Consensus on God: can all religions agree on meaning of universal Truth/Justice?

[emilynghiem]

I think this would work for those people who already are reconciled and won't work for those who are not. You are talking about using rational discourse on a subject which is, by its very nature, irrational. Once you toss in the primal human nature of the tribe, there is no discourse. This is because once you have been identified as an outsider, they are no longer listening.

That is not to say I object to the exercise. I believe your intent has no chance of success, but the attempt itself will cause you to consider your own views and that is always an exercise worth the effort. In spirituality, it is the trip that matters - not the destination.

Given that, the first hurdle is definition. What is God? What is truth? What is justice? I doubt you will get agreement beyond a very small group on any of those questions. For example, God to me is a word of convenience which conveys a general concept and does not begin to fit my own beliefs. I do not believe in God as an individual entity or as a creator. Truth is that which is and justice is an excuse.

Hi Pratchett I love your concise responses directly to the point.
1. yes, this will involve starting with the people most prepared or already experienced reconciling and then working from there to invite/include other peple in the process, I agree
let's start with the people willing to try, and let the others not willing watch and jump in where they feel they can contribue information they want included and considered
most ppl have an opinion on something they want represented, and not someone else
making that decision for them.
2. the point IS to make sure everyone is included and represented and not imposed upon by anyone "outside" their chosen affiliation. the point IS to avoid imposition from "outside groups" on each other but including all within the system or hierarchy they agree represents them. in the past this might seem impossible. today with school departments organized by fields of study or practice, and the internet and organizations built around problems and solutions, we can line groups up. they don't have to be under any person/group they disagree with, but can link on by choice, and don't all have to agree with each other.
3. I believe this is part of the spiritual process, and it will also point to certain destinations.
both, not either/or. and some destinations may change in the process to something else.
4. yes, starting with three levels that people see their own way
and aligning people by teams or groups depending which way they focus.
So we can still agree on how to solve various problems, within that group (or as partners between opposing groups if they want),
without interfering with another group seeing or approaching a different way.
Even what you answered about YOUR views helps indicate which group/team you might work with
or if someone wants a mixed team, they might invite you deliberately to be the dissenting
balance or check on the process, to make sure they don't leave things out that
you would see from your angle that is totally different from theirs. you could be helpful that
way just because you DON'T see it the same way someone else does. I pair up with friends this way all the
time so we can help each other get more done by working in tandem.
so whatever you agree on is truly universal if it meets both standards at the same time, that's good!

 

[The Professor]

What are you looking for? A universally accepted religion?

Good luck with that. You're not going to find any way to bridge the differences in Christianity and Islam. One accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and one the Trinity and the other categorically rejects it. Nor will you get many Christian's to agree with Jews that Jesus was not the promised Messiah. These are fundamental concepts which cannot be discarded or agreed away.

Hi Oldguy: no, the point is to work WITH the given systems as is.
like the several states all under one law of the nation but remaining sovereign under
their respective local laws and leaders. we don't necessarily convert from TX or CA law
to Constitutional law, but we make sure to reconcile any conflicts so we can follow both.

And there are ALREADY people reconciling Muslim/Christian
or Jewish/Christian etc.

the Messianic Jews are a denomination under the Southern Baptist Convention

so why not a denomination just for Muslim/Christians.

I have Muslim friends who are faithful to the teachings in Islam to
follow the Jewish Torah, Christian Scriptures and Muslim Quran.
All that is missing is to finish reconciling in Christ
and you're right some may choose to drop Islam after that
some may bring Christ into Islam.

The point is to resolve conflicts and then see what happens after that.
not to judge just because we don't think it will happen
cus there's already people who have reconciled this
within their own families or communities and we just need to share more of the same.

Thanks for replying!

Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, and Muslims believe Him to be merely a Prophet on the same order as Muhammad. Good luck trying to reconcile that conflict.

What you have to recognize is that if Muslims were to accept the divinity of Christ, they would have to denounce their faith and embrace Christianity. Conversely, if Christians were to accept that Christ is just another prophet – like Muhammad – they would have to abandon their own faith. Chances of that ever happening: ZERO.

Actually, even Christians cannot agree on who Jesus is. Some believe he is the son of God (having no existence until his birth), while other believe he is an equal part of a Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, while still others believe He is God Himself. I am convinced it is impossible to reconcile the many differences existing among those of the Christian faith, and it is laughable to try to reconcile the differences between Christians and those of other faiths. Of course I could be wrong. I mean, I've never been wrong before, but it could happen (joking).

Edited to add the following:

Some Christians believe that justification is by faith alone and that good works are irrelevant; however, other Christians believe that salvation is through works, and faith without works is dead. Some Christians believe in the doctrine of "once saved always saved" whereby one cannot lose salvation after accepting Christ; however, other Christians believe that those who continue in sin after knowing of Christ are to be treated as an infidel or worse. Some Christians believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and others say the Book of Revelation precludes such an event.

If you cannot first make peace among the Christians , you have no chance of reconciling those of obviously conflicting faiths.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I lind of get what Emily is trying to do in point one of the op

I think he is trying to "conceptualize" God into definitions that we may agree on. You do not need to accept more detailed issues of a theology to come to this idea.

Bingo!

For instance, I do not believe in a living being as a god--but I can follow the abstraction of what god means to different people.

I.e.--you don't have to be a theist to follow emily to come to an understanding what is being sought by point one.

A very interesting point of view--if we can keep absolutism out and personal opinions of "what does god represent to me" in.

Instead of making a theistic statement like "God is love" what Emily is looking for is an understanding that love is a unifying trait that exists across all mankind irrespective of any specific set or beliefs or lack thereof.

So is it possible under her definition of A to define these universal attributes? It should not matter if they are ascribed to a deity or not. They are aspects of mankind's better nature and can be agreed upon by all. One does not need to belong to any religion in order to have empathy, compassion, honesty, kindness, love, tolerance, openness, integrity, acceptance, forgiveness, charity, loyalty, hope, enlightenment, grace, wisdom, truth, etc, etc.

The above are universal to all mankind. Individuals may have them to a greater or lessor degree but they are attributes that can be found in all societies.

 

[emilynghiem]

I lind of get what Emily is trying to do in point one of the op

I think he is trying to "conceptualize" God into definitions that we may agree on. You do not need to accept more detailed issues of a theology to come to this idea.

For instance, I do not believe in a living being as a god--but I can follow the abstraction of what god means to different people.

I.e.--you don't have to be a theist to follow emily to come to an understanding what is being sought by point one.

A very interesting point of view--if we can keep absolutism out and personal opinions of "what does god represent to me" in.

Thank you Amrchaos! I think the absolutists won't do this if they feel safely included with respect, and not rejected where they feel pressured to prove a point by denouncing critics. Take that out of the equation and much of the need to bully and dominate stops. People can choose what group to represent their views, or set aside certain forums or formats to debate or bash if both parties agree, or pair up with partners who can mediate or facilitate if someone knows they have points where they are prone to get fundamentalist about it.

Part of the reconciliation process is to study the forgiveness factor; if we could measure and prove a correlation between ability to forgive and ability to reconcile, we may be able to prove what causes the rejection and projection with absolutism, and possibly remedy it.
People can still keep their same absolutist views but it doesn't have to disrupt the process.
Where we can forgive and let go, we can see there is no threat; if there are unforgiven issues causing blame directed at certain groups, that seems to cause absolutist rejection.
This can and should be fixed as part of the reconciliation process to include all views.

I reply to your other points below:

I lind of get what Emily is trying to do in point one of the op

I think he is trying to "conceptualize" God into definitions that we may agree on. You do not need to accept more detailed issues of a theology to come to this idea.

Bingo!

For instance, I do not believe in a living being as a god--but I can follow the abstraction of what god means to different people.

I.e.--you don't have to be a theist to follow emily to come to an understanding what is being sought by point one.

A very interesting point of view--if we can keep absolutism out and personal opinions of "what does god represent to me" in.

Instead of making a theistic statement like "God is love" what Emily is looking for is an understanding that love is a unifying trait that exists across all mankind irrespective of any specific set or beliefs or lack thereof.

So is it possible under her definition of A to define these universal attributes? It should not matter if they are ascribed to a deity or not. They are aspects of mankind's better nature and can be agreed upon by all. One does not need to belong to any religion in order to have empathy, compassion, honesty, kindness, love, tolerance, openness, integrity, acceptance, forgiveness, charity, loyalty, hope, enlightenment, grace, wisdom, truth, etc, etc.

The above are universal to all mankind. Individuals may have them to a greater or lessor degree but they are attributes that can be found in all societies.

Thank you AC and DT. You both explain this more clearly than I do so thank you for that.
1. What I found has made people clash in the past is defining God to be contrary things, then claim it is false because it was defined negative to begin with, like a strawman argument.
Instead I am asking to work the other way. Start with what people already believe to be the highest good or values in life, and see if those align with God or Christ Jesus.
As another nontheist/atheist stated: Numan said he saw things in terms of Spiritual Reality and not as a personified god per se. So I can this is the equivalent and we can talk from that perspective.
another atheist friend of mine does not believe in the way faith in God is taught, but he actively teaches the abundance of free grace, so maybe that aligns with the Holy Spirit level.

2. I also take this process a step further which is even more challenging. it is hard enough for some Christians and Muslims to see it's stil the same God (or also atheists who know they don't even believe).
If we do the same with concepts that align with Jesus, then this affects both religions and also politics because of the views of justice and role/relationship with people, laws and Government
so this is even more work to forgive differences and conflicts in order to reconcile

but it is critical to do this since it's actually the key to the whole puzzle

if we can align on the level of laws and justice, in the process it takes to forgive
ALL the issues this brings up, both religious and personal and political which is asking a lot,
then all the other things can be reconciled and resolved.

If people get that point, the rest falls in line. but a lot of conflicts will come up to be forgiven which is part of the point of focusing on this.

So the process to map out each person's natural system and not impose anything that is outside.
and then 'align' the values from there (while forgiving past rejection and conflict), where we can organize by groups and laws
that remain distinct, and still work together in harmony where people do not feel there is a threat.
that nobody is belittling their faith or beliefs, or trying to make something the same as God or Jesus that isn't the same,
but we recognize how these are connected universally, just the way they are, without converting anyone

Thank you both and I appreciate your help to clarify
I will try to go back and explain to OG about the two paths
with the church and the state laws since I was too vague
and need to give more specific examples to show how that part works.
That part is the key to bringing diverse groups together, make it clear
they naturally remain different, but still show there is one spirit still unifying them with this diversity going on.
even with half the people recognizing Jesus as divine and the others not personifying Justice the same way.
If we can do this with God, where some people personify and others do not, the same can be done with Jesus.
So what is the meaning of Jesus that is universally true even without personifying?
I believe the answer is the process of establishing "equal justice," and that
is what this process is going to involve itself. the forgiveness and changes necessary to establish universal truth.
so this will illustrate by real life demonstration what it means for the path through Jesus Christ to reach God.
it means to establish universal justice to get to universal truth.
and this will bring universal peace to humanity. Thanks again for your help to make this more and more clear as we go!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Oldguy and Professor: Thank you both for bringing up key points that will need to be answered in this process. I apologize my previous explanations to OG are too vague and general, and would make more sense giving specific examples.

The simplest example I can give of people using natural laws the same way Christians use scripture, is instead of talking with a secular humanist/atheist using the Bible which is not their law, you might cite Constitutional laws or principles. Such as free speech, or equal protections of the law. So if you explain that jesus represents equal justice under law for all people, that uses terms of natural laws where they do have values with meaning to them.

I also found citing natural laws works better with my American Muslim friends. instead of arguing over Jesus in the Bible, I've had more success communicating and understanding each other by using Constitutional laws as the common frame of reference. So corrections that Christian make using Matthew 18:15-20 do not mean to use the Bible only; if the person responds better to explanations using civil laws, those come from natural laws. One of the most common mistake I find Christians make that causes rejection is insisting on using the Bible to preach at people, instead of explaining using their own laws and belief system.

I once heard two people arguing at an atheist protest against the national day of prayer.
A Christian who came to witness to the atheists kept taunting the head of the group: you need Jesus! While he kept turning around and saying no i don't, back and forth. finally i asked him do you believe in justice, and he said yes. so i explained well that's the same thing. if you believe justice will come, that is what it means for Jesus to return and come back for all people. I also shared this idea with a Christian friend, who took a few minutes to realize what it means that jesus means justice and she agreed later. The difference is both people will keep using their same laws to approach justice. but hopefully we can agree we want the same kind of justice, justice for all, restorative justice, justice with mercy where we forgive but we also make corrections and work out restitution. And hopefully we can agree we don't want retributive justice imposed on us, so why impose this on other people. Restorative Justice includes and protects all interests equally, so in the end this makes us equal. so instead of fighting over church or state laws in competition and conflict, can we agree that truly universal and equal justice will satisfy both standards of laws? this is what it means for the spirit of jesus to fulfill the law as the authority for all. it does not mean everyone will be under church law. those under state/natural laws are also covered. The deciding factor is not whether we believe in church laws or in personifying jesus as Christians do, but whether we believe in restorative justice and take the laws we do follow to heart by conscience and enforce them by living by them ourselves. that is the equivalent of taking Jesus into our hearts, is whether we also fully forgive in order to embody the laws the same way Christians do with scriptural laws. if we do not forgive, we end up under retributive justice that kills relationships instead of forgiving before seeking corrections which save relationships. so that forgiveness needed for restorative justice is the deciding factor in salvation, regardless if we personify this as jesus or not.

What are you looking for? A universally accepted religion?

Good luck with that. You're not going to find any way to bridge the differences in Christianity and Islam. One accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and one the Trinity and the other categorically rejects it. Nor will you get many Christian's to agree with Jews that Jesus was not the promised Messiah. These are fundamental concepts which cannot be discarded or agreed away.

Hi Oldguy: no, the point is to work WITH the given systems as is.
like the several states all under one law of the nation but remaining sovereign under
their respective local laws and leaders. we don't necessarily convert from TX or CA law
to Constitutional law, but we make sure to reconcile any conflicts so we can follow both.

And there are ALREADY people reconciling Muslim/Christian
or Jewish/Christian etc.

the Messianic Jews are a denomination under the Southern Baptist Convention

so why not a denomination just for Muslim/Christians.

I have Muslim friends who are faithful to the teachings in Islam to
follow the Jewish Torah, Christian Scriptures and Muslim Quran.
All that is missing is to finish reconciling in Christ
and you're right some may choose to drop Islam after that
some may bring Christ into Islam.

The point is to resolve conflicts and then see what happens after that.
not to judge just because we don't think it will happen
cus there's already people who have reconciled this
within their own families or communities and we just need to share more of the same.

Thanks for replying!

Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, and Muslims believe Him to be merely a Prophet on the same order as Muhammad. Good luck trying to reconcile that conflict.

What you have to recognize is that if Muslims were to accept the divinity of Christ, they would have to denounce their faith and embrace Christianity. Conversely, if Christians were to accept that Christ is just another prophet – like Muhammad – they would have to abandon their own faith. Chances of that ever happening: ZERO.

Actually, even Christians cannot agree on who Jesus is. Some believe he is the son of God (having no existence until his birth), while other believe he is an equal part of a Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, while still others believe He is God Himself. I am convinced it is impossible to reconcile the many differences existing among those of the Christian faith, and it is laughable to try to reconcile the differences between Christians and those of other faiths. Of course I could be wrong. I mean, I've never been wrong before, but it could happen (joking).

Edited to add the following:

Some Christians believe that justification is by faith alone and that good works are irrelevant; however, other Christians believe that salvation is through works, and faitfoh without works is dead. Some Christians believe in the doctrine of "once saved always saved" whereby one cannot lose salvation after accepting Christ; however, other Christians believe that those who continue in sin after knowing of Christ are to be treated as an infidel or worse. Some Christians believe in a pre-tribulation rapture and others say the Book of Revelation precludes such an event.

If you cannot first make peace among the Christians , you have no chance of reconciling those of obviously conflicting faiths.

Dear Professor: Thank you for bringing up more points that I agree need to be reconciled.
1. For Muslims and Christians, I find that for either Muslims atheists or even Jehovah's Witnesses who do not recognize the divinity of Jesus as Christians do,
it is more effective to communicate by addressing each other as fellow gentiles under natural laws and framing all issues or corrections from that common reference.
The same need to forgive all conflicts and to seek restorative justice to correct problems still comes up in that context.
So that explains it better, by stating it in terms of whatever common beliefs and values we share, either exercising Islam under constitutional respect for equal religious freedom
or JW theology which is equally protected under constitutional laws, so this also involves enforcing those laws in redressing grievances.
If the other issues about jesus are going to be resolved it will be in this context anyway.

2. As for the other issues, i believe the key points that will open the door for all others to be resolved
is to align the trinity with the values people naturally have, and once they are on the same page
then all the other questions and answers will follow from there
a. with jesus, the critical factor that determines alignment or not is forgiveness
and if people recognize the difference it makes between retributive justice and restorative justice
if this issue is focused on first, any forgiveness it takes to resolve it will solve all other conflicts blocked by unforgiveness
b. with the works/faith issue, most people of faith do believe the faith comes first and the works follow
but under natural laws, people must do or see the proof first before the belief is based on proof
so both processes are going on at once
they should help each other, where the more proof we see the more we believe
such as the more we forgive the more we understand how to correct
and the more we see how to correct the more we understand and forgive
so these work together
where gentiles favor proof first before faith
but with forgiveness sometimes the faith to ask has to come first
before the understanding and corrections follow

In general I believe all the issues you point out
will indeed be resolved in the same process of forgiveness in order to reach reconciliation

as a gentile it is natural you would ask to see proof of such reconciliation before your mind accepts it as fully true
with the spiritual laws, the believers may need to believe it is possible before they ask and work to reconcile it
where the believers have not forgiven each other, that is the first step to unblocking the process.
to come together and agree to forgive and ask help together to receive the corrections
this will invoke jesus or justice to come where those prayers will be answered
where different independent witnesses to truth join and ask together in agreement
that is the spirit that will bring the answers to come forth thank you very much

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Jimmy Jam I also changed my mind in how to respond to you.
if you are already ok with this issue by just promoting tolerance,
then maybe the other thread is more for you if this does not challenge or interest you.

I plan to start another thread on consensus on law or consensus on govt.
So maybe applying tolerance to political beliefs and issues would be more your style.
What do you think of that?

Since you and I are like polar opposites, you being with the GOP and me being with the Dems trying to fix the problems within our own parties, can I invite you to be a co-moderator or facilitator? would you like to start the thread, or I will? thanks JJ

After careful consideration I have to default to OG's line of thinking. Plain and simple tolerance is the only genuine work-around. Not perfect, but workable.

Cultural and religious incorporation is nothing new. Take the Christmas holiday for example, which is little more than the pagan German celebration of yuletide injected with the Christian birth narrative. Christianity, when converting the Germanic peoples to their faith, essentially took an existing cultural celebration and incorporated it. That's not a condemnation of either, simply what happened. While nativity scenes and the Christin birth narrative are present, most of the traditions and the festiveness of the season comes straight from yuletide.

That is but one example of many. The Hellenistic Period gives us a ton of examples of cultural and religious incorporation.

I appreciate the Universalist approach, but this incorporation, in my opinion, is not something that can be contrived or called into being. It simply happens because the conditions at a particular time and place in history make it so. One must remember that religion is as much a culture as a belief.

 

[MaryL]

Perhaps, there isn’t a god and all organized religions are futile and meaningless, so if they agree on anything it may seem rather pointless...Nice weather we are having today. Isn't that nice!

 

[numan]

'
It is the Last Judgment. God stands before the Pearly Gates dividing the people into two groups. To the group on His right He says, "Oh, My true and faithful Atheists, well done! I created the world without any evidence of My existence; indeed, all the evidence led in the opposite direction! I gave mankind the god-like power of reason, and you, noble atheists, used that gift properly and courageously! The false promises of religion did not mislead you; you resisted the lure of fables backed by authority; childish hopes of comfort and salvation did not deter you from uncompromisingly following the path of reason, as you saw it, to its final conclusions. Even ridicule, discrimination and persecution did not daunt you; the talents which I gave you, you used and increased; for your intelligence and courage, for your ability to reject folly and seek wisdom---Welcome! Enter into Eternal Glory!"

Then God turns to the group on His left and says, "You religious fools! You infantile cowards! Through fear you refused to grow up and become adults. You clung to fables and just-so stories. You were unwilling to exercise the intelligence which I gave you as my most priceless gift! No absurdity was too great, no fairy tale too outrageous, provided it gave you childish comfort and the vain hope that no matter what crimes you committed, some Outside Power would reach down and save your unworthy butts! You have wasted and corrupted My gifts! My universe has no place for such as you; I reject you utterly! Into the Lake of Eternal Fire with you, and be consumed!!"
.

 

[PratchettFan]

I think this would work for those people who already are reconciled and won't work for those who are not. You are talking about using rational discourse on a subject which is, by its very nature, irrational. Once you toss in the primal human nature of the tribe, there is no discourse. This is because once you have been identified as an outsider, they are no longer listening.

That is not to say I object to the exercise. I believe your intent has no chance of success, but the attempt itself will cause you to consider your own views and that is always an exercise worth the effort. In spirituality, it is the trip that matters - not the destination.

Given that, the first hurdle is definition. What is God? What is truth? What is justice? I doubt you will get agreement beyond a very small group on any of those questions. For example, God to me is a word of convenience which conveys a general concept and does not begin to fit my own beliefs. I do not believe in God as an individual entity or as a creator. Truth is that which is and justice is an excuse.

Hi Pratchett I love your concise responses directly to the point.
1. yes, this will involve starting with the people most prepared or already experienced reconciling and then working from there to invite/include other peple in the process, I agree
let's start with the people willing to try, and let the others not willing watch and jump in where they feel they can contribue information they want included and considered
most ppl have an opinion on something they want represented, and not someone else
making that decision for them.
2. the point IS to make sure everyone is included and represented and not imposed upon by anyone "outside" their chosen affiliation. the point IS to avoid imposition from "outside groups" on each other but including all within the system or hierarchy they agree represents them. in the past this might seem impossible. today with school departments organized by fields of study or practice, and the internet and organizations built around problems and solutions, we can line groups up. they don't have to be under any person/group they disagree with, but can link on by choice, and don't all have to agree with each other.
3. I believe this is part of the spiritual process, and it will also point to certain destinations.
both, not either/or. and some destinations may change in the process to something else.
4. yes, starting with three levels that people see their own way
and aligning people by teams or groups depending which way they focus.
So we can still agree on how to solve various problems, within that group (or as partners between opposing groups if they want),
without interfering with another group seeing or approaching a different way.
Even what you answered about YOUR views helps indicate which group/team you might work with
or if someone wants a mixed team, they might invite you deliberately to be the dissenting
balance or check on the process, to make sure they don't leave things out that
you would see from your angle that is totally different from theirs. you could be helpful that
way just because you DON'T see it the same way someone else does. I pair up with friends this way all the
time so we can help each other get more done by working in tandem.
so whatever you agree on is truly universal if it meets both standards at the same time, that's good!

No. We can't agree to solve problems. You are starting from the premise that we should resolve problems and I am not convinced that is a good idea. Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

No. We can't agree to solve problems. You are starting from the premise that we should resolve problems and I am not convinced that is a good idea. Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing.

I agree, that there are reasons for conflict and differences.
there are reasons groups divide and work separately.

I am saying to embracing those differences and use them for good purpose.

Just not let conflicts escalate to the point it causes damage,
it defeats the purpose of either group, and spreads misinformation that doesnt help anyone.

Do you agree there is a difference
between conflicts that are not bad
and conflicts that SHOULD be resolved and avoided to prevent worse damage/disaster.

Like if you have a conflict if a child needs to be with the mom or the dad,
when clearly the child wants to maintain relations with both,
that emotional conflict between the parents
should be resolved where you don't tear the poor baby in half
where the child has neither parent but just misery and confusion and everyone's unhappy.

But in the case of whether people see laws in terms
of God or no god, why not include both paths and deal with both approaches?
if people disagree on homosexuality and gay marriage, why not separate out
and have to each his own?

 

[emilynghiem]

'
It is the Last Judgment. God stands before the Pearly Gates dividing the people into two groups. To the group on His right He says, "Oh, My true and faithful Atheists, well done! I created the world without any evidence of My existence; indeed, all the evidence led in the opposite direction! I gave mankind the god-like power of reason, and you, noble atheists, used that gift properly and courageously! The false promises of religion did not mislead you; you resisted the lure of fables backed by authority; childish hopes of comfort and salvation did not deter you from uncompromisingly following the path of reason, as you saw it, to its final conclusions. Even ridicule, discrimination and persecution did not daunt you; the talents which I gave you, you used and increased; for your intelligence and courage, for your ability to reject folly and seek wisdom---Welcome! Enter into Eternal Glory!"

Then God turns to the group on His left and says, "You religious fools! You infantile cowards! Through fear you refused to grow up and become adults. You clung to fables and just-so stories. You were unwilling to exercise the intelligence which I gave you as my most priceless gift! No absurdity was too great, no fairy tale too outrageous, provided it gave you childish comfort and the vain hope that no matter what crimes you committed, some Outside Power would reach down and save your unworthy butts! You have wasted and corrupted My gifts! My universe has no place for such as you; I reject you utterly! Into the Lake of Eternal Fire with you, and be consumed!!"
.

I see this as people under "Retributive Justice" will condemn and judge each other to the death by their own unforgiveness.

and people under "Restorative Justice" will work together in peace to resolve issues otherwise separting people into groups, and hopefully move more people from Camp A of fiery hellfire and damnation dished out back and forth, to Camp B of let's see how fast we can fix problems together (not just Kumbaya singing but actually team work and getting it done!)

I think more people will tire of Camp A and will eventually turn to Camp B.
And there as many Christian believers as atheists etc. in BOTH camps
either working together as neighbors in Christ, by forgiveness, or condemning each other to hell while going there themselves by unforgiveness.

And special people crossing over between Camps to try to work things out....

It's not so much a matter of whether you believe in God or not
but how you define the RELATIONSHIP between man and man, humanity or whatever collective level God represents,
whether you see "Justice" as Retributive or Restorative
that determines if you are in which Camp, by forgiveness that leads to heavenly peace on earth or unforgiveness to hellish suffering and war.

Since all people I know ideally WANT peace and freedom from fear, pain and suffering
I believe in Universal Salvation even by pure trial and error for self-survival.
As more people learn we create our own suffering by unforgiven projections onto others,
that's where more people choose the other path that liberates the mind from this self-induced misery.

 

[emilynghiem]

NOTE: Some other good threads where related discussions are going on concurrently:
Threads on
* "Why God should not have Attributes" by Aristotle
* "Bible Questions" by Gracie
* "Should God's Law be the Law of the Land"

If you find some good points there, you may bring up the points here and discuss further.
Since the threads are set up by different people who inspire certain people and
discussions within that framework, then the same points discussed under different people or threads may go in different directions, which is part of the process. Thanks!

 

[numan]

And there as many Christian believers as atheists etc. in BOTH camps
either working together as neighbors in Christ, by forgiveness, or condemning each other to hell while going there themselves by unforgiveness.

And special people crossing over between Camps to try to work things out....

Well, my little Last Judgment joke was an ironic poke at those "Christians," all through the ages, who have threatened (and worse!) those who disagreed with them by means of fantasies of such dire punishments.

I think it would be instructive for them to feel themselves on the other side of fence as Enemies of God.

I am willing to be tolerant of everyone, no matter what loony, barbarous superstitions they espouse -- just so long as they do not try to push their delusions down my throat, or interfere in my private affairs.

If they can't stop themselves from being pushy, then they should not be surprised if other people push back.
.

 

[emilynghiem]

And there as many Christian believers as atheists etc. in BOTH camps
either working together as neighbors in Christ, by forgiveness, or condemning each other to hell while going there themselves by unforgiveness.

And special people crossing over between Camps to try to work things out....

Well, my little Last Judgment joke was an ironic poke at those "Christians," all through the ages, who have threatened (and worse!) those who disagreed with them by means of fantasies of such dire punishments.

I think it would be instructive for them to feel themselves on the other side of fence as Enemies of God.
ds
I am willing to be tolerant of everyone, no matter what loony, barbarous superstitions they espouse -- just so long as they do not try to push their delusions down my throat, or interfere in my private affairs.

If they can't stop themselves from being pushy, then they should not be surprised if other people push back.
.

Your example DOES make a valid point.

The same way Christians are held to account by the laws and judgments they cite.

Then atheists/nontheists also are held to how well we follow our own standards,
especially if we criticize others for violating them. to each his own, you are right!

 

[numan]

'

"ONLY A COWARD OR A MADMAN WOULD GIVE GOOD FOR EVIL."
----Euripides

So unchristian! -- and so practical and sensible!

Since I am not dogmatic, and like a little variety in the world, I find a combination and variation in the two attitudes make for the most interest in life.
.

 

[Sunshine]

This thread is to organize ideas and points leading to a consensus on what God and Jesus mean, that will be universally agreed upon by people of all views.

I especially invite Hollie and IrishRam, Avatar and FoxFyre, KosherGirl and Gracie
to post a description of where you are and your backgrounds, and ask your help to moderate.

Anyone who has an issue with something you do not believe can be resolved, please post it here! And if we can find two people to co-mediate both sides, I'd like to see if we can resolve whatever issues are preventing reconciliation and reaching an agreed understanding.

If you have ideas or issues to post, please label A B C etc at the top of your post.

My views are

A. that names or aspect of God are diverse including God meaning:
Wisdom
Life
Unconditional Love
Universal Truth
Good Will
Greater Good for all Humanity
So many religions may focus on different aspects of God to worship
or even secular humanists, nontheists/atheists may believe in Truth/Justice WITHOUT attributing this universal principle to a personified deity or God as source of all life/truth.

So one step in the process is aligning the values we do have in common or equivalents.
And the Trinity in various religions is one way of expressing how we frame those concepts/values. this is even reflected in psychology as body/mind/spirit or superego/ego/id.

Do you agree these things can be reconciled while remaining different? Why do believe or not believe people can agree all these ways point to the same Source/God?

B. that the ability to reconcile across different systems is not so much a matter of the system
but whether the people AGREE to forgive differences and focus on points shared in common.

So the "forgiveness factor" is the key to whether people and views can be reconciled or not.

I believe a consensus on God can be reached first by bringing together reps from different views who DO AGREE to forgive differences and resolve the issues at hand to unite the groups they come from; and then in the process to help the others who haven't fully forgiven each other to work through and resolve the issues preventing them from forgiving.

Do you agree with this approach? Do you have examples or references of groups/programs already doing this work successfully?

Which groups/issues do you believe will or will not work for this process?
If you have threads, links, references or any other things to post related
to why this consensus process will or will not work, please post under "B."

C. One area where I feel WOULD bring together the nontheists and science
with the theists and practices of faith, is the field of "spiritual healing."

I believe science/medicine can prove the existence of negative energies causing
demonic voices/obsessions and technology can perfect means of measuring
and diagnose degrees or stages of criminal illness as well as treatment and cure.

If you have opinions, links, information, resources or references for or against spiritual healing can you post that here under "C"?

So these are the three areas I would like to focus on
in order to organize resources, people and groups to form a consensus
on
(A) the meaning of God (and the trinity in all religions/laws), the key impact
(B) influence of mutual forgiveness and correction vs.
unforgiveness and projection on the reconciliation process
(which is important also in our political democratic process that depends on this
level of communication to form consistent policies representing/reflecting all interests
and beliefs equally instead of politicizing religious views and bullying back and forth)
(C) the study and proof of spiritual healing to bring together faith and science
instead of a false division, and to reform our social and political institutions by proving that mental and criminal illness can be cured methodically by treating spiritual causes of ills equally as treating the mind and body as well (where none of the methods reject others).

Thank you and please post if you have
either ideas, objections or points on A B or C.

Or if you would like to offer help to co-moderate
please state your position and background
and what things you would most like to help to reconcile
you believe are preventing humanity from realizing our true potential.

Thank you very much!
Yours truly,
Emily

OK, here goes. I think that humans were genetically engineered by the Annunaki who came here from Nibiru in a space ship to mine gold to heal their ailing atmosphere. And I'm waiting for their return as they do ever 3000 years. Hope this helps.

Now, go directely to the muslims and get back with us. Well. Go directly to the muslims. I doubt you will be able to get back with us.

 

[emilynghiem]

'

"ONLY A COWARD OR A MADMAN WOULD GIVE GOOD FOR EVIL."
----Euripides

So unchristian! -- and so practical and sensible!

Since I am not dogmatic, and like a little variety in the world, I find a combination and variation in the two attitudes make for the most interest in life.
.

Yes the way I'd say the same thing:
some people/situations call for retributive justice
or standing down the bully with a bigger bully or bigger stick

some people/situations call for restorative justice
or forgiveness and correction in order to restore equity and good faith relations

it depends what part of the learning curve/cycle the person or event occurs

and it is disastrous to apply the wrong approach in the wrong situation

if we agree to separate the two distinct types of situations
by the time we do that, we can prevent and resolve most issues before they escalate

a lot of the conflict is made worse by only applying one
and condemning the other approach, when both may be necessary respectively

 

[emilynghiem]

OK, here goes. I think that humans were genetically engineered by the Annunaki who came here from Nibiru in a space ship to mine gold to heal their ailing atmosphere. And I'm waiting for their return as they do ever 3000 years. Hope this helps.

Now, go directely to the muslims and get back with us. Well. Go directly to the muslims. I doubt you will be able to get back with us.

OK

I have Muslim friends I have reconciled with using the Bible, or using Constitutional
principles which is more common for people to relate to and align in values.

Are you OK with aligning your views under Constitutional free exercise of religion?
If so, we can probably get along just fine where you give all other religions equal
respect and free exercise under the same laws you invoke to defend/practice your own.

Where the conflicts occur is if either party wants more respect or freedom for their views to be defended while not granting equal respect/protection to the other(s).

So as long as you do not project more or less fault for this onto Muslims as any other group including your own, then we should be able to get along and reconcile equally or else respect where we have differences. Agreed?

 

[emilynghiem]

NOTE: Some other good threads where related discussions are going on concurrently:
Threads on
* "Why God should not have Attributes" by Aristotle
* "Bible Questions" by Gracie
* "Should God's Law be the Law of the Land"

If you find some good points there, you may bring up the points here and discuss further.
Since the threads are set up by different people who inspire certain people and
discussions within that framework, then the same points discussed under different people or threads may go in different directions, which is part of the process. Thanks!

================

Creationist offers $10K prize to debunk in Court

Here is the story on the challenge by the Creationist:

Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court

that I wanted to counter by issuing a challenge to prove a consensus on God/Jesus can be established that does not rely on agreeing on either proving Evolution/Creation or both,
http://evilempire.com/showthread.php?t=406622
but proving "forgiveness" is the key factor in forming consensus on points of agreement by aligning views, regardless how much these disagree (where part of the proof process is proving spiritual healing is one application of forgiveness that medical science can confirm)

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Parture

I look forward to supporting you in a public rebuke of all types of Universalists
and get this resolved where all denominations agree and join as one in Christ.

I believe that is a GOOD thing and long overdue.

I can only speak for myself, and as you pointed out,
I do not agree with other Universalists teaching stray things that reject Christ and the Bible.
I knew Carlton Pearson was teaching there was no hell,
so I always specified with people where and why he was contested by other Christians.

If you are serious about correcting this, please let me know.
I thought the focus would be on Jehovah's Witnesses
but you seem to have more concern for Universalists.

That's fine, we can focus there and ask all other Christians
to join in your rebukes and resolve these issues until full agreement is reached.

Thank you Parture

I envision working in teams to form a Consensus on God
and Consensus on Law if you want to make this rebuke

M.D. Rawlings also wants to prove God by TAG
so we need teams for that, too. If you are serious!

If you really don't have faith that agreement can be
reached in Christ, let me know and I will leave you alone if you are an unbeliever.

Seems to me you are serious, so I am happy to help you
rebuke all the Universalists and elders you feel need to be corrected
so they won't teach the wrong thing. I agree this should be corrected.

Yours truly,
Emily