I’ve been reading excerpts of the collected private letters of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, “Come Be My Light” which reveal that this modern day saint suffered the most profound crisis of faith of any past saints.

She revealed to confidants that far from being in communion with her god, she felt completely abandoned from just after the outset of her mission in 1947.

She first claimed that some time in that year, while on a train journey from Darjeeling to Calcutta, Jesus had spoken directly to her and had asked her to work in the slums of the city, dealing directly with "the poorest of the poor" — the sick, the dying, beggars and street children. "Come, Come, carry Me into the holes of the poor," he told her. "Come be My Light". The Vatican, which eventually accepted that Jesus had indeed spoken directly to her, granted her the authority to found a new religious order and begin her work.

The rest is history. Except that this sense of communion with god evaporated soon after she started her work and its absence remained for almost the entire 50 years of her mission.

As Teresa reveals to one Father confessor after another, "Jesus has a very special love for you, [But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak”.

and

“Lord, my God, who am I that You should forsake me? The Child of your Love — and now become as the most hated one — the one — You have thrown away as unwanted — unloved. I call, I cling, I want — and there is no One to answer — no One on Whom I can cling — no, No One. — Alone ... Where is my Faith — even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness — My God — how painful is this unknown pain — I have no Faith — I dare not utter the words & thoughts that crowd in my heart — & make me suffer untold agony.
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?”

and again,

"The more I want [Jesus] — the less I am wanted. Such deep longing for God — and ... repulsed — empty — no faith — no love — no zeal. — [The saving of] Souls holds no attraction — Heaven means nothing — pray for me please that I keep smiling at Him in spite of everything".

As we now know, despite this lifelong crisis of faith, she never wavered in her outward demonstrations of love for her god and adherence to the dictates of her beliefs and publicly declared her religious commitment until her death in 1997 at the age of 87.

Having read all this, my feeling is that a dark night of the soul is the very crux of faith, a sine qua non, in that it would not be faith if a god regularly communed with a believer, it would simply be a reasoned response to empirical evidence. Faith is a maintaining of one’s beliefs even in the face of crushing abandonment. How easy would theism be if the believer was to be guaranteed regular corporeal manifestations of a deity. How easy, though, for the one abandoned?

Perhaps Mother Teresa will become a saint twice over. Once for her work with the poorest of the poor and once to cynics for her example of belief in the light of faith even in the face of interminable darkness.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 7:31am:

I’ve been reading excerpts of the collected private letters of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, “Come Be My Light” which reveal that this modern day saint suffered the most profound crisis of faith of any past saints. She revealed to confidants that far from being in communion with her god, she felt completely abandoned from just after the outset of her mission in 1947....... .......As we now know, despite this lifelong crisis of faith, she never wavered in her outward demonstrations of love for her god and adherence to the dictates of her beliefs and publicly declared her religious commitment until her death in 1997 at the age of 87. Having read all this, my feeling is that a dark night of the soul is the very crux of faith, a sine qua non, in that it would not be faith if a god regularly communed with a believer, it would simply be a reasoned response to empirical evidence. Faith is a maintaining of one’s beliefs even in the face of crushing abandonment. How easy would theism be if the believer was to be guaranteed regular corporeal manifestations of a deity. How easy, though, for the one abandoned? Perhaps Mother Teresa will become a saint twice over. Once for her work with the poorest of the poor and once to cynics for her example of belief in the light of faith even in the face of interminable darkness.

helian,

This is a troubling account to read indeed.

It would seem that this loneliness of Mother Teresa, was her 'burden' in this life.

We all suffer a spiritual loneliness here [i believe].

The tribulation and loneliness of this life affects, and challenges, everyone differently.



I believe God does not abandon those who continue to seek him, but it can seem that way.

My own belief is that, for the most part, we are here to experience this life, and to make choices in our lives.

In this current world our lives are 'created' and 'defined', through our own choices.

And [i believe that] we come here, to learn, and to come to understand the consequences of expressing our choices.



And, [mostly] God leaves us to these things [choices in life], without any intervention.

Why does God hide himself from us?

If God, is God, and is hiding himself, isn't God playing a 'game' with us [relative to our lives]?

Deceiving us?

So that [being tempted] in this world we will fall into a 'trap'?

Well, there is a saying, "If you want to learn a man's true character, give him power."

And [i believe that] this may be what God is doing, with us.

He lets us, 'get on with it' so to speak, without intervention.





I do believe in an 'interventionist' God, but i believe that he mainly intervenes, in those areas where his plan for the redemption of mankind is involved / affected.

But most of that work is completed [i believe].



So now, we live our lives, and we make our choices, and we suffer 'tribulation' in this life, as is intended.

Yadda, I find Teresa's crisis of faith or 'dark night of the soul' to be the most intriguing chapter of her life story.

When her mission began she determined that she would wed herself to the 'Christ crucified' and would contemplate, as those at the foot of the cross apparently did, the pain and suffering of the dying 'God-Messiah'.

Teresa declared that she was prepared to feel the pain of this suffering for the rest of her life although she would hardly have expected (as happened) that she would descend into a lifelong spiritual night.

But was this abandonment the reason for the sage advice 'be careful what you wish for'?

One of the sufferings of  the 'Christ Crucified' was his perceived abandonment by his God (Mark 15:34 - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?).

Whatever the reason, which of course we cannot know, it is impossible to overstate what a gargantuan marathon of faith it must have been to live for another 50 years with that public smile while doggedly maintaining her missionary zeal with an unwavering outward profession of faith that she no longer felt and love for a god who remained, for the rest of her life, unmanifested, invisible and silent in her heart.

This has been a few very impressive posts you have done helian.

very looking forward to episode #3

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 2:41pm:

This has been a few very impressive posts you have done helian. very looking forward to episode #3

As with many of us old enough to contemplate the 'meaning' of Teresa and her mission, I looked on her, I have to say, yes with admiration of sorts but I was always somewhat suspicious of her motives - don't ask me why. But having read some of her private letters, I feel a genuine and profound sense of sympathy for her. I think there is a lesson for everyone in her ordeal, Catholic or not, Christian or not, non-theist or atheist.

We all face crises of faith of some description (albeit usually of lesser magnitude - but crises nonetheless)... Within a marriage, as a parent, in our work and at those 3 AM moments when we wake and ask ourselves the great existential questions. We all reach the fork in the road at some time in our lives. And a number of those times, we realise that the right thing would be to stay the course even if the easier option would be to diverge. Those are the times when Teresa's strength of will could be an inspiration or to just give pause for thought that if a four foot Albanian nun could keep the faith for 50 years, then just maybe anyone can for at least a small fraction of the time.

Few of us have a sense of loneliness for such an extended period ....... and STILL remain a christian.


Astounding really.

Maybe it was this atheistic side of her which enabled her to do such important selfless work here on earth  :o

Amadd wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 5:59pm:

Maybe it was this atheistic side of her which enabled her to do such important selfless work here on earth  :o

Well, that is another intriguing part of her story... she can be claimed by multiple religious and non-religious groups. Mahayanic Buddhists could claim that she was a bodhisattva - an enlightened one who, out of compassion for other beings, refuses Nirvana and returns to the world to relieve suffering. Also Buddhism, being non-theistic, doesn't have to explain a non-responsive god - the silence she experienced would be entirely in keeping with Buddhist teachings.

Without disrespect towards her lifetime effort, perhaps her perseverance could also be explained in more earthly terms. Perhaps she was a victim of her own success. Although it has to be accepted that because she argued for and was granted authority to begin a new religious order of nuns, she must have expected that others would follow her.

Maybe what she didn’t expect was just how successful the order would be.

Soon after her mission began, hundreds of women began to join the order and many without religious vocation offered their services. Then there was the Malcolm Muggeridge book and documentary, ‘Something Beautiful for God’ that propelled her to mega-stardom. Then the Nobel Peace Prize. Then the endless queues of world leaders, including Pope John Paul II, all lining up for a photo opportunity with her. Then the vast amounts of cash that began to flow into the Missionaries of Charity coffers.

Perhaps the enormity of her success trapped her in a kind of stardom she neither sought nor wanted and evoked in her a guilt complex based on a deeply felt sense of unworthiness (after all, she claimed Jesus had considered her an unworthy servant but he would ask of her to begin her mission anyway). Perhaps also escape from the mission with the world looking on would be impossible without doing damage to the church she loved and betrayal to the poorest of the poor and to those who had followed her into their hovels.

We can only speculate now, but her perseverance despite her doubts, grave misgivings and sense of abandonment appears to have only magnified her life and work and I imagine it has made her even more worthy of the sainthood which is almost certain to be bestowed on her more likely in the near future than the distant.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 8:16am:

Without disrespect towards her lifetime effort, perhaps her perseverance could also be explained in more earthly terms. Perhaps she was a victim of her own success. Although it has to be accepted that because she argued for and was granted authority to begin a new religious order of nuns, she must have expected that others would follow her. Maybe what she didn’t expect was just how successful the order would be. Soon after her mission began, hundreds of women began to join the order and many without religious vocation offered their services. Then there was the Malcolm Muggeridge book and documentary, ‘Something Beautiful for God’ that propelled her to mega-stardom. Then the endless queues of world leaders, including Pope John Paul II, all lining up for a photo opportunity with her. Then the vast amounts of cash that began to flow into the Missionaries of Charity coffers. Perhaps the enormity of her success trapped her in a kind of stardom she neither sought nor wanted and evoked in her a guilt complex based on a deeply felt sense of unworthiness (after all, she claimed Jesus had considered her an unworthy servant but he would ask of her to begin her mission anyway). Perhaps also escape from the mission with the world looking on would be impossible without doing damage to the church she loved and betrayal to the poorest of the poor and to those who had followed her into their hovels. We can only speculate now, but her perseverance despite her doubts, grave misgivings and sense of abandonment appears to have only magnified her life and work and I imagine it has made her even more worthy of the sainthood which is almost certain to be bestowed on her more likely in the near future than the distant.

THere was an interesting insight into Mother Teresa recently on the ABC National Series "The Spirit of Things". Let me see if I can find the link.

Here it is:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2008/2422949.htm

The transcript should be up in a few days for the bandwidth limited.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 3:11pm:

......We all face crises of faith of some description (albeit usually of lesser magnitude - but crises nonetheless)... Within a marriage, as a parent, in our work and at those 3 AM moments when we wake and ask ourselves the great existential questions. We all reach the fork in the road at some time in our lives. And a number of those times, we realise that the right thing would be to stay the course even if the easier option would be to diverge. Those are the times when Teresa's strength of will could be an inspiration or to just give pause for thought that if a four foot Albanian nun could keep the faith for 50 years, then just maybe anyone can for at least a small fraction of the time.

helian,

Your words reminded me of a conversation i had with a friend, about 20 years ago.

I had never guessed of his difficulties, but he confided in me that his marriage was in a difficult patch, he and his wife were not communicating.

He said he was not angry [with his wife], but he felt he was having a life crisis, and that he was considering leaving his wife, and three young children.

In our discussion, i pointed out his responsibility to [the stable development of] his young children, and suggested that the most responsible thing to do, would be to stay in the marriage [at least] until his children had left school.

I recall, i rather bluntly stated, it was his decision, but that he had taken on a responsibility, and the responsible thing to do, would be for him to fulfil his responsibilities toward his family [children].

[he stayed. i still have contact with this person and his wife. the children have left home. and he and his wife both seem happy now, in their marriage.]


Many of us suffer crises of life.

Our suffering in life is not unusual.

But the crises [themselves] are not as 'critical', as how we respond to them [from within ourselves].

To me, it seems that many of our life crises emerge, from thoughtlessly pursuing our own desires [for our own 'happiness'].




++++++


I'm a Christian, but there is a lot of sense stated in Buddhism's,

The Four Noble Truths....

1. To live, is to suffer.

2. Suffering arises from our attachment to desires.

3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering is attainable.





#1, To live, is to suffer!

How true!

:'(

Yadda wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 9:10am:

The Four Noble Truths.... 1. To live, is to suffer.

Hebrews 12:6  For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8  But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9  Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Psalms 11:4
The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men.
5  The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Speaking of the hardships suffered by the children Israel [below], but this applies equally to all God's children....

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.
11  For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.
12  Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

and....

Proverbs 17:3
The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold: but the LORD trieth the hearts.

The 'furnace of affliction' eh?

Some may say that such a God is cruel.

But let them taste God's love, and all of these tears [here] will be forgotten.

Though our hearts are 'tried' here, God does love us, deeply!

And all his children know this TRUTH.

We are his [spirit] children [i believe].

I believe we are all God's children, who have gone astray [in this world].

Isaiah 1:2
Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

Jeremiah 4:22
For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.

One of my favorite parables is the parable of the 'prodigal' son [read the parable at Luke 15:11].

I believe that we, all mankind, are the 'prodigal sons & daughters' of our spirit father.

Yet is seems clear, that many of God's 'children' despise their birthright, and they have behaved like Esau.

Hebrews 12:16
.....as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

And unlike the prodigal [in the parable], they do not seek to return to God, their father.

Many of us will die in the world.
....as the children of that other spirit, SATAN.

The powerful of this world, and those who seek 'treasure' in this world, have come to love this world, they have come to love its lies, and even to love its violence.

It is often a 'distant' violence, which we imagine, we are removed from, and not responsible for.

But when we pay the piper, he plays the tune we call.

Many evil things are done [to innocents], to secure those 'goods' and 'services', which we in the 1st world trivially use, to sate our worldly desires.


+++++


Just one example, of how our demands for [sometimes trivial] 'consumables' [in the 1st world], can have devastating effects on the lives of others, much weaker than ourselves.....

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40928000/jpg/_40928219_copper203bbc.jpg
25 November 2008
Battle for Congo's mineral assets
"The Democratic Republic of Congo is struggling to recover from a lengthy civil war in which an estimated three million people have died, mostly through starvation and disease.
Since the country gained independence in 1960, its vast mineral wealth has been a key factor in the country's civil wars and instability.
It has huge reserves of gold, cobalt, tantalite and cassiterite all used in the manufacture of consumer electronics."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7747692.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4900734.stm

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 8:24am:

THere was an interesting insight into Mother Teresa recently on the ABC National Series "The Spirit of Things". Let me see if I can find the link. Here it is: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2008/2422949.htm The transcript should be up in a few days for the bandwidth limited.

Interesting, but not surprising, to hear some of the downside of an austere ministry.

Listening to the subtext of Livermore's story, I picked up a note of dissent and questioning that began at the start of her vocation and continued to the end. Surely she could not have been under much illusion that the work would be anything other than grotesque. Mother Teresa never concealed the condition of the people she ministered to.

I found it strange that Livermore did not consider becomming a co-worker which did not require becomming a nun. In the end I think she dived into the vocation unprepared for its demands and got burnt.

Yadda wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 9:10am:

The Four Noble Truths.... 1. To live, is to suffer. 2. Suffering arises from our attachment to desires. 3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases. 4. The path to the cessation of suffering is attainable.

Yes, as founding principles, no other religion's is more terse or more true.

Well she never seemed particularly religious to me, after all, she practised the antithesis of normal religious behaviour, she did not just preach and pray, she got down and actually got stuck in to actually helping.

---

mozzaok wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 11:21am:

Well she never seemed particularly religious to me, after all, she practised the antithesis of normal religious behaviour, she did not just preach and pray, she got down and actually got stuck in to actually helping.

Yes. The difference between actually practising the religion as opposed to empty-headed religiosity.

In support of the noble truths :



"Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope"

Romans 5:3-5


Course, when suffering it does never seem "noble"

No struggle without suffering,
No challenge without struggle,
No value without challenge,
No meaning without value.

The price of meaning is the willingness to suffer.

I meant to ask this for a week now but this seems a good place to ask. Last week, Wednesday night at about 8.30 pm on Radio National they had a dialogue by a academic that was a believer and he was talking about belief vs materialism etc. I could only listen briefly before I got roused on about keeping people waiting. Did anyone here it, do they know the program or how to get a podcast.

Interestingly enough he took an interesting line similar to the one I quoted about Descartes earlier that day.


Quote:

I think it was Descartes that came up with an argument that I thought was the coolest of all and really appealed to me. It sounds good but is purely Metaphysical, and goes something like this. (Forgive me but it has been at least 15 years since I came across it) "We are imperfect beings that inhabit an imperfect world, and yet we can concieve of a quality called perfection. That image is like a residue of the divine touch on everything. It allows us to know God'. Something like that anyway.

Intreguing arguments and cosmically appealling, but with no impirical substance which from what I briefly heard, is what he was driving at.

locutius wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 1:56pm:

I meant to ask this for a week now but this seems a good place to ask. Last week, Wednesday night at about 8.30 pm on Radio National they had a dialogue by a academic that was a believer and he was talking about belief vs materialism etc. I could only listen briefly before I got roused on about keeping people waiting. Did anyone here it, do they know the program or how to get a podcast. Interestingly enough he took an interesting line similar to the one I quoted about Descartes earlier that day.

That would be the Religion Report. Here's a link for the podcast or transcript.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/default.htm

Mate thanks heaps. Thank god for ABC and Radio National.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 7:33am:

Amadd wrote on Dec 3rd, 2008 at 5:59pm: Maybe it was this atheistic side of her which enabled her to do such important selfless work here on earth  :o Well, that is another intriguing part of her story... she can be claimed by multiple religious and non-religious groups. Mahayanic Buddhists could claim that she was a bodhisattva - an enlightened one who, out of compassion for other beings, refuses Nirvana and returns to the world to relieve suffering. Also Buddhism, being non-theistic, doesn't have to explain a non-responsive god - the silence she experienced would be entirely in keeping with Buddhist teachings.

A great spiritual peer to Teresa who would have understood her dogged determination in the face of interminable doubt was Mahatma Ghandi, whose personal motivating affirmation was "strive on without hope of success nor fear of failure".

Another would be the Dalai Lama who defined the primary point of religion as being the sincere practice of compassion towards others.

If all great spiritual leaders are essentially in agreement with each other, then the result of one's religious or spiritual expressions, however diverse they may be, should be the same.

muso wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 2:01pm:

That would be the Religion Report. Here's a link for the podcast or transcript. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/default.htm

When the Atheist Foundation of Australia wanted to place signs on buses advocating atheism (not criticising religion), they were refused…

From the Religion Report :


Quote:

David Rutledge: You've approached APN Outdoor, the company that looks after advertising on buses with these slogans one after the other. Have they given any reason why they don't like the wording? David Nicholls: It has taken about three weeks to get any sort of answer at all. The end conversation I had was I asked why we were refused, and my answer to that was 'Well we'll have to refer this to our legal department' and the chappie hung up. Nearly immediately after that, he rang back with a message saying, 'Listen, this is all finished, we're not putting the signs on'.

It appears we may be conflicted by our embrace of secularism and perhaps we as a culture have deep misgivings about our apparent overt rejection of religiosity.

We are inclined to most faithfully follow cultural trends occurring in the United States and yet in this instance it appears we have withheld our acceptance of all things American. Over there (or at least in Washington) “buses are already trundling around with a Christmas message from the American Humanist Association: 'Why believe in a god? Just be good, for goodness' sake'.”.

Why is it that in this most secular of societies we hesitate to allow overt expression of a blatant cultural trend almost as if it's a dirty joke – one which we share only between trusted friends or under the cover of anonymity via internet forums?

Western secularism is probably the best expresion of the Christian ideal so far.

The overtly, militantly secularist, propagandist, politicised anti-religious tenor of some is a misunderstanding and a zealous over-shouting.

Yet they are tolerated. If that's not christian charity - what is?

Soren wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 9:12pm:

Western secularism is probably the best expresion of the Christian ideal so far. The overtly, militantly secularist, propagandist, politicised anti-religious tenor of some is a misunderstanding and a zealous over-shouting. Yet they are tolerated. If that's not christian charity - what is?

Agreed. I believe that Christianity will ultimately morph into something more like that defined by the American Episcopalian Bishop Jack Spong. One where the Jesus myths will be quietly put aside and its theology will be exclusively defined by its doctrine of faith, hope and charity (love) - or (even better) redefined as something more like conviction (incorporating faith and hope), courage (the personal fortitude to stand up for what is morally right) and compassion (empathy for the human condition).

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 10:44pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 4th, 2008 at 9:12pm: Western secularism is probably the best expresion of the Christian ideal so far. The overtly, militantly secularist, propagandist, politicised anti-religious tenor of some is a misunderstanding and a zealous over-shouting. Yet they are tolerated. If that's not christian charity - what is? Agreed. I believe that Christianity will ultimately morph into something more like that defined by the American Episcopalian Bishop Jack Spong. One where the Jesus myths will be quietly put aside and its theology will be exclusively defined by its doctrine of faith, hope and charity (love) - or (even better) redefined as something more like conviction (incorporating faith and hope), courage (the personal fortitude to stand up for what is morally right) and compassion (empathy for the human condition).

I'm an atheist, so I think all the stuff you believe is bunk.

Putting that to one side, I see you as allies against the global jihad. Along with Hindus, Sikhs and Christians and Jews.

If you guys dont wake up and help us stop the global jihadi push, there wont be secularism, there wont be jesus, there wont be christianity. There wont be anything except Islamic rule. And the clock is at 10 to midnight for the whole world.

Calanen wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 10:55pm:

I'm an atheist, so I think all the stuff you believe is bunk. Putting that to one side, I see you as allies against the global jihad. Along with Hindus, Sikhs and Christians and Jews. If you guys dont wake up and help us stop the global jihadi push, there wont be secularism, there wont be jesus, there wont be christianity. There wont be anything except Islamic rule. And the clock is at 10 to midnight for the whole world.

Well, I am a secularist and hold no belief in the myth of Jesus or Buddha. However, I believe the ideals of Christianity and Buddhism (2 religions I know enough of to form an opinion about them) are worthwhile and universal.

But I also accept that religion in one form or another will be with us forever as I believe that the need for faith is innate and, while it can be suppressed or diverted, it cannot be eliminated.

My feeling is that many atheists take issue with the myths of religion as opposed to its message. Of course to the religious the founding stories are not myths, they are truths which is where the issue of religiosity becomes problematic to non-believers.

A "religion" that laid out its universal moral imperatives without the need for a metaphysical entity (be that god, gods, super-beings or god-cum-human), I believe that many atheists would become "believers" in that they could uncouple the multiple meanings of atheist to mean non-belief in god(s) or metaphysical entities and maintain a belief in "religion".

Imagine a religion that had as its heroes only those real people who lived exemplary or extraordinary lives (such as Teresa of Calcutta) by living its message as opposed to vacuous and self-aggrandising religiosity.

helian - as a spiritual person I will always support and protect an athiest/secularist who voices their opinion.

Esp when it is with a bit of wit !!!

It'ld be entirely unspiritual to attempt to stifle that opinion, wouldn't it ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 4^th, 2008 at 11:40pm:

helian - as a spiritual person I will always support and protect an athiest/secularist who voices their opinion. Esp when it is with a bit of wit !!! It'ld be entirely unspiritual to attempt to stifle that opinion, wouldn't it ??

I agree.

No doubt those who saw the movie ‘Ghandi’ would remember the advice he gave to a devout Hindu, during the tragedy of partition. Ghandi is on a hunger protest.


Quote:

"Here! Eat! Eat! I'm going to hell - but not with your death on my soul!" says the Hindu. "Only God decides who goes to hell." replies Ghandi. “I'm going to Hell! I killed a child! I smashed his head against a wall.” ”Why?” ”Because they killed my son! The Muslims killed my son!” ”I know a way out of Hell. Find a child, a child whose mother and father have been killed and raise him as your own. Only be sure that he is a Muslim and that you raise him as one.”

The strongest proof of a commitment to a philosophy or theology of compassion is measured by the depth of you’re capacity to show compassion and find common ground when you could more easily succumb to bitterness and despair.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 6:15am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 4th, 2008 at 11:40pm: helian - as a spiritual person I will always support and protect an athiest/secularist who voices their opinion. Esp when it is with a bit of wit !!! It'ld be entirely unspiritual to attempt to stifle that opinion, wouldn't it ?? I agree. No doubt those who saw the movie ‘Ghandi’ would remember the advice he gave to a devout Hindu, during the tragedy of partition. Ghandi is on a hunger protest. Quote: "Here! Eat! Eat! I'm going to hell - but not with your death on my soul!" says the Hindu. "Only God decides who goes to hell." replies Ghandi. “I'm going to Hell! I killed a child! I smashed his head against a wall.” ”Why?” ”Because they killed my son! The Muslims killed my son!” ”I know a way out of Hell. Find a child, a child whose mother and father have been killed and raise him as your own. Only be sure that he is a Muslim and that you raise him as one.” The strongest proof of a commitment to a philosophy or theology of compassion is measured by the depth of you’re capacity to show compassion and find common ground when you could more easily succumb to bitterness and despair.

helian,

Those words attributed to Ghandi [in the film], are high ideals indeed.

I'm going to hell i think.
....unless God forgives me.

:-?


Yadda, struggling, to understand my nature.


Isaiah 57:15
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
16  For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made.




helian,

Should we embrace [spiritual] darkness, out of seeking to express kindness, in our nature?

What about [spiritual] light and [spiritual] darkness?

Is it a moral act to give a lamb to a wolf, out of kindness, because the wolf seems lonely?

Should we surrender that which is innocent, to that which we know is evil?



Should evil and innocence have equivalency in our personal reality?

Yadda wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 3:27pm:

helian, Should we embrace [spiritual] darkness, out of seeking to express kindness, in our nature? What about [spiritual] light and [spiritual] darkness? Is it a moral act to give a lamb to a wolf, out of kindness, because the wolf seems lonely? Should we surrender that which is innocent, to that which we know is evil? Should evil and innocence have equivalency in our personal reality?

I assume you are referring to the dialogue I quoted above. Islam is that which you believe to be evil, the child is the innocent. If that is so, then you’re begging the question, so I will leave that one for you to answer the only way the premises will allow.

My point about the dialogue is that the most sincere practise of religion is extremely difficult.

The true practice of a philosophy or theology of compassion requires that you be prepared to abnegate your instinct towards revenge or wrong action even if it is easier or ‘feels more right’ to act according to other drives.

A theology of compassion requires that you surrender the will to seek revenge and the impulse to diminish the lives of others you despise to satisfy one’s ego. It demands that you empathise with the suffering of others and seek to relieve it whenever you can. It demands that you uphold the dignity of the other (hence Ghandi’s suggestion that the devout Hindu raise the child in the faith that was his birthright).

That you seek common ground with your enemies by ‘building bridges and not walls’.

That the practice of compassion leads to self-respect which will lead to the revelation that all respect is self-respect.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 4:45pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 6th, 2008 at 3:27pm: helian, Should we embrace [spiritual] darkness, out of seeking to express kindness, in our nature? What about [spiritual] light and [spiritual] darkness? Is it a moral act to give a lamb to a wolf, out of kindness, because the wolf seems lonely? Should we surrender that which is innocent, to that which we know is evil? Should evil and innocence have equivalency in our personal reality? I assume you are referring to the dialogue I quoted above. Islam is that which you believe to be evil, the child is the innocent. If that is so, then you’re begging the question, so I will leave that one for you to answer the only way the premises will allow. My point about the dialogue is that the most sincere practise of religion is extremely difficult. The true practice of a philosophy or theology of compassion requires that you be prepared to abnegate your instinct towards revenge or wrong action even if it is easier or ‘feels more right’ to act according to other drives. A theology of compassion requires that you surrender the will to seek revenge and the impulse to diminish the lives of others you despise to satisfy one’s ego. It demands that you empathise with the suffering of others and seek to relieve it whenever you can. It demands that you uphold the dignity of the other (hence Ghandi’s suggestion that the devout Hindu raise the child in the faith that was his birthright). That you seek common ground with your enemies by ‘building bridges and not walls’. That the practice of compassion leads to self-respect which will lead to the revelation that all respect is self-respect.

Ghandi's ideas worked fine when you had someone moderately reasonable like the British to try them out on. Ghandi also recommended that the Jews try the same thing with Herr Hitler.

Didn't work out so well for them.

People that want you dead, because their 'God' says you have to die, dont care how compassionate you are, how understanding you are, how morally right or pious you are. You are just infidels who have rejected the truth of Allah, the worst crime a human can commit.  If you are Jewish or Christian and unconditionally surrender to islamic rule - you live. If you are anyone else, or do anything else - you die.

Forget about compassion. We need the West's warriors front and centre.

calanen - hahha, that's a great post.
Yes, it's a sign of an evolved society to be reasonable, just and considerate.

But to unreasonable, inconsiderate, intoleratant people, they will run you over without even asking.

Calanen wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 5:44pm:

Ghandi's ideas worked fine when you had someone moderately reasonable like the British to try them out on. Ghandi also recommended that the Jews try the same thing with Herr Hitler. Didn't work out so well for them. People that want you dead, because their 'God' says you have to die, dont care how compassionate you are, how understanding you are, how morally right or pious you are. You are just infidels who have rejected the truth of Allah, the worst crime a human can commit.  If you are Jewish or Christian and unconditionally surrender to islamic rule - you live. If you are anyone else, or do anything else - you die. Forget about compassion. We need the West's warriors front and centre.

I suppose the obvious thing is that whenever you resort to violence, justified or not, it’s highly unlikely, by that act, you’re practising a philosophy or theology of compassion.

If you were, then the imperative to ‘love’ or find common ground with your enemies should mean that when you have the opportunity to build bridges, you take it. So, any time you are not physically at war with your ‘neighbours’, you would be required to seek dialogue with them in aid of developing trust and mutual respect. You should not seek to satisfy a bloodlust or revenge by imagining or planning their gruesome deaths.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 9:02pm:

But to unreasonable, inconsiderate, intoleratant people, they will run you over without even asking.

As I suspect may be true of you.

helian - I accept criticism of christian churches, christianity, spirituality, kiwis, gardeners, cyclists  or of myself.

I do not accept anyones freedom of speech being quashed.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 9:32pm:

helian - I accept criticism of christian churches, christianity, spirituality, kiwis, gardeners, cyclists  or of myself. I do not accept anyones freedom of speech being quashed.

I'm sure. Particularly when the 'free speech' is advocating hate and intolerance towards those you don't like.

Seriously Sprint, when was the last time you were run over by unreasonable, inconsiderate, intolerant people whether they asked you or not?

You display the characteristics of all that is contemptible in Christianity, a theology of compassion. You're a scripture quoting hypocrite who barely wastes a second praising the denigration of those you despise. The more inflammatory the post, the more you encourage it.

I doubt it's the opportunity to practice compassion that you look for... More the chance to be accepted by a wider group, even compromising your beliefs to do it.

helian - feel free to post antichristian sentiments here.
They won't get deleted, you won't get banned, you won't get threatened with legalaction by me.

the last time I got run over by intolerant people was the last time I was in MV.

I'm a bit confused by the rest of your posting. That's fine.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 6^th, 2008 at 4:45pm:

I assume you are referring to the dialogue I quoted above. Islam is that which you believe to be evil, the child is the innocent. If that is so, then you’re begging the question, so I will leave that one for you to answer the only way the premises will allow. My point about the dialogue is that the most sincere practise of religion is extremely difficult. The true practice of a philosophy or theology of compassion requires that you be prepared to abnegate your instinct towards revenge or wrong action even if it is easier or ‘feels more right’ to act according to other drives. A theology of compassion requires that you surrender the will to seek revenge and the impulse to diminish the lives of others you despise to satisfy one’s ego. It demands that you empathise with the suffering of others and seek to relieve it whenever you can. It demands that you uphold the dignity of the other (hence Ghandi’s suggestion that the devout Hindu raise the child in the faith that was his birthright). That you seek common ground with your enemies by ‘building bridges and not walls’. That the practice of compassion leads to self-respect which will lead to the revelation that all respect is self-respect.

helian,

Thank you for your considered reply.




Does TRUTH have an equal place, alongside compassion?

Considering the example from the movie again,

Let me put it another way,

A man [the Hindu] says,
....."I've done a terrible thing, i've killed a child. I'm going to Hell."

In response, the movie 'Ghandi' says, "You have done done a terrible thing. But atonement for the evil you have done is available."
....by raising a child in a hateful philosophy, to believe that he can kill people, if they refuse to worship, or submit to, his god.

Of the two men above, who is the man further along the path to enlightenment?

Is it the one who [repenting,] acknowledges that he has done a terrible thing, and acknowledges that he deserves to go to hell for his sin?

Or is it the one who counsels, that though a person has done a terrible thing, he will not go to hell, if he will atone for his own sins?
.....And atonement takes the form of teaching a child a hateful philosophy, which condones the murder of those who will not submit, to that philosophy.
.....[can you imagine, that Ghandi, a man on the path, didn't know what ISLAM teaches / promotes among its adherent's? I find that difficult to believe.]





++++++++


But perhaps Ghandi's ignorance of ISLAM is not so far fetched???


Dalai Lama Defends Islam As Peaceful Religion
13 July, 2008
http://www.dalailama.com/news.274.htm


If on first blink, you really, really, believe this assertion, from noble and wise Buddhist, the Dalai Lama,
.....read up on the history of Buddhism in Afghanistan,

"Buddhism in Afghanistan has a long history. Many monuments, such as the famous Buddhas of Bamyan, testify to the Buddhist culture in Afghanistan. It was during Ashoka's reign that Buddhism was introduced to what later became Afghanistan.....Many of the Iranian forebearers of the Pashtuns, including the Scythians followed Buddhism UNTIL THE ARRIVAL OF ISLAM. Currently, there are a few Buddhists in Afghanistan, PROBABLY NUMBERING 0.3% OF THIS ISLAMIC COUNTRY."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Afghanistan


Google,
Buddhism afghanistan
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=Buddhism+afghanistan&spell=1





If true religion, is the [a] search for TRUTH....

And if Buddhism is a religion based on TRUTH....

If the Dalai Lama then comes out, and asserts ISLAM is a peaceful religion, then i would suggest, that for the Dalai Lama to make such a statement [in the face of irrefutable facts to the contrary], the Dalai Lama is clearly telling an un-truth.

And this circumstance [the 'broadcasting' of this un-truth to the world], i would suggest, is probably because the Dalai Lama HAS AN AGENDA, which is not  being revealed.

Why not???

And what is that agenda???

And, are these at all improper questions, which i pose???




And i ask, that if the Dalai Lama is portrayed as a wise, truth speaker, why would such a man promote such an obvious falsehood to the world?

It seems that once again [in our PC dominated world],

BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK.
UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.

Where will all of these lies, all end up?

Where will they take us?

For a possible answer to that Q.,
.....look at Afghanistan today.



"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?"
Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance
Robert M Pirsig

Yadda wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 6:16am:

helian, Thank you for your considered reply. Does TRUTH have an equal place, alongside compassion?

That’s an ancient philosophical question, that one : Which is greater, the good or the true?

My personal belief: Not all knowable things are good to know. Wisdom is the ability to discern one from the other.


Yadda wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 6:16am:

Considering the example from the movie again, Let me put it another way, A man [the Hindu] says, ....."I've done a terrible thing, i've killed a child. I'm going to Hell." In response, the movie 'Ghandi' says, "You have done done a terrible thing. But atonement for the evil you have done is available." ....by raising a child in a hateful philosophy, to believe that he can kill people, if they refuse to worship, or submit to, his god. Of the two men above, who is the man further along the path to enlightenment? Is it the one who [repenting,] acknowledges that he has done a terrible thing, and acknowledges that he deserves to go to hell for his sin? Or is it the one who counsels, that though a person has done a terrible thing, he will not go to hell, if he will atone for his own sins? .....And atonement takes the form of teaching a child a hateful philosophy, which condones the murder of those who will not submit, to that philosophy. .....[can you imagine, that Ghandi, a man on the path, didn't know what ISLAM teaches / promotes among its adherent's? I find that difficult to believe.]

Again, you’re begging the question. It’s not at all universally agreed that every Muslim believes he has a right to murder anyone who will not submit to Islam, in the same way that not all Christians believe you will be damned for all eternity if you do not embrace Christianity (although some still do), so your question is invalid.

As you are an adherent of a theology of compassion, which requires that you accept forgiveness of sins and atonement for wrong doing as the path to redemption, the answer to who is further along the path to enlightenment should be obvious to you.  


Yadda wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 6:16am:

But perhaps Ghandi's ignorance of ISLAM is not so far fetched??? Dalai Lama Defends Islam As Peaceful Religion 13 July, 2008 http://www.dalailama.com/news.274.htm If on first blink, you really, really, believe this assertion, from noble and wise Buddhist, the Dalai Lama, .....read up on the history of Buddhism in Afghanistan, If true religion, is the [a] search for TRUTH.... And if Buddhism is a religion based on TRUTH.... If the Dalai Lama then comes out, and asserts ISLAM is a peaceful religion, then i would suggest, that for the Dalai Lama to make such a statement [in the face of irrefutable facts to the contrary], the Dalai Lama is clearly telling an un-truth. And this circumstance [the 'broadcasting' of this un-truth to the world], i would suggest, is probably because the Dalai Lama HAS AN AGENDA, which is not being revealed. Why not??? And what is that agenda??? And i ask, that if the Dalai Lama is portrayed as a wise, truth speaker, why would such a man promote such an obvious falsehood to the world?

I cannot say what the Dalai Lama thinks and neither can you. I would suggest, however, that the Dalai Lama has been in significant dialogue over decades with many respected Islamic theologians as he has with very senior Christian clerics of many denominations including Pope John Paul II, which would no doubt afford him a deep insight into the essential truths of these faiths.

You have presumed he is lying because he does not believe what you want to believe.

In Tibetan Buddhist tradition, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is considered to be the reincarnation of Chenrezig, the bodhisattva of Compassion. I’m sure he would consider his agenda to be the advocating of compassion towards all sentient beings – promoting a Buddhist version of ‘Love thy neighbour as yourself’ or Hillel’s golden rule ‘That which is hateful to you, do not do to others’.


Yadda wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 6:16am:

"And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance Robert M Pirsig

Pirsig’s quote suggests that you don’t need religion to know what is good or not good, true or untrue, right or wrong. So do you believe religion is unnecessary as a moral guide? If you do then perhaps you are further down the path towards atheism than you realise.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 12:18am:

helian - feel free to post antichristian sentiments here. They won't get deleted, you won't get banned, you won't get threatened with legalaction by me. the last time I got run over by intolerant people was the last time I was in MV. I'm a bit confused by the rest of your posting. That's fine.

I don’t intend to post anti-Christian sentiments for the sake of gratuitous denigration. I don’t believe the Jesus myth is true, but I believe that the message can be rescued from religiosity.

Islam, like all religious expression, does not stand up to close scrutiny. Religious legends and stories are all hopelessly flawed with inconsistencies and absurdities. But if as an atheist you went to the Vatican with the goal of enlightening the Pope, Cardinals and minor clergy to the inconsistencies inherent in Christian dogma or perhaps the atrocities committed in the name of Jesus, you’d soon be shown the door and not because these ancient clerics aren’t up for debate.

Given your intransigent hostility towards Islam and the utter disrespect you display towards all Muslims, I’m not surprised you get a hard time at MV. Nobody likes to be treated with contempt or to have their deeply held beliefs derided. No doubt you start up there like a drunk in a church raving at everyone that Islam is this and that. Follow the dictates of your faith, Sprint. Build bridges not walls and don’t kid yourself that denigrating the faith and beliefs of those you wish to engage in dialogue is bridge building.

I don’t think you are confused at all about the rest of my posting, that’s why you haven’t asked me to clarify what I mean.

I have to agree with Helian on the issue of the Dalai Lama's interpretation, and expression of his views of Islam, and certainly, I reject the opinion that he is not telling the truth on this subject.

Seemingly contradictorally, I also agree with Yadda's interpretation of Islam.

So we have two diametrically opposing views on the subject and both are true and accurate, just dependant on which iteration of the religion we focus on.

As Helian says, we should assume that the Dalai Lama has formed his opinions, from discussion with Islamic scholars, on what is the true interpretation of Islam, whilst Yadda and people like myself, gather our ideas from media reports of Islamist extremism, and it's effective hijacking of the muslim ummah into a much more violent and extremist interpretation of what is taught in the Koran.

Islam is very much at the crossroad, and the state of flux is contibuting to a perception of fear and mistrust of it, amongst the broader community.

In this environment it certainly does no harm for some to point out, that like all religions, it has very strong messages of peace and love as part of it's philosophy, and we should be supporting those from the Islamic community who choose to promote those elements, rather than the messages of hatred and oppression that we see from the extremist elements.

We cannot afford to let those voices of hate drown out others who seek to champion Islam's good points.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 12:18am:

the last time I got run over by intolerant people was the last time I was in MV.

If only you put as much energy into loving and respecting your fellow human beings as you put into hating Muslims.

All religious people are intolerant when you attack the central tenets of their religion.

I don't know if you go to a church or not, but if somebody stood up during a religious sermon and started making assertions that Jesus Christ was married to Mary Magdalen and had a child called Sarah, maybe somebody might rather intolerantly arrange for him to be thrown out.

In the same way, if somebody started denigrating cats at a cat show, by loudly demonstrating and saying that they should all be put down because they destroy Australian Wildlife, then just maybe he might be expelled too.

So, it might just be a tad difficult for you to understand this, but criticising Mohammed as being some kind of feral pedophile who murdered people might just maybe elicit a similar response from a Muslim group. Do you think they might possibly be offended, or consider you to be a (perish the thought) lunatic?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

It’s not at all universally agreed that every Muslim believes he has a right to murder anyone who will not submit to Islam,.....

helian,

You may wish to believe this [above].

But you [and many others] are mistaken.

Here is the TRUTH folks.....

Every real muslim believes he has a right to murder those, who refuse to submit to ISLAM.
....and i can back that up with many Koran, and Hadith quotes.

The Hadith...

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.025


helian,

ISLAMIC texts, and the authorised schools of ISLAMIC jurisprudence, determine who is, and is not, a muslim.

Not you.

ISLAM itself, defines who is a muslim.

And to be muslim, a person must accept the doctrines of ISLAM,
....which insist that it is 'legal', to murder anyone who will not submit to ISLAM, and anyone who renounces his faith [in ISLAM], and allows muslims to deceive those non-muslims who are too strong [atm] to subjugate.
....THOSE ARE FACTS.
....and within that definition of, 'anyone' [who can leagally be killed], is also included ppl who call themselves muslims, but live an un-ISLAMIC lifestyle.



helian,

Do you really believe the assurances of ppl in Australia [who call themselves muslims], about what they describe as the tolerant beliefs of 'true' muslims?

How gullible are you?

:-?

ISLAM demands total intolerance of the Jahiliyya [un-ISLAMIC] lifestyle - among muslims.

A pronouncement against Jahiliyya, from an ISLAMIC site,

"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"
by SAYYID QUTB
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html


EXAMPLES, of enforcement [against Jahiliyya] in Sharia jurisdictions....

Iraq,

March 23, 2005
Death at 'immoral' picnic in the park
Students are beaten to death for playing music as Shia militiamen run amok
.....In Basra.....Islamic militias already are beginning to apply their own version of that law [Sharia], without authority from above or any challenge from the police.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article434762.ece

Same circumstances, in Iran,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6557679.stm


"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society


helian,

You seem willingly ignorant, about what behaviour ISLAM condones.

Another recent example [in a place where real muslims feel able to act], of what happens to ppl who demonstrate un-ISLAMIC behaviour, or express un-ISLAMIC opinions!...

November 14, 2008
Taliban murders mullah critical of suicide operations
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023511.php


Justification for such killing of non-muslims, stated within ISLAMIC law texts....

Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."....

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/law/fiqhussunnah/fus3_50.html#3.110

Parraphrasing the meaning...

"Whoever.....becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."

Duh!


helian,

Why do you deny the obvious?

You may be gullible,
.....but you [and all of us] bear some responsibility for what muslims are doing today!

Every choice we make has a consequence.

And people will continue to be murdered by ISLAMISTS [real muslims], because ppl like ourselves will not hold ISLAM accountable for such actions.

But why not?

Because the TRUTH is too horrible to face up to?

For goodness sake, helian, face up to it.

ISLAM is evil.






Quote:

I cannot say what the Dalai Lama thinks and neither can you. I would suggest, however, that the Dalai Lama has been in significant dialogue with many respected Islamic theologians as he has with very senior Christian clerics of many denominations including Pope John Paul II, which would no doubt afford him a deep insight into the essential truths of these faiths. You have presumed he is lying because he does not believe what you want to believe.

Not so.

I have presumed he is lying, because from observed statements and facts, i determine that the DL is either ignorant,
OR lying.
.....and i find it difficult to believe the DL can be so ignorant on this matter.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

Yadda wrote on Dec 7th, 2008 at 6:16am: "And what is good, Phaedrus, and what is not good - need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance Robert M Pirsig Pirsig’s quote suggests that you don’t need religion to know what is good or not good, true or untrue, right or wrong. So do you believe religion is unnecessary as a moral guide? If you do then perhaps you are further down the path towards atheism than you realise.

helian,

I believe that as humans, we have the 'Golden Rule', so to speak, in our hearts.

I believe that a search for TRUTH, will lead us to, and keep us on, the correct path.



This life presents all of us with choices.

I believe that if we open ourselves to lies, those lies can turn us away from the correct path.

If we ourselves turn away from TRUTH, that is a choice.

And every choice we make has a consequence.




To become a devout muslim, requires certain choices too.

You may believe that there is nothing wrong with [someone else] choosing to be a devout muslim.

I believe that it is very wrong mistaken.




+++++


One of my favourite Koran verses....

Isn't it a beauty!!!

ALLAH'S DUPES.....

"Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; but satan's promises are nothing but deception.
They (his dupes) will have their dwelling in Hell, and from it they will find no way of escape."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.120

helian - hahahhaah, are you joking ??


Quote:

Islam, like all religious expression, does not stand up to close scrutiny. Religious legends and stories are all hopelessly flawed with inconsistencies and absurdities.

So what did the muslims say/do when you say that to them ??

Oh, you have not done that !!
A heart the size of a peanut.

In the muzzie caht room I did not say anything untoward about moh. Some people there I agreed with, some I disagreed with.
I did not abuse anyone, despite getting atacked constantly.

Some posters there were quite nice. A guy called dish in particular.
As is in the real world, the leaders are intolerant.


Muso - I have not seen cat lovers call for world domination.
Tell me when it happens.

have a good afternoon both

mozzaok wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 9:37am:

I have to agree with Helian on the issue of the Dalai Lama's interpretation, and expression of his views of Islam, and certainly, I reject the opinion that he is not telling the truth on this subject. Seemingly contradictorally, I also agree with Yadda's interpretation of Islam. So we have two diametrically opposing views on the subject and both are true and accurate, just dependant on which iteration of the religion we focus on. As Helian says, we should assume that the Dalai Lama has formed his opinions, from discussion with Islamic scholars, on what is the true interpretation of Islam, whilst Yadda and people like myself, gather our ideas from media reports of Islamist extremism, and it's effective hijacking of the muslim ummah into a much more violent and extremist interpretation of what is taught in the Koran. Islam is very much at the crossroad, and the state of flux is contibuting to a perception of fear and mistrust of it, amongst the broader community. In this environment it certainly does no harm for some to point out, that like all religions, it has very strong messages of peace and love as part of it's philosophy, and we should be supporting those from the Islamic community who choose to promote those elements, rather than the messages of hatred and oppression that we see from the extremist elements. We cannot afford to let those voices of hate drown out others who seek to champion Islam's good points.

mozzaok,

As a meditation on TRUTH, and lies, and self deception, i recommend these 3 YOUTUBE presentations to you.
They feature Robert Spencer, of Jihad Watch [and a co-debater].
.....[the last 2 are the best!!]


Islam - Threat or Not - Pt 01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PdJnYJc1bk

#2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdfDAnN7qeU

#3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gGHHUowk-0

I like Robert Spencer. He's a guru.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 3:26pm:

helian - hahahhaah, are you joking ?? Quote: Islam, like all religious expression, does not stand up to close scrutiny. Religious legends and stories are all hopelessly flawed with inconsistencies and absurdities. So what did the muslims say/do when you say that to them ?? Oh, you have not done that !! A heart the size of a peanut. In the muzzie caht room I did not say anything untoward about moh. Some people there I agreed with, some I disagreed with. I did not abuse anyone, despite getting atacked constantly. Some posters there were quite nice. A guy called dish in particular. As is in the real world, the leaders are intolerant. have a good afternoon both

Now what possible point would there be to debate someone on their faith? It is what one believes despite lack of evidence. If I believe that Mohammed received the Koran directly from God and read it despite being illiterate, then I do. If I don’t, then I don’t.

Oh, you have done that?
An ego the size of a house.

I have seen the many snide and sneering remarks you have made or encouraged towards Muslims and Islam in this forum. I read how you ask loaded questions (i.e. on Love : “so islam controls people how they are to love each other ?”) that are designed to accuse rather than to inquire with respect.

I believe this forum lost an opportunity to seek dialogue with Muslims which naïvely I expected to find enlightened practising Christians fostering, as fellow believers in faith. What I read was mostly hate fuelled rants on how evil Islam and all Muslims are, and from the very people who themselves believe in absurdities and who would just as easily condemn entire cultures to the fires of hell for their deeply held non-Christian beliefs.

I now don’t trust that Christians desire any kind of dialogue with Muslims because I believe that they are still embroiled in an ancient battle, the prize of which is to feed on the minds of seekers of religious truth. Put another way, I believe many Christians are in a turf war with Muslims. If that is the case, empathy towards, respect for and dialogue with Muslims would be anathema to them.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 5:04pm:

I now don’t trust that Christians desire any kind of dialogue with Muslims because I believe that they are still embroiled in an ancient battle, the prize of which is to feed on the minds of seekers of religious truth. Put another way, I believe many Christians are in a turf war with Muslims. If that is the case, empathy towards, respect for and dialogue with Muslims would be anathema to them.

Well said, Helian.

Yadda,

You seem to believe you are privy to ultimate truth (perhaps because a pastor has told you that Christians are in that privileged position). If all Muslims believed they had a right to murder non Muslims, there should be bodies piled up in the streets should there not?

I hope as a Christian you have abandoned your home and family to follow Jesus. Hopefully you have kids to abandon as that would make the sacrifice greater. I hope (if your parents were also Christians) that they abandoned you to follow Jesus. Would that not be following the letter of Christian scripture?

Didn't Jesus preach tolerance of other religions, but said he was the only way in to heaven?

So Christians aren't really supposed to foster hate, right? That whole love thy neighbour shindig.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 5:15pm:

Yadda, You seem to believe you are privy to ultimate truth (perhaps because a pastor has told you that Christians are in that privileged position). If all Muslims believed they had a right to murder non Muslims, there should be bodies piled up in the streets should there not? I hope as a Christian you have abandoned your home and family to follow Jesus. Hopefully you have kids to abandon as that would make the sacrifice greater. I hope (if your parents were also Christians) that they abandoned you to follow Jesus. Would that not be following the letter of Christian scripture?

helian,

I live in, and am influenced by the world.

I try to live a moral life, but i am flesh, and weak, and i certainly have faults.

I search for my God, and i thank him, for his righteousness, and his mercy.

I don't claim to know any 'ultimate truth', but i search for TRUTH.
....because i know that where TRUTH is, God is there also.



Proverbs 3:1
My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
2  For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
3  Let not mercy and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
4  So shalt thou find favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man.
5  Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6  In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

easel wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 5:19pm:

Didn't Jesus preach tolerance of other religions, but said he was the only way in to heaven? So Christians aren't really supposed to foster hate, right? That whole love thy neighbour shindig.

Easel,

Jesus said....

Matthew 5:38
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Matthew 5:43
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



I am not perfect.

I am not that 'strong', to walk perfectly.

Will my God forgive me?

I believe that that, depends upon what is in my heart.



Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.




I trust God, because i know that he is righteous, and merciful.

And what more can i ask,
....except that God is righteous, in his judgement of me???

If God's judgement of me is righteous, why can i complain?




Psalms 7:17
I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness: and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.


Psalms 25:7
Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.
8  Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
9  The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
10  All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
11  For thy name's sake, O LORD, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.
12  What man is he that feareth the LORD? him shall he teach in the way that he shall choose.

Quote:

39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil

What's your interpretation of that?

Also, there aren't many people who think they are evil, no matter what they do. Everyone thinks they are acting in the right. Or else they are sociopaths.

Yadda wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 5:32pm:

helian, I don't claim to know any 'ultimate truth', but i search for TRUTH. ....because i know that where TRUTH is, God is there also.

You mean you believe that where TRUTH is, God is there also.

Otherwise you'd already be privy to ultimate truth.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 6:32pm:

Yadda wrote on Dec 7th, 2008 at 5:32pm: helian, I don't claim to know any 'ultimate truth', but i search for TRUTH. ....because i know that where TRUTH is, God is there also. You mean you believe that where TRUTH is, God is there also. Otherwise you'd already be privy to ultimate truth.

helian,

No.

I said it right.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 5:15pm:

Yadda, You seem to believe you are privy to ultimate truth (perhaps because a pastor has told you that Christians are in that privileged position). If all Muslims believed they had a right to murder non Muslims, there should be bodies piled up in the streets should there not? I hope as a Christian you have abandoned your home and family to follow Jesus. Hopefully you have kids to abandon as that would make the sacrifice greater. I hope (if your parents were also Christians) that they abandoned you to follow Jesus. Would that not be following the letter of Christian scripture?

helian,

I can across this critique of a book.

The book is 'The Muslim Next Door', written by a Stanford graduate, Sumbul Ali-Karamali.

The author of the book is an American muslim woman.



On the one hand, there is a muslim woman who in her book is seeking to reassure ppl who know very little about ISLAM.

On the other hand the critic, 'Kamala', presents some information, and questions, which the author of the book did not address.

As i say, the page link [below] is a critique of the book, and it is critical of the 'impression' the book tries to convey to non-muslims, about ISLAM.

You may, or may not, be prepared to view and assess such information.

I hope that you will.




Revuse.....

"Her book, The Muslim Next Door: The Qur'an, the Media, and that Veil thing, is in part an effort to avert a "clash of ignorances" because the "Western perception of Islam has become an evil caricature of reality." As she writes, "moderate Muslims try to chip away a great wall of media misinformation."

The book aims to "clear away the misconceptions about Islam," explaining why these "tall tales" continue to "flourish" and "persist."
Ali-Karamali seems well suited to write such a book. A Muslim of Indian descent, she has a law degree from the University of California, Davis in addition to her undergraduate degree from Stanford, and a graduate degree in Islamic law from the University of London. Yet she's all-American: she grew up in California, she's married, she's a mother, and she practiced corporate law in San Francisco.

The book has received praise from some big names.

Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Professor of Islamic Law at the UCLA School of Law, calls it "one of the best three books published on the Islamic faith in the English language since the tragedy of 9/11." It's "refreshing in its honesty" and "consistently reliable." (A web site run by El Fadl's "Students, Supporters, and Friends" describes him as "the most important intellectual in Islam and Islamic law today." Among other honors, he was "appointed by President George W. Bush as a commissioner on the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.")

Reza Aslan, the "internationally acclaimed" author of No God but God and guest on the Jon Stewart show, calls her "beautiful book" a "corrective" against the "misinformation about Islam" that "most Americans are bombarded with."

....The book's back cover asks, "What if you could sit down at a kitchen table with an American Muslim mom and ask anything you wanted about her faith and religious practice?" In the book's acknowledgments, she writes: "And to everyone who ever asked me a well-intentioned question about Islam: this book is a result of your desire to cross cultures." "
http://revuse.wetpaint.com/page/Ten+Questions+for+the+Muslim+Next+Door?t=anon

And now a word from Arthur Schopenhauer, one of the world’s most pessimistic philosophers, who rejected the existence of a loving god. Who embraced with zeal the first of Buddhism’s first noble truth that all life is suffering.


Quote:

As a reliable compass for orientating yourself in life nothing is more useful than to accustom yourself to regarding this world as a place of atonement, a sort of penal colony. When you have done this you will order your expectations of life according to the nature of things and no longer regard the calamities, sufferings, torments and miseries of life as something irregular and not to be expected but will find them entirely in order, well knowing that each of us is here being punished for his existence and each in his own particular way. This outlook will enable us to view the so-called imperfections of the majority of men, i.e., their moral and intellectual shortcomings and the facial appearance resulting there from, without surprise and certainly without indignation: for we shall always bear in mind where we are and consequently regard every man first and foremost as a being who exists only as a consequence of his culpability and whose life is an expiation of the crime of being born. The conviction that the world, and therefore man too, is something which really ought not to exist is in fact calculated to instil in us indulgence towards one another: for what can be expected of beings placed in such a situation as we are? From this point of view one might indeed consider that the appropriate form of address between man and man ought to be, not monsieur, sir, but fellow sufferer, compagnon de miseres. However strange this may sound it corresponds to the nature of the case, makes us see other men in a true light and reminds us of what are the most necessary of all things: tolerance, patience, forbearance and compassion, which each of us needs and which each of us therefore owes.

The great irony of his tone is that although it rejects the notion of a compassionate god, it is also in itself perhaps a powerful argument for the need to live by the very ideals which theologies of compassion have arrogated to themselves.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 13^th, 2008 at 10:56am:

He seems to very much embrace the christian idea of original sin, Helian. That extract seemed to have far greater parallels to christian philosophy than any buddhist philosophy I have read. Many christians focus much more on the "wrathful" god, than the "loving" god.

And focussed most particularly on condemnation of others as opposed to themselves for whom god then manifests as a being of mercy.

Schopenhauer suggests no divine release from suffering (as he considers whatever driving principle there is in the universe to be essentially a malignant evil).

He perceives life as a travesty from which there can be no divine redemption at all, least of all manifested as a supernatural reward for a noble life with more life.

If one sees a god in his machine, it is one of incalculable depravity (and what of theology if in fact the god factor is evil in design?). To alleviate this suffering, Schopenhauer suggests one should cultivate a deep sense of civility towards others (inasmuch as we need it ourselves, we should offer it towards others) without the need, expectation or belief that by doing so we are executing the will of a compassionate god.

muso wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 5:10pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7th, 2008 at 5:04pm: I now don’t trust that Christians desire any kind of dialogue with Muslims because I believe that they are still embroiled in an ancient battle, the prize of which is to feed on the minds of seekers of religious truth. Put another way, I believe many Christians are in a turf war with Muslims. If that is the case, empathy towards, respect for and dialogue with Muslims would be anathema to them. Well said, Helian.

Yes well said. These are the two most aggressive religious powers on the planet. I know which one I am more wary of, though I would balk at either one giving my child ethical guidance.

locutius wrote on Dec 15^th, 2008 at 10:43am:

muso wrote on Dec 7th, 2008 at 5:10pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7th, 2008 at 5:04pm: I now don’t trust that Christians desire any kind of dialogue with Muslims because I believe that they are still embroiled in an ancient battle, the prize of which is to feed on the minds of seekers of religious truth. Put another way, I believe many Christians are in a turf war with Muslims. If that is the case, empathy towards, respect for and dialogue with Muslims would be anathema to them. Well said, Helian. Yes well said. These are the two most aggressive religious powers on the planet. I know which one I am more wary of, though I would balk at either one giving my child ethical guidance.

And if that’s the case, then why should we trust dialogue to be led by the religious, when even the Pope is inclined to take a shot at the ancient enemy of Christendom?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 5:15pm:

Yadda, You seem to believe you are privy to ultimate truth (perhaps because a pastor has told you that Christians are in that privileged position). If all Muslims believed they had a right to murder non Muslims, there should be bodies piled up in the streets should there not?

No because Islam is about obtaining government OVER non-believers. It is not about killing them all - no sir. So its about taking power, either through the slowly slowly method or with terror - but getting more power for Islamic government. Its not about indiscriminate killing.


Quote:

I hope as a Christian you have abandoned your home and family to follow Jesus. Hopefully you have kids to abandon as that would make the sacrifice greater. I hope (if your parents were also Christians) that they abandoned you to follow Jesus. Would that not be following the letter of Christian scripture?e]

No, it wouldnt.

Christianity has been used and abused hardcore.

The stuff you get at church isn't what is in the Bible, nor are the things priests/reverends/pastors tell you to do Christian.

God is not a business, no one has a monopoly on it, nor can anyone alive comprehend it in its' entirety.

Quote:

God is not a business, no one has a monopoly on it, nor can anyone alive comprehend it in its' entirety.

I can. It's all baloney. And it's easy to comprehend the entirety of baloney.

You can comprehend religion but you can't comprehend God.

Here's something about Jesus though;

He said the only way to the Father, assuming God, Heaven etc, is through him.

How did he fail to take in to account lost tribes in the jungle? Are they going to Hell for never being able to be given the word of Jesus?

I doubt it. Why would God instantly condemn people?

Quote:

Why would God instantly condemn people?

Well that is easy to answer Easel.

You see, there was this guy made of dust, and a chick made from bone, and the chick met a talking snake, who told her to eat some magic fruit, and she got into dirt boy's ear, and they had a nibble of the fruit, so now we are all condemned to eternal torture provided by our loving creator, unless we follow the teachings of a zombie guy who they couldn't kill.

It's pretty straightforward when you think about it. :o

I consider the Bible to be of a more allegorical nature.

Serpent/snake/satan = evil = temptation = control = selfishness.

Easy to compare that to certain branches of authority.

Now in regards to the loaves and fishes miracle, how about this angle:

Heard that saying give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime?

What if Jesus actually taught a town of 5000 how to be reliant on themselves rather than having to go to market or buy off the king/nobles whatever.

He could have done this by teaching them to make nets out of grasses/reeds and how to make crude flour for dough/bread by using the seeds from the plants and grinding them up.

That doesn't sound as cool as turning a couple of fish and pieces of bread in to enough to feed thousands though.

easel wrote on Jan 18^th, 2009 at 2:35pm:

You can comprehend religion but you can't comprehend God. Here's something about Jesus though; He said the only way to the Father, assuming God, Heaven etc, is through him. How did he fail to take in to account lost tribes in the jungle? Are they going to Hell for never being able to be given the word of Jesus? I doubt it. Why would God instantly condemn people?

There is no God.

easel wrote on Jan 18^th, 2009 at 2:58pm:

I consider the Bible to be of a more allegorical nature. Serpent/snake/satan = evil = temptation = control = selfishness. Easy to compare that to certain branches of authority. Now in regards to the loaves and fishes miracle, how about this angle: Heard that saying give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime? What if Jesus actually taught a town of 5000 how to be reliant on themselves rather than having to go to market or buy off the king/nobles whatever. He could have done this by teaching them to make nets out of grasses/reeds and how to make crude flour for dough/bread by using the seeds from the plants and grinding them up. That doesn't sound as cool as turning a couple of fish and pieces of bread in to enough to feed thousands though.

Response.....

2 Timothy 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.






Was what Jesus claimed  what John the Baptist claimed here [below], a fact, a declaration of God's potency?

Or just an 'allegory' ?

Matthew 3:8
Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9  And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.





A lot of ppl today have questions.

Q.
If our God is so powerful why doesn't he intervene in the world, in the affairs of man?

Q.
Why doesn't our God reveal himself?

Q.
Why does my God, allow evil?

A.
Throughout much of the Bible there is an admonition, that [all] men do evil things, because they have no fear of God.


We walk this earth today, and many men scoff,
...and confidently say that, 'God' does not reveal himself, because God does not exist.

And yet in our journey here, so few of us consider the question,
....Who, and what *is* being revealed,in our lives ???

Hint, hint, hint!!!!...

Is it God?

Or is it SATAN?







easel,

I agree, that many of the stories within the Bible have an allegorical aspect.

Q.
Do you believe that the story of Jesus resurrection after 3 days merely was an allegory?

It is clear today, that some ppl who call themselves Christian, don't believe that Jesus is alive.

Indeed many ppl who call themselves Christian, are not even confident that he was a real person!

And there are many ppl in the Christian church today, who don't even believe that there is a God !!!!




For me, God is real.


Psalms 25:14
The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.


And God has said that he is able to raise up the dead.

Q.
Can he?

A.
I believe God.




Jeremiah 17:5
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.


Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24  Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31  Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:


The words of that last Romans verse, sounds a lot like the world of man today, doesn't it???     :-?


Seek your God, and his righteousness.

Jesus was cool, and I believe in God, but either he was too short sighted, or the Bible was too short sighted, for me to believe he was super divine, like sure he was divine, but aren't we all?

Also, didn't Jesus mention he was born of bondage? Bondage to what, satan? Surely a divine being wouldn't be born in to bondage of evil. I think he just escaped the clutches of evil and purified his soul.

God can do whatever he/she/it wants, by definition, it is God.

Yes Yadda, I believe satan is the dominant influence in this world, in the spiritual sense of evil, power, greed, corruption. That doesn't mean I don't believe a force called satan does not exist outside the internal struggle with good v evil.

Also, have you checked out Acts of the Apostles, after Jesus died? These guys seem to go straight against everything Jesus taught in regards to some aspects of their behaviour, and they were the ones who spent the most time with him.

easel wrote on Jan 18^th, 2009 at 2:35pm:

.....He said the only way to the Father, assuming God, Heaven etc, is through him. How did he fail to take in to account lost tribes in the jungle? Are they going to Hell for never being able to be given the word of Jesus? I doubt it. Why would God instantly condemn people?

easel,

You are incorrect here.

This is dealt with in the new Testament [by Paul].

Read your bible.

Yadda can you give me a verse to look up?

Also, is it recorded that Jesus was born in to bondage?

easel wrote on Jan 19^th, 2009 at 12:32pm:

Jesus was cool, and I believe in God, but either he was too short sighted, or the Bible was too short sighted, for me to believe he was super divine, like sure he was divine, but aren't we all?

easel,

How lost you are!

This is the exact lie, the serpent told Eve, and wanted men to believe.

And of course, that story was an allegory, wasn't it?




Quote:

Also, didn't Jesus mention he was born of bondage? Bondage to what, satan? Surely a divine being wouldn't be born in to bondage of evil. I think he just escaped the clutches of evil and purified his soul.

easel,

Again, you are incorrect here.

This is not said in the New Testament.

Where do you get such thoughts from?

Jesus was born, of a woman.

God became flesh.

Read your bible.


Hebrews 4:13
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
14  Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15  For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.





Quote:

God can do whatever he/she/it wants, by definition, it is God. Yes Yadda, I believe satan is the dominant influence in this world, in the spiritual sense of evil, power, greed, corruption. That doesn't mean I don't believe a force called satan does not exist outside the internal struggle with good v evil.

So SATAN does not exist?

Non-one can see God either.

The wisdom of human logic,
....."Because I can't see radio waves, they don't exist!"

That is the wisdom of men.






Quote:

Also, have you checked out Acts of the Apostles, after Jesus died? These guys seem to go straight against everything Jesus taught in regards to some aspects of their behaviour, and they were the ones who spent the most time with him.

Even while Jesus was among them, Jesus disciples could not help but reveal their nature, their human failings.


Luke 9:43
And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
44  Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.
45  But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.
46  Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.


Mark 9:30
And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
31  For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
32  But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
33  And he came to Capernaum: and being in the house he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
34  But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves, who should be the greatest.



easel,

These [above] are people who were born in bondage to the world.

i.e.
You and me!



Some advice i hope that you will take.

Don't listen to stories, from priests, or leaders of men, or 'heroes'.

Don't seek spiritual gurus, or spiritual leaders among men.

If you really want to understand the nature of our God, and indeed, the nature of men,
Read the Bible.



easel,

There is an old quip among Christians,

"The Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible."


In my experience it is true.

easel wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 7:37am:

[ re........How did he fail to take in to account lost tribes in the jungle?......This is dealt with in the new Testament [by Paul].]  Yadda can you give me a verse to look up?

No.



easel,

From my perspective, you clearly have many misconceptions about Jews, Israel, the Bible, the person of Jesus, the Christian faith, God, SATAN, et al.
.....[as far as, to how these topics are explored and revealed within the Bible.]

Instead of spouting all of your misconceptions, and seeking my clarification, why don't you go to the source yourself?

i.e.
If you are truly interested in exploring these topics, from a spiritual standpoint, read the bible yourself.




easel,

Here is a verse for you 'to look up',


Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
7  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
9  Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10  Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?


Want to know the TRUTH?

Don't seek TRUTH from men.

Read the Bible.

If you seek God's spirit, he will come into you, and guide you.


Alternatively, you can dwell with, and seek, the spirit of this world, and immerse yourself in his promises [i.e. his lies].






We all make a choice.


1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Hi Easel,
Yes in a few ways it could be said jesus was born into bondage.

1/As a Jew, he was bound by the law. ie 10 commandments, plus all the other laws in the OT.
It could be said, he was bound by the weight of those laws?

2/ As a man, he was bound by his own mortality.



"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. "

Romans 8:20,21


Jesus did not have a "free" life.

I can recall a passage I read within the last week about Jesus admitting he was born in to bondage.


Quote:

This is the exact lie, the serpent told Eve, and wanted men to believe.

Then why did Jesus say everything he has done we can do also? That would imply we are all equally divine as Jesus, potential is just not reached.


Quote:

So SATAN does not exist?

I didn't write that, I was implying what you and I call satan, a lot of people will refer to as a struggle with morality.

Yes I do believe satan exists, in spirit form, and easily in the form of flesh, ie someone tempting you to shoplift with them, clearly, from a Christian perspective, temptation of evil/satan/what have you.

easel wrote on Jan 20^th, 2009 at 4:21pm:

I can recall a passage I read within the last week about Jesus admitting he was born in to bondage. Quote: This is the exact lie, the serpent told Eve, and wanted men to believe. Then why did Jesus say everything he has done we can do also? That would imply we are all equally divine as Jesus, potential is just not reached.

easel,

I can't walk on water, and i can't heal sick people.

Jesus said we could do such things, if we were 'perfect'.

If we had a perfect faith?







And we are indeed children of the promise [of God].

When we are perfected, we will be like him [Jesus].

But we wait on our God.

How?

By prayer and meditation on God's word, and by doing good where we can.

I am a sinner, i am waiting for God, i too hope to be redeemed.


Romans 8:21
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22  For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23  And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.


1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.


Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9  By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10  For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11  Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12  Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13  These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14  For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15  And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16  But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.



The scripture says we [God's ppl] should seek God and wait on God, and separate ourselves from the evil in world.

Lamentations 3:25
The LORD is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him.
26  It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the LORD.

Isaiah 30:18
And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.







Quote:

[quote]So SATAN does not exist?

I didn't write that, I was implying what you and I call satan, a lot of people will refer to as a struggle with morality.

Yes I do believe satan exists, in spirit form, and easily in the form of flesh, ie someone tempting you to shoplift with them, clearly, from a Christian perspective, temptation of evil/satan/what have you.

[/quote]

I am sorry.

I misunderstood your words.