religion Vs. arrogance

[Bullypulpit]

Nor is there any justification for atheists attempting to impose their values upon those who disagree with them.

Some people need religion, some don't...In either case, there is no license, implied or not, to dragoon others to their way of thinking.

If one needs religion to fill a void in their life, fine. Go about your business and leave those who don't need religion alone and vice-versa.

 

[no1tovote4]

Some people need religion, some don't...In either case, there is no license, implied or not, to dragoon others to their way of thinking.

If one needs religion to fill a void in their life, fine. Go about your business and leave those who don't need religion alone and vice-versa.

One of the commandments from their Deity while on Earth was to "Go forth and Preach the Gospel to every nation!" One cannot do this if ignoring others. Understanding their religion is important to not getting insulted by them caring for your soul.

In fact it is quite arrogant to suggest that their Deity's wishes in this be subject to your whim.

 

[Dr Grump]

In fact it is quite arrogant to suggest that their Deity's wishes in this be subject to your whim.

And vice versa too...

 

[no1tovote4]

And vice versa too...

Not necessarily. Bully professes to be Buddhist. My remonition was from one Buddhist to another, with a large understanding of the professed beliefs of the poster in question. It is part of Buddhism to respect and to work to understand other religions, not to suggest they follow our personal whim or wishes. It also is one of the basic tenets to not attempt to push another from a Path that may be different than our own.

 

[MissileMan]

Not necessarily. Bully professes to be Buddhist. My remonition was from one Buddhist to another, with a large understanding of the professed beliefs of the poster in question. It is part of Buddhism to respect and to work to understand other religions, not to suggest they follow our personal whim or wishes. It also is one of the basic tenets to not attempt to push another from a Path that may be different than our own.

What a marvelous place the earth could be if everyone would follow that ideal.

 

[no1tovote4]

What a marvelous place the earth could be if everyone would follow that ideal.

If everybody were Buddhist the world would be harmonic, but less than it is now. It is often the differences in people that bring out the good as well as the bad. One works within the other, without one the other may be non-existent or taken for granted.

 

[MissileMan]

In fact it is quite arrogant to suggest that their Deity's wishes in this be subject to your whim.

Do you make this same concession to Islam and their methods?

 

[MissileMan]

If everybody were Buddhist the world would be harmonic, but less than it is now. It is often the differences in people that bring out the good as well as the bad. One works within the other, without one the other may be non-existent or taken for granted.

I didn't say if everyone were Bhuddist, just if everyone were content to "Live and let live".

 

[no1tovote4]

Do you make this same concession to Islam and their methods?

It depends entirely on the method. All life has a right to protect itself from attack or forceful coercion. Not all Muslims condone all aspects of coercion and force applied by others who profess to that religion.

 

[no1tovote4]

I didn't say if everyone were Bhuddist, just if everyone were content to "Live and let live".

I understand. I suggested it because it is currently one of two religions that I know of that teaches it, they and Unitarians.

However, understanding Christianity means realizing that they were Commanded by their Deity to spread the message to every person. One cannot do this and do as Buddhism suggests. Realizing this makes it less insulting or even annoying when they attempt to save my soul. It shows care and a faithful following of the Path they have chosen.

 

[MissileMan]

I understand. I suggested it because it is currently one of two religions that I know of that teaches it, they and Unitarians.

However, understanding Christianity means realizing that they were Commanded by their Deity to spread the message to every person. One cannot do this and do as Buddhism suggests. Realizing this makes it less insulting or even annoying when they attempt to save my soul. It shows care and a faithful following of the Path they have chosen.

Are you saying that you allow them to remain on their path by not getting annoyed by their attempt to save your soul?

 

[no1tovote4]

Are you saying that you allow them to remain on their path by not getting annoyed by their attempt to save your soul?

No, I am saying that I do not suggest to them not to follow their Path by attempting to get them to stop saving my soul. I do not therefore attempt to push them off their chosen Path, and through understanding the Commandment I do not become annoyed or angry when they do attempt to convert me.

 

[MissileMan]

No, I am saying that I do not suggest to them not to follow their Path by attempting to get them to stop saving my soul. I do not therefore attempt to push them off their chosen Path, and through understanding the Commandment I do not become annoyed or angry when they do attempt to convert me.

That's close enough to what I wrote...interesting concept.

 

[Diuretic]

Sentience does not define human life. If such were true, my sister born microcephalic would not be a "human". She still touched the lives of my parents with a certainty, even though she had long died before I was born.

I didn't make that claim. That is simple misrepresentation.

How is destroying human life "supporting" each other? Regardless of it's sentience level that fetus is human life. One could argue that such young progeny is not yet a "person" because of sentience but science tells us that it is a separate human entity at conception.

I didn't make that claim.

Not according to DNA, it IS human according to science. That it may not yet be a "person", as stated before, may be in question but it is definitely human life. A separate human than the parent immediately on conception.

That doesn't relate at all to my point.

Why not? In what way does this human life have no shot at a chance at life? That through direct action we take the life of a human, if not yet a person, at its most innocent and dependant stage of development largely for convenience. This directly flies in the face of "support" in society as we condone this action.

You asked me "In other words, does not all of human society carry a responsibility to insure that all Fetus's, and new born humans are protected and given equal opportunity under the law of that society?"

I said no. Then you asked me the question above and answered your own question with a claim. My answer is still no.

No, according to DNA it is a human, arguably a "potential" person because of sentiencel, but no less human nonetheless.

That's nonsense. Anything can carry DNA. Spit carries DNA, does that make spit a potential person?

Actually, when outside the womb it is with brain function that we define human, not even higher brain function as explained with my sister who was microcephalic. Amazingly the first brain function begins within the womb at five weeks, higher function begins at about 18 weeks.

Brain activity indicates signs of life, it doesn't define humanity, those are two different concepts.

It isn't potential, it is according to DNA and science not a "potential" human, but entirely human. Separate and distinct from the incubating mother.

What do you mean according to DNA and science? What does that mean? It's a foetus, of course it's got DNA. Having DNA doesn't define anything as human, it defines it as having DNA. Plants have DNA but a carrot isn't a human.

Only when you attempt to explain it away by attempting to define a human as something "other" and dehumanizing it with words like "potential".

You haven't proved your point yet. You've made vague claims and references but nothing that can be called proof.

It is likely that a zygote will naturally not stick to the uterine wall and will self-abort. But that zygote is still human by its DNA. Does that zygote not have any right to a shot at the life that they can have? What greater gift can we give these unborn than that of the same chance that we had to shape their future?

I said before DNA doesn't define humanity.

Making claims and then spraying around rhetorical questions is very confusing to follow. What makes this even worse is your misrepresentations of what I was saying. That's just being intellectually lazy.

 

[jillian]

Never thought differently than what you just said.

Just tried/attempted a little humor.
......
Guess you don't remember Bill Cosby's comedy LP/Album, "Why Is There Air?".
.......
I was just sitting back and looking at all the bantering, and debating and just tried to take-pause, and assimilate where it was going......and came up with the quote......ala Bill Cosby.

No disrespect intended to anyone......involved in this.
.....
Jesus however did say, as well as his disciples that God's truth that He claimed to possess and embody was only understood Spiritually, and that basically secular man metaphorically had "scales"(fish scales/cataracts) upon his eyes of understanding. It was only after "true" conversion(being Born Again from above) that a man/woman would start to understand(The scales/cataracts would fall off.), and agree/abide with these truths.

Jesus did not teach that there was a respected, in-between state of spirituality, where man could be a little secular and a little bit believer. In fact he said that flesh and Spirit would never agree, nor live comfortably in the human species. Once a person became converted, the "", or Holy Spirit would come to reside in that human, and the internalizing of the war of Spirit and Flesh would happen. Initially, conversion would bring bliss, but gradually the old worldly programming of the mind that still was filled with secular, "everything" would come to "logger-heads" with the Spirit of Christ that now resided in the soul of the converted.

Paul's famous Roman's 7 rendition where he said, "The things I desire to do, I don't, and things I shouldn't do, I do. Oh, wretched man that I am! .......". Paul wasn't claiming to be a Pagan trying to be a Christian, but proclaiming the actually war of his mind to throw away the old ways, of his unconverted life. The "Paraclete" withing at Paul's conversion was calling, and beckoning him/Paul to a total 180 degree change in thoughts........no longer to see himself as the center of all reality, but to a God-centered vision, that was actually the true reality of his state of being after conversion.
......
It is indeed the Frank Sinatra disease or malady of man that God incarnated His Son and allowed Him to give His life for. "I Did It My Way", is the bane of mankind, and is also a defining philosophy of unconverted man's spiritual state.
......
What does it mean to refer to Jesus as "Lord". Is it a knight's degree bestowed, that means absolutely nothing or just some nobility, tag, or does it mean that He/Jesus is entitled to being submitted-to, by His creation?

No problem with the humor. Sorry I didn't get the reference

First let me say that I found your post very interesting and have, since reading it, given a great deal of thought to my response. Let me say in advance that I hope you won't see anything I say as disrespectful. I don't share your beliefs, as I have my own, but I have great respect for your belief and your certainty.

I think the universe is a very complex place. Relgion is a way of making its complexity understandable to people. But I think that true understanding of the nature of the Supreme Being is beyond our ken. It's kind of like trying to describe the color red to someone who's never had vision. We see only the manifestation of the divine which we can comprehend. Personally, I like the idea of a universe so great that it is beyond our imaginings.

You raised one of my pet issues, though, when you mentioned the words paraclete and rabbi. And I think that much of what Jesus said may be construed in a particular way because of linguistics and simple language. Jesus would have been called Rabbi, which is "teacher" in Hebrew. It isn't used interchangeably with word "Lord". That would, most likely, have been a title bestowed upon him by his Roman followers who would have used it as a title of respect. Also, since Jesus' teachings were spoken in Aramaic, repeated translation and re-translation over the centuries might have blurred some of the meanings.

I found something interesting (to me, anyway) about the word Paraclete.

Paraclete
For the school of Peter Abelard, see Oratory of the Paraclete.
Paraclete comes from the Greek word παράκλητος meaning "one who consoles" or "one who intercedes on our behalf", which first appears in the Gospel of John (16:7). Christian theology afterwards identified Paraclete with the Holy Spirit. The word appears only a few times in Greek New Testament manuscripts and using the Roman alphabet is rendered "parakletos".

Christ is quoted in the New Testament using this word; in John 14:26 the greek word parakletos is used as an alternative term for "Holy Spirit". Yet in I John 2:1 "parakletos" is used again this time in reference to Christ.

Paraclete is important to Christians because it sheds much light on the nature of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and brings into question the concept of the Trinity, often a source of great confusion. The Holy Spirit, or Paraclete, is the third person of the Holy Trinity. The Paraclete is also called the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter and the Supporter as it is the Paraclete who comes alongside the Christian to provide guidance, consolation and support throughout life’s journey.

Montanus (2nd Century?) claimed to be the promised paraclete of John 14:16.

Islam (7th Century) claims Muhammad is the Paraclete promised by Jesus.

Some Christians believe that Jesus was himself the second paraclete and returned after his death to indwell his followers as a spirit[citation needed]. He himself indicates that the second Paraclete would be "another" so this implies not himself. Since the Paraclete is called the Spirit of Truth it may be one of the seven angels (spirits) that stand before the Throne of God. The word itself implies an aggressive lawyer who defends the saints and prosecutes the world system.

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

So, language, interpretation, has a great deal to do with how we see the Bible. I found the use of the word "paraclete" in reference to Mohammed a particularly interesting one.

My own favorite example of that is when Moses heard the words from the Burning Bush... They've been translated fairly consistently as "I am that I am". Yet Moses would have heard the words in Hebrew and there is no present tense first person conjugation of the Hebrew words "to be". Instead, in Hebrew it would actually have been "I will be what I will be". Now, even that small phrase is open to interpretation. And people have debated their meaning for centuries.

Even our concepts of "heaven" or "nirvana" or whatever one wishes to call it change depending on the language choices we make and I've been told that translation from one language to another is often more an art than a science. Christians see heaven in one particular way. Buddhists see it as something quite different, though I don't think those views are inconsistent, but rather it's the same as looking at a house from two different sides.... you will be looking at the same object but not see the same thing. On that subject, as well, Kabbalah defines "heaven" as the Ein Sof, which, literally, translates to Nothingness. How is nothing "heaven"? Well, I've seen that question answered fairly simply as "Well, there's "nothing" and then there's "NOTHING". I think that seems a lot like the Buddhist concepts. Kabbalah also says that what we see on earth is only the tip of the iceberg and it's filtered through about 10 levels because we could not comprehend anything more.

I laughed when I read what you said about "Frank Sinatra Disease". I believe that Man has free will. There is the divine, but with regard to our earthly acts, we are free to make choices. This, obviously conflicts with the concept of all things being governed from above. But, like everything else, I think the answers are complex and ultimately we won't find it all out until we get to the end of our journeys.

I hope my response did some justice to your thoughtful post and I hope nothing I wrote could be construed as being denigrating in any way. I actually love discussing these issues and find them fascinating.

 

[Diuretic]

Amidst the rubble a small flower struggles to grow.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Nothing is anything; let's be socialists.

 

[Diuretic]

Nothing is anything; let's be socialists.

You mean nihilists.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You mean nihilists.

Same thing, due to socialism being a death wish.

 

[jillian]

Nothing is anything; let's be socialists.

Huh? :scratch: