|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
this is to deep for me sorry.
|
[QUOTE=kirklancaster;7323041][QUOTE=Kizzy;7322953][QUOTE=kirklancaster;7322008]
Quote:
Right ok, I see give or take a millennium you were right. Not sure how my comments on the bible as I see it are out of context, the bible has come up many times in this debate. |
Quote:
I do believe in the mystical side of the Assenes, I believe that Jesus taught from a higher realm of understanding but his teachings have been abused by many. He tried to show the way of uniting with the mystical side of life, didnt he say "come follow me". As I have said though I enjoy and respect everyones view, it is a sad sad thing that we had to have headings and so many religions as if we look into many the meaning is the same and man just argues over the words. |
We all exchange views but as I believe it is the spirit which has to be lifted to take it further after we leave our bodies, anything positive which uplifts is great. It doesnt matter what our views are if they are honourable.
We have each possibly got to the point we are at by life experiences, my mystical venture has been through prayer and realisation of my own pathway. For others their prayers have taken them on different ventures of life. All is good for the old saying of "unto thine own self be true" is a very valid point. We may, who knows, change our views as we get older, to keep an open mind is great. |
Quote:
This is all getting a bit black and white again for me, not everyone is faithless because they don't follow a specific religious doctrine, nor do I feel anyone should be mocked for doing so. Harvest festival has nothing to do with church. Exhibiting humility for those less fortunate than yourself such as the homeless can happen all year round it shouldn't necessarily be associated with a specific time of year, that may be a better life lesson. Yuletide ( hearth and home) is a very special time of year, it is, it was and it ever shall be. I personally understand how it creates a sense of community but at times it can feel to outsiders that those who choose to follow a religious path have deemed those that don't to be incapable of the upper echelon of morality that they bask in. It for me can be a positive influence and your example of suburban bliss is lovely, it's not a case of 'if you're not for us you're against us' though and the feeling of mistrust from the religious school my son attended tainted my perception of them massively. |
To be fair when discussing religion its hard not to take that tone because its dealing with supernatural stuff and the main books that prop it up are full of crazy stuff that make little sense or contradict its self at every turn
Lets face it we are talking about a guy who is invisible, does not speak, does not do anything (or at least has been inactive for a few thousand years) and all we have to go on about him is some books written thousands of years ago by folks from an area of the world that is not reknowed for its level headed sense Now combine that with a this Victorian hangover whereby religious piety is to be admmired and never criticised and we have a right old pickle |
oh. some supernatural being has just cleaned the thread up a bit....
|
You can call me God from now on LT :fan:
|
Quote:
With this and having to do Josy's washing this week I am right fed up :inamood: |
Quote:
|
can't we all just agree that everyone else should shut the folk up?
|
Quote:
You are of course, correct in your assertion that we are all 'God's Children' - in as much as if God created Mankind then he is essentially Our Father', but the accepted perception of Jesus being 'God's Only Son' refers to the fact that in the case of Mankind, God (merely)created them, whereas Jesus was actually 'fathered' by God - a direct result of the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception. I am struggling here to be honest, severely limited by intellectual capacity and vocabulary, but I hope the above makes sense. Perhaps I can better illustrate what I mean by the following: Not many people may be aware of the sub-text in films, but the blockbuster sci fi movie; 'The Terminator', contains an allegory about Jesus Christ. The plot summary is that in the year 2029, a computer called Skynet tries to eradicate Mankind and is fighting a final battle against a human resistance force - the last hopes of Mankind - led by an inspired man called John Connor. Skynet has virtually indestructible Cyborgs called 'Terminators' and it sends one back in time to 1984 Los Angeles to seek out and kill John's (future) mother Sarah, to prevent his birth. Aware of this, the resistance in 2029 sends their own human warrior Kyle Reese back to 1984 Los Angeles to also find Sarah, and to stop the Terminator from killing her. Kyle and Sarah fall in love and mate, and the film ends with Kyle dead, the Terminator destroyed, and Sarah alive and pregnant with Kyle's baby - the soon to be born John, future leader of the resistance. So here we have a future final battle (Armageddon) between Good (Mankind) and Evil (The Machines) which could be the end of Man. We have a woman Sarah (The Virgin Mary) who is impregnated by Kyle - a 'Ghost' or man who does not exist in her time but is from the Future - a paradoxical (Immaculate) Conception). The son of this union is John Connor (J.C. -- Jesus Christ) the future 'Messiah' and 'Saviour of Mankind'. Not a perfect allegory but close enough to use in attempt to better explain my point: In his own time, Kyle could father as many children as he liked but John Connor would remain truly unique because of the unique circumstances of his birth. Nope --It doesn't really help. Anyway, Jules keep posting. I value your views and your civility. |
There is good and bad in all things, we have the positive and the negative, we have to accept though that what is positive to one isnt always the same to another and vice versa.
We have to find a balance but I doubt whether everyone in life will tbh. What I find hypocritical re spiritual matters whether it be one church or another, is the fact that some preach something but they do not uphold that teaching within their own lives. My son-in-laws sister and her family, were great within their church, they were respected and took great satisfaction in their positions as helpers and yet, her husband beat her. She died at the age of 34 through his illtreatment. He still went on in church in his capacity as a verger (I think that is the correct title), why didnt others know, why wasnt the poor lass helped? What right did they have to say to another "thou shalt not.....". Two of their children are a mess and sadly one is passing it on to her child. Such a lot to consider if one wants to be respected as a helper of the spiritual life. On the other hand we have those who uplift and help those in trouble. We can never judge tbh. |
[QUOTE=Kizzy;7323181][QUOTE=kirklancaster;7323041][QUOTE=Kizzy;7322953][QUOTE=kirklancaster;7322008]
That's not true, you stated those who had not read the bible were spouting bollox. With genuine respect to you, and without wishing for anything than balanced, civil discussion as a consequence; you misquoted me and/or completely misunderstood what I said and the context in which I said it. I never said that; "those who had not read the bible were spouting bollox" .[/B] or anything which could be construed as that. What I actually said - if you check my post correctly - is; "I've no problem here Kyle - in fact I welcome it, because if you're reading, you're informed, and don't spout irrelevant bollox like some, even if you're contesting my viewpoint." My reference was specifically about any person who responds to a post or comments on part of a post when what they are posting has absolutely nothing to do with the actual subject matter of the post which they are responding to - hence the term; "irrelevant bollox" -- 'irrelevant' being the key word. I used the words; "if you're reading, you're informed" because I genuinely believe that a person who reads up on the subject being discussed, is far more likely to make more valid, relevant contributions to the matter being discussed, than someone who doesn't read up on the subject being discussed - no matter if that subject be 'The Holy Bible', or 'Fly Fishing' by 'J.R. Hartley'. What's more, I never defined what type of reading or what type of books, and I never mentioned the Bible in this part of the exchange. "Right ok, I see give or take a millennium you were right." Thank you. "Not sure how my comments on the bible as I see it are out of context, the bible has come up many times in this debate" You are right Kizzy, the Bible has come up many times in this debate, it's just that the points you made - though valid - were out of context in the case of this particular exchange. Anyway, I hope we've both cleared this up and can agree to disagree because I genuinely feel that 'arguing' per se is completely futile - especially on a subject such as this, which in all probability will never be resolved. A civil exchanging of ideas, and respectful discussion and debate is always, both more enjoyable, and fruitful - in my opinion. :wavey: |
Quote:
And now I've said that; I'm a feared of your response! "Ain't you afeared Oliver? Ain't you a quaking in your boots?" Oliver might not be, but I am - treat me gently LT. :hehe::hehe::hehe: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I agree with you re the Victorian age, religion and the bible seemed to be the only things that they had to consider. We seem to have come a long way since then with beings using their own consideration and minds. We are freer with our own thoughts. Maybe the things which were knocked out of play in the earlier years are now coming back into their own. The recognition of the earth itself and all it's spiritual value. Those who think that way are no longer penalised by the dominance of other groups. The so called "witches" are not burnt at the stake. To me there is possibly just one energy which is either used for the negative or the positive. |
[QUOTE=Jules2;7323427]Aw Kirk, I see what you are saying tbh but I am still stuck with the energy thing
I don't know what God is, or what he looks like, I just believe there is one. I don't think one can take too literal or narrow a view to be honest, there are so many variables to consider -- -- When God said he would make man in his own image, who knows in what context he meant that? Perhaps God is a formless energy who knows that Man will ultimately evolve into just that - in much the same way as a newborn baby or a tadpole resembles nothing like what they will ultimately develop into. Perhaps God is pure formless energy, for when Moses came down from Sinai with the Commandments, he had undergone a physical change by being in God's presence. His face 'glowed': "There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light." - Matthew 17:2. I find it incredible that anyone can have difficulty accepting The Immaculate Conception, when Artificial Insemination - conception without sex - is now so commonplace. If Man can achieve this why can't God? Anyway, on 'different wavelengths' we may but it's good to talk. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.