|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 1, 2009 22:49:54 GMT
As a fact, the Lord Krishna is the only true deity. He says so Himself in the Bhagavadgita. I assume you're trying to wind us all up again, Ratarsed.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 1, 2009 22:51:19 GMT
This is leaving out the fact that God gave us FREE WILL. A LOT of the evil in the world is done by people abusing this wonderful gift. a lot more evil is done in the name of 'God' Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot managed to murder millions of people without bringing God into it at all. I'd say they topped even the previous records of the likes of the Inquisition and Genghis Khan.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 1, 2009 22:53:46 GMT
Dear Ron
I find it rather ironic that I'm probably in a minority on my own board in being a believer who agrees with you that Jesus is Lord and yet on the prophecy board there are about five people who seem to think I'm a conscious servant of Satan.
Anyway, it's always great to hear from you, dear friend.
An exalt for your patience and courage! (And just because!)
|
|
|
Post by ronmorgen on Aug 2, 2009 3:40:38 GMT
They don't think you are any such thing. We love you over there.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Aug 2, 2009 6:28:50 GMT
a lot more evil is done in the name of 'God' Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot managed to murder millions of people without bringing God into it at all. I'd say they topped even the previous records of the likes of the Inquisition and Genghis Khan. All these dictators wanted to eliminate Christianity! Some people think Hitler was a Christian, but in his table talks he constantly spoke of getting rid of Christianity. As a teenager Hitler wrote a play idolizing "mountain people" in early Europe, who swore to kill all Christian missionaries! www.faem.com/books/yhik14.htm
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 2, 2009 8:57:50 GMT
perhaps i should add i am not anti christians or faith who ever they may be what i am anti[and this goes for the athiests as well] is anyone who trys to drum their beliefe into others..by force or indimidation..cruelty or violence my mother was a committed christian..who practised her faith fully in her daily life..without ever preaching or being goody goody....she worked throughout her life for good and for others...putting her money and energy where her faith was..regardless of the recipients race/class/conditions etc so i am some what biased toward decent christians .....i think although she never actually said so that she was dissapointed i didnt follow suit...BUT it was she who told me to think for myself and come to my own conclussions via discussion and scholarship.....she was a remarkable woman as many have attested
to thine own self be true
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 2, 2009 15:05:56 GMT
Quite Mouse, I'm quite happy for anybody with a need to pas the buck for their own life up to Jesus or Krishna or Sun Moon or Elvis for all I care as their lord. You can choose whatever you want to dominate your life and most times, it's just the name familiar to you for the same basics with various local extras. What I don't want is being told that your particular 'Lord' is the Lord or that any 'lord' is necessary at all to stand between 'us' or 'me' and the Unknowable, and particularly not when your 'Jesus' is quite different from somebody else's 'Jesus' and one Jesus is loving and understanding because he's been one of us and another Jesus hates everybody who doesn't do exactly as they say he said (but is not in the gospel) or doesn't care as long as you believe twelve impossible things before breakfast. I'll join the Gospel of philip and the Buddhist and the pagan that all gods are as much as we can know of what by definition canot be known, so are all different names for just parts of the same Infinitiy.
Three blind men arguing about an elephant, the one holding the leg says an elephant is like a pillar, the one with the tail says an elephant is like a rope and the one with the trunk says an elephant is like a snake.
|
|
|
Post by ronmorgen on Aug 3, 2009 0:54:23 GMT
Re Mouse: If you believe something, it doesn't make it fact, but if something is a fact, you should believe it. For example, believing my door is open doesn't mean its open, but if I see it open, I would be a fool to believe otherwise. Now spiritual things are no different. If I believe Jesus is Lord, that doesn't make it so, but if he has revealed himself to me, then I would be a fool not to believe in him. That is just the case in my life and I'm only being a witness of what I have seen and heard. If you cast me off as liar or crazy, so be it, but if you receive my testimony, you will stand a chance of meeting the savior yourself. I am not alone with this testimony, you also have the prophets, and apostles of the bible as well as millions of Christians who truly know the Savior. The gospel of Christ is so simple a child can understand it. You renounce your sinful ways and cling to the Savior. He will do the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 3, 2009 1:36:03 GMT
So why don't the Hindus, Buddhist, Moslems of this world agree with you? I find no problems with the image of Jesus as showing The Way; I do with grovelling to dxpect him to drag you out of the shit instead of following his precepts to do it. Of all religions, Christianity has the most evil to answer for and has the most hypocrisy to justify. Whatever others have done, the greatest evil and intolerance in the world is traditionally Christianity and it is time we stood up to that evil corruption of a beneficent creed. The Romans were right to understand Christians as we understand today Taliban.
|
|
|
Post by ronmorgen on Aug 3, 2009 2:01:59 GMT
Hate alert!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Aug 3, 2009 4:55:43 GMT
Of all religions, Christianity has the most evil to answer for and has the most hypocrisy to justify. Whatever others have done, the greatest evil and intolerance in the world is traditionally Christianity and it is time we stood up to that evil corruption of a beneficent creed. The Romans were right to understand Christians as we understand today Taliban. Collective condamnations, Collective guilt and as usual collectively wrong! Christ, Christianity and Christians are not responsible for the aberrations of Torquemada, Jim Jones and other criminals, who pursued an evil agenda by trying to disguise it as Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2009 7:51:51 GMT
Of all religions, Christianity has the most evil to answer for and has the most hypocrisy to justify. Whatever others have done, the greatest evil and intolerance in the world is traditionally Christianity . that i think is safe to say unjustified....and i would be interested in your proof and of course your comparrisons.. greatest evil most hypocracy greatest intollorance
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2009 7:57:33 GMT
[ Collective condamnations, Collective guilt and as usual collectively wrong! Christ, Christianity and Christians are not responsible for the aberrations of Torquemada, Jim Jones and other criminals, who pursued an evil agenda by trying to disguise it as Christianity. i dont think collective condemnation or collective guilt is wrong.. but i do think what is being attacked collectivly should be identified and of course evil must be measured against good just as proffit is mesured against loss
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 3, 2009 10:49:00 GMT
"By their deeds ye shall know them". Unfortunately, Christianity has been a death cult since its beginnings. When it wasn't encouraging its own to get themselves killed in asochistic glory, they were tortuting themselves as anchorites and saints wallowing in filth or doing it to each other and everything else in sight. It is just the supposed humane ideals that make the horrific monotony of hatred for the human race stand out so much. "Christians are condemned through hatred of the human race" Tacitus I think, said ambiguously. Christianity has been intolerant from the start, according to Acts there was nearly a war betwen Paul and the other apostles. Any religion whose main concern is the exact nature of its central figure and not following precepts can only allow one view on the subject. They have always been far too busy torturing each other and everybody else to believe the right things about Jesus to waste time on anything he is supposed to have told them to do. Those few who did try to follow his precepts kept very quiet because they were always the first victims.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Aug 3, 2009 12:05:09 GMT
Well said, Ron! You can find plenty of crimes that have been committed in the NAME of Christianity, just as you can with Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and paganism. I'd like to make three points here. In the first place a BLANKET condemnation of an entire religion because of the excesses of some of its followers is just stupid. Overall, religion has been a social BENEFIT to humanity and NOT a negative factor. Secondly, on a personal note to Ron, you feel in a minority when you come on my board just as I do when I come on yours. I love most of the people on your board but there really are about half a dozen people who are so fanatical, intolerant, egocentric, arrogant and contemptuous of anyone who differs in the SLIGHTEST degree from what THEY claim to be the Word of God that I've taken to posting there much less frequently than I did at the beginning. I've got tired of certain people either being patronising or downright insulting to me and suggesting that I'm either naive or a conscious tool of Satan. That type of nonsense DOES give religion a bad name because it ISN'T religion; it's religiosity. It's fanaticism and intolerance pretending to be faith. I think St Paul had it right when he said 'I may have faith enough to move mountains, but without love...' Finally, a word to Ratarsed. You can present a highly selective reading of the bad points of any religion or ideology and give the impression that there's nothing beyond that. Don't you think the world would be a lot poorer without, say, Bach's 'Matthew Passion,' the hymns of Charles Wesley, the religious art of Michaelangelo, the poetry of St John of the Cross, Tulsi Das, Firdausi, Rumi, Judah ha-Levi? I hate Communism but I'm quite prepared to admit that it did produce great works of art. I hate National Socialism but Georg Kolbe and Emil Nolde (both, especially Nolde, keen Nazis) are two of the greatest artists of the last century. I am a writer and poet and, like all artists, I can find beauty even in the midst of ugliness. I don't need to ask what beauty is; I can see it in the glint of a broken beer-bottle caught by the rays of the sun and be inspired by it. God is love, God is beauty, God is truth, God is compassion. God made humans in His image and it's US who've perverted his wisdom and his love into hatred and cruelty.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 3, 2009 12:42:26 GMT
Why is it that so many Christian seem to use their religion as a cover for Right Wing posturing? They seem to justify so many wicked acts by their religous 'beliefs'.
They follow a man of peace, a rejection of violence a rejection of wealth and a belief that you help the poorest in society.
Yet lots of Christian openly believe in guns, killing, murder the acculuation massive wealth and the use of hate and attacking the poor.
If Jesus was alive today, would he own guns, a pickup truck and be a Republican? Given that Jesus tried to cure the sick and bring comfort to the poor irrespective of their wealth, it is pretty obvious that Jesus was the forerunner of Marx and Engles.
Why are so many Christians so Right Wing? Could it be that they are just hypocritses?
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 3, 2009 12:48:23 GMT
Trouble is Lin, religion rarely has much to do with the teachings it is supposed to be founded on. Usually the people who keep to those are the ireligious and the heretics. More than most religions, Christianity has been defined by a series of conferences arguing obscure points and always resulting in exclusion of somebody for disagreement, usually the older and more traditional the belief, the earlier the exclusion. We can see the same process still at work and Jimmy Carter has commented on it, that he grew up in a Southern Baptist church that encouraged reading the Bible and drawing one's own conclusions much as Muslims were traditionally taught to do with the Qur'an and as long as they practised the essential elements (sometimes not even that much) were recognised as within the Community, whatever their conclusions. He now finds that his church has produced its own Popes and Taliban dictating the One True Reading. (In fact the Pope is less dictatorial than assumed, for all that they would like to be and try to give that impression and it is probably close to blowing up in their face). I think that if Jesus came back, he would do exactly as he did before, denounce the priests and the ministers and the devout as shining tombs dead within and tell people to look inside themselves. I'm not sure that he would be (or ever was) a great lover of the drug dealers and muggers and thieves, but he would probably be just as critical of the social aggression that encourages them to flourish.
All that is quite different from the religion of Christianity. Jesus never said "Worship me", he said "Follow me" and "Do likewise". He certainly never said "Spend centuries fighting each other because of obscure Greek arguments about my exact nature". When you look at the gospels there is actually not much there, and they were all written down long after the events. So we're led to the conclusion that the real tradition was an oral one and probably secret and the written word came later as a reminder. Since the view of Christians then was the same as of Muslims now, all likely to be mad dangerous terrorists out to destroy civilisation, it is not surprising if nobody wanted any incriminating writings on them. It's the same when anything gets organised. Usually the kind of people who want to organise and dictate a dogma are just the kind of people who should never be allowed to do so. There should always be a distinction between the natural hierarchy of those with more insight and wisdom, and the necessary structure of organisation. It is very likely that a natural organiser will not have much time for meditating to find spiritual insight and a mystic is not going to be interested in practical organisation. There's a certain amount of sense in Hindus having their organised priesthood and family ritual, but the real spiritual stuff with gurus outside of that organisation. It's not something the western church has ever been very happy about and only Russia has something of a cult of wandering Holy Fools (most of them just plain Fools) outside of the official church.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2009 14:22:23 GMT
[q In the first place a BLANKET condemnation of an entire religion because of the excesses of some of its followers is just stupid. . it depends entirely on the code of the religion...and where the religion gloryfys death..murder...and followers take the words to heart and follow the words then it is the religion which is to blame..be it fundementalist of christianity..judaism or islam how ever some people get mixed up with what the original words of which ever prophet ie jesus..mohammed..aberaham spoke and what was added by followers eg apostles/st paul/popes etc or hussien/umar/companins/scholars etc or moses/rabis etc and of course the actions of the three main prophets
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 3, 2009 14:25:55 GMT
ratarsed said """Trouble is Lin, religion rarely has much to do with the teachings it is supposed to be founded on. """" and some times religion has a great deal to do with the teaching and actions of the founding prophet
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Aug 3, 2009 14:40:05 GMT
Rarely Mouse. That's a cult. By the time it's got big enough to call a religion it has usually forgotten, argued about and reinvented most of what it prophet should have said and done. Not that that matters. As long as it follows the same path, it shouldn't matter what the founder said or did. Others add their own insights and develop strategies to cope with situations that never arose in the founder's lifetime. Of course there's a danger of changing it out of all recognition. At the other extreme is sticking to specific responses to particular events as eternal commandments to be followed at all times without question, much like the use of Latin in the Roman church so that westerners would understand the liturgy long after they had ceased to speak Latin and even where they never had.
|
|