| Author | Message | ||
     Moxnix |
Pop Survey: 1. Do you have any kind of spiritual belief? 2. To you, who is Jesus? 3. Do you think there is a heaven or a hell? 4. If you fell over and died, where would you go? If heaven, why? 5. If what you were believing was not true, would you want to know it? If one answers the 5th question with a "no," doing nothing is the safest action. If "yes," I have some references to pass along. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmkXrrC5wVE http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=10553 ....It's not unfair or inaccurate to say the green movement has most, if not all of the elements of a religion, and only a tenuous relationship with science. Of course, uttering such a heresy will outrage green warriors. Mother Nature has again, as in animist times, taken on the aspect of a goddess. She is seen as normally gentle, but capable of the vengefulness of Yahweh should mankind in general, and scientists in particular, dare try fooling her. As Gaia, she's ready to intervene in everyday conduct. While they have no proof these things have much real effect on the visible world, they do find these actions spiritually rewarding, and paying lip service to ecology does fulfill a human need. Traditional religions place Jehovah, God or Allah first. Greenism places the earth first. Like most religions, greenism deals with matters of genuine importance. But just as some religions have proceeded from realism to extreme and arcane practices, so has this one. The greens have combined some intuitive concerns with a smattering of science, arrived at some conclusions, and made them articles of faith. Anyone who questions their usually alarmist projections for the fate of the earth is likely to be ostracized as a moral reprobate or a heretic. The green movement has many structural similarities to Marxism, another secular religion. It assures adherents that history is on their side and rewards them with a sense of belonging and purpose. Both Marxism and greenism have diagnosed the world's problems and offer solutions that are not only psychologically appealing to many people, but also seem morally "right." Like Marxism, greenism pretends to be science but amounts to dogma. Now that Marxism has been relegated to the scrap heap of history, its adherents have had to find a new centerpiece for their belief system. And just as the Marxists had a hidden agenda of controlling other people, it is arguable that most of the professional greens do also. After all, at least in the West, they are largely the very same people. Protecting the earth, as important as it unquestionably is, serves as an excellent pretext for almost any controls. This opens the door, as with the Marxists, to an end justifies the means approach: Absolutely nothing is more important than saving the earth. The great mass of greens support the movement because they are concerned about real problems and not aware of any better solutions. In all fairness, therefore, it has to be said that the movement's roots are planted in ignorance as much as malevolence. The same was true of many socialist sympathizers, even after Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and scores of other lesser children of the night unveiled the true nature of the beast. Especially toward the end, socialist beliefs had only a limited intellectual appeal, since the facts contradicted them everywhere. Their appeal was psychological and spiritual. In other words, religious and not susceptible to reason. Most greens are nonviolent, but the movement is increasingly strident, and there is also a strain of malevolence and suppressed violence, at least within some factions. Long ago the equivalent of a Leninist wing arose as the followers of Edward Abbey ran around spiking trees and monkey wrenching bulldozers. The Greenpeace "Green Warrior" performs a similar role at sea. The Marxist agenda succeeded in destroying the economy of half the world and a lot of its environment as a bonus. The green agenda promises to do the same for the environment, with the destruction of the economy as a perverse bonus. ... The pop survey. ( Note: I do not claim to be Christian ) 1. yes 2. Prophet/son of God/one of the trinity/guy born in manger next door to Brian's/he whose historical reality is in doubt, but not his influence 3.yes 4.I have doubts, but Hoping. ( doubt I'm worthy, hope because I've done a very few good deeds ) 5 sure. But. ( what if the belief creates the truth? ) | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
1. Yes. 2. A historical character. 3. No idea. 4. See above. 5. Would I believe it wasn't true? | ||
| Ninefortheroad |
1. Yes 2. The only true "Son of God" that I know or heard of. 3. Yes 4. I think heaven, because I believe I am a lot more like Jesus than say, Pol Pot or Himmler. 5.Yes, why not find out? | ||
| Fast1075 |
My ancestors were Druids....does that taint my soul??? | ||
| Ninefortheroad |
My ancestors were Druids....does that taint my soul??? Absolutely not! It is your soul, not any one else! | ||
| Nik |
1. Do you have any kind of spiritual belief? Yes, however I do not believe in a transcendent deity. 2. To you, who is Jesus? A historical character who is is said to have lived in the 1st century C.E., and was written about in the 2nd and following centuries C.E; the stories about whom have had a great impact on the actions of men for the past 2000 years. 3. Do you think there is a heaven or a hell? I believe in a life to come, but not a polarized heaven and hell. Much like this life I imagine it will be a bit of both. I also think of it more in terms of existing through the memories of the living, rather than some kind of physical existence on another plane. 4. If you fell over and died, where would you go? If heaven, why? Since I do not believe in a bi-polar afterlife, I can't answer this question as intended. I will say that I intend to leave a positive mark on the world. 5. If what you were believing was not true, would you want to know it? I am not arrogant enough to believe I can ever know anything 100%. I can be pretty damn sure about something, and still be wrong. I encourage discussion and debate, as I often check my premises and doubt and debate myself, and have continuously evolved intellectually and spiritually through this process. However, as such I am incapable of taking a leap of faith. | ||
| Moxnix |
Romans 3:23 Huh. That includes me. Romans 6:23 The sin is singular, so even one keeps us from salvation unless redeemed. John 3:3 Another qualification. John 14:6 Yet another, since I know of no other way. Romans 10:9-10 Huh, yet another qualification. 1 John 5:11-12 Well, there it is. Revelation 3:20 He who has ears, let him hear. | ||
| Swampy |
Ooh! a Survey, I like surveys! Pop Survey: 1. Do you have any kind of spiritual belief? 2. To you, who is Jesus? 3. Do you think there is a heaven or a hell? 4. If you fell over and died, where would you go? If heaven, why? 5. If what you were believing was not true, would you want to know it? 1. Hell Yes 2. The Alpha and Omega, Creator.....See John chapter 1. He is a warrior, and yet willing to pay the penalty for my sin. My redeemer. 3. yep, both, and at one time paradise was in H E double hockey sticks but separated by a gulf that could not be crossed. (Lazars and the rich man) Paradise was a holding pen for Old Testament saints and they went to heaven with Jesus when he payed the "Back Taxes" for the old testament saints(long dead folks seen walking in the streets after Jesus was resurrected) 4. Heaven, if Jesus redeems you, you have nothing to do with your own redemption, Jesus does it not me, it is his work alone. It was his blood that was shed, not yours. 5. Sure, why not? Remember this is the ramblings of an Infidel, I left my wife of 32 years, 3 children and a elders position at church to go chase wild women. I have never been more joyful in my life, except maybe when my second and third child were born. God does truely love me more than any of you others. I have been bountifly blessed, like no other. Not too bad for an infidel who hasen't been in church for over a year, Huh? So I am Swampy, look for me at Home Coming (My First) Hopefully we all will be wearing name tags so we will know who to punch. I really hated the annomous crowd at The Last Ride. We Really Need Name Tags at Home Coming! Come on.. Shriners do it, plummers do it, we are having a convention, I want to know what Erik Buell looks like! | ||
| Moxnix |
Malachi 2:16 | ||
| Metalrabbit |
Think "Universe" and why it's there. Sure would be a shame to miss all that by just being stubborn. What do you have to lose thats so important? (Message edited by metalrabbit on January 12, 2010) | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Haynes 2057. 2-18-7 | ||
| Cityxslicker |
1. Do you have any kind of spiritual belief? No, but VooDoo still creeps me out. 2. To you, who is Jesus? The guy at the burrito truck, makes a damn mean Relleno 3. Do you think there is a heaven or a hell? Nope. 4. If you fell over and died, where would you go? If heaven, why? The morgue, the crematory, launched out of a 3 inch Naval gun out over Maui (its in the will) 5. If what you were believing was not true, would you want to know it? meh, If I am dead, then well,.. I am dead. If I am wrong, then I am off to a Hell anyway. whoopee. Being that God knew that, He could have skipped a step. I dont believe in Zeus or Apollo either. | ||
| Milt |
Grumpy, My point about theories is that they are subject to being disproved. Any good theory allows us to predict things. To take your example, a heliocentric world predicts that exactly where certain unruly bodies (planets) will appear in the sky. Now all you need to do is observe. If Mars, for example, doesn't do what you thought it would, the theory would be incorrect, or incomplete... If you observation agrees with what you thought, then the theory is more plausible than before. Richard Feynman emphasized that theories must make predictions that can be experimentally tested. They can't just be a story made up to explain something, with some further complication introduced after the fact to explain new discoveries. Hence his famous criticism of string theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman | ||
| Moxnix |
People are put off by Christians because: They haven't met one, or They have met one. I got in line for what I thought was to be an anointing; turned out it was an annoying. Stuck in it to this very day. (Message edited by moxnix on January 13, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What puts most folks off about Christians is the character of the person rather that the character of Christ. There is no magic. No incantations. No cosmic juju. Every day a person wakes up, commits to kill their human nature, and decides to pick up their own instrument of sacrifice and follow after and pursue the character of Christ. Some days my "old self" stays dead all day. Some days, I've dropped my cross and resurrected my old self before I've finished my Cherrios. The hypocracy of false perfection terminates the spiritual search of more people than anything. | ||
| Slowride |
I try to kill myself daily... http://micahwright.wordpress.com | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
If Jesus were alive on the planet today (& maybe he is, who knows) would he be blogging? would he have a facebook page? would he need them? If God exists & is all seeing & all knowing, does he look on the internet? Is the internet a manifestation of God? if so which one? If wishes were horses, would beggars ride? Does God (any god) enjoy a joke? How many unanswerable questions are there? Truck driving gives you lots of thinking time! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If God exists & is all seeing & all knowing, does he look on the internet? The internet is but a faint shadow of the connection and access to information God possesses. Is the internet a manifestation of God? if so which one? The internet is a manifestation of man. Man is a manifestation of God. Does God (any god) enjoy a joke? Ever see a platypus. Ever see a NASCAR fan? The better question is does God think I'm funny? If the Big Bang is real and the law of conservation of matter and energy is true, where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Who created it? If evolution is true, why are there still primates? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
If evolution is true, why are there still primates? Someone's got to run the churches. Yes I'm being flippant but it always amuses me that the head of some churches call themselves primates. And before anybody jumps down my throat, I'm literate enough to know where it comes from. I'm easily amused is all. | ||
| Metalrabbit |
huh,,so much for God making man in his own image. | ||
| Moxnix |
Well, God clearly has a sense of humor. And irony. | ||
| Metalrabbit |
yeah, I felt it 5 months after I bought a new 1125r in June09 | ||
| Swampy |
God did make man in his own image, a spiritual image pattered after God. Or did God make man after mans own image? If God made man after his Gods own image, God being a spiritual being, eternal, then man was made to be eternal, but after the fall of Adam, man became mortal, and the thing we see today, adding a couple of thousand years of devolving into what we are now. It took a couple of thousand years to go from the "perfect" condition of Adam (living to almost 1000 years)to the condition of us. God has a wonderful sense of humor, and ironic, but he loves me and cares for my well being and my future. The rest of you, well your just ..... LOL! | ||
| Swampy |
Badda Bump! It was getting close to Sunday and I need to start thinking again... | ||
| Eaton_corners |
John Adams 1776 — letter to Zabdiel Adams Category: Religion and Morality Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand....The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty Thomas Jefferson 1809 — letter to Samuel Miller Category: Religious Liberty I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises Gouverneur Morris 1791 — Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France Category: Religion and Morality Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God George Washington 1778 — letter to Thomas Nelson Category: Religion and Morality The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations. George Washington 1789 — to the Annual meeting of Quakers Category: Religious Liberty The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights. These are just a few records of the opinions of our Founding Fathers concerning the role of religion in our government. While it is commonly agreed that government authority is restricted in its reach into personal religious convictions, the framers of our Constitution obviously believed that religion and morality were necessary to maintain a civil government. In other words, keep the government out of the church but, let the Church influence the government. I have yet to find the exact quote but, I read awhile back an excerpt from a letter written by John Adams where He said, if you take all reference of God and theology out of the Bible but, leave all other teachings, you would not be able to find a better guide for government. | ||
| Metalrabbit |
Life crisis prayer request for "Anonymous" and "Andyss1w". This is our job Brothers and our main weapon, Getter Done! | ||
| Slowride |
Bumpity... BUmp BumP | ||
| Hex |
1. Do you have any kind of spiritual belief? 2. To you, who is Jesus? 3. Do you think there is a heaven or a hell? 4. If you fell over and died, where would you go? If heaven, why? 5. If what you were believing was not true, would you want to know it? 1. I believe I will never know truth about anything in my life including a spirit universe. This statement can be interpreted as a contradiction, I'm ok with that. 2. He's a guy I'd like to believe in, he's got it all figured out, unlike me. I've never thought I was him. I'd like to believe in the Buddha as well as any other spirituality seeker. I try to remain non-judgmental about their lives and beliefs. Although, I enjoy questioning every faith that I can. 3. No. At least none that I will ever experience in my lifetime that I haven't somehow created for myself. 4. I would like to be buried next to my father. That is the best I can hope for. Anything else would be exciting. 5. See my contradiction in answer number one. If I can't know the truth, how can I believe in someone else's? I believe spirituality is of our own manifestation. Throughout time we imagine ideals with our creative minds. Mulling over the 'what ifs'. We are lost in confusion, and seek temporary answers like Heaven/Hell, life after death, enlightenment, a personal or group savior, and everything else religious. It makes me question it's purity. I've seen things change, miraculously before me. I contribute these fantasies to the human condition, an infinitely small and unique point of view in space and time. Meaningless. Here's something I picked up from Jainism that intrigues me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism Syadvada provides Jainas with a systematic methodology to explore the real nature of reality and consider the problem in a non-violent way from different perspectives. This process ensures that each statement is expressed from seven different conditional and relative viewpoints or propositions, and thus it is known as theory of conditioned predication. These seven propositions are described as follows: * 1.Syad-asti — "in some ways it is" * 2.Syad-nasti — "in some ways it is not" * 3.Syad-asti-nasti — "in some ways it is and it is not" * 4.Syad-asti-avaktavya — "in some ways it is and it is indescribable" * 5.Syad-nasti-avaktavya — "in some ways it is not and it is indescribable" * 6.Syad-asti-nasti-avaktavya — "in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable" * 7.Syad-avaktavya — "in some ways it is indescribable" Jains are usually very welcoming and friendly toward other faiths and often help with interfaith functions. Several non-Jain temples in India are administered by Jains. A palpable presence in Indian culture, Jains have contributed to Indian philosophy, art, architecture, science, and to Mohandas Gandhi's politics, which led to the mainly non-violent movement for Indian independence. Though Mohandas Gandhi states clearly in his Autobiography that his mother was a Vaishnava, Jain monks visited his home regularly. He spent considerable time under the tutelage of Jain monks, learning the philosophies of non-violence and doing good always. Thanks for the BUMP. | ||
| Moxnix |
As a non-denominational messianic gentile, I'm okay with the describability of what I just typed. The attained state of nirvana eastern metaphysics is a result of thought reform processing. Fine for those who seek, fine for those who found. India reflects the diversity of non-optimal reality. Nutty place. No wonder seekers seek an enlightenment that dulls and insulates themselves from life on the subcontinent. Big difference between the inward-centric cerebral aspects of metaphysics and the underlying supernatural foundation of outward-centric Christianity. As one who is in agreement with eternal salvation for everyone, I feel a moral responsibility to add the salvation, that is salvation, of India to my prayers. Hex, I sent my last copy of "Tales of the Dervish" to a friend in Iraq, but you might find it in a used book store. Better than a magazine on the commode in the morning. |
