[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Problem is religious people think that its the religion telling them to love they neighbour and be kind etc

meanwhile everyone else just does that as it is common sense.

Yeah, I'm not bashing religion here, people can believe whatever they want but I do dislike it when people act like if it weren't for religion people would have been incapable of treating eachother right

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, I'm not bashing religion here, people can believe whatever they want but I do dislike it when people act like if it weren't for religion people would have been incapable of treating eachother right

Indeed, the Celtic culture or chinese had worked out all the morality the bible threw up long before Christianity arrived

[waterhog]

this is to deep for me sorry.

[Kizzy]

[QUOTE=kirklancaster;7323041][QUOTE=Kizzy;7322953][QUOTE=kirklancaster;7322008]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

"It's not a private debate between kyle and yourself is it?"

No, but until your intervention it was a serious and respectful debate without a trace of ridicule from either participant.

"You were only 1200yrs out on when the bible was written then? that's reassuring. It's becoming a piece that some cherrypick from and manipulate to suit their own agenda, the whole of the King James editions for instance."


Your pedanticism is redundant and misplaced, because I actually qualified my statement by the inclusion of the word; "about".

"The messages the real messages are lost... gone.
What we have left is a mish mash of rehashed rules and regulations that make little or no sense... or their so screamingly obvious that you don't have to be a practicing a religion to know not to do them as they are morally wrong.
And we all have a conscience don't we? Free will?"

This last really puzzles me, because you quote my post, yet nowhere in my post do I address any of the points you have commented on. Therefore, your assertions in this last emboldened section are out of context and - again - misplaced and redundant. You might as well be commenting on the mating habits of Nicaraguan dwarfs.

That's not true, you stated those who had not read the bible were spouting bollox.
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.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Jules; God gave Man the Commandments, Scriptures and prophets to "try to teach". When Man still refused to learn, he gave Man his only son to reiterate those teachings and Man crucified him for his troubles.

Morning Kirk, sorry but I cannot accept that Jesus was the only son of "God", I still believe in that total energy which was sectioned by man. I think we are all part and parcel of the scheme of things, one could say we are all sons/daughters of "God".

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.

[Jules2]

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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I agree with Livia in that it's about what we feel ourselves and about interpretations as well..I think that religion is like anything in that there is 'good' or 'bad' that we can take from most things..and also our own personal faiths/beliefs/philosophies/'meanings' etc can't be 'proven' as such because they are just 'feelings'...with 'non believers' as in scientists etc though, they may hold no religious beliefs and only believe in the 'proven', the 'science' of it..but surely there is still something in their lives that can't be 'proven' which they do believe in..?..maybe they believe in love because they have experienced it but it's just a 'feeling'..they believe in sadness/in anger etc..because they 'feel them' or have felt them/experienced them but you can't 'prove' them..I'm sure there are also scientists who spend their lifetimes trying to prove what is their own personal theories on something but never do, so in essence that thing never 'existed' for them yet it was something that they believed to be true..a 'faith'...or if they were to get married and make a vow..?...'for the rest of out lives'...it's a belief/a 'leap of faith' in something that is an uncertainty....


..anyway, I'm just going to go back the school thing because it's something that while I agree that it's wrong to 'indoctrinate' and I'm sure that happens in some schools but that for me would be an 'extreme', whereas there are many, many schools who 'take the good, the positive' of religion and apply it/interpret it in a way that helps children to understand things like empathy, tolerance and understandings etc..'the thought of others'...I was just thinking this morning about the most recent example of the 'good' of something which is 'church' related..this was the Harvest celebration which we hold in church/very much church related...something that we as a school and also the Vicar talk to the children about before they have their assembly and they bring in something/produce to be given to local shelters for homeless etc in a way of..'well, most of us are ok because we have families/parents who care for us/feed us..have nice warm houses etc..but what about those who don't/who aren't so fortunate..?..and teaching them to see 'beyond' and feel empathy for others...because from a very young age, it's something that is a 'positive lesson'...much the same as with charities we support, which the children choose themselves..in doing that, they research/gain knowledge/understanding/tolerance etc and things that help them to 'grow'...maybe something that could help give their lives 'meaning'..?..

...but it's much in the same way that we also acknowledge non religious things also..for instance, we respect and acknowledge the silence of Remembrance Day and for those who have died for something they believed in/had faith in...'to provoke thoughts of those who whose lives were different' and less fortunate...


..there are lots of things in life that will 'work' for some and not for others and bring positive things in their lives and with that, those positive things will be felt by the people around them/the people they care about and maybe even more than that..I believe in certain things like CBT..I believe in it because it's something that has been a big part of my life and something that has worked for me personally at a time when I needed it but there would be others who it wouldn't work for at all because we're all different..so for them 'it doesn't exist' as a 'life philosophy' or something that has any meaning in their lives but it does exist because it does exist for some people and they have 'faith' in it...religion can bring and does bring positives to people's lives and those positives can effect other things and other people as well as themselves so that's very 'real'..if it brings prejudices/intolerances and negatives as well, then that's that person's own interpretations...in lots of people's lives/most people's lives there is fairly much a lot of rubbish that will bring you down to a low place as well as the good stuff and whether it be a religious faith/a therapy/family, friends/medication etc..it's just drawing on what helps for that person, no matter what that is...


...anyway, because it's coming up to that time of year again, I was also thinking about the 'meaning' of Christmas and I guess back to the 'feeling' which also made me think about World War 1 with the Christmas Day Truce which for me shows the 'feeling' of Christmas Day so well ..there are people who don't 'believe' in Christmas at all and that can be for very good reasons or personal experience to them and it can be a time of great sadness for some people..'the worst time of the year'...there are people who believe in it as a day of celebrating a birth of 'Christ'..or a belief in Father Christmas of gifts etc...for me personally and I think probably lots of others, it's a 'feel good thing' as well as other stuff ..a time where it feels as though people are a little more thoughtful..?..where there is excitement about buying gifts for the people we care about/seeing the excitement of our children, lots of good things apart from the shopping bit...maybe not related to the topic at all but for me it is in that it takes the positive from something and creates a good feeling for a lot of people because of the interpretations they themselves have of it..and for me personally, it is all to do with interpretations...if religion is interpreted as intolerances and prejudice, it's because of the person interpreting it and not the religion itself....


..so anyway, lots of morning thoughts...

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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

oh. some supernatural being has just cleaned the thread up a bit....

[Niamh.]

You can call me God from now on LT

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

You can call me God from now on LT

I thought your PM last week says I have to call you "your Irish majesty" or I get another ban?


With this and having to do Josy's washing this week I am right fed up

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

I thought your PM last week says I have to call you "your Irish majesty" or I get another ban?


With this and having to do Josy's washing this week I am right fed up

[lostalex]

can't we all just agree that everyone else should shut the folk up?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jules2

Morning Kirk, sorry but I cannot accept that Jesus was the only son of "God", I still believe in that total energy which was sectioned by man. I think we are all part and parcel of the scheme of things, one could say we are all sons/daughters of "God".

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.

Good Morning - or afternoon now Jules. Just want to assure you that my response to you was merely to inform you - or remind you - that as a 'parent' God has displayed infinite patience and there are innumerable examples of his 'teaching' - as I identified before.

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.

[Jules2]

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.

[kirklancaster]

[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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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

LT, the dear Yang to my Ying, you are a very intelligent, seemingly well educated man who is possessed of an extremely admirable sense of humour. This being so, I'm sure you can contribute on this subject - or any other - without "taking that tone", no matter how ridiculous you may personally regard the subject as being.

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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Indeed, the Celtic culture or chinese had worked out all the morality the bible threw up long before Christianity arrived

Not guilty LT - I've already stated that 'Man has an intrinsic Moral Code'. How it got there is the $64.000 question.

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Good Morning - or afternoon now Jules. Just want to assure you that my response to you was merely to inform you - or remind you - that as a 'parent' God has displayed infinite patience and there are innumerable examples of his 'teaching' - as I identified before.

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.

Aw Kirk, I see what you are saying tbh but I am still stuck with the energy thing and I have to question the immaculate conception. We are definitely on different wavelengths with these things. There is much to mull over tbh and I will keep my "door" open. Are you looking at God as a person for did he not say I will create man in mine own image?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Not guilty LT - I've already stated that 'Man has an intrinsic Moral Code'. How it got there is the $64.000 question.

Our behavoirs are learned and honed through natural selection. Time + the ability to survive, breed and pass on our DNA

[Jules2]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

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

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.

[kirklancaster]

[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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Indeed, the Celtic culture or chinese had worked out all the morality the bible threw up long before Christianity arrived

So no crime of any type existed in ancient Chinese and Celtic cultures?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

So no crime of any type existed in ancient Chinese and Celtic cultures?

How did you get that from LTs post? Crime has and always will exist unfortunately, religion or no religion

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

How did you get that from LTs post? Crime has and always will exist unfortunately, religion or no religion

Sorry Niamh, I thought LT was saying that these ancient cultures had 'worked out' as in 'solved' ie, no more immoral behaviour (crime being immoral, therefore no crime).