Originally posted by TaomanIf you would speak in simple terms without putting some mystical spin on your thoughts, perhaps I could understand you and we could come to the root of your problem.
There is one Christian gem that reflects compassion within the myth of the dying godman.
'Saved by grace'.
This concept reflects an idea of openness of the 'Transcendent'.The writer of the freethought site would probably disagree with me on an idea of the 'Transcendent', which is even an awkward one for Buddhist philosophy, another form of freethinkin ...[text shortened]... he "blood of Christ".
And still you shake your fists, and block your ears.
Originally posted by RJHindshere is your analogy applied to you. the problem is that you personally don't know anything about the properties of the stove, how it works, what makes it hot or cold or how the buttons work.
All I need to know is the truth that leads to eternal life. All false teachings from any religion is unimportant.
If I know the stove is hot and will burn my finger if I touch it, I would be a fool to touch it. If you believe it is not hot, I am not going to touch it to prove I am right. I will simply tell you the truth and you can touch it to prove me wrong if you wish. No need to argue about it.
for you to tell me that the stove is hot from your position of ignorance is completely incredible. you just don't know what you're talking about and your ignorance doesn't spark confidence in any claims that you make.
Originally posted by TaomanI accept the fact that I am a sinner and in need of a Savior God. Until you accept you are filty and dirty, you are not likely to take a bath and will continue to stink up the neighborhood. 😏
RJ, this is immature, excessively fearful and circular thinking.
You will be best to find out if a stove is going to burn by not first touching it, but learning about stoves and heat and observing the signs of it being on.
Clear thinking has never hurt anyone. Ridding your self of an irrational emotional crutch can be painful but eventually liberating ...[text shortened]... but it is false. At sometime, the right time for you, seek to liberate yourself.
Originally posted by RJHindstaking a bath by rubbing crap all over yourself hasn't improved your stench.
I accept the fact that I am a sinner and in need of a Savior God. Until you accept you are filty and dirty, you are not likely to take a bath and will continue to stink up the neighborhood. 🙄
Originally posted by RJHindsIn other words you buy into the most repulsive of religious dogma, original sin.
I accept the fact that I am a sinner and in need of a Savior God. Until you accept you are filty and dirty, you are not likely to take a bath and will continue to stink up the neighborhood. 😏
It is so repugnant I would love to take a time machine and go back and horsewhip the assshole who made that one up. It sure as hell wasn't a god.
Originally posted by RJHindsThis "filthy and dirty" is a common ploy used by preachers and others to seek to make suffering humans even more sad, dependent, and self and other loathing. I have seen it used, and it is an ugly ploy. I call it the approval-disapproval trap.
I accept the fact that I am a sinner and in need of a Savior God. Until you accept you are filty and dirty, you are not likely to take a bath and will continue to stink up the neighborhood. 😏
Neither you nor I are such. Just human beings. And a bit of dirt, what's that? I only know where the window's clean by seeing where I have wiped it. Nevertheless, dirt will return, one way or another, that's life. So wipe, wipe and on we go. Maintenance. Simple.
There is, of course, a deeper truth about the ultimate non-nature of the "self" we spend so much time protecting and approving, but we will leave that to quantum physics and Buddhist philosophy. Perhaps another time.
Enough for now. Let's all have a cup of tea.
Originally posted by TaomanThe answer is not found in quantum physics and Buddhist philosophy or evolution.
This "filthy and dirty" is a common ploy used by preachers and others to seek to make suffering humans even more sad, dependent, and self and other loathing. I have seen it used, and it is an ugly ploy. I call it the approval-disapproval trap.
Neither you nor I are such. Just human beings. And a bit of dirt, what's that? I only know where the window's cle ...[text shortened]... hist philosophy. Perhaps another time.
Enough for now. Let's all have a cup of tea.
The answer is only found in Christ Jesus. Believe it or not! It is your choice.
Belief is a very malleable thing, but extremely powerful, for good or ill effect. Reason is even more powerful but tends to build up inexorably with time. Segments of Islam, particularly in lesser educated places (due to the restrictions of fundamentalism, essentially) are still in their "Dark Ages". Remember our Christian "Dark Ages" ? A rather dark reminder can be found on the site, the subject of this post.
BEWARE - NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED! All was backed up with "God's Word" and its "infallible" interpreters.. The Western world was very unwell and in deepest ignorance then, a time when "Christ" "ruled" far more powerfully than today.
Let not fundamentalists be too proud where they come from, in their triumphalism. Of course, as conditioned, historical Christianity was and is a political instrument, as are most religions from time to time, those awful times reflect also the political darkness of that time. But the dangers of using verses and books out of context in a politically manipulated way, and as "Word of GOD" is sadly too clear.
Confronting violent opposition from Christian installed and Bible supported "Kings" (with their "divine rights"😉, Reason haltingly led the world into the Age of Enlightenment.
Gradually people see the value in not using myths as literal fact (with its inherent idolatry and inevitable violence) and then appreciate the poetic and spiritual power of myth itself.
It is of note also, that despite Buddhism's errors - and being historically conditioned, it must own some - there is nothing remotely like this horror in all of its longer history. Politically there was violence by despots, but not in its name. It was the East's "Enlightenement". Reason was honored there, and by Siddartha Gautama from the start .
I just think we need reminding at times of the historical context and outcomes of reason-disparaging fundamentalist triumphalism. Thankfully, Christianity has now its more liberal and enlightened theologians, although they appear to still be a voice in the wilderness, seen as "heretics", as usual, by closed minds.
Some difficulties with the nativity (unless seen as a form of mythology):
"The New Testament present two radically different accounts of the nativity.
The Gospel of Matthew tells of the appearance of an angel to Joseph in a dream, urging him to marry his divinely impregnated virgin wife-to-be; of a new star in the sky and wise men from the east; of the flight of the holy family to Egypt and of the massacre of the innocents of Bethlehem. Matthew invokes ancient Jewish prophecy to validate his surreal claims.
The Gospel of Luke mentions none of these dramatic events but instead reports the appearance of an angel to Mary; a worldwide census; the birth in a manger, a choir of angels; adoring shepherds; and a joyful presentation in the Temple. None of this is mentioned by Matthew.
The lack of mutual support between the two tales, and the fantastic nature of the purported events are damning enough. But what blows the fable clean away from the known universe is the ignorance of any such yarn by the earliest Christians, whether Matthew's version or the fabrication of Luke. Not Paul, nor any of the epistle writers, know the tale and the gospels of Mark and John say nothing of the birthing of Jesus either. Those who should have known most about these wondrous events know least.
But then, the fable of the nativity is late and fake and was a necessary step in transforming the righteous hero of Mark's gospel into a demigod and – at length – into a preexistent co-creator of the universe."
More at:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nativity.html
Originally posted by TaomanJust because Matthew and Luke mention different things about the nativity does not mean it did not happen. I see nothing contradictory about their accounts, if understood correctly. It is obvious that the shepards came immediately after the birth and the wise men did not come until a year or two later. The fact that the other apostles did not write anything about it does not prove anything either.
Some difficulties with the nativity (unless seen as a form of mythology):
"The New Testament present two radically different accounts of the nativity.
The Gospel of Matthew tells of the appearance of an angel to Joseph in a dream, urging him to marry his divinely impregnated virgin wife-to-be; of a new star in the sky and wise men from the east; of the ...[text shortened]... t co-creator of the universe."
More at:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nativity.html
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's a mythic story constructed from the material around generally at the time. The godman born to a virgin, heavenly visitations, all standard stuff in those uncritical days.
Just because Matthew and Luke mention different things about the nativity does not mean it did not happen. I see nothing contradictory about their accounts, if understood correctly. It is obvious that the shepards came immediately after the birth and the wise men did not come until a year or two later. The fact that the other apostles did not write anything about it does not prove anything either.
'Obvious' to you perhaps, but not to scholars of ancient literature with an objective viewpoint.
Originally posted by TaomanA politician can use about anything as a political instrument. 😏
Belief is a very malleable thing, but extremely powerful, for good or ill effect. Reason is even more powerful but tends to build up inexorably with time. Segments of Islam, particularly in lesser educated places (due to the restrictions of fundamentalism, essentially) are still in their "Dark Ages". Remember our Christian "Dark Ages" ? A rather dark reminder ...[text shortened]... voice in the wilderness, seen as "heretics", as usual, by closed minds.