What if billions of people are wrong?

[JupiterJones]

Maybe I should add some about why it matters to me. Among the several bones I have to pick with Christian Theology, or my limited understanding of it is the notion of original sin, that man is sinful by nature. The presence of sin in the world is one of those paradox points where deep synthesis is possible, reconciling opposits, but everything is screwball is man is basically sinful. The Romans quote sounds to me like an understanding of absolute truth, goodness is coded genetically as a feature of humanity. And that's what I think is the case.

Moonbeam,
You have a better grasp of these truths than many Christians. The problem with Original Sin is that most people are influenced by the Catholic view. Catholicism is an extra-biblical religion. The Biblical view of Original Sin can be viewed as follows (in brief):

Original Sin does not refer to the first (i.e., Adam's) sin. Rather, it refers to the result of that first sin. Because of Adam's choice, Sin entered into the world. Man's whole nature (genetically) has been corrupted so that all men are predisposed toward, and guilty of, sin. This is what is meant by original sin. The guilt of Sin (big S) is because of choices to sin (small s). Were we actually guilty of Adam's sin then children who died before reaching the Age of Accountability would be damned.

This being said, God has written his law on our hearts. Every sane person has a basic understanding of right and wrong. Why then do so many people choose wrong? The thief knows that to steal is wrong. Just ask any who had a partner cheat him out of his share. Why then does he steal? It is because of a failure to resist temptation. The fruits of theft are more appealing to him than the fruits of honesty, thus he chooses to do wrong. This is his sin nature and is the result of Original Sin.

Don

 

[krakken]

<< Maybe I should add some about why it matters to me. Among the several bones I have to pick with Christian Theology, or my limited understanding of it is the notion of original sin, that man is sinful by nature. The presence of sin in the world is one of those paradox points where deep synthesis is possible, reconciling opposits, but everything is screwball is man is basically sinful. The Romans quote sounds to me like an understanding of absolute truth, goodness is coded genetically as a feature of humanity. And that's what I think is the case. >>




According to my overall understanding of the Bible the point is this:

Sin is error, When the first man sinned although he was perfect, the error was passed along, like a dented pie pan, something imperfect cannot produce something perfect.
Now, man, created in Gods image, that is not his physical likeness but with his qualities of love, justice, etc. CHOSE to sin, just as one can choose to make a mistake. Since God had promised death for the mistake, it was given and of course passed on.
Now, as having a conscience must be trained, and must be maintained, that is also part of how humans have acted. Conscience is that which tells us what is morally acceptable, but MUST be trained.
So, being so many generations away from perfection (that is Adam) we ultimately are more imperfect than any generation before (now, taking into account aging and life expectancy we may live longer, BUT, we are further from perfection still, and it can be seen in how people treat each other, wars etc.)

Does that make sense? While we may train to be good, our conscience can affect our actions, We are imperfect. Not that nothing we do matters, but we all 'miss the mark' (as sin is translated from either Greek or Hebrew, I forget which)
This means that we've all got dents, even though we may train to make them less visible.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well I hope linuxboy adds to the confusion on that one too, PastorDon. Let me add some questions for anybody who care to answer. What was Adam's sin and how did it lead to consequences. How did Adam's actions lead to genetic corruption. I don't believe that by the way. We have this paradox. The garden was perfect until Eve picked the apple and Adam ate of it. The fact that it was the fruit of the tree of knowledge has got to be important here somewhere, I'm pretty sure. I think I can explain what this allegory means rationally in a non religious way, but I see no way to make sense of it religiously. It seems to be to be the point where ancient thinkers ran into a wall, understood what happened maybe on an unconscious level, or delibertly concealed a deeper understanding in favor of a God explanation. Anyway if you find the question difficult, it won't surprise me.

 

[krakken]

<<
Moonbeam,
You have a better grasp of these truths than many Christians. The problem with Original Sin is that most people are influenced by the Catholic view. Catholicism is an extra-biblical religion.
Don >>




Good point

 

[Moonbeam]

kraken, my problem with your argument is that while you have no problem maintaining that something imperfect can't make something perfect, you have no problem saying that something perfect created something imperfect. If we choose imperfection why not turn around and choose perfection. Back a while ago Skylark said there is no cabbage and no crossing. I think that point has merit here.

 

[krakken]

<< kraken, my problem with your argument is that while you have no problem maintaining that something imperfect can't make something perfect, you have no problem saying that something perfect created something imperfect. If we choose imperfection why not turn around and choose perfection. Back a while ago Skylark said there is no cabbage and no crossing. I think that point has merit here. >>




Who said something perfect created something imperfect? I said that the first human pair Chose to disobey, thus missing the mark and became imperfect, therefore they could not have possibly produced perfect human offspring. In the same way we cannot choose to become perfect. The broken pan cannot un-dent itself, because it has a maker, only its maker can un-dent the pan.

I don't know what you mean about cabbage and crossing, I didn't read that post.

 

[JupiterJones]

it is impossible for the ancinet people to remember the flood because the flood supposedly killed them all!

Chickenhead,
The story is passed down from the survivors. None of the flood legends speak of everyone dying.

Don

 

[krakken]

now don't go on about the pan not being able to dent itself either, you know what the analogy means.
maybe a better analogy would be someone who gets his leg or some other body part removed somehow, he cannot replace it even though its in his power to remove it..

 

[Moonbeam]

God who is perfect created the first pair who were imperfect. That doesn't compute. So God created the first pair who were perfect and passed the buck? Why would a perfect person choose sin? What's the point of trying to better yourself if you got to the point of perfection and then truned around and choose imperfection again. Somewhere in this somebody usually throws in the devil, but that just backs the argument up as to where he came from. The cabbage thing refers to Skylarks reminder that in other traditions, imperfection is an illusion.

 

[krakken]

<< God who is perfect created the first pair who were imperfect. That doesn't compute. So God created the first pair who were perfect and passed the buck? Why would a perfect person choose sin? What's the point of trying to better yourself if you got to the point of perfection and then truned around and choose imperfection again. Somewhere in this somebody usually throws in the devil, but that just backs the argument up as to where he came from. The cabbage thing refers to Skylarks reminder that in other traditions, imperfection is an illusion. >>




You have to take it as a whole. You can't pick and choose. God creates perfect humans. Says, don't eat from the tree, a test of obedience, part of remaining sin free, or 'staying on the mark'
So, what happens, whether you beleive in Satan or not, is they DO eat from the tree, an act of disobedience, they become sinners, they have missed the mark of being perfect, God didn't create them imperfect, they disobeyed.

Now if you throw in trying to reach perfection, that is a whole other ballgame. the POINT is, that once one is able to attain perfection (nevermind how, thats a whole other bible discussion) there is no reason why one would choose to sin again, but it's possible. The only thing that will be different is that there will be precedent and no need to show all over again how man is not fit to guide his own step, sin = death and always has.
Now the deal with Devil, it's easy to just say its made up, but think about your own question of WHY, why choose imperfection? Why out of the blue choose to disobey?
Because, the truth is that it all started with a question of power. WHO is fit to rule the universe? WHO decides what is best? Satan the Devil challenged that, put God to the test, said man doesn't need God's guidance. How have things turned out? Are we at world peace yet? Why is it that we are forever questing to live forever? Could it be that was what we were made for?
Now the whole thing about the devil not existing, I know you won't accept me saying that it is that very idea that promotes the Devil's aim, but another thing can be said, either way, the point about sin and imperfection stands.

I don't know, thats the best I can think of right now. It's really back and forth that is best when talking about this type of thing, not forums.

 

[petrek]

In re"You're forgetting about something. Any thought relies on multiple other thoughts/memories. Without these the thought loses its significance. Once written down, the thought has little or no meaning. In order to make a language approach an objective way of communication, everything has to be strictly defined."

I think not.


In re"Especially with non-physical elements ('spiritual' stuff etc.), this is impossible."

Again, dependent on time spent pondering the concepts.


In re"How do you know? Metaphysics again, eh?"

No, logic.


In re"BTW, why do you think there's just one supernatural being? Why not multiple? Or none? What convinced you?"

Israel.

 

[krakken]

<< Where do people who died, never heard of God so cannot believe, go? Explain to me what happened to probably a couple hundred of millions of people from past cultures extinct go? >>



I don't know if skylark is still reading but, it doesn't seem to me that this question was answered accurately by anyone in this forum either.

You are right, this is something that needs to be addressed, something that people tend to forget and beg off with answers about heaven and hell and people judged as good as possible. but the truth is there is no way to tell how a person would re-act unless they get the chance to.
The only says a specific number will go to heaven and hell, the word for hell (in Hebrew and Greek) is translated as the common grave, that is death, nothing, and described as 'sleep' So to say someone would be judged without a chance to get to know the truth is wrong.

The Bible does however talk about a hope for resurrection, that is a raising up of the dead. That is when ones will have the chance to learn about their means of salvation.
THink about it, why would God create humans, tell them to fill the earth, only for them to die and go to hell or heaven. The truth is God will fulfill his purpose, that is for humans to live forever on earth, the problem was that his soveregnty was questioned.
Does that make sense? the whole resurrection thing can be found in the bible, both old and new testament, one example is Abraham, another is Jesus and his miracles, but you really have to study it on your own to get the full picture.

 

[petrek]

In re" Where do people who died, never heard of God so cannot believe, go? Explain to me what happened to probably a couple hundred of millions of people from past cultures extinct go?"

Currently they are in hell, and will in the future be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will suffer for eternity.

 

[krakken]

reLake of fire and suffering eternaly

Unless you mean suffering eternally as ceasing to be for eterninty I have to say that I disagree with that.

There is no reason why they should suffer eternally, the Bible doesn't say this. Lake of Fire refers to the Ultimate punishment, that is Death with no chance of Resurrection. It is not torture, but ceasing to be.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 says the dead are unconscious and therefore cannot have eternal torment.
It's the same reason Rev 20:14 describes death and Hades (that is the common grave) as being hurled into the lake of fire. They'd be done away with, they are not beings to suffer, they are things to be destroyed.
(that is, it's describing how God will rid the world of death)
Then vs 15 goes on and says that certain people would go there to, they would be destroyed.

 

[trippy1976]

There've been bigger mistakes. Even if religion were a mistake. You can't blame religions for stupid people either. Things like 9/11 or the crusades weren't the end result of a religion, they were the end result of crazy idiots. And... there's only a few billion people on Earth. You won't find 'billions' of Muslims.

Sometimes it's easier not to believe than it is to believe. I personally believe the end results of religions are positive. I mean, a group of Red Sox fans that bomb a Yankees game to prove the Red Sox are a better baseball team are going about it wrong. There's already a mechanism in place to prove that. It's very similar with these extreme religious dorks. Flying planes into stuff or blowing up your neighbor makes just about as much snese.

 

[petrek]

In re"There is no reason why they should suffer eternally, the Bible doesn't say this. Lake of Fire refers to the Ultimate punishment, that is Death with no chance of Resurrection. It is not torture, but ceasing to be."


"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Revelation 20:10, 12-15 KJ Bible

(PS look at the context were in the preacher makes the statement "but the dead know not any thing")

 

[Spooner]

This is the longest damn thread I've ever seen.

I just wanted to be a part of it

 

[krakken]

<< In re"There is no reason why they should suffer eternally, the Bible doesn't say this. Lake of Fire refers to the Ultimate punishment, that is Death with no chance of Resurrection. It is not torture, but ceasing to be."


"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Revelation 20:10, 12-15 KJ Bible

(PS look at the context were in the preacher makes the statement "but the dead know not any thing") >>




Look, the context of Ecclesiastes 9 is that Solomon is explaining the how important it is to do Gods will right now. Because both wicked and good come to die and the dead cannot do anything, there is no other time to make a name for yourself.

Ps 146:3,4 explains teh same thing, Prais Jah, NOW, because when one dies his thoughts perish. His 'spirit' or life force, like electricity, goes out. He is no longer existing.

Now the quote from Rev, just shows, Lake of Fire is a Destruction, not a torment, Death and Hell are cast into the lake of fire, destroyed.
It is the second death for people in that those cast into the lake of fire have no chance for resurrection.

 

[Moonbeam]

I get the outline krakken and I appreciate your effort. Maybe the nature of my questions aren't really clear to you because you have accepted the story at some level that I can't. I hate to trouble you more. I figured my question was hard, but hadn't concidered it's essential nature would be so difficult to convey. The critical question, I guess, is why do perfect humans choose to disobey. To simply say they chose to doesn't cut it for me. Why the hell did they choose to? Why? How can what is perfect suddenly become imperfect. The notion that they were tested doesn't make sense either. As perfect beings they should have been at one with God, images of God. Look at them and you see God. They wouldn't know where they left off and God began. Their state of consciousness would be unfragmented by a separate sense of self. They would be conscious only of God.

So for me to make some kind of sense out of this, we have to look at this issue as one that involves the comming of human consciousness, the capacity for self awareness, to a special band of chimpanzees. How do a bunch of animals that are without sin, whose perception of the world is the content of their consciousnesses, they are what they experience, become evil or capable of psychosis, capable of separation from God or unity of perception. The questions are to my mind huge and largly unexplored and I think for a reason. They lead to some unsettling ideas. We know that we are animals. Some of us think we are anyway. I'm particularly interested in those who do, because they are the ones without religious resource when It comes to dealing with separation, a subject, I think, the atheist supresses precisely because he IS without resource.

So we know we are animals, capable of agressive violence, in self protection, perhaps tending there in mate selection, etc. But is any of that evil. I don't think so. In evil their is sadism, intentional cruelty, excess, madness, treachery, comparison evaluation, status seeking, self agrandizment of all kinds. Where did that come from?

I think it has its roots in the origin of language, the naming of things. The tree of knowledge, the separation of the infinite one into named parts first of all, and then the abstraction into duality, the good the bad, the loveable the unloveable, the acceptable the unacceptable etc.

When we told our children not what the do is wrong, but what they are that is evil, we split them in two. Instead of it being ok to be who we are, we discovered it isn't ok big time. You can get hurt big time for being yourself. Love something, enjoy some fun at the wrong time and bam. Express a need for love to mommy or daddy at the wrong time and wammo. No, we get tough quick, or we die. We either die to ourselves quick or we die physically, or fear we will. And all of that gets pushed down and forgotten, suppressed, to come out suddenly as violence, evil, when anything threatens to spark a memory.

So what I see in the origin of evil thing is that people are born perfect, just like Adam and Eve, only to be infected with a sense of self hate through the put down power of language. Thereby do we become fragments of our totality, the rest hidden from ourselves, loathed and despised, the beautiful gods we could have been.

 

[Moonbeam]

Jeepers guys, imagine if you told that kind of stuff to your kids.

 

[linuxboy]

You have to take it as a whole. You can't pick and choose.

Ah, but the only problem with that is that totality cannot, by definition be contained within a syntaxic system such a language. Thought fragments. If I am to take a totality, that is the state, where there is no cabbage, nor awareness that one even has cabbage or that it is in some way necessary for crossing (what is still irrelevant since that is the nature of totality), to use MB's analogy. Truth values are cetainly necessary if we are to live in this world, but they do not necessarily point to anything encompassing a Reality past thought. Therefore, one does need to take it as a whole, you're right, but at that point one cannot claim any sort of epistemic justification for a method since wholeness cannot be separated. If you meant that one needs to accept the original premises in your system in order to arrive at the conclusions, I remind you that we are back to the problem of epistemic circularity and the arbitrary selection of original premises based largely on temperament. What I keep trying to push in these threads is the importance of going past that. Of going past languge. Of being. Or in your world, of receiving grace, through a concept of faith, and obtaining salvation. In that state, one finds that core which is human and which allows us to be that which we truly are.

Some spend time arguing the seeming nonsensical position of a worldview, claiming they recognize the problem of circularity (like MB summarized this point by invoking Sokrates, we cannot know UNLESS there is no fragmentation) and even agree that it is unavoidable while all the while asserting that science has, without a doubt, proved the logical existence or non-existence of such and such a process or such and such a phenomenon. That is possible ONLY by acceptiong that this has any value, and selection of value for the most part get us back to circularity. All the same, psychologicall certainty and assertion and refutals, rebuttals, "prrofs", etc abound. Some go as far as saying, "Oh I cannot stand it with your ignorance, Your level of hebetude surely is astounding in this day and age" (for references, just read this thread) this claiming something of which they are so certain that surely, the rest of of must be erroneous and have unsound and invalid methods. Well, I say BOLLOCKS.

Show some humility, dig inside, help out a friend, don't get drunk to cope and instead call that old friend who may be in need of a smile. Spending time in abstractions, the intellectual forgets us folk who are in pain, who cry, who, just as that person, must go out and immerse ourselves in this world instead of avoiding it with out intellect. The elitism espoused by the likes of Aristotle and his theoreia as the highest virtue is nothing but BOLLOCKS. Sure, you may have the most modern version and position of science, you may think you know something, you may even claim that you don't know intellectually while emotionally, you have a need to hold on, to grasp at something which you think you have rejected but which only digs deeper into your subconscious and become a vile, uncaring thing.

Development as a human and as a person is not in some way of knowledge, closed to most, but as a member of the human species, as a fellow wanderer and as one trying to make sense of existense. When I see another crying, I am tempted to use 150 years of psychoanalysis, psychology, clinical psychiatry, medicine, sicnece, theology, etc to fix the problem as a specialist. That is BOLLOCKS. The only thing I can do is admit ignorance, give that person a hug, and ultimately sit and experience what is is to be here right now. That is similar to totality.

I guess I'm starting to rant here or at least babble (as often occurs). The point is that those of you who feel indignation should look into it. Those of us holding a position should remember to disclaim our ideas with circularity and look, listen, and be mindful of who we are and who others are. This is done not for the benefit of those who some call ignorant, but for our own benefit, that we may remember that the path to compassion and understanding lies in the hard way of acknolweding ourselves and who we are, with all of our imperfections. Hugging others is easy, it's when we have to hug ourselves that we start traveling the narrow road.

Let's bear this in mind, not intellectually as, "oh this linuxboy crazie is just spouting more psychobabble, guess I'll read it, get to the point where it doesn't make sense and/or is incompatible with my view, and move on. yep. that sure is easy" but as we are, as humans, struggling to make sense of this crazy and sometimes incomprehensible world we live in.

and now, let's resume the flaming (hey, being realistic here)


Cheers !

 

[krakken]

<< I get the outline krakken and I appreciate your effort. Maybe the nature of my questions aren't really clear to you because you have accepted the story at some level that I can't. I hate to trouble you more. I figured my question was hard, but hadn't concidered it's essential nature would be so difficult to convey. The critical question, I guess, is why do perfect humans choose to disobey. To simply say they chose to doesn't cut it for me. Why the hell did they choose to? Why? How can what is perfect suddenly become imperfect. The notion that they were tested doesn't make sense either. As perfect beings they should have been at one with God, images of God. Look at them and you see God. They wouldn't know where they left off and God began. Their state of consciousness would be unfragmented by a separate sense of self. They would be conscious only of God.


>>


That is a good question. But you are missing the point. They chose for a reason, the reason was that they didn't accept that God was sovereign over them. They chose to beleive that there was a consciousness above or to the side of God, being separate, equal; that is not possible.
The deal with being like God and not knowing where God left off and all that, thats a little presumptuous. There is no way you could derive that from the Bible, as the Bible distinctly shows man was created to make decisions on his own . This is clearly shown in the placing of the tree as a test.


Now, the whole, being perfect and all that, I don't know. That is really messed up, because it just blind you from the truth. You mentioned before that you are blind, but think about it. Isn't that your choice? When you talk about being one with God and being perfect born, isn't that the same thing Satan promised Eve she'd get when she ate the fruit? THat she'd have the knowledge of GOd, to know good and bad.
Adam and Eve weren't part of God, they were created separately, just as YOU are separate from your parents and have the ability to choose what you do.

 

[Moonbeam]

But, in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.

 

[linuxboy]

That is a good question. But you are missing the point. They chose for a reason, the reason was that they didn't accept that God was sovereign over them. They chose to beleive that there was a consciousness above or to the side of God, being separate, equal; that is not possible.
The deal with being like God and not knowing where God left off and all that, thats a little presumptuous. There is no way you could derive that from the Bible, as the Bible distinctly shows man was created to make decisions on his own . This is clearly shown in the placing of the tree as a test.

I really like this explanation, but here's why I have trouble with it:

Suppose that they did have free will and choice, why in the bloody tarnations would they go outside out perfection? Just because they were curious? What would drive them. In a state of perfection, why would the original Adam move from God?

Same with theodicy. Why in the bloody tarnations would YHWH allow an evil son, or any sort of evil. Is it because those beings supposedly too have free will? Why in the world would THEY go outside of perfection? Because man is, by defintion, eternally at war with the divine? But see, there is no cause for going outside of what is bliss ! An animal in bliss will do nothing and die before making an attempt to move from that state. I know I don't move from what I have faith in and my idea of God since that is REAL and is bliss for me. I don't move, but I suppose the explanation is that I "know" the other side. But I DON'T ave thoughts when there is nothing but God. You see where my trouble is? Rationally it makes no sense. When I examine it by faith, it seems to be false. When I look at it through the eye of the heart, it is also somehow inaccurate.

What am I to do then? I can't accept this notion.

What compels you to accept it as true and justified? The idea of free will?


Cheers !

 

[krakken]

<< You have to take it as a whole. You can't pick and choose.

Ah, but the only problem with that is that totality cannot, by definition be contained within a syntaxic system such a language. Thought fragments. If I am to take a totality, that is the state, where there is no cabbage, nor awareness that one even has cabbage or that it is in some way necessary for crossing (what is still irrelevant since that is the nature of totality), to use MB's analogy. Truth values are cetainly necessary if we are to live in this world, but they do not necessarily point to anything encompassing a Reality past thought. Therefore, one does need to take it as a whole, you're right, but at that point one cannot claim any sort of epistemic justification for a method since wholeness cannot be separated. If you meant that one needs to accept the original premises in your system in order to arrive at the conclusions, I remind you that we are back to the problem of epistemic circularity and the arbitrary selection of original premises based largely on temperament. What I keep trying to push in these threads is the importance of going past that. Of going past languge. Of being. Or in your world, of receiving grace, through a concept of faith, and obtaining salvation. In that state, one finds that core which is human and which allows us to be that which we truly are.

Some spend time arguing the seeming nonsensical position of a worldview, claiming they recognize the problem of circularity (like MB summarized this point by invoking Sokrates, we cannot know UNLESS there is no fragmentation) and even agree that it is unavoidable while all the while asserting that science has, without a doubt, proved the logical existence or non-existence of such and such a process or such and such a phenomenon. That is possible ONLY by acceptiong that this has any value, and selection of value for the most part get us back to circularity. All the same, psychologicall certainty and assertion and refutals, rebuttals, "prrofs", etc abound. Some go as far as saying, "Oh I cannot stand it with your ignorance, Your level of hebetude surely is astounding in this day and age" (for references, just read this thread) this claiming something of which they are so certain that surely, the rest of of must be erroneous and have unsound and invalid methods. Well, I say BOLLOCKS.

Show some humility, dig inside, help out a friend, don't get drunk to cope and instead call that old friend who may be in need of a smile. Spending time in abstractions, the intellectual forgets us folk who are in pain, who cry, who, just as that person, must go out and immerse ourselves in this world instead of avoiding it with out intellect. The elitism espoused by the likes of Aristotle and his theoreia as the highest virtue is nothing but BOLLOCKS. Sure, you may have the most modern version and position of science, you may think you know something, you may even claim that you don't know intellectually while emotionally, you have a need to hold on, to grasp at something which you think you have rejected but which only digs deeper into your subconscious and become a vile, uncaring thing.

Development as a human and as a person is not in some way of knowledge, closed to most, but as a member of the human species, as a fellow wanderer and as one trying to make sense of existense. When I see another crying, I am tempted to use 150 years of psychoanalysis, psychology, clinical psychiatry, medicine, sicnece, theology, etc to fix the problem as a specialist. That is BOLLOCKS. The only thing I can do is admit ignorance, give that person a hug, and ultimately sit and experience what is is to be here right now. That is similar to totality.

I guess I'm starting to rant here or at least babble (as often occurs). The point is that those of you who feel indignation should look into it. Those of us holding a position should remember to disclaim our ideas with circularity and look, listen, and be mindful of who we are and who others are. This is done not for the benefit of those who some call ignorant, but for our own benefit, that we may remember that the path to compassion and understanding lies in the hard way of acknolweding ourselves and who we are, with all of our imperfections. Hugging others is easy, it's when we have to hug ourselves that we start traveling the narrow road.

Let's bear this in mind, not intellectually as, "oh this linuxboy crazie is just spouting more psychobabble, guess I'll read it, get to the point where it doesn't make sense and/or is incompatible with my view, and move on. yep. that sure is easy" but as we are, as humans, struggling to make sense of this crazy and sometimes incomprehensible world we live in.

and now, let's resume the flaming (hey, being realistic here)


Cheers ! >>



I think that there are some REALLY good points, but again, all the good points are those that are already found in the Bible. Take it as a WHOLE and the truth is there. you can argue about language, but what is language but a way to convey ideas? THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT!!!
Think about it. The question is this: Is God the Creator the sovereign of the universe? Satan essentially challenges by getting A&E to Sin, to disobey. So, to answer? God lets humans do on earth like they've been doing. But there are those that do want to live by God's standards, So, how do you inform them, you give them a guide. If everyone was forced to do God's will, then we'd not be human, we'd be robots. We are allowed to chooose.
So, how else besides the medium of language do you convey thoughts to a human? There is no other way, so we have the Bible, written by men inspired of God.
I don't know of any other way to word it, but I doubt there is another way I can convey those thoughts to you....