Do You Believe In God?

[irosie91]

even more interesting-----Of course I have no idea to what CORNERS you traipsed but either it was not the USA or you were a bit unconscious. It was not Ireland----not England, It might have been some country in south east asia where the missionary nuns ran
a grammar school. Such are the only kinds of people I have ever known who grew up free of the JOOOO BUGABOO-----it certainly was not Texas

Pennsylvania. With regular recurring trips to the deep South where the rest of my relatives were. And in neither of those settings was "Joooo" a concept I even heard of any more than, say, "Hindooooo".

As I said speak for yourself. Perhaps it had more to do with Texas, or more correctly your specific part of Texas. It certainly wasn't part of the Baltimore Catechism or any scholastic accouterments thereof, nor did it exist among the peers, friends or family I grew up with.

Ok ----it was not Philadelphia either------some remote part of Pennsylvannia------I could believe that---- a coal mining town?
or maybe PITTSBURGH

Pittsburgh....

We Philadelphians consider that another state. They don't even know how to talk out there.

I've been to Pittsburgh -- it's bizarre walking around wondering "how come these foreigners' license plates look just like ours?"

oh, OK-----you are from the "Pittsburgh is the PITTS" crowd-----I know you Philadelphians well----------me (innocent short person) "can you tell me where Locust street is"?? Philly creep>>> "who are you"?? Me. "I am not from this city----but I just started working here. I do not live here" philly creep>> "Why don't you know"
Me "I am not entirely familiar with this city" ----Philly creep---"why not"? " why did you come here". Me <shrug> ---"thanks anyway".

Me "you have lots of space ahead of you ----(to philly guy in parked
car) can you move up a few feet"? Philly creep "NO"

I have a philly sister-in-law-------DON'T ASK!!!!!!!!

I can indeed tell you where Locust street is but I wouldn't give you an answer like that.
About the time I was moving away for other places it occurred to me that the standard greeting to a stranger in Philly is "what are you lookin' at??" It's part of why I left.

yeah----ok that "what are you looking at?"""------comment also
CAPTURES the essence of PHILLY charm. PS I finally learned----
that to AVOID indigestion-----simply say "oh gee----we have other plans for that evening already in place" to family reunion supper
invitation. ----at first I thought my sister-in-law hated ONLY ME----
but that was before I spent time in Philadelphia------she is simply
THE NORM-----still----I ruminate on dozens of her catty philly
hoagie like comments

 

[G.T.]

Emily, id rather god be fake because if he is real then i firmly disagree with his practices.

Thats my thing and maybe if god coukda done a better job he she it would have more believers.

But i dont buy that bullshit that b.c. of original sin we ALL magically are thus corrupt and blah blah and I need faith in something unfathomable without well established, not pseudo intellectually assigned
.


Proof.

 

[G.T.]

I believe in God and I don't question my belief.

I base my belief on one simple passage in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Based in a paragraph? Lol come onnnn

 

[G.T.]

Emily if you are game i will discuss agnosticism versus belief in a podcast with you this evening. Just 2 ppl shooting the sheeite.

 

[Pogo]

Weird Pogo I tried 2-3 times to reply to your message but can't post it. Blank posts are coming up instead.

I will try this, sorry for shooting "blanks" at you?

I noticed that, wasn't sure what to make of them or what I was missing. Maybe you should delete them by way of cleanup?

1. If you are taking a broader impersonal approach to the whole picture,
limiting God to a personal Creator may not work for you but run into conflicts and walls.
You might be less frustrated framing God as self-existent eternal Nature or Universe with no beginning and no end.
And all these other paradigms are subsets of describing the creation process WITHIN the bigger process
that is beyond our human perception. Like breaking it down into smaller stories within the bigger story.

I tried to delineate that in my first rumination here. In fact my very first point was "what do we even mean by 'God'?" That isn't "frustration", it's defining terms. That question was never really answered, but it doesn't need to be. And I pretty much said the same thing about self-existent Nature and the question of microcosms and macrocosms (see "orishas" and "forests/trees", same post)

2. As for why create man, free will etc.
Well why bear children? If children will only grow up to know suffering and pain before dying like everything else dies.

I don't know -- I don't have children, but that wasn't any part of the reasoning. It would not have occurred to me, and if it did it wouldn't sustain, as it doesn't make much sense.

The answer is the value of living and loving as an expression worth sharing in and of itself.
Of living and growing and enjoying life anyway, despite our human flaws and limitations.
What is wrong with life for the sake of sharing and expressing love?
Of enjoying the sharing, growing and "discovery" within our Relationships with each other
and also the greater world we are all connected with, like a microcosm within a bigger
ecosystem, all interconnected with synergistic dynamics we have yet to discover.

Those are human values. They're all good ones but they're human values about human needs. Humanity and its social construct is part of the natural world.

But here we speak of the supernatural, therefore those paradigms take a hike and we're in new territory. If we first define "Creator" as all-powerful, and we secondly declare this Creator is somehow dependent on his own creation, then we have contradicted our own definition and our house of cards falls. A creator is by definition INdependent.

More illustratively, ascribing human values to a being we just got done describing as supernatural belies the human origin of the whole story. It's like pulling the curtain and showing the man with the levers. Once you've seen that guy it's not possible to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain and forget what you saw.

3. And just because someone can't make the same children come out as the ones that came out before, does that mean creation is faulty?

Don't know. I never made a point like that.

What if laws of gravity exist and then these cannot be changed.
Once the laws are made, then things based on those laws have to follow a certain way to be consistent.

So what if there are some things no longer possible once the system is set up a certain way?
If the earth already travels around the sun in one direction, so what if it cannot be changed to revolve the other way?

Does this mean the powers of the universe are any less, just because once
things are set in motion they stay in motion?

Now you've lost me. I don't follow the point here.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, id rather god be fake because if he is real then i firmly disagree with his practices.

Thats my thing and maybe if god coukda done a better job he she it would have more believers.

But i dont buy that bullshit that b.c. of original sin we ALL magically are thus corrupt and blah blah and I need faith in something unfathomable without well established, not pseudo intellectually assigned
.
Proof.

Hi G.T. Welcome to the club!
I also find myself disagreeing with God's ways which I find EXTREMELY inconvenient.
I just found out, yes it is true, that a wonderful friend I depended on to work on ambitious goals for peace and justice
through arts and activism, did die by her own self-inflicted injuries in January.
If I could protest to God, that no, that should not have been written in the script that way.
We want her to be with us and enjoy the new successes, direction and opportunities that are finally coming through.
But as LIFE would have it, she was already on the spiritual plane months ago,
and could be she was part of the "host of angels" who were guiding from above to get to where we are now.
She just wasn't with us physically.

I don't agree with that, can barely accept it, and none of her friends would have allowed it to happen either. We would have been by her side 24/7 had we known she was reacting to medication and out of control at the time she injured herself in ways that are completely out of character. Totally preventable and senseless, but we were so busy and disconnected that things went wrong and boom, she is gone. No warning and no reason, just senseless loss.

But the Script of Life has higher plans for how the characters play out the story.
I don't agree with losing such a well loved member of the cast in the middle of the battles we
are so close to winning. All I know is to trust she is with us in spirit, and supporting us on some higher level than she could when she was fighting on the ground with us. I wanted to be able to see her smile at the good news and the great progress, but I am relegated to feeling her joys "indirectly" when we share them with each other and know she is there in the midst of us, sharing with us, but not here physically. Not what I wanted at all.

Nobody totally agrees with everything God or Life has in store.
It's always harder than we wanted, and only when we share as a team can we bear the burdens we didn't ask for.
All things have a purpose, and we still work to make the most of what we are given in life.
And find ways to turn burdens into blessings, where the good outweighs the bad.

Welcome to the club, G.T. the story of humanity is what we make of life.
And we discover what God's will, truth and love mean in the process
when we find out just how great the gifts in life can be, in proportion to the crosses we bear.
The greater the struggle, the greater the rewards, so there is justice in life for those who accept the challenges.

I can't believe my friend is gone. Still trying to understand, why couldn't she be here with us? I can only be comforted by the even greater thanks I have for the friends I do have here to work with, and not take that for granted. I trust she is pushing all us of like an Angel working on a different level to help us connect in subtle ways. I may never agree, but will eventually accept it.

 

[G.T.]

Lol im not in the club emily b.c. i dont accept the premise that god exists.

I remain in the i dont know category

 

[Pogo]

I believe in God and I don't question my belief.

I base my belief on one simple passage in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Hey Hoss...
There's an axe murderer standing behind you.

Hey, you just read it here. You gonna take my word for it, or you gonna turn around and look?

 

[Pogo]

Pennsylvania. With regular recurring trips to the deep South where the rest of my relatives were. And in neither of those settings was "Joooo" a concept I even heard of any more than, say, "Hindooooo".

As I said speak for yourself. Perhaps it had more to do with Texas, or more correctly your specific part of Texas. It certainly wasn't part of the Baltimore Catechism or any scholastic accouterments thereof, nor did it exist among the peers, friends or family I grew up with.

Ok ----it was not Philadelphia either------some remote part of Pennsylvannia------I could believe that---- a coal mining town?
or maybe PITTSBURGH

Pittsburgh....

We Philadelphians consider that another state. They don't even know how to talk out there.

I've been to Pittsburgh -- it's bizarre walking around wondering "how come these foreigners' license plates look just like ours?"

oh, OK-----you are from the "Pittsburgh is the PITTS" crowd-----I know you Philadelphians well----------me (innocent short person) "can you tell me where Locust street is"?? Philly creep>>> "who are you"?? Me. "I am not from this city----but I just started working here. I do not live here" philly creep>> "Why don't you know"
Me "I am not entirely familiar with this city" ----Philly creep---"why not"? " why did you come here". Me <shrug> ---"thanks anyway".

Me "you have lots of space ahead of you ----(to philly guy in parked
car) can you move up a few feet"? Philly creep "NO"

I have a philly sister-in-law-------DON'T ASK!!!!!!!!

I can indeed tell you where Locust street is but I wouldn't give you an answer like that.
About the time I was moving away for other places it occurred to me that the standard greeting to a stranger in Philly is "what are you lookin' at??" It's part of why I left.

yeah----ok that "what are you looking at?"""------comment also
CAPTURES the essence of PHILLY charm. PS I finally learned----
that to AVOID indigestion-----simply say "oh gee----we have other plans for that evening already in place" to family reunion supper
invitation. ----at first I thought my sister-in-law hated ONLY ME----
but that was before I spent time in Philadelphia------she is simply
THE NORM-----still----I ruminate on dozens of her catty philly
hoagie like comments

We are an emotional bunch, no argument there. "Passionate" is perhaps a better term. It means our love and loyalty is as strong as our disdain and crudeness can be. Just ask our sports teams. They know.

Speaking of digestion, every time I see the word "hoagie" I feel the taste of shredded lettuce dripping in olive oil and oregano. Ahhhhh....

 

[irosie91]

Ok ----it was not Philadelphia either------some remote part of Pennsylvannia------I could believe that---- a coal mining town?
or maybe PITTSBURGH

Pittsburgh....

We Philadelphians consider that another state. They don't even know how to talk out there.

I've been to Pittsburgh -- it's bizarre walking around wondering "how come these foreigners' license plates look just like ours?"

oh, OK-----you are from the "Pittsburgh is the PITTS" crowd-----I know you Philadelphians well----------me (innocent short person) "can you tell me where Locust street is"?? Philly creep>>> "who are you"?? Me. "I am not from this city----but I just started working here. I do not live here" philly creep>> "Why don't you know"
Me "I am not entirely familiar with this city" ----Philly creep---"why not"? " why did you come here". Me <shrug> ---"thanks anyway".

Me "you have lots of space ahead of you ----(to philly guy in parked
car) can you move up a few feet"? Philly creep "NO"

I have a philly sister-in-law-------DON'T ASK!!!!!!!!

I can indeed tell you where Locust street is but I wouldn't give you an answer like that.
About the time I was moving away for other places it occurred to me that the standard greeting to a stranger in Philly is "what are you lookin' at??" It's part of why I left.

yeah----ok that "what are you looking at?"""------comment also
CAPTURES the essence of PHILLY charm. PS I finally learned----
that to AVOID indigestion-----simply say "oh gee----we have other plans for that evening already in place" to family reunion supper
invitation. ----at first I thought my sister-in-law hated ONLY ME----
but that was before I spent time in Philadelphia------she is simply
THE NORM-----still----I ruminate on dozens of her catty philly
hoagie like comments

We are an emotional bunch, no argument there. "Passionate" is perhaps a better term. It means our love and loyalty is as strong as our disdain and crudeness can be. Just ask our sports teams. They know.

Speaking of digestion, every time I see the word "hoagie" I feel the taste of shredded lettuce dripping in olive oil and oregano. Ahhhhh....

yeah right-----the first time I saw a HOAGIE----I thought----' no wonder they are so irritable "

 

[emilynghiem]

Weird Pogo I tried 2-3 times to reply to your message but can't post it. Blank posts are coming up instead.

I will try this, sorry for shooting "blanks" at you?

I noticed that, wasn't sure what to make of them or what I was missing. Maybe you should delete them by way of cleanup?

1. If you are taking a broader impersonal approach to the whole picture,
limiting God to a personal Creator may not work for you but run into conflicts and walls.
You might be less frustrated framing God as self-existent eternal Nature or Universe with no beginning and no end.
And all these other paradigms are subsets of describing the creation process WITHIN the bigger process
that is beyond our human perception. Like breaking it down into smaller stories within the bigger story.

I tried to delineate that in my first rumination here. In fact my very first point was "what do we even mean by 'God'?" That isn't "frustration", it's defining terms. That question was never really answered, but it doesn't need to be. And I pretty much said the same thing about self-existent Nature and the question of microcosms and macrocosms (see "orishas" and "forests/trees", same post)

2. As for why create man, free will etc.
Well why bear children? If children will only grow up to know suffering and pain before dying like everything else dies.

I don't know -- I don't have children, but that wasn't any part of the reasoning. It would not have occurred to me, and if it did it wouldn't sustain, as it doesn't make much sense.

The answer is the value of living and loving as an expression worth sharing in and of itself.
Of living and growing and enjoying life anyway, despite our human flaws and limitations.
What is wrong with life for the sake of sharing and expressing love?
Of enjoying the sharing, growing and "discovery" within our Relationships with each other
and also the greater world we are all connected with, like a microcosm within a bigger
ecosystem, all interconnected with synergistic dynamics we have yet to discover.

Those are human values. They're all good ones but they're human values about human needs. Humanity and its social construct is part of the natural world.

But here we speak of the supernatural, therefore those paradigms take a hike and we're in new territory. If we first define "Creator" as all-powerful, and we secondly declare this Creator is somehow dependent on his own creation, then we have contradicted our own definition and our house of cards falls. A creator is by definition INdependent.

More illustratively, ascribing human values to a being we just got done describing as supernatural belies the human origin of the whole story. It's like pulling the curtain and showing the man with the levers. Once you've seen that guy it's not possible to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain and forget what you saw.

3. And just because someone can't make the same children come out as the ones that came out before, does that mean creation is faulty?

Don't know. I never made a point like that.

What if laws of gravity exist and then these cannot be changed.
Once the laws are made, then things based on those laws have to follow a certain way to be consistent.

So what if there are some things no longer possible once the system is set up a certain way?
If the earth already travels around the sun in one direction, so what if it cannot be changed to revolve the other way?

Does this mean the powers of the universe are any less, just because once
things are set in motion they stay in motion?

Now you've lost me. I don't follow the point here.

Thanks Pogo
1. I was able to delete the 3 blanks. I got the same weird quirk on other threads, and had to delete all those also!
Maybe my browser is freezing up from ads or something. Sorry!
2. Sometimes I can see the older msgs, sometimes they don't show up but disappear.
From what you recapped, we sound like we are on the same page with accommodating
these other contexts and angles. Great!
3. For "sustainability" are you going by "human conditions" or perceptions of sustainability?
each person/relationship is unique, so the value is in that uniqueness and QUALITY of sharing
not in the material time things last which is limited to this world.
The point of love being eternal and unconditional is that it transcends material conditions
of life and death "in this world"
4. RE: seeing God's mechanisms as the levers etc.
Even after we know how forgiveness works to heal all things,
we still have to take the leap of faith and see what happens when we choose the path
of forgiveness, letting go and accepting first, and then find out where that leads.
Even when we see how the patterns and stages of grief and recovery work,
we still don't know till we get there what greater things are in store after we agree to let go and move forward.

We can look and see with our eyes WIDE OPEN and still not know till it actually happens
what is going to happen and how. So there is no need to hide anything, I don't get this
analogy or paradigm either.

I have met two people who teach the process as being shown everything in advance
that we are going to experience before we are born, agreeing first, then erasing all that so we live it blind?
WHAT? I don't agree with whoever is teaching it that way.
No human on earth can see all the things that our actions in life are going to lead to in advance.
So even if we agreed to what we could see, that isn't the whole picture anyway.
I think we receive as much insight in advance as needed to get things done.
We can't know everything, but we need to know enough to take the right steps and direction
and figure out the rest as we go.

If you are referring to this business of showing us knowledge
then hiding it from us, no I don't agree with that teaching. I've seen it before
and just don't relate that way, but other people do, if this is what you mean?

I think it sounds controlling and manipulative, but knowledge of the laws is unconditional.
When we are ready to know things, the more unconditional we are with how we will use the knowledge,
where we don't hold it against others to monopolize or manipulate,
then we are more ready to handle greater responsibilities and knowledge.
There is no manipulation of knowledge there, except what we make of it.
And people who abuse knowledge to manipulate others will be limited in their knowledge
because they are expending extra energy using it for selfish purpose, in comparison
with those who share freely who will receive greater understanding because it won't be abused for control games.

5. What I am saying about the laws not changing once they are in effect,
you were questioning if God created things why can't God create them again,
as if questioning how can God be 'all powerful' and yet can't do some things.

And I was saying just because the world is created with fixed laws in place,
where some things aren't going to happen that go against these laws,
doesn't mean God is contradictory or can't be "all powerful."

If we are designed as humans and aren't meant to turn into butterflies or elephants,
then that is not going to happen. It's not part of the laws of nature or physics to do that.
It does not serve purpose in life to change from one species to another.
That is not what it means for God to be all powerful and in control of all things.

I was just giving other examples of things not even God can do
but which don't negate "God as creator" or being all powerful.

I think I would agree more with you than disagree on these points.
I'd say most contradictions are with people, because we are not perfect in our
representation of what God means.

6. As for what do we mean by God
I find most people's concept of God falls into a few main concepts:
1. God as Truth, Wisdom, universal laws or collective knowledge of all things over all time and space
2. God's will as Good will, greater good for all humanity, or public good for all society
3. God as creator or Creation, Universe, Nature, Source of Life or laws thereof
4. God as love, as positive life energy, unconditional love
5. God as the ultimate absolute [fill in the blank] -- whatever someone puts as the highest source, power, or authority above all other things [pick one, some people even make Govt their God that decides what things are true and real or not yet]

so each expression of God is just a subset of the greater God that is the
source of all these other manifestations from one approach or the other.

For Jesus, I try to understand someone's perception of Justice, does this come from
the inside out, from other sources? Do they believe in Retributive Justice or Restorative Justice?

I find the key factor in whether people can work with other religious or political views is not which affiliation we are,
but to what degree we FORGIVE and INCLUDE others. Where we cannot forgive or include all people of all other groups,
that is what reinforces biases in our perceptions, communications and relations.

As long as we agree to forgive and work with our differences,
we can communicate about the same concepts and principles "underneath" --
where the language we use does not have to become "conditions for accepting each other" that cause rejection instead.

Most of the conflicts are in perceptions because people fear and divide by groups.
We get past the fear and forgiveness issues, the other answers can be worked out
even if our differences in beliefs remain as they are. Our perception of those differences may change
and that's enough to bridge gaps and reach an understanding anyway.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in God and I don't question my belief.

I base my belief on one simple passage in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Hey Hoss...
There's an axe murderer standing behind you.

Hey, you just read it here. You gonna take my word for it, or you gonna turn around and look?

Dear Pogo I think Hoss means that that passage speaks volumes and expresses what Hossfly already believes.
The faith comes first, and the expression is used to connect and reinforce agreement with others who already believe.
It provides a common language for the laws already carried in heart, conscience and spirit.

 

[RodISHI]

I have met two people who teach the process as being shown everything in advance that we are going to experience before we are born, agreeing first, then erasing all that so we live it blind?

Great post Emily. I just copied this portion to chat on. If someone is shown something in the spirit prior to being born into this world it is very likely they could have been shown what their life would be in the world apart from living strictly as a spiritual being. If one is shown something in the spiritual realm it is not always an easy task to transfer that into the carnal flesh realm. For some I have notice it is easy to add one's own desires or belief system into that which has been seen in the spirit. Just a thought to ponder.

 

[Pogo]

I believe in God and I don't question my belief.

I base my belief on one simple passage in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Hey Hoss...
There's an axe murderer standing behind you.

Hey, you just read it here. You gonna take my word for it, or you gonna turn around and look?

Dear Pogo I think Hoss means that that passage speaks volumes and expresses what Hossfly already believes.
The faith comes first, and the expression is used to connect and reinforce agreement with others who already believe.
It provides a common language for the laws already carried in heart, conscience and spirit.

I'm just asking him to be consistent in his reasoning. If I tell him there's an axe murderer standing behind him, he has enough sense to know not to take that seriously, as he knows I have no way to know that.

At worst, if I've planted a seed of doubt he can turn around and check, by which measure he will know I'm lying and ignore my specious warning.

What I *don't* want him to do is jump under the table just because I said so.

 

[midcan5]

*
Profound Question | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
*

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in God and I don't question my belief.

I base my belief on one simple passage in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Hey Hoss...
There's an axe murderer standing behind you.

Hey, you just read it here. You gonna take my word for it, or you gonna turn around and look?

Dear Pogo I think Hoss means that that passage speaks volumes and expresses what Hossfly already believes.
The faith comes first, and the expression is used to connect and reinforce agreement with others who already believe.
It provides a common language for the laws already carried in heart, conscience and spirit.

I'm just asking him to be consistent in his reasoning. If I tell him there's an axe murderer standing behind him, he has enough sense to know not to take that seriously, as he knows I have no way to know that.

At worst, if I've planted a seed of doubt he can turn around and check, by which measure he will know I'm lying and ignore my specious warning.

What I *don't* want him to do is jump under the table just because I said so.

I'd like to see as much "consistency" with Liberals who make Govt their God.
If the Supreme Court says it's the law to do X Y Z then it's legal?
What about when the Courts justified treating people as slaves by enforcing property laws as the law?

It seems everyone jumps on religions that are optional.
When it comes to political beliefs influencing laws that are mandatory,
why aren't the same standards applied there that are applied to "traditional religions"?
Why aren't political beliefs questioned and held in check?
But the minute the Courts declare it so, then the arguments stop there. Really?
So the Courts have divine right to rule and decide for people, without question?

Do you see what I mean Pogo
it seems like overcompensation and projection.
So worried about people who are expressing their own views,
but when it comes to the Supreme Court mandating views for people,
oh that's different. Anyone who questions that is called names!

[P.S. to be fair and to equally pick on Conservatives for something,
I am starting to see the same arguments against gun control
that mirror the arguments about immigration enforcement.
The liberals will say more violent crime is committed nationally
that is NOT related to illegal immigrants; and the response is we still
need to enforce the immigration laws to DETER crime.
Well that sounds a lot like the arguments that enforcing gun regulations
won't stop the higher incidence of gun violence not helped by that.
And the response is wouldn't the ENFORCEMENT send a
stronger message about deterrence? instead of looking lax and promoting violations?]

 

[Pogo]

I believe in God and I don't question my belief.

I base my belief on one simple passage in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Hey Hoss...
There's an axe murderer standing behind you.

Hey, you just read it here. You gonna take my word for it, or you gonna turn around and look?

Dear Pogo I think Hoss means that that passage speaks volumes and expresses what Hossfly already believes.
The faith comes first, and the expression is used to connect and reinforce agreement with others who already believe.
It provides a common language for the laws already carried in heart, conscience and spirit.

I'm just asking him to be consistent in his reasoning. If I tell him there's an axe murderer standing behind him, he has enough sense to know not to take that seriously, as he knows I have no way to know that.

At worst, if I've planted a seed of doubt he can turn around and check, by which measure he will know I'm lying and ignore my specious warning.

What I *don't* want him to do is jump under the table just because I said so.

I'd like to see as much consistency with liberals who make Govt their God.
If the Supreme Court says it's the law to do X Y Z then it's legal?
What about when the Courts justified treating people as slaves by enforcing property laws as the law?

It seems everyone jumps on religions that are optional.
When it comes to political beliefs influencing laws that are mandatory,
why aren't the same standards applied there that are applied to "traditional religions"?
Why aren't political beliefs questioned and held in check?
But the minute the Courts declare it so, then the arguments stop there. Really?
So the Courts have divine right to rule and decide for people, without question?

Do you see what I mean Pogo
it seems like overcompensationn and projection.
So worried about people who are expressing their own views,
but when it comes to the Supreme Court mandating views for people,
oh that's different. Anyone who questions that is called names!

No. You're hijacking the topic off to 'government' now, which has nothing to do with religion.
Don't do that.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in God and I don't question my belief.

I base my belief on one simple passage in the bible.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Hey Hoss...
There's an axe murderer standing behind you.

Hey, you just read it here. You gonna take my word for it, or you gonna turn around and look?

Dear Pogo I think Hoss means that that passage speaks volumes and expresses what Hossfly already believes.
The faith comes first, and the expression is used to connect and reinforce agreement with others who already believe.
It provides a common language for the laws already carried in heart, conscience and spirit.

I'm just asking him to be consistent in his reasoning. If I tell him there's an axe murderer standing behind him, he has enough sense to know not to take that seriously, as he knows I have no way to know that.

At worst, if I've planted a seed of doubt he can turn around and check, by which measure he will know I'm lying and ignore my specious warning.

What I *don't* want him to do is jump under the table just because I said so.

I'd like to see as much consistency with liberals who make Govt their God.
If the Supreme Court says it's the law to do X Y Z then it's legal?
What about when the Courts justified treating people as slaves by enforcing property laws as the law?

It seems everyone jumps on religions that are optional.
When it comes to political beliefs influencing laws that are mandatory,
why aren't the same standards applied there that are applied to "traditional religions"?
Why aren't political beliefs questioned and held in check?
But the minute the Courts declare it so, then the arguments stop there. Really?
So the Courts have divine right to rule and decide for people, without question?

Do you see what I mean Pogo
it seems like overcompensationn and projection.
So worried about people who are expressing their own views,
but when it comes to the Supreme Court mandating views for people,
oh that's different. Anyone who questions that is called names!

No. You're hijacking the topic off to 'government' now, which has nothing to do with religion.
Don't do that.

The same people perceiving religious authority are also applying that same perception to govt authority.
I DO see parallels here that reveal how people's beliefs affect their PERCEPTION of church-state authority
and ACCOUNTABILITY.

How you see the people as the govt
or the people as the church, this affects biases in how you address others.

So in this case, if you feel the govt represents the authority of the people,
not God and religion, then you may see Hossfly and others as following some authority you don't,
and you address them as having an outside belief divided from yours.

If you see someone as coming from the same perspective of authority,
you might address them as a peer with the same beliefs you have, not as adversarial or foreign to yours.

This explains why so many conservatives see liberals as foreign, hostile or pushing some outside agenda. The Conservatives I know believe human rights and freedoms come from God as the source of our human nature that natural laws of governance are derived from.

So this "liberal" business of relying on Govt to define what rights exist or not is foreign to them and looks like a false god; rejecting the real source of life and rights from Nature's God,
and creating a false political god to worship for control and manipulation of the masses.

Pogo do you realize these political beliefs bias everything we look at,
and thus affects the laws we are passing that are MANDATORY to follow?
this is serious.

The faith we have or don't have affects both our religious and political views.
it is affecting public policy, taxes, mandates fines and penalties even as we speak,
and the reason the parties can't resolve differences and reform policies into something
more workable.

 

[Pogo]

It's way too long to take this all at once, so ...

3. For "sustainability" are you going by "human conditions" or perceptions of sustainability?
each person/relationship is unique, so the value is in that uniqueness and QUALITY of sharing
not in the material time things last which is limited to this world.
The point of love being eternal and unconditional is that it transcends material conditions
of life and death "in this world"

I didn't bring up "sustainability". Not sure where this is coming from or where it's going.

But as for "love" -- I don't see the connection. Love is a human emotion; there's no particular reason it needs to be associated with religion. Certainly isn't required for a "god".

See also post 28.

4. RE: seeing God's mechanisms as the levers etc.
Even after we know how forgiveness works to heal all things,
we still have to take the leap of faith and see what happens when we choose the path
of forgiveness, letting go and accepting first, and then find out where that leads.
Even when we see how the patterns and stages of grief and recovery work,
we still don't know till we get there what greater things are in store after we agree to let go and move forward.

I didn't bring up "forgiveness" either. Or "grief". Made no allusions to either at all. This is another non sequiturial mystery.

That bit was about who constructs the precepts of (our standard monotheist) religion, and why they would construct it as such, i.e. what they have to gain from it. Nothing to do with "forgiveness" or "grief" or any other emotion.

We can look and see with our eyes WIDE OPEN and still not know till it actually happens
what is going to happen and how. So there is no need to hide anything, I don't get this
analogy or paradigm either.

I have met two people who teach the process as being shown everything in advance
that we are going to experience before we are born, agreeing first, then erasing all that so we live it blind?
WHAT? I don't agree with whoever is teaching it that way.
No human on earth can see all the things that our actions in life are going to lead to in advance.
So even if we agreed to what we could see, that isn't the whole picture anyway.
I think we receive as much insight in advance as needed to get things done.
We can't know everything, but we need to know enough to take the right steps and direction
and figure out the rest as we go.

I think you're describing the concept of predestination. Far as I'm concerned that's a meaningless semantic. Looked at one way, yes everything that happens in the future is going to happen, but that's really stating the obvious. In no way does it mean therefore we have no control over making them happen or preventing them. If that's even the point.

If you are referring to this business of showing us knowledge
then hiding it from us, no I don't agree with that teaching. I've seen it before
and just don't relate that way, but other people do, if this is what you mean?

I don't know. What are you talking about? Let's try to take one point at a time, and without injecting new ones. I have no idea where we are right now.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And The Word was God.

What if the voice of God that you think is in your head is just you having a conversation with yourself?

If we didn't think in words, would 'God' be an issue?