" in English also means an indefinite period of time, but one signifying a beginning and an end.

It says that God created heaven and earth by establishing light through Law that teaches people to distinguish between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil,life and death in a lawless world that had been for the past millions of years without form and void where darkness, ignorance and superstition, covered the face of the deep.


A new reality, a world above and a world below, that appeared in the ancient world easily created, literally, in six days....do this and you will live, do that and you will surely die.....


To create a new heaven and a new earth from the rubble of the old in this day and age would take about six seconds.

 

[Meriweather]

I can't wait to tell him, the most devout, that he's not doing it right! LOL

And no, Churches/religions aren't all about making people feel better about themselves. I always thought my Greek Orthodox church was different but it is not. The priest told the kids at summer camp last year that gays and muslims are bad. Luckily the kids all know muslims and gays personally and they know this isn't true. So eventually these kids will grow up to learn their church is full of crap.

I'm sure you would love to do this. But first tell him that you believe he is angry and not living life to the fullest and the reason you believe he is so angry and not living life to the fullest is because he is Catholic.

Did the Greek Orthodox priest state, "Gays and Muslims are bad" or was this the takeaway the kids came up with? Were you there?

 

[Meriweather]

From Mereweather >>>
""From the religion point of view, a couple of things in this post jump out at me. First, it is rare for any Catholic homily to be about fire and brimstone. I'm not just speaking from the experience of one parish as I've been to Mass in parishes in all parts of the country: East, West, North, South. Second, a priest will not baptize a child without parents first attending classes on baptism. What you speak of is an invalid baptism and your Catholic friend should know this. Third, the Church doesn't make people feel bad about themselves--quite the opposite. The teaching is that we are loved by God and redeemed by God.""

thanks for your pov. mere, I am not catholic------I have KNOWN many many catholics ----from the usual
average ----ho hum-----to the religious ----to two former priests and one former nun. My experience in
catholic churches is MID NITE MASS-----no fire-brimstone----very pleasant. I take exception to some of
your sweeping generalizations------one exception is SENSE OF GUILT. Even proud adherent catholics
have told me about that GUILT ISSUE. and proud adherent catholics about the cruelty of the nuns in the
"catholic schools" No baptism without prep course for the parents? C'mon now------I read a book----ISSUED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (well---kinda long ago-----like the 1930s) It was a guide for catholic nurses. (I used to get bored sitting in the stacks to read as a student and would grab random books----that seemed short and easy and old)
The INSTRUCTION to catholic nurses included the BAPTISM of sick kids----
especially when their religion was NOT KNOWN. ------prepped parents? invalid? ??? Feeling bad about ones self seemed to me that primary reason that the doc who was once a priest LEFT FOR GOOD---
lock stock and barrel. Very nice man-----he made himself into an excellent ---very secular physician.
------lots more------some other time. -----you seem to like to candy coat stuff

The difference may be between those who grew up pre-Vatican II and those of us who grew up post-Vatican II. I will note my grandmother was a nurse during those times--a Catholic one at that--who was never involved in this practice.

 

[irosie91]

Yes, and God didn't feel the need to tell them to give women equal rights? It took Christians 1900 years to even let them vote. Explain that.

Voting down through the ages varied widely--interesting stuff. For example, often it wasn't individuals who voted, but a group associated in some way with public life. Groups voted against or with each other, but it was one group, one vote. One of the more interesting qualifications of voting is that in order to vote, one had to own a pot. And, of course, in America's past, in order to vote, one had to own property. If you were male and did not own property, no vote. Women property owners could vote in some areas, whereas men who did not own property could not.

What we see is an evolution of voting methods. In the time Jesus lived, Romans (and those who showed up in Rome for the vote) and who were part of a public civic group, could participate in voting, meaning the group vote. If Jesus were interested in voting rights, he probably would have had to start with getting the Romans to embrace the idea of individual vote instead of the method they were using.

If he were living in early America, he would have had to start with letting everyone--not just property owners vote. Once people agreed on the individual vote, the next step was to allow everyone the vote. (Even those without a pot. )

Meri----you seem to have CONSTANTINE mixed up with Jesus

 

[irosie91]

From Mereweather >>>
""From the religion point of view, a couple of things in this post jump out at me. First, it is rare for any Catholic homily to be about fire and brimstone. I'm not just speaking from the experience of one parish as I've been to Mass in parishes in all parts of the country: East, West, North, South. Second, a priest will not baptize a child without parents first attending classes on baptism. What you speak of is an invalid baptism and your Catholic friend should know this. Third, the Church doesn't make people feel bad about themselves--quite the opposite. The teaching is that we are loved by God and redeemed by God.""

thanks for your pov. mere, I am not catholic------I have KNOWN many many catholics ----from the usual
average ----ho hum-----to the religious ----to two former priests and one former nun. My experience in
catholic churches is MID NITE MASS-----no fire-brimstone----very pleasant. I take exception to some of
your sweeping generalizations------one exception is SENSE OF GUILT. Even proud adherent catholics
have told me about that GUILT ISSUE. and proud adherent catholics about the cruelty of the nuns in the
"catholic schools" No baptism without prep course for the parents? C'mon now------I read a book----ISSUED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (well---kinda long ago-----like the 1930s) It was a guide for catholic nurses. (I used to get bored sitting in the stacks to read as a student and would grab random books----that seemed short and easy and old)
The INSTRUCTION to catholic nurses included the BAPTISM of sick kids----
especially when their religion was NOT KNOWN. ------prepped parents? invalid? ??? Feeling bad about ones self seemed to me that primary reason that the doc who was once a priest LEFT FOR GOOD---
lock stock and barrel. Very nice man-----he made himself into an excellent ---very secular physician.
------lots more------some other time. -----you seem to like to candy coat stuff

The difference may be between those who grew up pre-Vatican II and those of us who grew up post-Vatican II. I will note my grandmother was a nurse during those times--a Catholic one at that--who was never involved in this practice.

chances are that she did not work in a catholic hospital and was not a nun. She may have never read the book. I was in high school for VATICAN II ----NOTABLY 1/3 protestant, 1/3 catholic, 1/3 jewish---at
that time. THE END OF FRIDAY LUNCH OBLIGATORY FISH STICKS

 

[Meriweather]

Yes, and God didn't feel the need to tell them to give women equal rights? It took Christians 1900 years to even let them vote. Explain that.

Voting down through the ages varied widely--interesting stuff. For example, often it wasn't individuals who voted, but a group associated in some way with public life. Groups voted against or with each other, but it was one group, one vote. One of the more interesting qualifications of voting is that in order to vote, one had to own a pot. And, of course, in America's past, in order to vote, one had to own property. If you were male and did not own property, no vote. Women property owners could vote in some areas, whereas men who did not own property could not.

What we see is an evolution of voting methods. In the time Jesus lived, Romans (and those who showed up in Rome for the vote) and who were part of a public civic group, could participate in voting, meaning the group vote. If Jesus were interested in voting rights, he probably would have had to start with getting the Romans to embrace the idea of individual vote instead of the method they were using.

If he were living in early America, he would have had to start with letting everyone--not just property owners vote. Once people agreed on the individual vote, the next step was to allow everyone the vote. (Even those without a pot. )

Meri----you seem to have CONSTANTINE mixed up with Jesus

Not at all. Two very different men.

 

[irosie91]

Yes, and God didn't feel the need to tell them to give women equal rights? It took Christians 1900 years to even let them vote. Explain that.

Voting down through the ages varied widely--interesting stuff. For example, often it wasn't individuals who voted, but a group associated in some way with public life. Groups voted against or with each other, but it was one group, one vote. One of the more interesting qualifications of voting is that in order to vote, one had to own a pot. And, of course, in America's past, in order to vote, one had to own property. If you were male and did not own property, no vote. Women property owners could vote in some areas, whereas men who did not own property could not.

What we see is an evolution of voting methods. In the time Jesus lived, Romans (and those who showed up in Rome for the vote) and who were part of a public civic group, could participate in voting, meaning the group vote. If Jesus were interested in voting rights, he probably would have had to start with getting the Romans to embrace the idea of individual vote instead of the method they were using.

If he were living in early America, he would have had to start with letting everyone--not just property owners vote. Once people agreed on the individual vote, the next step was to allow everyone the vote. (Even those without a pot. )

Meri----you seem to have CONSTANTINE mixed up with Jesus

Not at all. Two very different men.

so true. Constantine was the person who had an interest in roman voting
customs I doubt that Jesus ever gave the issue the slightest thought.
Constantine was the founder of "CANON LAW"------another non-issue for Jesus

 

[Meriweather]

so true. Constantine was the person who had an interest in roman voting
customs I doubt that Jesus ever gave the issue the slightest thought.
Constantine was the founder of "CANON LAW"------another non-issue for Jesus

Hmm. Didn't realize Constantine was the author of Divine and Natural Law (basis of Canon Law). Which Divine and Natural Laws did Constantine author?

 

[irosie91]

so true. Constantine was the person who had an interest in roman voting
customs I doubt that Jesus ever gave the issue the slightest thought.
Constantine was the founder of "CANON LAW"------another non-issue for Jesus

Hmm. Didn't realize Constantine was the author of Divine and Natural Law (basis of Canon Law). Which Divine and Natural Laws did Constantine author?

.

Actually he did not AUTHOR canon law------his (?) grandson JUSTINIAN ----codified the stuff.
The laws have fallen out of the new revised history of Catholicism. Some bits that
were so VITAL that they found their way into the Nuremburg laws of 1933 included ---proscription
upon intermarriage between Jews and Christians, Death sentence upon any jew involved or
cooperative with a Christian conversion to Judaism and-----get this----proscription on RIDING
A HORSE OR CARRYING A WEAPON------for jews and samaritans. (in Nazi german the horse
thing turned into public transportation or even getting into a car driven by a Christian)
Employment of a Christian by a jew. -----Proscriptions on land ownership. You will not find this
stuff in your catholic school history books. It got washed out.
Constantine's policies--->>Justinian law---->>Canon Law-->>Inquisition-__>>Nuremburg laws
(there was also a branch that grew into Shariah)
Sorry-----all true. John XIII and Emperor Franz Josef-----will be FOREVER heroes in
Jewish lore for moderating that filth. Ataturk tried to temper the Constantine stuff down in
Shariah-------it worked out IN TURKEY --sorta----but failed to touch most of the OTTOMAN EMPIRE(AKA caliphate) "divine and natural law"? which part is divine and which
part is natural? The part that formed the basis for the Inquisition is "natural" or "divine"?. For some insight into the SHARIAH moiety------read ROBERT SPENCER. (catholic)
Christians are to Shariah-----what muslims were to Canon law until very recently.
Ask Saint Isabella I ---Queen of Spain late 15th century
and yet another victim of the legacy of Constantine------MONTEZUMA << garroted by divine and natural law and lots of gold. Isabella was deep into DIVINE LAW and sponsor of the
mass murderer HERNAN CORTEZ

The legacy of NATURAL AND DIVINE LAW lives on------in ISIS. Fascinating stuff