News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

I read the circumcision threads below, and I am livid. You spew religious crap to justify this barbaric and sick, evil practice? Are you madpeople?

Are you sadistic mutilators?

Watch this video. Watch the ENTIRE video. And then you tell me it's ok to do this in the name of some idiotic God.

Grow up and stop supporting the torture of infants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fa_qn6i1Y0

I don't know how untoward this may be for me to say, but I was circumsized as an infant. And it wasn't done for any religious purposes, it's simply what's done in the U.S. What may have started as a religious practice is now simply .. a practice.

Having said that, I've gone through phases in my life where I feel the practice is indeed barbaric, as you say. I think we all know what the answer to any infant would be if they were capable of answering us: do you mind if I circumsize you?

But on the other hand, I have to say I'm actually glad that I am circumsized. Uncircumsized males who haven't bathed in a couple of days begin to grow this whitish residue on their genitals comparable to feta cheese. Now you may say that's natural -- and it is -- but I have to be completely unabashedly honest here when I say I'm glad I don't experience this phenomenon. It's a protective covering that I honestly don't need or want, especially since I'm not living in the wilderness.

I also think (and, again, I'm sorry if saying this is inappropriate) that it's aesthetically more appealing, as a male, to be circumsized. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being uncircumsized, I'm just saying i'm glad that I have been.

Lastly, I'm sure the video is indeed disgusting, disturbing and all that. But if you showed me a video of a woman giving birth I might say the same thing - yet nobody's lobbying to put a ban on giving birth to children! Life is cruel, from the moment we enter the world, kicking and screaming and covered in blood and other bodily fluids.

I agree though, maybe it would be better to wait until the child can speak and rationalize for himself and then give him the choice. By the same token, I'm glad I wasn't given a choice because consequently a) I have no memory of the event and b) well.. I just prefer being the way I currently am.

You're glad your penis was cut into at birth, making it smaller and thinner?

You're glad you lost the most erogenously (sexually) sensitive tissue your penis had?

You're glad that you'll never experience sex normally, the way nature intended?

You're GLAD about that? How incredibly pathetic.

Um, yes, when you don't shower, you get a little gross. But, um, that's why people shower. You endorse removing genital tissue because of times you won't have the chance to clean yourself? Do you know how insane that is?

As far as aesthetics, you endorse plastic surgery on your genitals to fit in with some notion of appearance that only exists because a practice got perpetuated in the US? No Europeans cut themselves because of appearance. You're THAT insecure that you believe in have surgery on your penis?

I'm sorry, your 'arguments' are just absolutely lame. That baby is strapped down (the way you were) because of just idiotic thinking like that.

Slow down there buddy. I'm not arguing for or against the act. I'm arguing in favor of people having a choice whether they want to or not.

While you may find it horrifically outlandish what I find aesthetically appealing or unappealing, please consider that social norms vary throughout the world. In some eastern societies, people think that teeth chiseled into sharp points is appealing; in some society’s earlobes and lips stretched out is appealing. Who am I to judge them, however "sick" and "sadistic" other people may view it.

Now let's make one thing understood first and foremost so you know who you are arguing against here. I do not, under any circumstances, approve of circumcision for religious purposes. I find that sadistic and barbaric; for that matter I find raising children religious at all to be backwards and inappropriate. Religion is for adults. Period.

Secondly, however "unnatural" you may think the act is, consider the "unnatural" acts humans partake of daily, yourself included. From the daily removal of our beards to the manipulation of electricity to fuel our homes, all of it is, arguably speaking, "unnatural". Wearing deodorant is "unnatural", but I don't really feel like having my natural body odor emanate one meter from my body everywhere I go. In some societies the reverse is so accepted that people don't even notice their natural body odors, and that's fair enough. I was raised in a different culture and as difficult as it may be for the people of those societies to understand me, I simply cannot grasp the viewpoint of living without the use of deodorant. Sorry, I just can't, and yes I've actually tried.

So, we've concluded that humans do lots of "unnatural" things. From the drinking of another species' bodily fluids (i.e., cow's milk), an act which no other animals in the world does, to the farming of animals for slaughter -- all of it is unnatural and a lot of it is sick and twisted. Circumcision began not for religious purposes but for sanitary purposes by our ancestors, all of whom originated from the DESERT. This is the key point here. You can argue how sick and immoral the act is until you're blue in the face. If you go live in the desert, uncircumsized, and have little access to water -- and less chance to waste in on bathing -- then you might as well expect a lifetime of genital infections, because it will happen. To expound on this idea, imagine if humans had fur in addition to sweat glands. Now imagine thousands of years ago humans migrated to a tropical climate. If they didn't start removing their fur, we'd be wiped out from heat stroke (I'm just using this as a hypothetical example - yes, I know some jungle animals have fur, that's not the point so please don't go off subject by arguing it).

Lastly, there is absolutely no proof if an uncircumcised male is more sensitive in that region. How exactly can you prove that one? What, are all the circumcised males of the world not enjoying intercourse?



This has nothing to do with insecurity and everything to do with my upbringing, which I cannot change. And if I grew up in a tribal society where we tattooed our faces, I'd also do the same thing and I'd be saying "I can't imagine living without my facial tattoos". Let me ask you something, do you eat meat? Do you consume any animal products whatsoever? I do, for the record, and I don't have a problem with it - but if you want to take the moral high ground and yet you aren't a strict vegan, I think there's a lot of finger pointing that could, arguably, be aimed in your direction too.

Lastly, could I kindly ask that you not use inflammatory language in your replies? I know I haven't and I make great pains to make sure that I don't. I encourage you to share your beliefs, even if they oppose my own - in fact, I'd very much like to hear them. But, for all the reasons stated above, I kindly ask that you not call me or my ideas as lame or idiotic. I very much appreciate your understanding in this.

Blessed be.

You might say the slaughter of innocent animals is barbaric.

You might say the murder of a human is barbaric as well.

But what we need to understand is that acting against the natural law of the God who you call "barbaric" causes great suffering and even death to others. Ultimately, this was demonstrated in Christ.

The point?

The sacrifice of animals was done to demonstrate the kind of damage we all do when we don't act according to natural law.

(This symbol saved much more suffering than it caused.)

Circumcision is the same type of symbol and has great benefits in life, just as removing the sin from your life has great benefits in life.

You see, sin is true barbarism and sin dwells in both you and me.

To a dull-of-hearing humanity, suffering is the only demonstration of love that can be understood.

Know thyself, and know how your actions affect others. To do this will be a harsh realization to those who are honest with themselves, but it will save many from suffering at your hands.

To those who have an ear.


Circumcision is also not designed to be conducted in the way depicted in the video. This video is enough to sicken anybody and is misleading and emotionally manipulating and is a misrepresentation of what circumcision is supposed to be.

Circumcision done to babies causes unecessary suffering. Unless there is a strong clinical indication that the procedure is necessary for the health of that baby then I believe it should not be done. Rituals and practices that cause unecessary suffering to either ourselves or others should be challenged and brought to an end if possible.

I think you are right Russ about barbarism and sin dwelling within us, but we dont have to act that out on ourselves or others, especially on small children who do not yet know any better

Russ,

What a bunch of insane, rambling nonsense. No one had any right to cut me at birth - and the fact that it was done for such idiotic reasons pisses me off even more. I didn't need to lose any part of my body for superstitious God-bullshit. Period, end of story.

And for you to say this video isn't the way circumcisions are... that is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. That is EXACTLY what circumcisions are. Are we not supposed to believe what we see?

It is incredibly sick and should be illegal.

I don't necessarily agree with Russ 100% but he's not using vulgarity and hostility as the forefront to his argument and, for that reason alone, his statements have more clout than do yours I'm afraid. Ease off a bit and try approaching this discussion from a non-emotional point of view. There's no reason to ridicule others.

To look at it from a different perspective, would you say "You're so full of sh**, why don't you f*** off, go to hell" to an African tribesmen who is defending his right to scarification as part of his tribal history? Before you say, "Oh that's different, they're not doing it to infants", please consider I'm not arguing in favor of infant circumsizion. I'm saying the attitude that circumsizion is barbaric is a matter of opinion. If you want to say it's barbaric to do to infants, you might have a pretty good argument (as long as you can do it without aggression.) But if you're just saying the act, itself, is barbaric, you're simply confusing your opinion with fact. There's a lot of people who may think some of the things YOU do are barbaric - and they might even have a pretty solid argument to support that statement too, but it's still just an opinion.

Incidentally, it's possible to reverse the effects of circumcision on your own without any fancy equipment. Have a few google searches on the topic, you'll see what I mean.

There are certainly strong feelings about this issue. Unfortunately, there are certain positions that cannot be understood until the basic underlying principles are first understood.

The Bible words it this way:

"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people."

—Isaiah 28:9-11

Here is an example:

How do you explain to someone why putting a fast serial ATA (SATA) hard drive in a computer did not speed up overall disk access time and therefore did not improve the performance of the computer? You may have to explain that the motherboard manufacturer cut corners by putting the SATA controller behind (later in the data stream) a PCI controller which bottlenecks bandwidth.

This does not make much sense to most people who don't know computer internals. There are layers of precepts that you have to understand before you can ever grasp this concept.

You must first know what SATA is and why it is fast. You must also know what PCI is and why it is slow. You must also know how things can be "behind" other things in the data stream. Layer upon layer; Precept upon precept.

In the same way, we know that there are issues in life that cause pain and suffering. A person who does not understand the deeper issues of life may continue to hold simplistic child-like ideas that pain is always bad and pleasure is always good and therefore, this person will draw many simplistic, unbeneficial, and simply untrue conclusions about life—and God—as a result.

An example would be homosexuality.

Without a deeper understanding of the spiritual and psychological implications of this lifestyle, people who practice it cause untold damage to themselves and to many others over the long-term, but because this lifestyle does not show any immediate consequences—just as mercury—people continue to practice it until the damage is deep and irreversible.

So, these deeper issues, such as circumcision, are not explainable to someone who does not already understand the nature of mankind or the physiological effects of changes in our bodies or the nature of God.

There is a lot more to this issue, so those who care and are intellectually honest should research all aspects of it carefully. I would also recommend getting to know yourself—good and bad—as this is the first step to getting to understand everything else, and it's shocking (and sad) how few people live their lives and die without ever gaining these basic understandings of how things really work.

Finally, I would recommend reading the Bible. This is the most amazing book that I've ever seen. Reading it carefully will enable you to see the person in the mirror as never before, and this newly-found knowledge and wisdom can forever change you for the better, if you let it.

Obviously a troll thread
It is basic truth of the human condition that we have a capacity for good and a capacity for evil. We will do terrible deeds in the name of many causes, the variable is about what, the constant is us.
I am an atheist but you cannot blame religion for what a few people do in power
This thread is a troll and retarded, there are a thousand better examples in history to argue terrible stuff being done in the name of god, just as thousand other examples made in other beliefs like patriotism, revenge, ego, or just your garden variety wacko ideas

Russ,

Try to argue for circumcision without relying on the Bible. I don't buy into the silliness of the Bible and I never will. What right does anyone have to impose their way of thinking on me? Normally I could just laugh at bible thumpers and people who spout of about God this and Jesus that. Only, they got to MY body, so it's not so funny.

You're advocating a sick practice based on a bunch of superstitious nonsense and it's really ridiculous. You'd be a lot happier and more intellectually sound if you dropped the Bible absurdity from your life and read some real science or real literature and embraced the beauty of the real world. Not the fantasy world of the Bible.

Um, why is this obviously a troll thread? There are threads below arguing that circumicison is good. I countered with a video of an actual circumcision to show how violent and sick the practice is.

Your post is rambling and pointless. Address the issue or be quiet.

Even as someone who takes little interest in "gay rights", I can't help but wonder how exactly homosexuals are harming themselves. For that matter, of your own volition, pain and pleasure are parts of life and only a child-like mind thinks one equates total badness and the other total goodness -- so even if they were inflicting damage to themselves (which just isn't true), can it be any worse than the damage of circumcision (an act I do not oppose). Frankly, I don't give a toss what people do in bed (straight or otherwise) -- I really don't want to be privy to those things. But seriously, how are gay people inflicting "untold damage" to themselves and others? Additionally, could I request that you answer using scientific, non-biblical sources to cite your claims?

As for the whole circumsizion debate. As I've said, I happen to be quite content that I underwent the procedure - but I also think it should be a choice left to adults to do to their own body. That being said, I'd be also curious if you think that a) being uncircumsized is somehow "faulty" and if so b) how you can rationalize this (again, using non-religious sources.)

The bible should never be the end all be all of an argument - especially since there are a great many posters here who aren't even christian.

Quote from Russ:

An example would be homosexuality.
Without a deeper understanding of the spiritual and psychological implications of this lifestyle, people who practice it cause untold damage to themselves and to many others over the long-term, but because this lifestyle does not show any immediate consequences—just as mercury—people continue to practice it until the damage is deep and irreversible.

Russ you sadly do not know what you are talking about, and you have dissapointed me with your gross ignorance
Kind regards
Richard

A person who denies the very essence of themselves in order to conform to what their family and society expect of them is the one who is harming themselves. I am not advocating a state of anarchy where everyone does what they like with no thought about the consequences. But I see it as a very positive thing that homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in mainstream society, something that no longer has to be a dirty or shameful secret. It's not that long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental illness. You're not going to stamp it out of people by telling them they're going to hell or they're fundamentally flawed.

My belief is that a tribe wants to perpetuate itself and keep itself strong. A few thousand years ago in the Middle East I imagine there would have been a strong incentive in those societies for people to marry and habe many children in order to achieve this. A homosexual is not so likely to marry and have children are they, so they would not have been fulfilling what probably was seen as a vital role at the time. Things have rather changed since then don't you think? Is someone now not fulfilling an obligation to society because they are not marrying and having children?

I don't believe homosexuality is wrong "because God said so." I believe this ancient society wrote rules for themselves and incorporated them into their religion in order to ensure that people followed them. The "God said so, it's in the Bible" arument is only going to work with other Christians.

I quite agree with what Pwcca has said here about circumcision. I take rather more issue with comparing homosexuality to poisoning people with mercury -- hmm, pretty extreme, I think most people would agree.

Linda.

When you post things like this "And then you tell me it's ok to do this in the name of some idiotic God." It is obvious you are not trying to have an intelligent conversation.
I disagree with circumcision btw
And for this there is no right answer, it is not violent or sick, the baby can barely feel it
But there are advantages for it in the aesthetics of the penis and in the hygiene, specially for poor countries where potable water is not the norm and you don't want cheese growing inside the foreskin
You posted the video for shock value ONO ITS BARBARIC.
Getting surgery would be violent and barbaric too, would you rather die than get surgery? Would you like to have a video when you go to the restaurant of how chickens and cows get mauled?
The baby won't feel it/remember the pain, the only good argument is that they had no choice

Sigh. So much ignorance.

One: the baby feels no pain. Um, what? That is PRECISELY why I posted the video. To show idiots who say things like that that they are full of . You tell me this baby isn't feeling pain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fa_qn6i1Y0

Two: do you know nothing about the brain, how plastic it is, particularly in infants, and in turn the effects of massive stress on the brain? No, I figured you didn't.

Three: Aesthetics. Possibly the dumbest reason of all time to conduct plastic surgery on an infant's penis. Name another body part that you permanently change the shape of in a HEALTHY INFANT in the name of aesthetics. Absolute insanity.

Four: Cleanliness. Just absurd. Just totally absurd. First, you are cutting flesh in these poor countries and thus exposing the baby to incredible opportunities for infection. Second, most people manage to bathe across the world. If not, circumcision is the last of their concerns. ASk yourself why the only operation we do in the name of hygeine is on an infant boy's penis.

So much ridiculousness.

Well actually, the bible does not require circumcision except of Jews, so to say it is a 'Christian' based tradition is nonsense. It's not. It's a Hebrew tradition. Lots of modern doctors who are neither Jewish or Christian perform circumcisions. It is though, also a muslim tradition. wherein also females are circumcised, and though males may not experience pain later in life from circumcision, females have been quite commonly known to. But you probably won't find their comments here because they probably are not allowed to surf the internet to freely discuss it either.

So, depending on where you live, the idea that 'the only operation we do in the name of hygeine is on an infant boy's penis' is rather narrow minded.

Blame your mother, not society, she gave the doctor permission to do it. It's not a required procedure. Highly doubtful your little prick is due to circumcision anyway. Plenty of circumcised men would find that complaint quite funny.

Try having anal sex without a lubricant and you'll discover quite quickly why it's not meant to be. Think for a moment about why homsexual men have such a penchant for young boys and you'll also begin to discover the full meaning of dirty old man. It's simple biology. For the very same reason most of us do not clean toilets with our bare hands, much less our tongues or other extremities. The average lifespan of homosexuals is 40-50 years, due to death by disease, hepatitus being one of the main killers of the homosexual population.

Wow, you've thought about homosexuality in vivid detail. Really vivid. Sounds like something must be burning in your mind that you felt you had to get out, huh?

nah, saw it at the newstand, plain as day. tried not to look really, kind of an embarrassing blatent statement about our society.

The baby WONT remember the pain, and nerves are not fully developed. Are you gonna tell me you won't vaccinate your baby because of the pain?
Pain part is irrelevant.
OK hotshot, since you know so much about the brain, show me how the stress of circumcision causes damage to the brain on babies.

Aesthetics: I agree it is not a good reason for me, but for other people and women (specially in the west) they like more a circumcised penis. In Europe they don't seem to really care.
And yes leaving the choice out of the person is the main reason I disagree with circumcision, plus some studies say decreased sensibility (don't know about the credibility though)
As for hygiene, if you don't shower every day YOU WILL start growing cheese inside the foreskin, and not everyone in the world can shower every day. And unless you are humping everything in sight or swimming in rivers in the jungle the chances of infection are the same for circumcised and uncircumcised

At least now you are arguing (albeit like a self-righteous ) and not insulting god

Anonymous i dont know why on earth you cant identify yourself. A few points to correct you on. Anal sex is practiced by both straight and gay couples. But saying that not all men straight or gay enjoy or engage in it for a number of different reasons. I dont know many gay men that have a penchant for young boys. Some do though but that is equally true for older men and young girls. I dont know what point you are trying to make about cleaning the toilet with your bare hands or tongue. I am assuming you are referring to oral sex. Oral sex again is part of sexual activity for both gay and straight couples and again not everybody goes in for it. Its not any more or less healthier to lick a woman genitals and/or anus than it is a mans. Where did you get the ridiculous so called statistic about the lifespan of homosexuals from, i'm assuming its from a reputable source?

Curiously though at the start of this last paragraph you invite people to try having anal sex without lubricant to discover how painful it is. It seems that you might have more personal experience of this subject than your'e letting on

He seems like a typical bible-beating closet case to me.

No, what's embarrassing is that in 2007 you have people who still believe in a magical fairy in the sky with magical powers who wants you to talk to him so he'll be nice to you. AKA "God".

What an effing joke. "God." I cannot believe how many people still far for that silly, idiotic garbage.

"Oooooh, please Mr. sky fairy, please be nice to me! I'll do anything you want Mr. sky fairy!"

Bwahahahahahahaha! So ridiculous.

And the Bible. Are there any other magical books of nonsense people here believe in? How about a good Steven King novel. Let's worship that.

Tell you what: you believe in circumcision (I love how you just decide the pain part is "irrelevant"). And I'll laught at "God". the idiotic belief of the simple minded.

Oooooh, c'mon "God", strike me down! I dare you, you wimp! Come and get me, "God", you complete a-hole!

I laugh at God and would spit in its face - if it existed. Which it doesn't.

For your information I am uncircumcised and atheist
Thanks for proving my point that this thread is for trolling purposes
I'm done arguing with children

I will—over time—attempt to address the many layers of this issue, however, both the issues of circumcision and homosexuality are not easily understood without understanding some fundamental principles. I've said this before: "You have to understand certain fundamental principles before you can understand the higher ones."

Unfortunately, many people don't understand even the fundamental principles and therefore have little hope of understanding the higher ones. On the other hand, I have done my research and I have put the pieces of the puzzle together, and I will tell you this:

Things will happen within our lifetimes (perhaps soon, but I don't know the timelines, only the sequence of events) that will stun those who have not done their homework. You will see and experience things on a global scale that not only have been foretold in the Bible, but will catch most by surprise.

As far as trying to make an argument without using "religious" references...

I attempted to explain this in other threads but it has been largely ignored. I wish it were not ignored because it is valuable.

There is a huge difference between religions and the Bible. This is a fundamental principle that people can learn if they care enough to do some research, however, if people do not understand this, then they don't have even the beginnings of a foundation to understand higher principles involving homosexuality and circumcision. I don't mean to be condescending in any way towards anybody. I am simply telling the truth about building principles upon principles.

For those who don't understand the underlying principles necessary to see that homosexuality is harmful (not only to the ones practicing it but to society as a whole) you would have to look at history to gain any insight as all. It may be helpful for some of these to see that the fall of many civilizations was closely proceeded by a sharp rise in the practice of homosexuality. This is not a coincidence. I will add that the only reason for the dramatic funding and wide media promotion of this "lifestyle" is that it ultimately produces a social effect that facilitates the centralization of power, which is, of course, what global government is all about. The irony is that those who believe they are practicing "liberty" are the central victims of these who promote lies and grossly slander the Bible.

Again, to understand the connection, you have to understand several underlying layers of principles.

I often end my posts by saying:

"The evidence is there for those who care."

I say this to expose the principle that truth can be found by anyone who wants to find it, but you have to be passionate about it, and your passion in this area will naturally lead to research and seeking of evidence, and I have found that there is no lack of evidence. Anyone who does the work will discover the same.

"Those who care" are the only ones who will discover these principles and be prepared when the fruition of events comes because "those who care" will be the only ones who put in the time to research the truth in these things. The rest of society relies on emotionally-based decisions forming their belief system based on their own desires, not evidence, and therefore, this emotionalism does not result in an intellectual position. It is simply emotionalism which is heavily promoted in todays society, and this to a specific end and purpose to the benefit of the few and the harm of the many.

I know because I've been there and done that.

For those who care to understand what life is about, what the world is here for, and what is going to happen in the future would do well to study Bible prophecy, for the Bible has more to say about the times that are about to come upon us than it does about the times that Christ walked the Earth.

"If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

—Revelation 13:9-18

Homosexuals responsible for the fall of civilisations? Oh please. So it isn't just a matter of what consenting adults do in the bedroom -- being homosexual is some sort of genetic or personality flaw that causes someone to disease their whole society? Wow. I didn't think I could be any further shocked by anything anyone said here.

How about this. Scientists who have studied the brain and human behaviour have found that very few people have the characteristics of being 100% heterosexual or homosexual, just as very few are 100% masculine or feminine in their thoughts and behaviours. Most of us fall within a spectrum in between. I think there is a lot of truth in this. It's the people who deny it and lie to themselves all their lives who never find peace or enlightenment. I've taken a little psychology test based on this and I'm pretty much in the middle for everything. I accept that, I'm fine with it. I don't think that means I'm going to go out and poison society tomorrow.

You can look back retrospectively and find any trends you like in societies. You can take any set of prophecies from any prophet of any religion, or non-religion, and say look, they said x, y, z and we can now see that x, y, z happened. It's because people sift the facts any which way they want to in order to find the "proof" they are looking for. I could probably put a pretty good argument together for societies being plagued by people who have green eyes, or who eat eggs, or whose favourite colour is brown, and subsequently having a downfall. The logic just isn't there.

I think this does a good job of illustrating my previous point.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/cause.html

Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
False Cause

Abstract: The fallacy of false cause and its forms as non causa pro causa and post hoc ergo propter hoc is disussed with examples.

I. False Cause: the fallacy committed when an argument mistakenly attempt to establish a causal connection. There are two basic interrelated kinds.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc: (literally "after this, therefore because of this") the fallacy of arguing that one event was caused by another event merely because it occurred after that event.


I.e., mere succession in time is not enough to establish causal connection. E.g., consider "Since hair always precedes the growth of teeth in babies, the growth of hair causes the growth of teeth."


Consider also "Every severe recession follows a Republican Presidency; therefore Republicans are the cause of recessions." Accidental generalizations need not always be causal relations.


Causal connections are difficult to establish; the nature of causality is an active area of inquiry in the philosophy of science.


Non causa pro causa: (literally "no cause for a cause") in general, the fallacy of making a mistake about the ascription of some cause to an effect. This is the general category of "false cause."


II. The informal structure of the fallacy is usually similar to one of the following.



Event x is related to (or is followed by) event y.
Event x caused event y.
or

Events of kind x are followed by events of kind y.
Events of kind x cause events of kind y.




III. Examples of false cause:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We hear that a writer has just filed a two million dollar lawsuit against the Coors beer company for pickling his brain. It seems that he had been consuming large quantities of Coors' 3.2 beer, containing only 3.2 percent alcohol and so supposedly non-intoxicating, at his local tavern. But, the suit contends, the stuff was insidiously marinating his mind; and as a result he has been unable to finish writing his second novel. The author may have a point. But we have to wonder whether the damage was caused by the beer, or by the current fad of product liability suits." Wall Street Journal (02.14.79).

There are two cases of false cause here, but the second, the Journal's, is tongue-in-cheek


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Napoleon became a great emperor because he was so short."

(If this were a causal inference, then all short people would become emperors.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dear ABBY: If GOING BALD doesn't have any sighs of rash, or sores on her head, she should make a mixture of castor oil and sheep dung, and plaster it on her head every night. (Tell her to wear a shower cap so she won't mess up her pillow.) I started losing my hair after the birth of my child. My grandmother gave me this remedy and it worked. Index Journal (02.01.80).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Defense attorney Ellis Rubin claims Ronald Zamora's constant exposure to TV crime shows such as re-runs of 'Kojak' and 'Police Woman' was responsible for 'diseasing his mind and impairing his behavior controls.' 'Without the influence of television ... there would not have been any crime,' Rubin argued." Index Journal (08.13.77).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"When the telephone was first introduced to Saudi Arabia, some contended it was an instrument of the devil. But others pointed out that, according to Moslem doctrine, the devil is incapable of reciting the Koran. When several verses of the Koran were recited and heard over the phone, skeptics were convinced that the instrument wasn't evil." Wall Street Journal (11.11.79).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Especially bothersome to some parents whose children have chest pain, are reports in the media of sudden death in what appeared to be otherwise healthy athletes. There are many causes of chest pain in children. The most common cause is called idiopathic chest pain. Idiopathic means the cause is unknown. One can only call chest pain idiopathic after they have ruled out other causes." Randy Robinson, M.D. "Family Practice Notes," Index Journal (n.d.).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Establishing causality in science is difficult. Usually if all A's are followed by B's then one suspect that A caused B. But even this generalization could be a coincidence. For the most part, causality is no longer used in science; correlation is sought instead.

Russ,

Christians bearing Bibles have been responsible for much of the most egregious bloodshed in history. The slaughter of hundreds of millions of native Americans by bloosthirsty Christians springs immediately to mind.

Religious superstition, warfare, declining resources, disease - these are the plagues of mankind. Homosexuality is nothing. It's practiced by a stable 3-5% of every single population across societies. It's also practiced in the animal kingdom. It is a natural phenomenon.

Why do religious people look to scapegoat so much? Why does so much fear, anger and outright hatred burn within them? Religious people - absolutely including Christians - have always been there with torches, ready to kill witches and Jews and heretics and homosexuals and Muslims and anyone else they feared.

It's quite appalling and quite shameful.

Russ, you're like a walking zombie with that Bible of yours. You actually need a deprogrammer to get your life back.

First off, hello Russ. Welcome back <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

I hate to say it but it seems every time someone asks you for an explanation to an individual issue (not a dozen, not twenty, just one) - something which really only requires a smidgen of information, not volumes worth - you reply by sending them elsewhere and saying you won't do the homework for them.

Let's take your anti-homosexual remarks for starters. Someone asks you why you believe homosexuality causes self-harm and harm to others and you provide extremely vague answers, suggesting that we rush off to the library and delve deep deep deep into all sorts of distantly related material. You then follow this reply by saying that you won't do the homework for us. Nobody's asking for you to do the homework. We just want a straight forward answer. I'm not asking for volumes worth of information as an answer, I just want something more immediate (and obviously less lengthy.) Could we at least ask that you try to sum up your belief with a paragraph rather than directing us elsewhere and suggesting we perform in-depth research? If you were to ask me why I think cloning is or isn't morally proper (to use a random example) I could at least give you a few sentances to explain my rationale - and if then, ONLY AFTER having done this, I wished to provide a greater depth to my response, I might offer links and lists of 'suggestive reading', etc. Before you say 'Ah, but it's too complex of a question to answer to succinctly', bear in mind I could at least offer a fact-filled SUMMARY to literally any question you ask me about any subject.

With that said, I'd like to pose as brusque and polite a question as possible to you.

Without sending me to do research, without offering hyperlinks to videos and essays, would you please explain in a nutshell why you think that homosexuality causes harm to others. If you believe it has caused the downfall of civilizations, excellent. Can you please explain why you believe this? Can you provide one single example - not of a civilization which, in your opinion, fell solely due to homosexual acts, but of how said acts brought about its destruction? I'm not asking you to do my homework because I believe the answer to this last question should be easily provided in a few short sentences.

Let me give this a try to show you what I mean.

I don't believe homosexuality brings about the destruction of civilizations. But let's pretend I do. I will now give you a brief explanation as to why homosexuality brings about the destruction of civilizations.

"Homosexual behavior encourages additional homosexual behavior, just as drinking alcohol typically leads to a greater consumption thereof. This consequently causes a break down in the natural family structure of male-female parents and children which, in turn leads to the disintegration of all surrounding social structures, including the political framework of a society. Given enough time for homosexuality to be permitted and to persist, we can then see why even entire empires can topple by permitting such behavior. For further reading please see the following links (and then we imagine I have some links listed below.)"

Now, OK, I did just make that up off the top of my head and, furthermore, I don't really believe it, but for the sake of example you see what I'm looking for here. I don't believe homosexuals inflict pain upon themselves and others yet if I had to, I could create a reasonable sounding argument as to why they allegedly do. Now, I don't believe it and I can still make an argument in its favor. Can you make an argument in favor of something you do believe in? Can you give me something along those lines of the example argument I've created above? I'd be much obliged.

I am frustrated with my fellow posters. You so often take me out of context. (ahem... Linda)

I did not say:


I said:


In my study, not only is this true, but is makes absolute sense to my belief system.

Linda said...


This is absolutely untrue and is a belief system that harms people by denying them the opportunity to know the truth, which is:

Self-denial is the essence of growth and strength, both physically, mentally, and spiritually.

I really don't know how much I should have to explain this point as I think that most people should be able to see it clearly, but I suspect that many do not.

As far as homosexuality goes, what I said earlier stands.

I am not trying to be high and mighty when I say this but I will tell you the truth in asking: How do you explain the philosophical relationship between a belief in panspermia and evolution to a 5 year-old?

Simply, it's not possible to explain spiritual principles to people who don't understand the fundamentals related to them. No judgment. I just don't have any idea how to do it.


Not true. I've been through this before.

Learn your history, and not from the Discovery Channel.

Christians are not bloodthirsty. The Indian wars were about survival. If you sail across the ocean to escape the kind of tyranny that a lack of Christian understanding feeds and the inhabitants say "leave or I'll kill you", well, what are your choices?

Not a very Christian reception, eh?

The defamation of Christianity spreads through many fields and throughout the tightly controlled textbooks including history books. It's amazing and sad that the very system that brought civilization, knowledge, peace, and prosperity to nations of the world is now looked upon so darkly. Again, it comes down to study and the ability to see through the revisionist historians' rhetoric.

"What is history but a fable agreed upon."

—Napolean Bonaparte
(This man knew something many do not know today.)

This defamation of Christians in the early America are only promoted to facilitate the centralization of power by slandering and consequently reducing the numbers willing to learn and understand the only belief that can reverse this horrible turn of events. There are countless lies being touted as truth by the very people who long to oppress you.

Better wake up soon.


Sorry, I don't speak parrot. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

You've really got your facts mixed up. You sound like a modern textbook.

When you stop believing everything you read and start filtering the truth from the propaganda, then we can have a meaningful discussion.


Again, I cannot explain this to you completely because you don't have the underlying foundation to understand and it might take a short book to lay the groundwork properly, but because you asked so... well... I'm not sure if that was sarcastic or not—but I will give you the benefit... I'll do the best I can with the tools I have.

We all have a conscience. This conscience has a dual nature. It is both spiritual (intellectual) and physical (environmental).

The physical part is the part that is learned. For example, you may learn that it is bad to lie.

The spiritual part is a little harder to explain, but I'll try.

For those who understand, the spiritual part is like unto the BIOS (the basic input-output system) in a computer; it is the information that is provided by the manufacturer of the computer that gives the computer the "knowledge" it needs to get started. In the science world this is sometimes called instinct, although this term is often misused. I do, however specifically refer to this attribute as instinct.

This "provided" knowledge ("instinct" from now on) includes several things including "spiritual" conscience and "initial behavior". Initial behavior is the knowledge a pig needs to suckle, for example, or the knowledge a bird needs to fly or build a nest.

The "spiritual" conscience is provided by God. Here is a mention of it in the Bible:

"...I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"

—Hebrews 10:16

The word "laws" (Greek "nomos") may be better translated "knowledge" or more specifically "the knowledge of law". In simple terms: the difference between right and wrong.

According to this "promise"—which it is commonly called by Christians (it is actually part of the terms of a covenant between God and mankind)—humans will "instinctively" know the difference between right and wrong (i.e. "natural law").

When your conscience is violated—whether it is environmental or spiritual—there are natural consequences. In fact, the reaction is very similar no matter which area of the conscience is violated—spiritual or environmental.

Let's talk about the spiritual conscience.

A child who is sexually molested at a young age—an age in which they have not learned that it is wrong (not environmental)—still will suffer from the event. It can profoundly affect a personality even much later in life and can also lead to very dramatic symptoms a year or two after the event, such as fecal smearing. Because the child has no conscious understanding about sexuality, this reaction is not attributed to learned or environmental conscious conditioning. The event is interacting with the instinctive (or "spiritual") conscience. (From now on I will call this type of interaction a "violation")

Let's talk about the environmental conscience.

If you lie believing that it is wrong, certain muscles tighten, your blood pressure rises, your adrenalin levels rise; in fact, you end up having a "fight-or-flight" type fear response. If you continue violating your conscience over a long period of time, it can actually make noticeable changes to your Physiology, i.e., it can make you look different.

Now, if you continue to lie over an extended period, you will eventually exhibit changes that will be visible, such as subtle changes to the shape of your skull (possibly due to constant muscle stress in certain places), changes in the way you hold your jaw, changes to teeth, eyes, and other things that can actually be discerned visibly.

More profound non-visible changes will occur as well, such as a desensitization of the conscience in general. This desensitization can, over time, cause this person to be more prone to lie, and because the conscience affects many areas of behavior, they will be more prone to other behavior because they will become less subject to the "guidance" associated with the conscience. They may become coarse in language, abusive, bullying, they may start drinking, and may even begin to steal. This process can go on until the person experiences a nervous breakdown or other harmful symptoms, although some will not. In fact, the effects of violating the "nomos" is almost always harmful to some degree.

This "nomos" includes information about homosexuality being against "natural law", and breaking the conscience on this point has similar effects as breaking it on any other point. Again, this will cause a long-term desensitization in the conscience of the person.

Homosexuals have certain attributes that are pretty well-known, so much so that they have often been the brunt of comedic routines. These attributes include physiological changes and behavior changes. I believe these physiological changes are due to prolonged violation of the conscience. The behavioral changes are often caused by the same but can be accompanied by a spiritual influence as well. (Things are usually more complicated than you initially believe).

The way this damage to the conscience hurts society is multifaceted. This type of damage lends itself to fragmentation, and in knowing quite a few homosexuals in my life, I would plainly classify them as some of the most self-focused individuals I have known. Not all of them are like this, but this is clearly a prevailing and disproportionate tendency. There are other attributes I witnessed as well but I won't get into that now.

There are also collective consequences.

Because there are evil people in the world constantly striving for power and money and using any immoral means to achieve their goals, there is a necessity for a populace to guard against the corruption that accompanies this type of people.

Guarding against this type of evil requires that a certain percentage of the population participate in matters of state that don't directly benefit themselves (a rather selfless act). These people must also understand enough about truth to make effective decisions whether electing "officials" or voting for the person who has enough wisdom to make effective decisions.

When a person's conscience is desensitized, they will have a tendency toward selfishness and therefore will tend not be involved in collective activities unless they know it benefits them in some way. This reduction in participation and skew toward selfish political endeavors results in a natural opportunity for the penetration of evil people into powerful positions.

"The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their
own rights, and are the only instruments which can be used for
their destruction. And certainly they would never consent to be so
used were they not deceived. To avoid this they should be
instructed to a certain degree."

—Thomas Jefferson to John Wyche, 1809.

When a sufficient percentage of the population no longer participates in the collective good, then all in the collection become subject to the corruption that naturally results.

Homosexuality, pornography, and all other violations of the individual "spiritual" conscience result in the eventual self-focus of an individual, eventually resulting in a lack of collective participation to guard against the influences of evil.

The United States is currently suffering from this very type of crisis today.

On the contrary, when a person has a clean conscious, they are more empowered, courageous, passionate, focused, have higher self-esteem, are happier, and are generally more effective for the collective and individual good.

The natural desire for a non-selfish person would be to want to keep their conscience un-violated so they can participate in the collective good because this supports another "nomos" law that we naturally have, and that is that there is great reward to serving and/or helping others.

Of course, you cannot keep your spiritual conscience clean without knowing these natural laws consciously so that you can "keep" them. For this reason, the Bible contains them.

On a national scale, the conspirators who perpetrate evil against the United States know how all of this works. They also know that the only way they can succeed in their evil endeavors is to neutralize their opposition. They know that they can do this by numbing each individual conscience (seduction, pornography, homosexuality, etc.), distracting the masses (wild weather, sports, contests, games, human drama), disabling the masses (drugs, chemtrails, vaccines, mercury, genetically-modified foods, restricting vitamins & herbs), imposing their will (passing laws outlawing speaking against homosexuals or speaking against the actions of the state in general), and neutralizing the source of information pertaining to the spiritual conscience (slandering the Bible via mass media, forbidding churches to express political positions).

Homosexuality is a piece of the pie being used to disable the masses to the harm of us all, as is mercury, evolution, drugs, etc.

I hope this explains it sufficiently for you.

Russ, the tactic of telling everyone who opposes your beliefs that they are ignorant is getting a little old. We disagree, but I do not accept the implication that you are the wise spiritual master explaining basics to people with the spiritual intelligence of 5-year-olds.

I disagree with your premise of what conscience is. You know I accept evolution as a good working theory. I believe that conscience evolved to benefit the groups that people have lived in for millennia. If people in that group are doing anything to destroy its harmony, such as murdering, stealing, etc then everyone suffers. That's why you will find that people uphold these morals in all societies regardless of their religion. Many people have kind hearts and care for each other because that is how we all thrive. I still think this is a crucially important philosophy to live by, that we are all human and need to care for each other.

However, other matters of conscience are very much dependent on the society in which a person lives. Ask this of any anthropologist. Polygamy is acceptable in a number of societies. You may personally feel offended by the idea. I don't think I'd want to live that way myself. But for some it is a natural and beneficial way of life. It is debatable who actually benefits from it and who is actually enslaved and exploited by it, it depends on the circumstances, the culture, and the individuals involved. To refer back to the original topic here, some people think that circumcision is necessary and even divinely ordained. Others think it is barbaric. Are people born with an innate sense that circumcision is "good"? No. It's what their culture and their religion tell them. Same with foods that are haram, or taboo, for certain people. Muslims do not eat pork and they might well get a guilty twinge if they indulge in that. I wouldn't.

I am amazed at the assumption here that homosexuality is evil, so people are going against their consciences by participating in it. On the contrary, the behaviours you describe for your hypothetical chronic liar -- violence, drinking problems, nervous breakdown etc -- can be expressions of someone who denies who they are their whole lives in order to fit the mold that their parents, their society or their religion has set for them. The act of self-denial in conforming to this slowly kills part of the self. And you are praising this as good? Self-denial is not the same as delayed gratification or even an acestic life. By its very nature it is denying part of who you are. Implying that there is something inherently sinful about you that needs suppressing? Who's to judge that? We all have our flaws and do our best to rise above them. It is a serious thing, though, to tell someone that part of their very nature is flawed and needs to be repressed all their lives. A psychologist would have a field day with a person raised to think this way.

You said that the fall of many civilisatiopns was preceded by a rise in homosexuality. The clear analogy here is that homosexuality at least contributed to the decline. Concrete examples please? Someone else said here that it happens in nature too. I suppose your religion tells you that humans are separate from nature and have nothing to do with animals like monkeys though, which makes this a moot point to debate.

A lot of ultra-religious people criticise homosexuality and pornography. I wonder about this underlying message that sex is somehow dirty, impure, even evil. What consenting adults do in the bedroom is no business of mine and I can't understand why people think it is evil. If a man is "camp," you may not like it, but what is evil about that? Plenty of gay men aren't camp. Plenty of gay women aren't butch. And violent or exploitative pornography is not something I would approve of, but what is wrong with someone watching a porn vid in the privacy of their home -- something that people got paid to make and were OK with? Porn is blamed for any number of society's ills.

Many monks in the world, not just Christian ones, take vows of celibacy in the belief that this somehow takes them further from the worldly plane and "lower" forms of spirituality. Personally I believe that the only way to truly understand the nature of life is to engage in it. Buddha taught that the path to enlightenment lies in the joyful participation in the suffering of the world. Participation -- not removal. We find enlightenment through living and experiencing joy and pain, spiritual rapture as well as the everyday physicality of the body and the earth.

How come the Roman Empire, and the Greeks before them, were so successful then, if these things corrupt a society? You're telling me they didn't practise homosexuality or have porn? Now it's time for you to crack out the history books. They conquered much of the Western world are were largely responsible for the spread of your early religion. It would be rather spurious to claim that the fall of the Roman Empire was due to homosexuality, or that the Greeks were conquered because of it.

Ultimately I think we may have to agree to disagree here. If you really think homosexuality is innately sinful -- and I still don't understand why anyone would think it is evil -- then all I can say is it's a good thing I'm not one, because life can be hard enough without having to put up with people's irrational prejudices as well. I've actually had every sexual impulse ripped out of me by the antidepressant I stopped taking over a year ago. Does that purify me then?

Learn your history, and not from the Discovery Channel.

Christians are not bloodthirsty. The Indian wars were about survival. If you sail across the ocean to escape the kind of tyranny that a lack of Christian understanding feeds and the inhabitants say "leave or I'll kill you", well, what are your choices?


Holy effing sh-t. Are you serious? Are you for real?

If only the native Americans had greeted Cortez and his homocidal maniacal Christian bands with open arms, then everything would have been ok.

If only the natives had nicely agreed to be slaves on sugar plantations. If only the natives had embraced Christ joyously, instead of sticking to their awful beliefs, it all would have been ok.

If only these barbarians had given their land happily to their wonderful Christian brothers, we could've been spared all this terrrible bloodshed.

Russ, you are a near madman. You cannot speak such utter garbage with a straight face. Either acknowledge the absolute evil done in the name of your idiotic bible and your God, or be silent. These lies are just vile and defy belief.

You really have a way of coloring things. That's not good.

I've tried to be respectful in explaining that there are layers to be built in understanding these things, and this is true. I'm simply being honest and it has nothing to do with being a spiritual master, although I have done my homework.


This is the reply I was anticipating. It is a typical "textbook" position, as are many of your other beliefs (evolution, for example).

You see, you are now just beginning to learn about chemtrails and hence you are getting a beginners education in conspiracies. Of course, you—even though you are a newbie to this arena—already have your own theory worked out as to what and why you believe chemtrails exist (you stated your theory on the other thread).

But isn't it a little early to form your own opinions? Be honest with yourself.

When I say "know thyself", this quick-opinion-formation is a perfect example of exactly what I mean. I'm going to serve as a mirror for you for a moment, and you're not going to like it. I don't mean any offense, but it will be good for you if you are willing to allow it to be.

Here's what I see:

(1) You are very quick to accept ideas.

(2) You are very quick to modify ideas to synthesize (emotionally) "comfortable" positions.

(Again, I mean no offense. These are simply facts about your tendencies based on the actions I've seen from you.)

This method (you use) of coming to conclusions on deep matters is not prudent. It can only be (at the very least) emotionally-based, and therefore not in the scope of correlated, collaborated, discerned knowledge. Your chemtrail explanation is a clear example of this.

I have learned that this emotionally-based kind of thinking lends itself perfectly to the acceptance of unscientific myths like evolution, Christianity-bashing, and most other "politically-correct" ways of emotionalized thinking. This kind of mind is, in fact, primed, conditioned, and ready to accept the new world granting homage to a grand centralization of power.

What you are eventually going to learn is that the "new world" is not God's world, and you'll eventually find that it is not what it appears to be (just as with evolution).

Now to deal with the environmental conscience issue.

Your belief in this is a textbook example. The "new" belief systems promoted by national educational systems (nearly all of which have been compromised, but you have not learned that yet) are conditioning people for political moderatism. This moderatism is exactly where people need to be to accept the events that will unfold in the not-too-distant future. You have to remember that the "anti-Christ" will be very likable.

But let's refocus.

Modern ideas about human makeup, psychology, spirituality, and physical health are corrupt and lacking. Some anecdotal evidence for this is the current condition of health "care", dentistry, and the utter failure of psychology to deal with today's issues.

Like Kaiser Soze said:

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

—perhaps Charles Baudelaire

In the same vein, the modern process for conditioning people for the acceptance of socialism (the centralization of power) and eventually the acceptance of an anti-Christ is to de-spiritualize everything and convert it all to physical-reality based belief system. This process of conditioning (of which you are certainly a victim) is implemented by explaining away spiritual phenomenon and discrediting the Bible (which can only be done to those who don't know the Bible).

The purpose for this "physicalization" is:

(1) To eliminate the influence of Christianity on society (which happened to be one of the top 7 yearly goals for the National Educational Association (NEA) throughout a large part of the 90s).

(2) To explain certain (harmful and evil) events that will occur in the future that would fail in their purpose if the victims knew their true nature.

(3) To simplify propagandistic explanations to accommodate the "dumbing-down" process which will simplify and empower the implementation of mass lying (lying to the masses).

So, this is why the spiritual aspect of conscience has been removed from the textbooks, and you accept this idea because you are quick to accept textbook ideas, although you may, from time-to-time add your own twist as is fitting to your emotions.

Now, remember, I don't mean to be insulting at all in any way by being a mirror, but the fact is that all discussions of this nature eventually pass through an all-important phase of self-examination, which again is why I so often say, "Know Thyself".

Finally, I would say to you this concerning certain cultural morays accepting polygamy...

Have you seen the condition of the individuals in those societies?

Have you seen the conditions of those societies as a whole?

I hope I don't have to explain it any further than that.

You can disagree with the premise of spiritual conscience if you want to (have you studied this concept?) but your position does not hold water under scrutiny, and the same fate befalls all of the other "new world" philosophies.

(Know that I'm not trying to be offensive or proud in any way. I simply believe in telling the truth because knowing the truth is the only way people can truly grow. Telling the truth is an act of love, and if you don't judge the act simply by how it feels, you may discover that sometimes loves hurts, but that—for our own good.)


Are we all therefore perfect?
Do we then have no need to change?

If God is God then is it not He who has the right to judge these things? I believe so and therefore I have gained these understandings from the Bible.

The act of self-denial is good when it's executed with wisdom and can bring about (self-) improvement (change) for our benefit.

Let's start with a simple physical example; Fasting.

Fasting is the act of self-denial of food and is very beneficial for you. I won't work to support this as it's widely known and easily researched.

Let's look at another physical example. This one is a little more complicated in concept, but I hope you get it.

Exercise.

When you restrain your muscles, they grow; they get stronger.

This is one of the many spiritual concepts that God has modeled in the physical realm to help us understand spiritual concepts. Marriage is another example as I mentioned in another post.

Let's take an emotional example.

The hallmark of maturity is emotional composure, poise, and self control. Likewise, the hallmark of civilization is the same. It's no mistake that the concept of civilization and maturity go hand-in-hand.

All of the elements that compose civilization involve self-control. For example, tact often requires emotional restraint; you have to control your emotions. You may want (desire) to say something nasty or harmful, but out of respect for yourself and others, you exhibit tact, which is a form of restraint of the emotions as are the other attributes I mentioned. It (self-denial) is also (then) an act of respect towards another person.

More physical examples.

Sugar. Caffeine. Smoking. Drinking. What of these would we not do better without if we exercised restraint?

On the opposing side, the idea of letting your emotions out, or venting, is a barbaric, simplistic, immature idea that only fosters emotionalism in individuals and chaos in a culture. It is uncivilized.

But why would the powers-that-be want to promote emotionalism and chaos?

Simple. Because emotionally-based people are very easy to control and manipulate, as are people given over to lust—a lack of physical restraint (self-denial).

Now, the Bible teaches us this concept well, and I personally have seen the vast improvement in my life as a result of practicing it. It isn't always easy, but it's a great truth that the empty-minded textbook-based new-world philosophies are attempting to destroy (again to our demise) for the purpose of enabling the centralization of power. (The Bible promotes the division of power, hence the U.S. form of "divided-powers" government, which worked very well until the powers had no longer been divided, as it is now; but more on that another time.)

Finally, many natives understood the value of restraint (self-denial) that they artfully expressed through this story.

"There is found within you two warring faces. One is a wise and majestic bear who guards himself and his people. The other is a raging wolf who devours his village and his family. In this great battle, how do you know which one will win? Answer: The one you feed."

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

—2 Timothy 1:7
(The term "sound mind" is the Greek word so&#772;phronismos meaning "self-control".)


"But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

—James 3:14-18


See Rome, Greece; history is replete with examples.

Of course, you have to carefully read some of the literature to realize that these practices rose more and more as time went on, just as in many nations today. Modern literature downplays the relationship between this homosexual trend and the decline of civilizations (of course they do this to promote the centralization of power by attempting to conceal the association), but it is visible if you read carefully and do your homework. Do some research if you care to. It's very interesting.


Again, your Biblical perceptions are completely formed from terribly biased secular sources. Not only that, but I clearly explained in my previous post why what people do in private affect the collective.

The Bible does not say that sex is dirty. It says that anything out of it's intended context is harmful.

For example, numerous people die each year from consuming shellfish. If people followed the Bible law for food, this would not occur. God loves life and prosperity but He is unable to give gifts to people who are not mature enough to receive them and use them in their intended ways.

Another example is that sorcery is considered a sinful (harmful) practice. Sorcery is the practice of putting non-food items in your body (herbs are food-by the way). Considering that in all likelihood well over 2,000,000 people die annually from doctor-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs in the U.S. alone, you can see how this grieves God.

Furthermore, if you consider that the placement of mercury in the mouth would also be considered sorcery, can you images the suffering and death that would be averted had modern medicine obeyed the Bible law.

Don't bother telling me how medicines help people. There are herbal substances and foods that can work more safely and effectively for nearly any health issue that people have, and had they been following Biblical diets in the first place, probably more than 95% of disease would not exist to begin with. God makes these laws for our health and prosperity. He does not like pain and suffering. (Do a search for "raw food diet" on YouTube).

Sex is the same way, but outside of its intended context, it causes untold heartache, dulling of the conscience (which leads to numerous other issues), broken families, parentless children, divorce, resentment, etc.

God has no problem with sex. He invented it. He just wants us to enjoy it without harming ourselves. This is the reason for law.

The Bible does not say sex is dirty. The Bible says that doing things that are outside God's law will harm us (which He does not want) either in the short term or long term.

You need to understand this simple concept. God wants to and enjoys giving blessing to us. The problem is that most of us are not mature enough (actually don't want to me mature enough) to receive all of them. It's like some kinds of technology, it can make us prosperous and take a lot of the work out of our day but we end up blowing ourselves up with it and poisoning ourselves with it.

Would you give lawnmower to a 5 year old?


There is no Biblical requirement for celibacy. This is largely a Catholic imposition and has nothing to do with the Bible. Moses was married. Abraham was married. Many of the prophets were married.

Here are some enlightening quotes.

"Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love."

—Proverbs 5:18-19
(Animals are used as examples because of the agrarian culture.)

"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

—1 Corinthians 7:3-5


You're being completely back and white here. This is a progressive problem that has accumulating effects and consequences. It's not simply "on" or "off".

The fall is associated with (not directly caused by) an increase. That's what I'm saying here.

You see Linda, history is a great teacher, and when we don't learn from it, we simply repeat our mistakes. I care about people (as does God) and I do not want to see people fall into these traps.

The complicating (confusing) factor is that there is a third party that keeps changing history in as much as they can, and they do this to (ultimately) centralize power, and they facilitate this by carefully creating a social climate and opposing belief systems so as to turn you against me, and to turn you against the Bible so you'll never learn it's freeing principles that oppose the centralization of power.

It's exactly as the public conviction of Christ. There is a third party acting against us and working for their own benefit by turning us against each other. They know that true Christians don't believe what they want but rather they let the data lead them. They also know that many people in the world (those who will not be inclined to let the data lead them) can be utilized (used) to overpower the Christian influence, again, for the centralization of power. They know that these non-Christians that are not "data-led" (emotionally-guided) will easily be turned against Christians if Christians and the Bible are slandered, and that is exactly what is happening in the world today and was predicted for this time by the Bible.

Here is a glimpse of the powers-that-be at work.

Look at all flags of the world and ask why most of them have a yellow-fringe around them. This is the tip of a very large iceberg and the starting point of a fascinating study.


They are not irrational if you look at the true effect, that is, where it really leads. You, in this belief, have become the victim and the pawn.


No.

I believe that God would rather that whatever form of toxicity is causing the depression would have never happened in the first place, and had the world been obeying (the masses would be enforcing) sorcery-related Biblical laws, I bet you would not have the depression and hence you would not have the sexual loss as well.

I'm sure this does not please Him at all—to see what has done to you or to any of the rest of us (including me) by the powers that be—the same powers, by the way, that change history, twist truths, and slander God and attempt to turn you and I against each other by changing history and misrepresenting the Bible as they attempt to keep you from ever learning the powerful and liberating principles in the Bible.

These powers-that-be are the root cause of your ailment and are our true foes.

I read some of the things in this and other threads and feel as though we're all retreating backwards in time.

Suddenly I am reminded of an era, before anyone reading this was even born, when one of the most famous (and dare I say genius) writers, Oscar Wilde, was imprisoned simply for being gay. Imagine if, in this modern era, the police went knocking on the pop singer Morrissey's door and arrested him, sentencing him to more time than a rapist receives.

I really am beside myself, people. I'm at a loss for words and can think of nothing more to say right now other than how saddened I am by all this.

"America is great because She is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, She will cease to be great."

Alexis de Tocqueville
French Author
from Democracy in America

I share your sentiments Pwcca. Russ I will try to respond breifly to what you said but I think there's not a lot of point in continuing the conversation because we just don't disagree, neither is going to change the other's mind, and I don't feel I'm learning a whole lot from this.

You said I have a way of colouring things, that's not good. In my opinion you do too. You believe there is an anthropomorphic God in heaven who runs everything and that it's possible for people like you to have a good idea of what his plans and purposes are. This colours everything you say. It's just that you believe you are right and people who disagree are wrong.

You cite what I've been saying about chemtrails as evidence that I am quick to accept ideas. I agree. I trust my instinct a lot and it rarely steers me wrong. You would probably say it's God working through me or inspiring me or something like that. You say I am quick to modify my ideas to synthesise emotionally comfortable positions. Can I ask where you got this idea? One of my main aims in life is to pursue the truth, even if it is painful. It depends on what I think the truth really is, based on the facts I see, what is and is not known.

All my life I have thought that evolution is a pretty good theory, supported by vast factual evidence across many different scientific disciplines. I'm willing to change my thoughts about this, too, depending on what we learn. I am not, however, going to become a creationist and I haven't seen any supposed "evidence" from this belief that convinces me in any way, no matter how deeply you believe they are facts.

I generally do not Christian-bash. I tend not to discuss it with people unless they really want to get into a deep and spiritual conversation with me. Usually discussing beliefs only starts arguments. It's easier to do this on the internet, this is the truth, because we are writing to each other rather than talking face-to-face. If I were meeting with you, having this kind of conversation would probably be the last thing I'd do; I'd look for common ground rather than differences. Actually, that's not a bad idea. I'm beginning to wonder what it is achieving by talking in this thread; maybe it really is better to leave well enough alone and just support people on the mercury forum.

I stopped being a Christian when I was 18. That was 17 years ago. I have never been tempted to "go back," but have been studying different kinds of spirituality ever since. I wouldn't call this emotional thinking, or seeking a comfortable position. If I wanted to be comfortable I would just go back to going to mass every Sunday, enjoy being part of a supportive spiritual community, make my parents happy, and just blank other thoughts out of my brain. I don't like being alone on the path I pursue but like I said, for me there is no going back. I have learned too much. You would no doubt say that I haven't learned; I have been duped by society, by textbooks, by Satan. Whatever.

I said I don't believe in original sin. I also said we all have flaws, so no we are not perfect. Who is to judge what perfection is? What I don't like is growing up being told I am innately sinful and no matter how many times I went to Confession I would always get it wrong and sin again. This is different in its connotations from just making mistakes. It reinforced the message to me, as a child, that I could never do anything right (my parents had already done a good job on me in that respect); in fact that I was nothing more than the dirt on the ground in God's eyes. Great way to instill self-confidence in a young person isn't it?

Everything you categorise under your heading of self-denial I agree with. We've found common ground here at last. In fact I see some real wisdom here. I've actively been working on improving some of these things in myself over the last few years. What I don't agree with is where you include homosexuality in this, as something negative that needs to be overcome in order for a person to grow and prosper. Nonsense. There's nothing wrong with it. Christians of all stripes seem to have a problem with this, because the Bible says it is an abomination i guess. Well I do know Christians who are deeply religious and follow the Bible but just don't go along with this. We're looking at the rules of a culture that lived thousands of years ago. Many do not apply today. Some do, and some apply all the time to everybody. You believe these rules came straight from God. You say I am a sitting duck for people in power to take advantage. Well so are you. If the people who wrote the Bible were looking for sheep who never question what they read in that book, think it all came from God and that it is beyond reproach, then they've got you in the palms of their hands. It's a good thing the Bible is generally benign and encourages people to love each other and be morally upright. Not all religions or cults can say the same, and some of their adherents would slay themselves at their leaders' bidding. Many of them do, blowing themselves up and taking others with them. They also are people who do what they are told and don't question.

You say sex out of its intended context is harmful. In other words, it has to be between a man and a woman who are married to each other. Whose intended context is this? Christianity is suffused with this idea that any other kind of sex is wrong. I do believe that a child is best served by having carers who are consistently there for them, and it helps to have a role model from each sex, especially for boys -- many of whom are lacking a good male role model and end up with some misogynist beliefs and deep frustrations and confusions. Saying this is not the same as saying that I think sex should only take place within a traditional marriage. I find myself asking again, though, why I am saying this here, as I realise you would say this was ungodly, harmful to society, too liberal of me, etc. I'm not convinced by anything you've said that homosexuality harms society. Most people would find this a very extreme view which is not borne out by reality.

Your definition of sorcery is certainly one I've never come across. IMO I find that truths can come from rituals of all kinds, including ones that would be considered by Christians to be sorcery. There is very little room for mysticism in Christianity and this is one of the things that turned me away from it. I thrive on mysticism and seek out people who can guide me in it. I think it opens an important dimension of human existence that many people are sadly unaware of.

I know that the Bible doesn't say sex is dirty. I know that it also does not require celibacy of anyone. But a lot of Christians do seem to have a puritannical attitude towards these things. The Catholic church in particular has always pushed the idea that it is men who are the true apostles of God, therefore Popes and priests must not be women; also, in order to reach the heights of spirituality, men need to leave sex and lust behind (i.e. become monks). Also, compared to much of the rest of the world, attitudes toward sex in the US are again rather puritannical.

Minor anecdotal case in point. New York firemen have been putting out a yearly calendar for a while, showing them in macho poses. One of these men was recently found to have posed nude for a separate photo shoot. The calendars were subsequently banned and the mayor of New York said no more would be produced because it tarnished the heroic image of the firefighters. This story was reported in a British newspaper as another of a long chain of amusing little stories about the weird ways of the Americans (and they really do like reading about that stuff here). It has been suggested by some that the more puritannical the attitudes of a society, the more the things they consider blasphemous will leak out all around the edges. For people who think it is obscene for a firefighter to pose in the nude, it is amazing how much sexual imagery is present in the media in all its forms. People who are not allowed to look in a normal and healthy way get titllated by teasing glimpses.

I do agree that the powers-that-be are the root cause of my ailment. Big pharma is responsible for carnage and suffering on a colossal scale, and the government and the FDA collude in it. I do not believe there is a god who let this happen or who feels sorry that it did. It is up to us to put these things right. Like Pwcca said, things happen because they happen. It may go against our desire to see order and meaning in the world when those things don't necessarily exist, but that's just how things are.

Whew, these long posts are hard work. Maybe we really should agree to disagree because if we're not convincing each other of anything or learning from each other, it just becomes a lot of hot air. Now if there were a big audience listening and participating, that's when things would really get interesting.

That is indeed a very accurate statement.

My problem with the American ideal, however, is that it is simply that. An ideal - a Utopian (and therefore mythological) ideal. This notion that America has somehow fallen from grace and once stood for something is only partially true. I believe that the founders of the U.S. would be rolling in their graves if they knew what their country has evolved into today. Yet for all their alleged ideals, all the famed quotes of historical politicians (many of which, as quotes and separated from the person saying them, I'm quite fond of), America has always stood overwhelmingly for evil. It is a nation begot with blood and currently upheld with blood - and blood aplenty in between then and now. There is no less sadism in America's earlier years than there is today; far from it. And anyone stating that America has somehow lost its superior status because it is no longer a Christian nation has just proved their intolerance for other religions.

Anyone who longs for a government where their faith (where any faith) is the foundation of its legal system is a self-confessed bigot. The desire to create a legal system based upon one's religion is supremacy at its finest, for it suggests of its own volition that their faith takes greater precedence over all others. It is so frightening a thought that I categorize such practices alongside racial segregation, forced migration and general tyranny.

Even I would agree with that. I think though that what Russ is trying to say is that the essence of American law was/is biblical. That is evident by the fights that are currently going on over the 10 commandments in places like courtrooms, city halls, they've been there for ages. But yes, of course it has only ever been partially true, it was a standard we once, ideally of course, tried to live up to. If we did ever actually live up to it, we would have never needed the courtrooms. I don't think anyone is arguing that.



Even I would agree with that also. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, as the bible says.

Linda,

If your instincts rarely steer you wrong, then why are complaining about the after-effects of having taken anti-depressants? With all your veggie juicer wisdom, it should have been an obvious erroneous road to travel from the outset. You will even learn more about all of it and the meaning of the word wretch by trying 'all things' as you mention above in one of your long posts. Trying 'all things' is an obvious erroneous road to travel, though you may disagree because your instincts tell you otherwise.

My instincts steer me wrong all the time, I will openly admit it. I am fully conscious and terribly aware of it.

I think the problem with homosexuality, at face value, is not the homosexual personality. Talk of homosexuality in the bible is usually mixed with talk of fornication, oppression and violence, thievery, even gluttony. Homosexual relations as being unnnatural do refer to God's purpose for us, and that obviously is not it. Homosexuality, like fornication, encourages disease. A lot of God's laws are simply an effort to keep his people physically healthy. In Sodom, it was not just homosexuality that was a problem. Rape was common also, and there are suggestions that people died from the type of forcible rape, homosexual or hetrosexual that was committed there. God sent angels in the form of men to see things firsthand and the men of Sodom demanded sex even from them. Read the bible, Sodom was destryed for much more than men 'loving' each other. God wants men to love each other, but not pervert his purpose. Think also in regard to God's love, or Jesus. Many men claim to love God and Jesus. It is what is known as agape love, not sexual. I could be wrong, but there seems to be a misunderstanding from the homosexual postion about love between men in the bible. I have seen homosexual websites claim that Jonathan and young king David had a homosexual relationship, they seem unable to discern love between men without sexuality. It is a problem.

Homosexuals want to glorify their homosexuality these days. A lot of people are offended by that. I am offended by that, not because they are homosexual but because they want to put it my face all the time. It's really rude and terribly crude. I have known quite a few homosexuals in my days, I lived in NYC for 12 almost 13 years. I have rarely known a healthy one, they have a myriad of compliants. I have known several who have died of aids and/or drug abuse. Most of the free medical clinics in NYC are overwhelmed with gay men seeking services, there's very little presence of other groups in comparison. The gays I have known, all of them, are also extremely promisicuous. It is not possible to be near them without them expecting sexual favors, that truly has been my experience. And denying them of their lust leads them to anger. I find that very strange. Imagine if every man or woman you ever met and became friends with expected sex from you.

In regard to the church, yes homosexuality is considered sinful, and I don't think there's any argument about what the bible says about it. I also don't think there's any argument about what reality says about it. I have been to gay bars, there was one on my corner, another a few blocks away, great dance clubs both. But I definitely saw quite a bit of very strange behavior there. There are the few odd homosexuals who do not participate in that lifestye, but predominantly, they most definitely do. People know this, they would have had to have been born yesterday to not know it. But, in the church most surely there are also fornicators, thieves, an abundance of gluttons. Most churches are not opposed to homosexuals attending their services. They are generally opposed to the flagrant showing of it though, in the same way they are opposed to thieves and murderers boasting of their deeds. The hope is salvation and agape love with God. In regard to gluttony, not much is said about it, the world seems to have convinced us it's genetic. Though I would even disagree with that a lot of the time because gorging is not really genetic. Greed, another matter also.

God is not anti-sex btw, in fact he gets rather angry here and there when men don't satisfy their wives or vice versa, just as he gets angry when relationships become perverted and hurtful.

In regard to sex and the media, hardly just American... pretty much the entire world laughs at Prince Harry and the slutty british throne at this this point.

http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/2007/08/prince_harry_misbehavior_the_royals_1.php

The Sun always has a story to sell about harry, it's a british paper, not american.

Thanks for explaining God's intentions to the rest of us SoSick. You really know his mind and his reasoning don't you, and you've been rewarded with special favors while other ignorant people suffer. Maybe you should write your own holy book so that the world can be enlightened. I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but this sort of attitude in a human being blows me away.

It most definitely was not instinct that led me to take an antidepressant, and I certainly did not take it because I feel a need to try everything. I had severe depression for a year before that and tried many other things that seemed to be a more natural way of dealing with the problem. I was not aware of the truth about allopathic medicine or big pharma at the time, but I firmly believed that drugs were not the answer.

I don't know if you've ever been struck so low that you felt suicidal just because you couldn't take any more. I hope you haven't been there, I wouldn't wish it on anybody. But everything I had tried had failed, and I did not know what else to do. I was afraid of ending up in a psych ward, separated from my husband and little girl. I took the antidepressant in desperation. My instinct was actually against this but I couldn't see that I had any other choice.

It's easy to see in hindsight what I should have done instead. But I only got the knowledge I have now from going through that experience.

What you say here about homosexuals is a series of sweeping generalisations. Have you personally known any homosexuals? At least that you were aware of? Go into a gay bar and what do you expect? A certain type of person goes to those places. Not every homosexual has a desire to visit gay bars. I have no desire to visit bars or night clubs of any kind myself, I just don't like those places.

Stop blaming the ills of society on homosexuals, guys. It's just pure bigotry. You think the Bible gives you license to do this. I could go right now to my Bible, open up to Leviticus, and pick out lots of other old outdated laws and customs and say look, if you are going to be an unquestioning follower of everything this book says, then you also ought to be doing x, y, and z. Should I do that, or are you going to tell me that sometimes the rules and customs of the ancient tribes of that time don't apply to our modern society?

Some may indeed, yes, but I ask that you take greater care when addressing delicate issues such as this. It would be the same as saying 'Americans are all fat these days'. Yes, well, while certainly some of them are -- and indeed there is a growing prevalence thereof -- it is neither true nor considerate for us to say all. Labeling is never considerate.

Yes, some homosexuals lewdly flaunt their sexual preferences. But then again, so do some heterosexuals. It's all rather quite tasteless, regardless of one's orientation.



Far be it for me to fling discourtesies around the discussion board but I daresay a lot of people may also be offended by some of your statements here.



There is every likelihood that you're socializing in different circles than other people. For example, I can't think of any homosexuals whom I've acquainted that were 'sick'.



From you? So-Sick, I don't mean to come across as terribly condescending but are you certain you know the definition of homosexual?



Them. There's that generalization of yours again which implies you're referring to all homosexuals. What I can't help but wonder though is how you found yourself in a such a situation where you denied offering sexual favors to a GAY man and, consequently, he became enraged with you. Or is your post intended to be second hand anecdotal information?

Wow, that's quite a visual image. You're putting me off my breakfast Pwcca, LOL. I don't know whether to feel slightly sick, or just fall out of my chair laughing. Both maybe.

Linda and Pwcca thankyou for your posts on this subject. You stand up for reason and fairness and your humanity shines through.

Thanks for the response Linda.

You say you are searching for truth, and I respect that. I wish more people were. I know that the best I can do in making these posts is to share my experience and knowledge and hope that some will benefit.

In searching for truth, there are three fundamental things we must have:

(1) Passion: We must be motivated enough to actually do something, that is, we must not be apathetic.

(2) Logic: We must know how to make logical deductions.

(3) Memory: We must have the confidence to build upon our conclusions to reach deeper conclusions.

Passion

This is where most people fail.

Before someone will endeavor on a search for truth, they must be motivated enough—they must care enough—to actually do something.

I'll be honest in telling you that I do not know the mechanism behind this motivation. I do not know the answer to this fundamental question: Why do some people care and other's don't?

My best guess is that it is spiritual.

Interestingly, Christ has some strong statements to say about those who don't care:

[color:"brown"]"...I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."[/color]

—Revelation 3:15-16

Christ is clearly saying that you will be rejected by Him if you are apathetic, that is, if you don't care.

We recognize the rejection because of being vomited out. This is obviously a removal of something from His body, which is the (true) church (There are many organizations today posing as churches).

We recognize the passion to do good by the symbol "hot".

We recognize the passion to go evil by the symbol "cold".

We recognize apath by the symbol "lukewarm".

The interesting thing here is that He says that He would rather that a person was "cold" than "lukewarm". Yes, believe it or not, Christ would rather that a person is passionately evil than that they are apathetic. But why?

Because of this simple truth. A person who is passionately evil can —if they are willing—be converted to doing good if and when they gain the knowledge to see the error of their ways.

In fact, surprisingly few know that the man who wrote the majority of the New Testament, Paul, was a murderer of Christians until he was converted on the road to Damascus.

I also know that selflessness feeds passion.

Becoming a servant to others—such as when some travel to other third-world countries to help them—empowers them to become impassioned in life.

"And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."

—Luke 22:25-27

Logic

This is another place where many people fail.

In my experience, most people are not capable of consistently making logical decisions because they do not know how to be humble.

I call humility "the hinge on the gate of knowledge" because without it, you will not come to correct conclusions leading to true knowledge.

Humility could be described as the process of getting ones self out of the way; being able to look past ourselves. Of course, the part of ourselves that many have a problem looking past is our emotions.

Our emotions color our view. They hinder us from being able see clearly or to make logical decisions. This is why many make poor (illogical) decisions when they are in a strong emotional circumstance.

Being able to completely remove ourselves from a decision making process—or deciding what is logical in a given situation—is a skill that we must work at to attain, and it is well worth the investment.

Our passion helps us attain humility by empowering us to invest the time and effort necessary to achieve it.

The antithesis of humility is pride, which is of course, the first recorded luciferian sin.

Memory

The ability to build conclusion upon conclusion is a function of memory. Without it, we would never get off the ground.

Memory could be considered a skill that can be improved if one has the passion to do so.

Since memory can be colored by emotions, humility is vital to be sure that we accurately maintain the conclusions we make.

And Others

There are a myriad of other factors that also affect these attributes above, since all of the parts of us interact with all of the other parts of us—either directly or indirectly—in some way and in some variable proportion.

For example, humility can help lead one to purity.

So

In attempting to be a help to people searching for truth—because I care—I have the drive to find out why people don't finish this great race. Here's what I've found.

Because the only two primary driving factors in people are fear and love, if someone does not have love, the only motivator remaining is fear.

Now, to some, promoting fear in people may sound primitive and cruel (an emotional deduction), but if you're truly helping and protecting people in the process, it's actually a blessing in disguise.

For example, if your child insists on continuing to attempt to stick their fingers in electrical sockets, you may eventually have to resort to some kind of threatened punishment that causes fear in them in order to get them to stop. Of course, this is an act of love on your part although it may be interpreted as an act of cruelty on the part of the child (the role we play with God).

In the early days of the American Church, "hell, fire and brimstone" styles of preaching were also acts of love by the preachers, although the immature among us may have despised it, it was indeed for our own good, so long as the object of the belief system is true, namely, salvation through the Biblical-God's work through Christ.

Today

The reason the corporate world today is so focused on sensuality is because it sells. The reason the entertainment world is so focused on these things is because it heightens the emotions making the pursuit of truth much more difficult because it interferes with #2 (humility) above.

Remember the story of the bear and the wolf? Which one does the world today "feed"?

Finally

The powers-that-be today are using techniques to interfere with as many of the above-mentioned factors as possible in an effort to snuff out the successful search for truth which eventually leads to the integrity of the Bible.

#1: Passion:
Mercury, fluoride and confusion induce apathy.

#2: Logic
Mercury, fluoride, confusion, sensuality, drama, and materialism induce pride.

#3: Memory
Mercury, fluoride, aluminum (in vaccines and chemtrails), and revisionists-historians induce memory-loss.



I would hope that you explore the things I have said because, although I know that your mind will change no time soon, some of the things I've said will be very pertinent in the future and will hopefully stimulate the memory of these things.

You see, if the scripture that I have posted about the coming anti-Christ is accurate, you would want to know how to identify him, wouldn't you?

"And it causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark on their right hand, or in their foreheads, even that not any might buy or sell except those having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name. Here is the wisdom. Let him having reason count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. And its number is six hundred and sixty-six."

—Revelation 13:16-18

Those who receive this mark cannot receive salvation:

"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."

—Revelation 14:10-12

If this scripture is true, the act of posting it is an act of love.


The difference here is that I've searched it out and after a lot of work, I've come to a conclusion.

Of course my belief in the Biblical God colors what I say. The real question is:

Is my conclusion about the Bible and the Biblical God colored?

That is the question I want to encourage people to explore, because I know that if people persist and find what I've found, their lives will be immeasurably improved, and I want that for people, not to mention the profound future implications.


I would want to encourage your to explore whether your instincts have really rarely steered you wrong. If I am right about the Bible, than your instincts are not quite-so-often accurate.

The reason I say this is not to insult you. I say this because I used to be the same way as you.

I used to "trust my instincts" and eventually came to wonder why my life didn't turn out the way I wanted it to. Now I know.

The problem was that my "instincts" weren't always my instincts. I was making a fundamental error and confusing my "instincts" with my emotion some of the time.

Now, I agree that people have instincts (in this context, I use the word "intuition", because "instincts" actually refers to the BIOS—or provided knowledge—that I spoke about in an earlier post; I say this to help avoid confusion) but what I was doing is finding that those instincts, although right about matters of daily life, were incorrect when discerning deeper matters. Because of this, I went on a long search to try and find out what I was doing wrong. What I found was this.

I was able to access my "instincts" (intuition) in some situations but I was accidentally accessing my emotions in other situations. In short, I was confusing the two in certain contexts.

The remedy for this was to exercise my "instincts" by first testing my instincts by using logic to determine in what types of situations they were right and in what types of situations they were wrong, and in doing this, I would some very interesting patterns.

I found that in matter of day-to-day life, my instincts were amazingly accurate, but in matters pertaining to spiritual discernment, they were not so often right, in fact, I was not really using instinct in that context. I was actually using emotion. I believe this very type of confusion is very common today.

This mistake is easy to make because the two feel amazingly similar. It take exercise and practice to actually be able to tell the difference between the two, but again, it is well worth the work.

This is exactly what I believe your issue is. I simply believe that you are doing what I used to do: Confusing emotions with instincts in some contexts.

The good news is that this skill can be heightened with practice.


This is plain to see, and it's nothing strange. We all do it to some degree or another.

The key is to practice and learn to tell the difference between what I call "intuition" and "emotion".

I'm sure I said enough about this above.


God does communicate with and work through people, sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly, but His contact with us is different from one person to the next. Here's why.

"(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out. And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"

—Numbers 12:3-8

In a word: Humility.


I will share what I've found out about these vast factual evidences:

They are lies.

It takes work to find this out, but just as dealing with a good con artist takes work to muttle through all the lies, it takes work to get to the bottom about the vast lies used to promote evolution.

The process to do this is to research the "evidences" one-by-one. If you are prudent in doing this, you will find what I found—lie after lie—a mountain of lies.

Any why all these lies?

To discredit the Bible (evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive) so that people would—in large—cease reading it and would therefore—in ignorance—submit to the centralization (socialism) of power and ensuing corruption that will follow, that knowledge of Biblical principles would otherwise prevent.

The methods they use to create and promote these lies are not magic. It is simply a coordinated effort by a group of people who give "benefits" (bribes) for the promotion of these lies in the form of funding, research grants, consultant fees, etc., etc.

Just like the safety of Nutrasweet was "proven scientifically" by a technician who was paid $30,000 to say that a group of test mice ate phenylalanine (an amino acid in Nutrasweet) when they did not eat it. I actually saw this story years ago when it originally aired on the news program 60 Minutes.

Soon after the story, Nutrasweet began a large advertising campaign on the same network ($$$) and then the occasional news story about the neurotoxin was bright and cheerful on that same network.

This is the way it really works. The same holds true with evolution and so for amalgams.


Censoring your exposure to information and pre-deciding your positions is not a good method to use in the search for truth, honestly.

I would strongly suggest that if anyone wants to find some amazing and life-changing information, they search out the Bible and put it to the test. Be sure to do your homework, though, because the con artist's rampage against the Bible is thick and heavy. It can be done, however.

I would suggest studying Biblical gematria and prophecy. It is astounding.


I believe that what it achieves in your life is entirely up to you.


I certainly want to support people in that endeavor as well.


Apparently, you're speaking about some sect of the catholic church: And you won't go back? I can hardly blame you. I wouldn't either. In fact, I didn't. (I've been there.)

The vast majority of the people I know who have parents in the catholic, methodist, or any of the other of the "systematized" churches don't go, and again, I can hardly blame them.

The vital thing to remember is that the church is an organism, not an organization. The catholic church is actually the velvet glove on the iron fist of the Vatican and is the religious front for the Jesuits. In other words, this is not the church; quite the opposite.

I would hope and expect that few go back there after being exposed.


Sin is an imperfection.

Unfortunately, some don't understand the reason that some sins are considered sins.

In short, when you have a complex and free society, there are many different things that you can do in the society that are destructive to the society or to yourself. These are called sins. The reason some people don't understand why some sins like homosexuality are considered sins is because they simply haven't yet drawn the lines from point A to point B long enough to realize how this behavior hurts the self and the society as a whole.

If you don't know how a transistor works, you will never understand how a television works. Precept upon precept. This takes study.

Understanding how these behaviors are harmful takes time and work. Tragically enough, this is work that many fail to ever perform.

By naming sins, God is not attempting to make us feel bad or remove our liberty. He is simply teaching us how to conduct a healthy society because quite frankly, we are too dumb to do it ourselves, and that by our own apathy. (Sticking our fingers in an electrical outlet is not true liberty, although some mistakenly consider it as such.)

God does, after all, take the guilt away, but that's another story.


The only one who can do this is one who is perfect.


Your experience in your parent's church has nothing to do with the God I know.


You are taking a view from 10,000 feet and applying to the whole painting.

There are three types of "rules" in the Bible: ordinance, statutes, and laws. (You are glumping the three together into one and making assumptions that lead to wrong conclusions.)

Since the nature of mankind does not change, the laws that govern free civilizations does not either. The only "changes" were supposed to be changes in the way the existing law was applied to new situations.

This concept was well understood by the forefathers of the United States and was employed in the concept of Congress, who did not make laws in the context of Biblical laws. They only made laws in the context of applying existing eternal law to new situations that would arise.

This system worked very well except when it was tampered with as in the events leading up to the civil war and in "laws" passed in 1913, 1930, and 1933 as mentioned in an earlier post. The hand of evil was fast at work while people eventually became apathetic.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

—1 Corinthians 6:9-11

"effeminate" (Thayer)
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaphorically in a bad sense
2a) effeminate
2a1) of a catamite
2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
2a4) of a male prostitute


Your mistake here is forgetting that I am a skeptic. I never easily accepted the Bible as truth. I was tormenting towards the Bible and very skeptical of it and offended by Christ.

(By ignoring my emotions) The only way I began to accept it was through the study of prophecy (how it foretold the future) and gematria (the study of numbers in the Bible). There is truly nothing else like it that I have ever found. It is astounding and I encourage you to try having the smallest amount of faith in what I'm saying and studying it. Or perhaps you'd prefer to read an interesting book like:

Number in Scripture by Bullinger. This is a great introduction to the subject.

Remember, sitting ducks don't study.


This is a bad thing and is not Biblical.

"Bring all the tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house. And test Me now with this, says Jehovah of Hosts, whether I will not open the windows of the heavens for you and pour out a blessing until there is no sufficiency of room to store it."

—Malachi 3:10

I once, in a time of financial desperation, decided to test God.

I promised that I would, as an act of faith, give the last $20 that I had to the Church that I was attending if God would help me pay my bills. I had no money left.

As I left the Church building, I had a part-time job offer from someone at the church. As I drove down my street, my neighbor, who owned a handy-man business, flagged me down and offered me double my current salary to help him in the mornings to paint part-time before I went to work (I worked a night shift) starting the next day. As I pulled in my driveway, my roommate was signaling me to come in because I had a phone call. It was an old high school friend who happens to own the largest DJ service in Florida asking if I would do DJ work for him on the weekends starting that weekend. Before the day ended, I had 2 other job offers which I had to turn down because I just didn't have any time left to do them with the offers I had just received.

You see, God honored my promise and gave me more than I could receive. No, He didn't give me money. He gave me the opportunity to work and make money. My financial situation turned around in a hurry.


You don't now, but before too long, you will see some very interesting things begin to happen in the world, and although you won't recognize the patterns that have happened over and over throughout history, you may bring this conversation back to mind and then perhaps, through the motivation of fear, you will begin to really study these things.


Here's more information:

Biblical Sorcery and Modern Drugs


Remember, catholic is not Christian, people's view are often not Biblical, and attitudes are not Godly.

God simply attempts to protect us from harming ourselves by laying out a few simple rules such as monogamy.

Further, in the context of marriage, God tells us not to resist the body of our spouse's. In this healthy context (marriage), what you do is up to you.

"The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

—1 Corinthians 7:4-5

Not so bad, is it?

By the way, marriage is not sealed by some "officer" of the state. It is a private vow between God, you, and your spouse.


Not only that, but the bond between a husband and a wife is stronger when the sex is outrageous, and that can only be when neither of them are desensitized.

God wants us to have the best and most powerful relationship we can in all aspects. He also wants to be sure it is healthy and empowering and contributing to the longevity of the family.


Government = FDA = Big Pharma...

In purpose... no real difference.


Things like this happen because too large of a percentage of a populace becomes apathetic and/or selfish and the promotion of sensuality accentuates this effect.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."

—Edmund Burke


That's only how they seem until you really study them through.

I've been there Linda.


It may be hot air for some, but these are the issues of life to others.

I'm glad to be able to respond to skepticism. I truly hope some will benefit from this dialog. Perhaps even you. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm not sure how I am benefitting to be honest, but I'm engaged in this conversation now. I really am going to try to be concise this time. I'm not feeling too bad right now in the context of how I normally feel these days, but I'm still not well, I have depression and cortisol problems. And when I spend an hour on the computer my little girl is ready to do just about anything to get my attention. Reading and writing long posts isn't very practical for me at the moment. Having said that, you'll see lots of posts around from me because nipping on the computer here and there is usually the only way I can grab a break and exercise my mind a little, and talk with people (even if it is virtual reality -- there's a lot of that here LOL).

You set your post up nicely Russ. Passion, logic, and memory, yes no disagreements there. I don't see much logic in creationist arguments though, mostly logical fallacies masquerading as scientific "proof." I'll be pointing them out as I see them come up.

Did you know that in Buddhism, one of the main goals is for people to learn how not to be driven by fear? Involved in this is an acceptance of the necessity of suffering, rather than a fear and avoidance of it. Do you truly know little of any religion other than Christianity? Do you feel so firmly that they have so little to offer you that you won't taken even a glimpse into their philosophies? Just a thought. There is a lot of wisdom in the world, from all people and all cultures, and if we listen we can learn.

If sex becomes an obsession or an addiction for someone, and it blinds them to other aspects of life, or leads them into making some bad life decisions, then that's not a good thing. Everything has its place as I said before, spirituality as well as physicality. All are part of life. Indulging in one's sexual desires isn't necessarily dangerous or harmful. It may break your own personal rules about what is right. I do not believe that a god has set out rules for this kind of thing; these rules come from the ancient peoples that wrote the Bible. They are no more divine than the rules of any other society, even if they call those rules holy by their own definitions. Sorry but that's what any person who doesn't believe in a god is going to think, and even quite a few theists can think this as well, without feeling they are compromising their deeper beliefs.

You have mentioned the anti-Christ several times. I've said elsewhere what I think about prophecies. I do believe some people who would be called psychic can have glimpses of the future. I also believe that you can take any prophecy and retrospectively put together a fat dossier of "proof" that the prophecy has been fulfilled. You can cherry-pick your "facts" from whatever sources you find. Believe in a coming anti-Christ who is worse than Hitler or Stalin if you like, quake in your boots if you want. I think we've got enough to be getting on with right this minute with other nefarious goings-on caused by less than honest or loving people.

Do you realise that the person who wrote the Book of Revelation, St. John, would probably be institutionalised today for believing such things? He'd be labelled schizophrenic and put on 5 or more different psych meds. I'm not saying this makes what he said illigitimate, but I think we ought to take this book for what it is: a person's vision who claims it is prophecy. There are a lot of these in almost any religion you care to look at. This particular one doesn't speak to me, though its imagery is rather more interesting than that of most of the rest of the Bible.

I agree that instinct and emotion can be confused with each other. That is why it's often important to consider big decisions carefully and not act too spontaneously. Meditation, research, talking to other people -- these can all help. Do I not accept Christianity because I am too emotional in my thinking? No. Maybe you can claim this because in your thinking, your God is the only true God, so logically my intuition has led me astray. You know by now that I see things rather differently.

Please can we not get onto Evolution here, there is a thread for this. You do seem to steer things in this direction in other places quite a lot. It's ridiculous to reject everything the different scientific disciplines posit as facts, which have any bearing on evolution, as wrong -- but I will engage in this discussion where it is appropriate. It seems a bit much to end up with a lot of threads in different places here, all having the same debate.

And for goodness' sake, it's obvious that the Christians here don't like the Catholic church. That's your choice. But please get your history right and don't say they aren't Christian. Protestant religions stemmed from Catholocism. You may say that you follow the Bible rather than an organised religion Russ, but your ideology is bang in line with that of most Christian fundamentalists, and they would not exist if the break with the Catholic church hadn't happened. It would at least be more honest to see them as rotten parents you were glad to get away from, if that's what you prefer.

You say that sin is imperfection, but it is more than this. It is the act of violating God's laws. I've already said what I think about these laws. I do not believe they came from any God, and it is up to us and our societies to judge what the best ways are to live. Some of these laws seem to be innate because a coherent and harmonious society cannot function without them. I would rather be beholden to the people I am letting down when I break a law, whether it is myself, my family, or my community, than to a God who says "do this because it is my will."

I don't think I'll address the "effeminate" comments, I've said what I think about the attitude to homosexuality here and the hatred and bigotry spouting from people's keyboards in the name of God.

So do I feel I've benefitted from this conversation yet? Nope. But as long as people respond to what I've said, I'll carry on.

Yes, I have been there linda, and I was about the same age as you, I am assuming early 30's. I do not want to go into details but I was about 1 hour away from blowing my brains out, I had fully convinced myself of it I am not exaggerating or just saying this. I was in a horrific state.

However, instead of that happening, what did happen was I heard the Lord speak to me, heard him plain as day, and he convinced me not to do it. It was on that very day that my salvation began, Linda.

I later came to the conclusion, which again I am quite sure of and all of your arguing will not persuade me otherwise, that my suicidal thoughts were not even mine, but it was the devil or demons, evil spirits, call them what you will, battering me and harrassing me and convincing me that life was useless.

It was Jesus who made the difference in my life and I have never looked back.

Of course they will. But why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that others are offended by your statements?



How well do you know them?



Enlighten me.



No Pwcca, I have had some very very close friends that were gay, male and female, lesbians included. My younger sister is a lesbian even. I would run into homosexuals left and right in NYC especially. They are numerous, far more numerous than statistics would have you believe. Homosexuals, bisexuals... and I have had the experience repeatedly (REPEATEDLY, I want to emphasize that) when finding myself within their ranks, many times unwittingly, usually through work or proximity of living arrangements.

I am not a guy btw. I have no idea really who you are or what you look like. But gays, male and female love me, not me personally I can assure you, they like the way I look apparently. They assume apparently that you are gay if you are good looking enough to catch their attention. don't tell me it's not true, I know for a fact it is true. I have a good number of hetrosexual male friends who experience the same thing. Gays are very physically orientated. I have had dozens upon dozens of offers of sex, if you call it that, and those types of advances over the years from that crowd whenever I have found myself near it. I was once very naive concerning all of this. their repeated advances, subtle or otherwise, make me extremely uncomfortable, I truly am not interested and have never done that, and likewise their subsequent extreme hateful and viscious attituides when rejected are the norm from that crowd.

I have gotten into some awful fights with lesbians especially over the years just to simply get them to go away.

Once a gay person discovers you are not gay and they have already made their intentions known, they use the exact same logic you are using to try to deride people.

I have never had this experience with hetrosexual men. Hetrosexual men, when rejected, simply blush and bow out. Thye generally do not become unnecessarily aggressive unless they have a mental problem.

Because I take great pains as a poster to neither belittle nor stereotype other people. I also do not have a history on this discussion board of reacting to disagreable comments with hostility and/or insulting remarks.

So if anyone here (other than yourself) were actually offended by anything I've said, I'd be very surprised to hear that. What's more, I think my personality on this forum is known well enough by now that the thought of me making offensive remarks is downright laughable. That's just not how I operate.

Blessed be.

I don't mean to challenge what you're saying but just for the sake of argument, what do you think your god would do if someone born into starvation and abject poverty decided to "test God" in the same manner? Do you believe your god answers you but ignores them? Do you believe they, individually, are doing something wrong and that's why they go unanswered?

These sorts of scenarios, as in the one you foretell, always leaving me wondering..

Well, this is one of our key differences.

I don't see much logic in believing that complex things form themselves and science agrees with my position, but just as with the amalgam issue, there are those with their hands on the biggest bullhorn (mainstream media) and the grant money that keep promoting misinformation for their own gain. The corruption is truly mind boggling.

You see, when you put a successful court case together against a con artist (I have done this), you cannot simply look at one or two actions of the subject and make a deduction. You have to establish a "pattern of behavior". When you study conspiracies, this is exactly what you find.

All of the individual actions of the con artist will be justified by explanations, but when you see the big picture, you clearly see that this person has been doing the same thing over and over. This is what wins a court case in this type of situation.

Evolution, mercury, and the Kennedy assassination are no different.


I can hardly blame you for believing this because you have not studied the Bible.

As always, I encourage you to check out gematria and prophecy in the Bible and then ask yourself if any person could have arranged such mathematical precision or have foretold the future with such accuracy. This is called evidence.

Still, I encourage you at some time in your life (but don't wait too long) to check it out. It's truly amazing.


This could only be spoken by someone who knows nothing about the subject, honestly.

When you are asked to pass your hand under a device that "marks" you for the purpose of money exchange, then recall the prophecies I have posted. (This prophecy was written thousands of years ago.)

According to the Bible, those to receive the make have no chance for salvation. This is a very serious issue. This is why I continue posting it.

For those who have an ear.


Well again, just as the mercury issue, there is money and power in the promotion of evolution and for those who care to look, real science does not support it.

Evolution is no different.

The powers-that-be are playing the same games with you.


No, a little too much faith in textbooks is going on here.

The "restoration" came through people who regained an understanding of the Bible; an understanding which had been changed, molded and removed by the catholic church.

The idea of it coming through the catholic church comes from the fact that some of the people who regained this understanding and returned to the Biblical truth were affiliated with the catholic church. This does not mean the belief came from the catholic church. Quite the opposite.

Of course, textbooks do this to lend credibility to the catholic church, and again, they do this for their profit.


You could not possibly be more wrong or more confused about this.

(No offense but) You honestly have so many misunderstandings about these things that there is no mystery why you don't grasp the big picture here.


Just to be clear, these opinions have nothing to do with emotionalism or person agendas or what I prefer. They are simply facts that can be researched if one so desires.

What is dangerous is when people hold opinions that have no basis behind them. These people have only two conscious categories of knowledge:

(1) That which I know is true, and

(2) This which I know is not true.

We should all include a third category:

(3) This which I don't know.

Why are false beliefs so dangerous?

Because those things that happened in the Roman Empire are going to happen again.

(The "new world order" is the reappearance of the previously dormant Roman Empire according to Bible prophecy, which will be followed by the return of Christ.)

In this "kingdom", many people will be tortured and killed because they don't follow the beliefs of the ruling elite. Namely, the ones to be killed will be true Christians. The ones doing the killing are those who have bought into the massive packages of lies ranging from evolution to catholicism, and they buy into these because they don't have the humility or intellectual honesty to admit that most of what they think they know should be in category #3 above.

When it is all said and done, it will be clear which belief system was compassionate and which was cruel. Time will reveal.

Cruelty is borne from those who hold myths as truths.


Not more or less. The two are the same.


Again, without research, you need to put many of your beliefs into category #3 before expressing executive passion in them. Not to do so is destructive.

History has already tried that.

On this path, it's only a matter of time before one class of people is oppressed by another and kills and imprisons them for their beliefs. Study your history.

"A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision."

—Benjamin Franklin

"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."


You miss the point of His will.

It is to provide life and prosperity, and this is the purpose of His laws.

"This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success."

—Joshua 1:8

History has shown that this is true and that the implementation of His law provides prosperity. The problem is that those who hate God now write the news, textbooks, and research grants.

Of course, the Bible foretold of this time.

"And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

—Matthew 24:3-31


Homosexuality is like a bottle of medicine containing poison. It's looks helpful at first glance, but it is not benign in any measure.

You have not made the connection between the harm homosexuality does to a person (and a culture) and the act itself, as you have not made many connections in this respect. I have, and this must be understood:

To tell you the truth is an act of love, not an act of hate.

Just as you may punish a child for attempting to put their finger into an electrical socket, you know that the punishment is an act of love, but the child believes it is unfair and is an act of hate because the child has not made the connection between the electrical socket and the harm it brings.

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

—Samuel Adams

I feel we're going around in circles a bit here. I'd also like to trim this down a little. By now I expect you to say that you are more of an authority on the Bible than anyone else here, and to use this to try to remove people's credibility. I know the Bible too. I fully understand you believe that you see all kinds of things in it that I don't, but it's ignoring the fact that I am capable of reading, using my brain, and researching where I feel it is appropriate. Woe to me then, eternally destined to miss the point unless I become initiated in your style of religion. It's very difficult to discuss anything with someone who actually holds this point of view because you are unlikely to take much, if anything, of what I say as valid. Nevertheless, for the sake of debate, I think I'll keep posting anyway because other people are reading.

You're really keen to divorce yourself from any association with the Catholic church, even in the past. OK. I don't feel a burning need to debate what you say about that anymore because as far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, it's Christians quibbling with each other. (No doubt you'd say I'm wrong there too. So be it.)

You think homosexuality is a sin. I think this iposition shows pure bigotry and intolerance. There's a lot of that on hand from so-called caring Christians here. We've both stated our views, no point in repeating them is there. Let our words speak for themselves and others be the judges.

You say you don't see much logic in believing that complex things form themselves and science agrees with your position. No it doesn't. Bring this point up in the Creationism thread and I will discuss it with you.

I don't doubt your ability to deal with con artists. Evolutionists are not con artists. They are not conspirators. You want to believe this and have convinced yourself because you don't like the way their science challenges your literal beliefs of the Bible.

Prophecy. Again. I have said several times here what I think of this. You can look at any prophecy made in the past and put together a fat dossier that you think is convincing evidence for it to be true. There are actually several not-so-divine ways a prophecy can be fulfilled:

1. The "prophecy" can be written or modified after the events fulfilling it have already occurred.

2. The prophecy can be so vague that people can interpret any outcome as a fulfillment. Nostradomus's prophecies are of this type, and it works particularly well when people are religiously motivated to believe the prophecies.

3. The prophecy can predict something that is almost sure to happen, such as the collapse of a city. Since nothing lasts forever, the city is sure to fall someday. If it has not, it can be said that according to the prophecy, it will.

4. One can of course claim that the fulfilling events occurred even if they have not. Or, more commonly, one can forget that the prophecy was ever made.

5. A person can act deliberately to satisfy a known prophecy.

Would you like me to give examples? I would have thought these things were already fairly obvious.

Cruelty is born from those who hold myths as truths. Did you actually say this Russ? You hold what most of the world sees as Biblical myths as literal truths.

Imperfection/making mistakes, and violating God's laws, are only the same if you are a theist.

Thanks to both you and SoSick for trying to explain the mind of God, because clearly you have much insight into this and the rest of us ignorant fools need enlightening. This has got to be one of the most incredibly arrogant and self-righteous attitudes I've ever had the displeasure to come across.

Linda.

Ha ha ha , you are joking right?

Why don't you remove your blinders for a while and improve your peripheral vison.

wait a minute wait a minute someone forgot to include Linda's attitude in the equation!

Linda, I do see that we are going around is circles and I know that you conscious intentions are good. If we—or anyone for that matter—are going to get off the ground, we have to settle first principles, and these cannot be settled until a person knows self.

I know you are holding beliefs that you believe are right, but just consider what may be the implications if I am right.

If you're right, big deal. I'm just another misguided Christian trying to change the world to fit my dissolute mind.

If I'm right, the implications are enormous—and wonderful.

Over time, I will begin posting evidences for all to see. It will take time, but it will be well worth it.

For now, In examining ourselves—as we all ought to—I have found that to live in this amazingly complex machine we call a body surrounded by the vast evidence of highly technological design, encouraged by prophecy, founded by gematria, and having landed on a perfectly suited planet, life should—at the very least—provide us with the impetus to explore the possibility that this all has an intelligent purpose.

In my opinion, to receive the benefits of all of this great technology and a beautiful planet and the awesome pleasures of life, it is incredibly [color:"brown"]arrogant and self-righteous[/color] of us to never take the time to seriously pursue and consider the possibility that there is a creator behind it all.

This attitude is my attempt at humility.

OK, well I'd rephrase that and say that anyone who has not been deeply touched by the wonder of life and the universe is not truly living. I can and do feel a mystical sense of awe without believing there's a god behind it all.

You will be posting evidence for all to see? Fine, whatever that may be, I'm sure we'll discuss that when it happens.

SoSick do you have anything constructive to add or are you just here to sling some mud around?

No maam, I surely do not.

I am unable to find a constructive solution to the dilemma at hand.

Though I did glean this off the web in an editorial at a Christian newspaper the other evening:


[color:"blue"] I serve on a Christian web site that answers questions like this, and here’s how I answered one atheist’s charge of ‘prove to me homosexuality is bad without using the Bible’:

First, one interesting method for determining the morality of a particular act is to apply Kant’s categorical imperative to it. This says take the particular moral act in question, apply it on a global scale, and view the end results (note: this is for moral decision making only). So, for example, lying – what happens if everyone in the world consistently lied? First, rational and trusted communication becomes impossible. But even more interesting is that it defeats itself because for a lie to be “productive” it relies on its target to be expecting the truth.

So what happens if everyone in the world practices the loving, committed homosexual relationships that the gay community declares is their goal? The human race ceases to exist in a generation and the practice defeats itself because it eradicates the very ones who are following the mandate.

Any sex outside of the marriage institution that God established is considered sinful, not just acts of homosexuality. It’s not a matter of society progressing and becoming more enlightened to the practice of sex either. For example, it’s important to remember that Paul wrote in a day when homosexuality was practiced very openly in society. As educated as Paul was, he would have been quite familiar with the homoerotic love that was celebrated during this time and would certainly be familiar with the “marriage” of the emperor Nero and Sporus, who was a man that was altered via first century surgery to become Nero’s “wife”. Paul’s message against homosexuality was as counter-culture then as it is today.

Finally, the cry of being born that way is an irrelevant argument. I wasn’t born monogamous and I haven’t met a man who really was. If I wholly gave in to my “natural” inclinations (my fallen nature), I’d have sex with as many women as I could, but instead, I choose to live within God’s established boundaries and celebrate sex only with my wife.

Christians are always asked who they are to say homosexuality is wrong, but who are you to say it is OK? Are there any sexual practices you consider immoral (e.g. sex between adults and minors) and do you believe such practices will *always* be immoral? If so, why? Where do you draw that line and how do you determine it? And do you think your line could be re-established at some point in the future and if so, by what authority? How is your standard/foundation of morality in this area determined?


I serve on gotquestions.org. Feel free to also link to my website that contains apologetic materials - www.confidentchristians.org. My site is still pretty young, and I'm still creating content, but there's some good stuff there now you can likely use. [/color]


Sayonara, chaps.

People who are so inexorably fixated on ostracizing homosexuals make me rather wonder about their own sexuality. I think our rational halves here can all agree that the lengths people go to in waging their wars against minorities is indeed a very Neanderthal approach. Contriving some sort of outlandish reason to excuse this behavior is even worse.

To be fair, I can understand this sort of mindset in underdeveloped countries where ignorance prevails - in this case, it's not necessarily the individual's fault. They really just don't know any better.

Gosh I wish I had more time to read all of this thread... it looks like a very interesting discussion.

Sandi

Christianity is one of many spiritualities. You seem to me Russ to be saying that the bible and Christianity above all other spiritualies holds the truth about life and existence. You also seem to equate knowing self only with Christian spiritual discovery when this journey has been taken by many from all walks of life and differing spiritual backgrounds throughout the ages. To think that Christianity alone has the answers is, without meaning to cause offense deluded.

My spiritual background is Buddhist and I study the Dharma applying these spiritual principles in my life. Self knowledge and self discovery is at the heart of his teachings. I could have the arrogance to suggest that everyone should study the Dharma and that only those that do truly know themselves and are closer to understanding the meaning of existance & of this life. But I dont. I could equally go further than this by saying that all other religions and spiritual traditions have got it wrong and that only through the Dharma that one will find true salvation. But I dont. I know you have strong beliefs Russ, I know you are doing what you believe to be right and in the service of truth, and so do many others. I believe that if humanity is to move forward together in an inclusive way then we need to listen, keep an open mind and put this at the heart of our journey together.

aren't you the same guy who just insisted a post or two ago that you never insult anyone, Pwcc?

No one is ostracizing anyone, that is if we exclude all of the demeaning comments about christianity in this thread and elsewhere. You have your view of certain issues, other people are entitled to theirs without your approval believe it or not.

It simply is not possible to please everyone everywhere all of the time. You'll never do it, neither will I. So it's probably not wise to expect it either. Everyone is different.

Christians are not in the business of ostracizing, it's a rather antithetical position for a Christian to take. I cannot be sure that can be said of humanists and or homosexuals however, since it is those groups that have given much effort to exclude Christianity from the public domain, schools, everywhere. Christians have never excluded homosexuals, even though they do not generally share the belief that it is acceptable behavior. There are homosexuals in our ranks, we know this, it has always existed, and there is discussion about it. However, humanists and homosexuals outside of the Christian community generally do not even want to permit discussions of Christianity. Lawsuit after lawsuit has been filed (and won btw) in that regard to protect the first amendment rights of Christians because it is so very common.

There is a huge concern about the teaching of homosexuality to school children not only amongst Christian parents but many secular parents and those of other religions also. Homosexuals are invading the school system with their agenda and 12 year olds are forced to sit through lessons about anal sex, which enrages parents everywhere. Personally Pwcc, I do think it's the equivalent of Christians forcing you to learn about christianity without asking questions. So, if you want to be treated as the activist homosexual community is treating school children, just sit there, shut up and listen and learn something. Do not ask questions or burden us with your personal opinions.

If you don't like my attitude, don't blame me, I learned it from people like you who want to promote this agenda.

I am not the writer of that article I posted above and am not related to the websites mentioned therein, in case there was any confusion.

I just want to pick up a few points here. You may have some legitimate complaints about things, but the main problem I see here is over-generalising.

Christians are not in the business of ostracising? It depends on how you define it. If you tell someone they are innately sinful because they are homosexual, and that they are living in sin every day unless they suppress it, is this not ostracism? What if they don't agree that homosexuality is sinful? In that situation I can't imagine many people would want to remain part of the church, presuming that the church hadn't already explicitly given them their marching orders.

The flavour of Christianity that seems to be on offer here doesn't seem to be very tolerant of "others" either. There are some venomous comments here about Catholocism -- why it's not even pure Christianity, as you say. You are careful to add the caveat that this applies to the church "leaders." Where does that leave your opinion of the poor misguided sheep who follow them then-? I don't see much respect for them here.

The larger-scale sectarian strife amongst Christians in various parts of the world speaks for itself too. The hatred between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and even Scotland here is deep and vicious. This doesn't seem to be of much immediate concern to Americans most of the time. You don't live here.

According to several Christians on this forum, anyone who does not accept your version of Christianity is misguided and just plain wrong. That includes all world religions that exist now, that ever have existed, as well as all manner of people who are not theists.

This may not be ostracism in the sense that you are not deliberately excluding people from your ranks, but it's a far cry from any degree of tolerance as well. I won't generalise, myself, and say all Christians are like this, I know they aren't, but some of the attitudes I've found in this particular place are pretty shocking.

Have you got it in for humanists as well? What don't you like about humanists? This term often started being applied to very deeply Christian Renaissance artists like Michaelangelo because of the love and awe of humanity that shone through in his (early) art.

So what's all this about anal sex being taught in schools? Whatever tabloid rag you got this story from, I imagine it would have been presented in school as a possible sexual choice some people make, including but not limited to homosexuals. I very much doubt they were telling the children to go off and do it as a sort of hands-on homework project. It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but that's fine, you don't have to engage in it. I don't see a problem with children knowing about its existence. This is called sex EDUCATION. You only have a problem with it because of your fundamentalist notions about fornication. You think kids aren't likely to find out the truth anyway? Better to teach it in a straightforward, sensible and sensitive way in a classroom, than let kids pick up incomplete shady factoids from their friends, the media, etc. I think age 12 is an ideal age for sex ed. in school. By that age you might be surprised at what some of them already know.

I really despise an us vs. them approach from anyone. No one has to participate in it and blame their behaviour on how the "other side" is behaving. Why not rise above it and have compassion for them, even if you believe they are doing wrong. Surely this is what true Christianity ought to involve.

I am not insulting anyone. I said discriminating against minorities is Neanderthal – in other words, cruel and primitive. Are you saying you disagree with this statement? That discriminating against minorities is a good thing? This conflicts with your later statements about Christian ethics. How do you translate my desire for people to be treated fairly as an insult?


Why do you do it then? Is not stereotyping and generalizing a form of ostracism? It’s certainly not polite by anyone’s standards.


Wow.


My agenda is courtesy to our fellow man, minorities included. Thank you for verifying your opposition to this.

No, I don't but you obviously know very little of the history of the problem there even though you 'live' there, it has a lot less to do with christianity than you seem to want to make others believe. It's not difficult to confuse political situations with religion without any understanding of the situation.



Really? Do you actually read my posts or just gloss over them with a predetermined opinion?



Really? Do you ever read any othe Christian material? How often do you get out of the house Linda? have you noticed the muslim community in Britain lately? If all goes well for them GB will be a muslim dominated nation within a short time and you might be spending your time wearing a Burka and longing for the days of Christian tolerance when you are not much older than I am now.



oh give me a break.



You really need to get out of the house a bit Linda.



You are a pig.

I'm not going to dignify this with a response. Your remarks are curt, insulting and inflammatory. When you want to have a dignified conversation where you politely question what I have said and give your own response without condescention, let me know.

Folks, I thought this was suposed to be a Christian run forum. Why are these posts being allowed?I am offended. SoSick even if you aren't a Christian (i don't know what your religion is offhand) you can still show soem common courtesy and be polite

Folks, I thought this was suposed to be a Christian run forum. Why are these posts being allowed?I am offended. SoSick even if you aren't a Christian (i don't know what your religion is offhand) you can still show soem common courtesy and be polite

Posts like this would be immediately deleted on any other forum

"Man is the missing link between apes and human beings."
Konrad Lorenz
That purty much explains some a the remarks an behaviour on here to me.
Ah'd rather live on a planet a tolerance with Richard, Linda , Pwcca an Follower of Christ cuz it seems to me these people listen an leave room for opinions at odds with their own.
Haven't we had enough of fascistic behaviour? My way or the highway?
Besides, there are numerous other spiritual teachings an ancient tracts with a way more holistic an prophetic overview than the bible, a relative late-comer, but a course, ya gotta believe that the world started a heck of a lot further back than the bibleous ones believe.
Circumcision is one a the subjects/practises which can be explored in much greater depth than the biblical or social context if anabody was to dig deep.
Case a bein a freethinker or not. Ah never was a respecter a dogma, only karma.
Who is a pig???
Always remember when ya point a finger at someone else ya point three at yourself.

If you knew anything about dignity you would cringe at your own statements.

Pig. It's what children with a even just a tad of a sense of sef-worth call the type of behavior you are suggesting. Pig, it's the exact term used by their parents to teach them about people like you who would deny their virtue and dignity. There is no other word to substitute for it. Sorry.

Hi Elvis, I was wondering where you'd got to. Thanks for the words of wisdom. The hatred here is getting tiresome.

Thats why Ah hardly got a thing to say round here, but mainly, theres a whole world a interestin thought out there which interests me a heck of a lot more. Gotta go where the food for thought is, an folks defendin the indefensible tuckers me out, insults an stupidity nonwithstandin.

Nice to hear from you on this Elvis. Another voice of reason and down to earth common sense and humanity ( I hope I havent swore by using the word humanity)

Hello foc and thanks for your statement of concern.

I don't believe in censoring people's statements unless they are completely useless and harmful (I've banned 3 people in the past 2 weeks). Those who oppose Christ are useful because they strengthen believers and purge moderates. That is their purpose and they perform it well.

To censor anti-Christian remarks would be to deny Christians of their responsibility to defend the truths, the logic, and the hope provided to us by God through the inspired writings of the Bible.


"And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child."

—Revelation 12:13

"Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: "

—1 Thessalonians 2:15

"But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

—Galatians 4:29-31

"Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us. We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."

—2 Corinthians 4:1-18

"By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."

—Hebrews 11:24-40

Well don't that just send a cold shiver down the spine.

I'm beginning to wonder about your motivations for letting various people say what they say here, Russ. I think when I said "you are a tolerant person," I might have been misunderstanding those.

We all have our reasons for being tolerant, Linda. The question is, are we being tolerant because we care about people (perhaps tough love) or are we being tolerant because we are giving in to our need or desire to follow, or perhaps some other (self-serving) emotion.

Could this thread be leading to an adjuration for me to know myself? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I've been doing that for a long time now Linda.

It takes a great deal of self control to watch people slander the truth that you have so diligently studied, nevertheless, the role each person plays in this life is up to them.

If a person chooses never to learn the truth about Christ and instead decides to slander His name and twist the well-established truth about Him, it is an evil thing they do. (Would you want someone to slander you?)

Have you not slandered Christ by sharing your uneducated opinion about Him?

Perhaps not, so long as qualify your opinion as being from someone who has never studied the Bible—which is the authoritative book about Christ.

If someone instead decides to actually read the Bible and explore its claims, they may gain an understanding about what life is all about, complete with love and massive evidence; the experience seasoned with a profoundly positive change in their life.

Been there and done that, Linda.

In the end, God will judge all.

Now, you choose.


A word to the wise--->

[color:"darkred"]"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."[/color]

—Revelation 13:16-18


The Bar Code and the Mark of the Beast
(Interesting Reading)

In your elevation Russ of the bible and christ above all other spritiual backgrouds and beliefs you 'slander' in return. A number on this forum especially Linda have been very careful to question and challlenge extremism and seemingly distorted information in a sensitive and thoughtful manner. The truth fortunately does not belong to Christians or any other religion or spiritual tradition for that matter.

There is no place for extremism in this world anymore. We live increasingly in muticultural and multi faith societies. If we as humanity are to survive and i believe its as serious as survival. then we have to live together wtih mutal respect and understanding. The pronouncement of one faith above all others can and will not work. This has been adequately proved throughout history.

Be part of the solution rather than part of the problem

I don't think I could have phrased that any better Richard, and thank you. I was particularly concerned by the fact that I'd recently said in another thread that I have admired a number of moderate Christians whose hearts and lives are filled with tolerance and kindness, and that it's fundamentalists of all faiths that I find troubling. Here now is Russ saying "purge the moderates." It's just . . . scary.

Russ you seem to have evolution and religion mixed up in what works to control the masses and keep power.
From evolution the only thing to gain is knowledge and understanding. Most research scientists make very little money relatively. Religion is the one that has money and power in the promotion.
It's not a problem of your personal beliefs, but the group mentality of religion makes it too vulnerable for a few people in power to manipulate the masses.

A recent USA Today poll indicates that 66%—two thirds—of Americans believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.”

Religion works as a system of disinformation and keep people controlled while in ignorance

You seem set in your beliefs of massive conspiracies so I won't bother to argue them with you.

These are the symptoms you had with mercury poisoning: Weight gain, depression, thinning hair, fatigue, constipation, candida, anxiety, insomnia, low blood sugar, immune weakness, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), tingling hands & feet, feeling hot or cold, grinding teeth at night, oily skin, sweating during sleep, heartburn, cracking joints, tight & twitching muscles, poor memory, shyness, fear of commitment, fear of confrontation, apathy about personal issues (money/property/health), short attention span, poor reading comprehension, and more!!

I'm curious as to what your answer is to what if you weren't cured? Would you still believe in god? when a simple chemical element can completely and utterly destroy your soul and who you are? Where does god fit into this?

Please don't give me a god works in mysterious ways or he is just testing your faith response

You can't argue with a religious person. Because they can always use the response above.

But what's never made any sense to me is the whole issue of "faith." No one can adequately explain to me why faith - belief in something without proof - is in any way a moral virtue. Why would the creator of the universe exalt faith so highly? It makes no sense at all.

Quite simply, faith is a quintessential case of making a virtue out of a necessity. God clearly doesn't exist, and has never shown any proof of himself at all (no, the bible doesn't count nor does "intelligent design" count as proof). So the religious turn and make "faith" a virtue, because it's the only thing they have.

Oh, and "working in mysterious ways." I love how God intervenes in human affairs when someone is healed or people survive some disaster. Yet when a church collapses on hundreds of worshippers in Peru, for example, that's just one of those mysterious ways.

It's all so amazingly silly.

"For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;"

—2 Corinthians 4:17

For those who have an ear.

But that's such a vague excerpt, you could have it mean just about whatever you want it to mean. It can be interpreted a thousand ways and each person who interprets it according to their wish will say that their interpretation is the right one.

I have a thesis that fundamentalists of every religion represent a type of human being that is generally akin to a zombie.

Most human behavior fits on a spectrum; genetics or upbringing or a combination of both seves to put people on these spectrums. Take having a temper, for example. People show a wide variation in their tempers, with some able to get extremely angry and others remaining exceptionally calm in difficult moments.

There's also a spectrum on ability to have a free mind that is open to ideas and that is comfortable with intellectual ambiguity. Religious fundamentalists are to the far side of that spectrum, perennially fixed in their notions of "God" and "Christ" and the "Bible".

In this sense, they are truly zombies on earth, barely registering the real joys and puzzles and strangeness of life and the universe. When challenged to think, these zombies fall back on their ever-fixed concepts.

It's so obvious that the Christian zombies would be Muslim zombies had they been born in a different country. Or Jewish zombies.

I do know that nothing will penetrate their dead minds, so discussion and rational aruments do not work. It's not even worth trying.

But once you understand the zombie concept, you can see where these people are coming from, you can see the blankness that has taken them over.

Individually they are to be pitied, but collectively they are to be feared, because their beliefs bring no joy or compassion to the world, only superstition, division, war and death.

Whatever doesn't kill you just makes you stronger? That's not a real answer, and passing hard obstacles and thinking it will bring you glory in the end seems selfish to me, not the usual altruistic teachings from Jesus

Look at yourselves.

Here I am humbly accepting the fate that mankind has dealt me and attempting to use this experience to help others, yet you all continue to throw accusations and insults at me and my belief system—a system you clearly know nothing about—yet a system that has empowered me to reach out to others in compassion by forming and maintaining the very system you use to bash me.

This is a perfect example of why I continue to say that the search for truth begins with a thorough self examination.

Know yourself.

I really don't mean this as rudely as it sounds. I just want you to know there's another approach to your statement than what you meant. So I ask, how is deriding homosexuals and cultures which do not partake of male circimcision compassionate? How is even vaguely alluding to the fact that homosexuals, any homosexuals, contribute to the downfall of civilizations by their very existence compassionate? How is stating that God answers your prayers while indiscriminately ignoring millions of others in starving regions of the world (including the U.S.) compassionate? I'm not attacking you, I'm just asking - as honestly as I can. You've even stated that you believe your god has put you on this Earth for a specific purpose in mind - how is that a compassionate belief system when as we speak there are people across the world being tortured, born into abject poverty, and never once given the chance to "having a purpose" in this world? To me that's not compassionate, that's supremist. Elitist. I think the reason some of the others may be posting as hostilely as they are is because they don't see your thoughts as compassionate, rather offensive.

I respect you as a person, Russ, so I'm not making this post to badmouth you or trash your statements. But some of the things you say beg questions. I'm the self-appointed beggar for the moment <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />