Spirituality
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by CalJustsonship has suggested that I may have been personally responsible for the eternal torture of "hundreds of people" in this community as a result of me talking openly about being a non-believer (and thus supposedly turning people away from Jesus). Yes he actually said that. And when I asked him how many people he may have consigned to the same fate (eternal torture) by turning people away from Jesus with the joyless vanity and frequent moral incoherence of his 'ministry', he stopped talking to me. 😉
I wonder if any of the Christians here, in any post, have convinced an atheist of the merits of their cause?
@FMF: Re Fundamentalist Building Blocks - I totally agree. A study I read once many years ago in a professional HR magazine, warned employers that American Christians are basically schizophrenic. They profess to believe something (e.g. the Flood, Creation, turning-the-other-cheek, etc.) but in real life (science, motivation, revenge) they live exactly like everybody else.
I'm sorry I never kept a copy of the article, because it is so true today - where we see US Fundamentalists stand fully behind Trump, who is the exact antithesis of a Biblical follower of Christ - as the Pope correctly indicated.
This comes back to the OP - Trump is the original Mr Ego, and he has millions of Christian followers!
05 Sep 16
Originally posted by CalJustHey! you stole my saying:
@FMF: Re Fundamentalist Building Blocks - I totally agree. A study I read once many years ago in a professional HR magazine, warned employers that American Christians are basically schizophrenic. They profess to believe something (e.g. the Flood, Creation, turning-the-other-cheek, etc.) but in real life (science, motivation, revenge) they live exactly like e ...[text shortened]... comes back to the OP - Trump is the original Mr Ego, and he has millions of Christian followers!
"Is what is"
06 Sep 16
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelReally? Firstly, your three words are not the same as my five , but secondly, as far as I recall I first saw this in the book "The hundred year old man who climbed out of the window and disappeared".
Hey! you stole my saying:
"Is what is"
Either way, it is a good philosophy and I am quite willing to share it with you!
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemWhen Ego is present in him, the individual is not aware of its presence; when it is not present in him, he is not aware of its absence; when it has not yet arisen, he is not aware that it will come to arise; when it has arisen, he is not aware that it will come to be discarded; and when it is discarded, he is not aware that it will arise in the future. This way Ego rules.
This is something I don't see often discussed in this forum.
If there is one enemy of Spiritual Advancement, it is the ego. Ego makes us focus on being 'right' in an online debate instead of becoming enlightened. Ego makes us return any slight in kind instead of understanding that anger and malice is often suffering. Ego makes us focus only on our own needs in lieu of the greater community.
Ego does not arise when one perceives whatever one perceives as “Not mine, not I, no self, but just as phenomena”
😵
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by sonshipI wonder how the religious personages of your tradition came to know that G-d wanted man to express G-d's attributes within human virtues.
Why don't you also mention [b]"image" ? Man was made in the image of God.
Let Us make man in Our image and according to Our likeness and let them have dominion ...
It is not just "Let us make man and let them have dominion ..."
God wanted man to express God's divine attributes within human virtues. He can give mere "dominion" to cock roaches. But they do not express the characteristics of God.[/b]
And I wonder why those filthy bugs, as a part of the so called Creation, they do not express the characteristics of G-d; this atheist would expect that every single one creature of Kosmos was brought into life as a vivid vibration of the supreme source of energy that gives Form to everything contained in the universe😵
06 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by CalJust
"joyless vanity and frequent moral incoherence"
Unfortunately, this goes totally against the grain of Internet chat rooms and forums. Winning, scoring points, and humiliating the Other is at the order of the day, that is, alas, why you will not find many true seekers after spirituality on this thread!
To FMF: I realize your "internet forum" forte is misrepresentation in order to "score points, and humiliate the Other" but this hyperbole is really too much.
His posts are not "joyless", not "vanity" and certainly not "incoherent". You're really barking up the wrong tree on this one. In fact, it strikes too close to "calling the kettle black" and seems the reason for the misrepresentation in the first place.
Originally posted by SuzianneI disagree. In five decades of living among Chrfistians I have rarely come across a more joyless and vain "preacher" than sonship. On "morality" and "justice" I find him utterly incoherent. I don't need you to agree with me.
[sonship's] posts are not "joyless", not "vanity" and certainly not "incoherent". You're really barking up the wrong tree on this one. In fact, it strikes too close to "calling the kettle black" and seems the reason for the misrepresentation in the first place.
Originally posted by FMFIf you are saying that based on your subjective opinion of 'justice' and 'morality' you find him incoherent, then your statement is utterly self defeating. Your statement would only make sense if a universal standard of justice and morality were to exist. But somehow you still fail to see that.
I disagree. In five decades of living among Chrfistians I have rarely come across a more joyless and vain "preacher" than sonship. On "morality" and "justice" I find him utterly incoherent. I don't need you to agree with me.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat I am saying is that sonship's notions of justice and morality are not recognisably or coherently justice or morality at all. The philosophy (at least regarding these two notions) he tries to promote here is both intellectually unconvincing and spiritually alienating. It all sounds utterly man made and deliberately ghastly.
If you are saying that based on your subjective opinion of 'justice' and 'morality' you find him incoherent, then your statement is utterly self defeating. Your statement would only make sense if a universal standard of justice and morality were to exist. But somehow you still fail to see that.
Originally posted by FMFHowever, if he agreed with you, apparently, you would not find him 'joyless', 'vain', or 'morally incoherent'. This is all your condemnation for him not agreeing with you.
I disagree. In five decades of living among Chrfistians I have rarely come across a more joyless and vain "preacher" than sonship. On "morality" and "justice" I find him utterly incoherent. I don't need you to agree with me.
And the beat goes on.
Originally posted by FMFAll because you say you believe that God hasn't revealed Himself to Christians.
What I am saying is that sonship's notions of justice and morality are not recognisably or coherently justice or morality at all. The philosophy (at least regarding these two notions) he tries to promote here is both intellectually unconvincing and spiritually alienating. It all sounds utterly man made and deliberately ghastly.
Tell me, do you believe God revealed Himself to Muhammed through Gabriel?
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by FMFYou cannot correctly recognise anyone's notions of justice and morality as coherent or incoherent if there were no universally correct standard of a coherence to judge them by.
What I am saying is that sonship's notions of justice and morality are not recognisably or coherently justice or morality at all. The philosophy (at least regarding these two notions) he tries to promote here is both intellectually unconvincing and spiritually alienating. It all sounds utterly man made and deliberately ghastly.
07 Sep 16
Originally posted by SuzianneFar from it. I have had the privilege of living among and knowing countless joyful and non-preening Christians over the years - and still do. The fact that I don't agree with them over various things is neither here nor there.
However, if he agreed with you, apparently, you would not find him 'joyless', 'vain', or 'morally incoherent'. This is all your condemnation for him not agreeing with you.