Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
But we also don't have an obligation to feed the children they choose to have without means of
their own to feed them. By sending food to them, we allow the children to live a little longer (barely
in most cases), and then they too have children. It's a repeating cycle that we are fueling.
Reproduction is natural and will happen among all mammals given a certain food supply.

Try looking closer here in the US at what I think is a related matter. Neglected and abused children
in this country are having babies everyday as sources of love. Not because they want to feed,
support, and love the babies, but because they crave the love they get FROM the babies. These
children are uneducated and have no concept of the ramifications of having kids. And guess what,
those new babies start the cycle all over. It's sad and horrible, but it's there and real right in this
country. It has nothing to do with the right to choose. These kids DID choose to have kids.

Reproduction in uneducated, un-nourished places is not the same choice as it is in the worlds we
live in. We have the means to make a choice. Third world families (women) do not have those
means. Now the irony I will also throw out here is that we (non-3rd world or whatever we are)
have created this mess by throwing food and money at the problem without the education and
resources to go along with the food.

So, the more food we supply, the more babies are conceived, the more food is needed, the more
food we supply, etc, etc. Please read Daniel Quinn about this subject. I'm not doing a very good
job explaining this. He does!

I hate the idea of babies starving! I hate the images on TV and in my imagination, but the reality is
that sending food alone is worthless and even detrimental.

<My Rant off>

Chris
------------------------------------
Problem one is that much of the food we so kindly donate (tongue firmly in cheek) never gets to the starving masses because their governments are so messed up. We, meaning those we intrust to send the food over, need to do a better job of food distribution and stop leaving it to inept governments.

No, I guess we don't have an obligation to help. We could sit back and say, "oh well, it's not our problem...we didn't tell them to have children!" That is were Mr. Swift's Proposal would be well adapted to fit in.

Your reference to America is interesting. Did you know that a recent study shows that crime is down? Did you know what they determined to be the cause of the decrease? Fewer Latinos and Blacks (their words not mine) having babies because they have higher abortion rates. So, I guess from that viewpoint you could just say, "great, we will encourage them to have more abortions and crime will continue to go down". Sickening, isn't it? So is the "logic" that says that if we stop feeding starving people, they will stop having babies, so there will be fewer people starving. Of course there won't be many if any of them left, but hay, its not our fault is it???

Frecs


Hi Frecs,

I thought it more appropriate to pull this thread off the health & nutrition board, as it is a social/ethical issue and not directly a health & nutrition issue.

Problem one is that much of the food we so kindly donate (tongue firmly in cheek) never gets to the starving masses because their governments are so messed up. We, meaning those we intrust to send the food over, need to do a better job of food distribution and stop leaving it to inept governments.


This is very true, and it goes hand in hand with my suggestion that we need to provide a solution to the problem, not just a shipment of food and money without a plan for implementation. See previous reply on H&N board.

Your reference to America is interesting. Did you know that a recent study shows that crime is down? Did you know what they determined to be the cause of the decrease? Fewer Latinos and Blacks (their words not mine) having babies because they have higher abortion rates. So, I guess from that viewpoint you could just say, "great, we will encourage them to have more abortions and crime will continue to go down". Sickening, isn't it? So is the "logic" that says that if we stop feeding starving people, they will stop having babies, so there will be fewer people starving. Of course there won't be many if any of them left, but hay, its not our fault is it???


My point with the reference to American un-educated inner city kids having babies, was not very well made - sorry. I was trying to point out that here in America (with the exception of extreme cases), there is food abundantly available. In most situations it's defintely not healthy food, but it's enough to sustain life. So then the uneducated and IMO unenlightened people even here in the US will have as many babies as they want without considering the consequences. Grandmothers, foster homes, group homes, and often eventually prisons end up supporting the children. I know this situation all too well from first hand experience as a CASA volunteer and through my girlfriend's experience as a foster care social worker.

You may be right that many Americans have the opinion you describe of letting them have more abortions to stop crime, but that is not my theory at all. Lack of equal access to money for material posessions is the cause of most violent crime in our culture, not lack of food. (IMO)

No, I guess we don't have an obligation to help. We could sit back and say, "oh well, it's not our problem...we didn't tell them to have children!" That is were Mr. Swift's Proposal would be well adapted to fit in.


I think we absolutely do have an obligation to help solve the problem. The problem is a threat to all of our survival on this planet. The solution is NOT to send food. The solution is to educate the people and approach the problem, not just the symptoms. You said it yourself, the food rarely gets to the children anyway.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay, lets say for arguments sake that we are going to educate instead of send food. If they die of starvation, the education is useless. Granted, I don't think you mean to cut food off immediately, so I don't think either of us would want to go this route (at least I hope not).

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that we need "to teach them to fish instead of giving them food". A very valid position but you have to keep them alive long enough for them to learn to fish! During that time, would you also be teaching them "planned parenthood"? Would you be implementing a "one child policy"?

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Okay, lets say for arguments sake that we are going to educate instead of send food. If they die of starvation, the education is useless. Granted, I don't think you mean to cut food off immediately, so I don't think either of us would want to go this route (at least I hope not).


If I were emperor ;-) I would educate AND send food.

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that we need "to teach them to fish instead of giving them food". A very valid position but you have to keep them alive long enough for them to learn to fish! During that time, would you also be teaching them "planned parenthood"? Would you be implementing a "one child policy"?

Frecs


Yes teaching fishing (all agriculture of course) would be the most efficient way to ensure food for all. And as I said above, I would send food while educating.

And, yes I would also teach them planned parenthood and the reasons for it. I suspect, the less modernized cultures would have less problem with the concept than the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist influenced cultures would who believe the world was created for humans and humans are meant to rule it. My assumption here is that "prehistoric" cultures are more appreciative of the interelationship of humans with other life forms on the planet than the above religions are.

And all of this is assuming that the human population explosion and continued anthropogenic environmental destruction is leading to catastrophe far beyond the starvation we see in the world today.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Chris,
I find your thoughts to be intelligent and well thought out (you too frecs !) I can't see how anyone could interpret them as callous. But if you guys are going to keep agreeing like this, this thread is gonna get too boring to lurk !
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Chris,
I find your thoughts to be intelligent and well thought out (you too frecs !) I can't see how anyone could interpret them as callous. But if you guys are going to keep agreeing like this, this thread is gonna get too boring to lurk !


LOL! OK, how about this...

Dobski, I completely disagree with you here!! See, we were obviously NOT too boring at all, because look, there you are posting. We actually drew you out with our UNboring debate. How can you possibly think we were boring!!? The nerve! ;-)

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But if you guys are going to keep agreeing like this, this thread is gonna get too boring to lurk !"

I guess you should have left this on H&N, Chris. It sure wasn't considered boring over there! :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And, yes I would also teach them planned parenthood and the reasons for it. I suspect, the less
modernized cultures would have less problem with the concept than the Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
Hindu or Buddhist influenced cultures would who believe the world was created for humans and
humans are meant to rule it. My assumption here is that "prehistoric" cultures are more appreciative
of the interelationship of humans with other life forms on the planet than the above religions are.

And all of this is assuming that the human population explosion and continued anthropogenic
environmental destruction is leading to catastrophe far beyond the starvation we see in the world
today.

Chris
--------------------------
So, because these countries are poor (due many times to the "raping" of their countries by 1st worlders), they are "prehistoric" and so, I gather from your post, animals who just need to learn to control themselves and stop burdening the world with their offspring? Many of these "prehistoric" people groups are Christian, Muslim, etc. and have a great reverance for life, apparently more than some of us "intelligent" lifeforms. You might as well agree with Lincoln and others of that era who believed that blacks were only 3/5ths human so did not have the same intelligence or rights as "whole" humans. When will the bigotry end???

Sorry, your position on this matter just sickens me.

Just MHO, FWIW,
Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I find your thoughts to be intelligent and well thought out (you too frecs !) I can't see how anyone
could interpret them as callous. But if you guys are going to keep agreeing like this, this thread is
gonna get too boring to lurk !
-----------------
Thanks for the compliment, and I hope I just spiced up your day! ;-)

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
We actually drew you out with our UNboring debate. How
can you possibly think we were boring!!? The nerve! ;-)
-------------------
Really, can you believe the nerve of some people??? Oops, there I go agreeing with you again...sorry. ;-)

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, because these countries are poor (due many times to the "raping" of their countries by 1st worlders), they are "prehistoric"

You're putting words in my mouth Frecs. What I said was...
"I suspect, the less modernized cultures would have less problem with the concept than the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist influenced cultures would who believe the world was created for humans and
humans are meant to rule it. My assumption here is that "prehistoric" cultures are more appreciative
of the interelationship of humans with other life forms on the planet than the above religions are."

It's those five religious groups that have a big problem with population control via birth control. I'm definitely generalizing here. I know there are some Christian denomonations and Jewish groups for example that are OK with birth control.

and so, I gather from your post, animals who just need to learn to control themselves and stop burdening the world with their offspring?

Other animals have no problem controlling their own population. The difference is they do not have the ability to just create more food if they run out. If other animals run out of food, they die. If humans run out of food they make more, live longer, and then make more babies.

Many of these "prehistoric" people groups are Christian, Muslim, etc. and have a great reverance for life, apparently more than some of us "intelligent" lifeforms.

Maybe many of the poor and starving are from these groups. Again, what I said was that I suspect the ones that are not from these groups would have less of a problem with birth control. When I say "prehistoric" cultures, I mean cultures that have been around for more than 10,000 years, and have not been "converted" to one of the main 5 religions. I wrote a little about this in this post...

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?id=1380228000005001&sort=postdate

Do the Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist religions have a reverence for all life? I think many of the religions have a hierarchical reverence for life...humans are of primary importance, all other life forms are less important. Some of them have no reverence at all for life other than human, and more specifically, other than human of the same religion.

I do know that as evidenced by practice, that the people of these religions dominate the world today and are therefore responsible for the environmental devestation we are living with and continuing to witness. I therefore say that they DO NOT have a reverence for all life forms in equal value.

You might as well agree with Lincoln and others of that era who believed that blacks were only 3/5ths human so did not have the same intelligence or rights as "whole" humans. When will the bigotry end???

Lincoln was what? hmmmmm... a Christian!! Like all "good" humans in America were back then. And if they weren't, they better watch out or they would be saved and converted to the right way. The blacks in Africa were not Christian back then, and many are still not today, so there you go giving an example yourself of how Christians do not have reverence for all life, not even all human life.

The bigotry can end as soon as we want it to. Our human ability to control our actions should be used constructively to end the devastation of our planet including the suffering of all people.

Sorry if my position makes you sick, but the more I think about it and debate about, the more strongly I feel about it.

Have you read Ishmael or Story of B?

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Really, can you believe the nerve of some people??? Oops, there I go agreeing with you again...sorry. ;-)

Frecs


Stop that!! :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Birth control and abortion are two different things, first of all. Birth control prevents pregnancy, abortion kills a life. These religious groups have a major problem with abortion. Most people also have a major problem with outsiders telling them to limit and/or abort their offspring. As we see in China today, forcing a "one child" policy on a country can lead to the killing or abandoning of the less prefered offspring (usually girls). Our humanitarianism should not come at the cost of lives or at the cost of a peoples' self determination.

And, just because a culture does not embrace any of the major religions does not mean it would embrace the limitation of or killing of their children. I believe the American Indians, while valuing other lifeforms besides humans, would object to our telling them how many children to have or our "teaching them birth control".

I can't speak to all the major religions regarding the respect for all life, nor can I claim that all Christians following Biblical teaching on the subject. What I can testify to is that according to Scripture, it is the Judeo-Christian belief that all life is created by God. Man was assigned to be the STEWARD of nature--that is the true meaning of dominion--the caretaker. Man being what he is, a fallen creature, he does not always get it right. Sad but true.

Instead of basing your critizism of Christianity on the fallacy of men, how about lets go to the source--Christ himself? Christ was the first to teach equality between races and gender. He liked to "hang out" with all types of people of all different cultures. Paul taught that there is no Jew or Greek, Male or Female, etc. but that we are all one.

Stating that because the followers of the major religions dominate the world so the religions are thus guilty of not referencing all life is a fallacy. It is not the religious beliefs that are guilty...it is the people who claim to be followers of same. Many, and I would argue, most of the people that adhere to the major religions have a great reference (but do not worship) other life. We care about what is happening and do not think that "raping" nature is to our benefit or the benefit of future generations.

Emm, I would like you to give me one example of animals that intentionally abort their offspring. Just one. Or, one group telling another that they need to chill on the offspring because of food distribution problems.

The bigotry will not end as long as we have the Haves telling the havenots, or the Ins telling the Outs what they can or can not do.

Yes, your perspective sickens and saddens me,

Just MHO, FWIW,
Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Really, can you believe the nerve of some people??? Oops, there I go agreeing with you
again...sorry. ;-)

Frecs

Stop that!! :-)
-----------------------
Stop what, agreeing with you? Check my previous post! :-)

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Man was assigned to be the STEWARD of nature--that is
the true meaning of dominion--the caretaker. Man being what he is, a fallen creature, he does not always get it right. Sad but true."

This is something that bothers me as well. We are supposed to take care of our fellows, be them other human beings or the animals we share the planet on. But man has become so selfish and self-centered. People (Im not talking individuals, but collectively in general)....don't think about the consequences of what they do...how our actions effect other species and each other.
We don't care if we pollute the air, the water, the food...etc. All we care about is making money and that means at anyones expense...human or animal.

I saw a show about people with cancer on HBO last night. They were talking about corporartions and how cold they are. Corporations don't care. Corporations want to make a buck at any cost...and they don't care who or what they destroy in the process. The individuals who make up the corporation may not be that way as individuals, the stock holders may not be that way as individuals...but with the collective desire of the stockholders to make money pressuring the individuals within a corporation to make money...well, individual concerns go out the window and the "good of the corporation" becomes the goal.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Birth control and abortion are two different things, first of all. Birth control prevents pregnancy, abortion kills a life. These religious groups have a major problem with abortion.

OK, when did anyone mention abortion? I did not.

Most people also have a major problem with outsiders telling them to limit and/or abort their offspring. As we see in China today, forcing a "one child" policy on a country can lead to the killing or abandoning of the less prefered offspring (usually girls).

"Telling" and "forcing" are also not my words. I suggest teaching and helping.

Our humanitarianism should not come at the cost of lives or at the cost of a peoples' self determination.


What if peoples' self determination is death? i.e. Having more babies when there's not enough access to food.

And, just because a culture does not embrace any of the major religions does not mean it would embrace the limitation of or killing of their children. I believe the American Indians, while valuing other lifeforms besides humans, would object to our telling them how many children to have or our "teaching them birth control".

Great example! Native Americans do not need to be taught birth control. For tens of thousands of years before the white Christians (not being sarcastic here, being factual) came and started converting everyone in North America, there was no population problem with Native Americans because they lived in concert with the other animals and life forms in their worlds. They only planted what they needed to live, they only killed what they needed to live. There was no concept of expanding geographically to support larger populations. They lived in the same geographical area for generations maintaining a constant population size. Call it birth control, call it limiting their offspring, whatever you want to call it, it worked. And in many cultures - there are approximately 10,000 indigenous cultures that date before the agricultural revolution still on the planet today - it still works today.

What I can testify to is that according to Scripture, it is the Judeo-Christian belief that all life is created by God. Man was assigned to be the STEWARD of nature--that is the true meaning of dominion--the caretaker. Man being what he is, a fallen creature, he does not always get it right. Sad but true.

Yes, that's what I said earlier, according to these major religions, the world was created for man and man was meant to rule the world. You've toned that down to say "steward" and "caretaker", but I say it's the same thing. If you have a pet, and you are it's steward and caretaker, aren't you also it's ruler? Maybe "man" is not "fallen" and does not need to be saved because we really ARE NOT the rulers of the world. Once we all get that, we'll really start to see some change happening. That Judeo-Christian guilt will fade and we can correct the environmental situation we've created.

Christ was the first to teach equality between races and gender. He liked to "hang out" with all types of people of all different cultures.

Yup, he was the ultimate hippie from all I've read about him!

Paul taught that there is no Jew or Greek, Male or Female, etc. but that we are all one.

One species meant to rule the world. Why didn't he include whales, trees, snakes, birds, grasses, flowers, and bugs?

Stating that because the followers of the major religions dominate the world so the religions are thus guilty of not referencing all life is a fallacy. It is not the religious beliefs that are guilty...it is the people who claim to be followers of same. Many, and I would argue, most of the people that adhere to the major religions have a great reference (but do not worship) other life. We care about what is happening and do not think that "raping" nature is to our benefit or the benefit of future generations.

OK, so what are these religions doing to show they care? Maybe they are beginning to realize what's been done in the past with an increased awareness, but taking a benign position, and paying lip service is just as bad in my opinion. I think that in addition to business having an environmental responsibility, that the religious groups do too, indivually and collectively.

Emm, I would like you to give me one example of animals that intentionally abort their offspring. Just one. Or, one group telling another that they need to chill on the offspring because of food distribution problems.

The Native American example I mention above is one, and is only a sample of the 10,000 other cultures that have existed longer than our "taker" culture has. Again, I never said "intentionally abort" as the means. I think you're stuck on that Frecs. That's not the debate here. And again, it's not a matter of one group telling another. Humans are the only species that can DECIDE to use birth control. With other animals, it's a simple matter of food supply. If there's not enough food, then the babies die - naturally! If there is enough food, babies live and reproduce until once again there is not enough food. My spirituality says that God decides which species should live and die and when. Humans (the taker culture), and this is biblical, decided to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then decided that God put them here on this planet to populate it and rule it. The leaver cultures did not go along with this thinking and to this day still do not.

The bigotry will not end as long as we have the Haves telling the havenots, or the Ins telling the Outs what they can or can not do.

Here, we agree completely!

Yes, your perspective sickens and saddens me,

Yours would sicken and sadden me too, but it's what I grew up with, and what surrounds us all everyday. I'm used to it. My perspective (and I've learned this from Daniel Quinn and others) is new, and radical, and realistic, and yeah, that's scary!

I'm learning that there's more to it then what we've been taught. I like what I'm learning!

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is something that bothers me as well. We are supposed to take care of our fellows, be them
other human beings or the animals we share the planet on. But man has become so selfish and
self-centered. People (Im not talking individuals, but collectively in general)....don't think about the
consequences of what they do...how our actions effect other species and each other.
We don't care if we pollute the air, the water, the food...etc. All we care about is making money
and that means at anyones expense...human or animal.

I saw a show about people with cancer on HBO last night. They were talking about corporartions
and how cold they are. Corporations don't care. Corporations want to make a buck at any
cost...and they don't care who or what they destroy in the process. The individuals who make up
the corporation may not be that way as individuals, the stock holders may not be that way as
individuals...but with the collective desire of the stockholders to make money pressuring the
individuals within a corporation to make money...well, individual concerns go out the window and
the "good of the corporation" becomes the goal.
----------------------
I agree with you with one exception. I don't think man's stupidity and selfishness is a new thing. Let's go all the way back to the beginning of time. If there is one thing humankind has been really good at is selfishness and stupidity (foolishness with a little f).

I remember a few years back watching a show about scientists planning a human settlement on Mars. They talked about how much money was being spent on this project. A commerical was for one of those "save the children" programs. I remember being struck by the senselessness of it--we'll spend billions of dollars on projects that may likely never happen while children are dieing. Makes no sense.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Anytime population control is a course of action, abortion is its primary resource. Planned Parenthood sees to that. Just ask China, for just one example among many.

"Telling" and "Forcing" are the means our government and the UN "enact" population controls. China and others are "forced" into abiding by these policies if they want to receive aid, trade agreements, etc.

Self-determination is just that--they determine what is important in their culture. They decide if they want to limit the number of children or use other courses of action.

Actually, according to a PBS program, the idea that Native Americas were the great protectors of the earth and resources was not always correct. The example PBS used was of a tribe in the Southwest that would travel from place to place. In each location, they would strip the location of the vegetation for use as food and fuel. Once they had stripped the area clear, they would move on. Not exactly being good "stewards" were they?

I was not trying to just "tone down" the "man is ruler of the world" bit, I was trying to show you that that idea has nothing to do with religion--just man "fallen" state. The Judeo-Christian belief system does not promote "rule the world" it promotes stewardship.

I love it. In your previous post you deny calling other cultures "animals" but when I ask for an example of an ANIMAL limiting its offspring--you use the American Indian! So, your example of ANIMALS controlling their population is AMERICAN INDIANS. I don't think they would appreciate the insinuation.

And, regarding why not whales, etc. Because they have no soul. (According to Genesis, God breathed life into only one of His creations--man.) Because they do not have the same reasoning abilities that humans have.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I agree with you with one exception. I don't think man's stupidity and selfishness is a new thing. Let's go all the way back to the beginning of time. If there is one thing humankind has been really good at is selfishness and stupidity (foolishness with a little f)."

I hope I get to finish this...Floyd took my connection away for about an hour before (and he's not even here yet)!!!!
Anyway...I agree that he selfishness is nothing new. I think life is about evolution. Evolution on many levels: physical, mental and spiritual. As far as the physical and mental go...we are highly evolved. As far as the spiritual goes...we are just babies!!!! Issues like taking care of each other and the other creatures on the planet, falls under the spiritual category.
There are highly evolved spiritual people on this planet...but they are a minority. There's a book on astrology I like called "Pluto: The Evolutionary Journey of the Soul." I don't have it handy...or I'd give you the exact figures (I'm afraid Floyd will knock me off again if I go get the book)....but anyway...there are three main spiritual levels...and of course its a gray spectrum...not a well defined thing...
As far as spiritual evolution goes, the lowest evolved are the animals, the mentally retarded and the people who have been incarnated for the first time as humans (yes...I'm talking reincarnation here...believe or not, its a possibility)...the second level is the biggest 97.5% of everyone....the "herd"...and the third group is the spiritualy evolved who are less than say 1%. Each level has degrees. Some members of the "herd" are starting to see the light so are more evolved than others...get it?
Anyhow...its an interesting way to look at things. If so few of us are highly evolved on a spiritual level, well, then how can we expect anything other than the mess we have created?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, my friend, we are approaching the issue from different belief systems but we manage to come to the same conclusion--we are not the great spiritual creatures we would like to tell ourselves we are, and we have sure messed things up on this beautiful world of ours.

Take care of yourself, where are you anyway? Floyd is such a monster storm! I'm praying for everyone down that way. And praying it stays away from the Carolinas--my mom is down that way!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I love it. In your previous post you deny calling other cultures "animals" but when I ask for an example of an ANIMAL limiting its offspring--you use the American Indian! So, your example of ANIMALS controlling their population is AMERICAN INDIANS. I don't think they would appreciate the insinuation.

If I ever said that any human cultures are not animals, I did not intend to. I can't find that post you refer to. We are all animals. I don't think any Native American would be upset by being called an animal if it was out of respect, and my reference to their culture is out of complete respect! You are blatantly insinuating that being called an animal is a negative thing. Guess what Frecs, you're an animal too, and I mean that out of respect too! I don't know of the situation with the PBS special you mentioned, but natural wildfires (not caused by humans) will strip an area of vegetation every so often and it's actually good for the land. Maybe the native Americans knew what they were doing. This country was a beautiful thriving place before the Christians came.

And, regarding why not whales, etc. Because they have no soul. (According to Genesis, God breathed life into only one of His creations--man.) Because they do not have the same reasoning abilities that humans have.

I'm challenging you to think outside the biblical box. Try thinking in terms of the Native Americans or any other culture that does not believe in (or even know of) the bible. What does God say to them? Certainly not that God breathed life into only one of his creations. True, whales do not have the same reasoning abilities humans have, but humans do not have the same aquatic breathing capabilities that whales have. Nor do humans have CO2 producing capabilities that plants have, and we'd surely die if the plants were not here. We are all needed to ensure a thriving ecosphere.

Anytime population control is a course of action, abortion is its primary resource. Planned Parenthood sees to that. Just ask China, for just one example among many.

Not "anytime" Frecs. Sometimes, yes, but not anytime. My Mom practiced population control without ever having an abortion. Many millions in this country practice population control voluntarily without having abortions. The population of the US is stabilizing, not becuase of abortion (although it is admittedly a contributor), because of preventative population control. Catholicism (and other Judeo-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religions) denounces this practice as evil. They are saying that people should have as many kids as they want, right? They are saying that the population should continue to grow, and that there's nothing wrong with that, right?

Well, there is something wrong with that. There's not going to be enough food for all those people eventually. All those people will squash out the other species that need food to live because, we are humans, and "if it comes down to that deer eating my vegetables in my backyard or that coyote eating that cow from my ranch then I'll just kill it because I deserve to eat more that that other animal does."

Then all the deer and coyotes and birds and racoons will be gone and all the micro-organisms that those animals support will be gone. It'll be humans and wheat and corn and cows and chickens and pigs left. Hey, that's all we'll need right? Maybe a tomato or two and some strawberries for desert. But nature cannot survive that way. We'll kill ourselves off by killing off the other species. It's murder and suicide that Catholicism is supporting by taking a stance against birth control. Plain and simple.

Anyone else care to chime in here?

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, I found the book:

The are four (not three like I said before) "Natural Evolutionary Conditions." "We must understand the evolutionary condition of an individual in order to understand at what level they are operating."

The four states are:

1) Dimly evolved or de-evolved state: two or three percent of the human race. People who are either just evolving into human consciousness or are in a de-evolved evolutionary condition due to prior life karmic causes.

2) The Herd State: 75% of the human race. Mainstream society itself. "These people do not seriously question what they are told to believe or think. They go with the consensus prescribed by society...those who have spent a long time in this state will develop the capacity to lead it."

3) The individuated state: 20% of the human race. People who question the beliefs, customs, norms and taboos of society. "They desire to know and act upon their own natural laws, beliefs, values, needs, customs and taboos. And they desire to discover things from within themselves."

4) The spirtitual state: 2 or 3%. People who "attempt to understand their own life and other's lives in a universal/holistic context...They are attempting to align themselves with, timeless values, beliefs and truths that apply at all times. In its highest condition, this state produces what are called avatars or spiritual masters and teachers: Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Mohammed, Moses, and so forth."

"The 4 natural evolutionary states are not rigidly delineated classifications...An individual can be at a transitional junction between two states."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Frecs wrote
and so, I gather from your post, animals who just need to learn to control themselves and stop
burdening the world with their offspring?

Chris wrote,
Other animals have no problem controlling their own population. The difference is they do not have
the ability to just create more food if they run out. If other animals run out of food, they die. If
humans run out of food they make more, live longer, and then make more babies.
-------------------------
Here is the quote I was referring to and you could not find. Here you reference how "other animals" have no problem controlling their populations. To which I challenged you to give me one example of an animal--meaning other than homo sapiens--that did so. You gave me an example alright--Native Americans.

As far as thinking outside the Biblical Box...sorry been there done that back in my rebellion years. Then I got smart and realized that God knows more than I do and is much Wiser than I am. Are you willing to think outside the humanist box? (or whatever you call your belief system.)

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Well, my friend, we are approaching the issue from different belief systems but we manage to come to the same conclusion--we are not the great spiritual
creatures we would like to tell ourselves we are, and we have sure messed things up on this beautiful world of ours."

Yes...I totally agree with you. No matter how I try and look at it...from whatever perspective...the bottom line is WE ARE MESSING UP what was once a very beeautiful world! And many people don't see it that way!!!!!

I'm in Fort Lauderdale. It looks like we aren't going to get it as bad as we thought yesterday! But its still not supposed to be a pretty sight! The sad thing is...somebody somewhere is going to get the worse of it...I hope its a lesser populated place as this storm has the potential to cause quite a bit of destruction if it slams into land! I hope your mother will be ok. Where is she? On the coast or more inland? I'm 6 miles in myself. I'm not in the evacuation zone...but that's still not far from the beach! There's no where to go anyway...airports are closed...its too far to drive to a "safe" area (not enough time)...so its just wait and see!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sounds like an interesting book Cath. I didn't know astrology got into those areas. Sounds more like Hindu or Buddhist with the reference to reincarnation. I'd like to learn more about these religions. I admittedly know very little.

So, if it's an evolutionary thing, is the trend toward more of the herd being enlightened as time goes on? Say, the enlightened level becoming 5% and then 10%, etc., or is that an evolution of a person's lifetime?

All of these descriptions of humans...stupid, selfish, enlightened, fallen, whatever are very subjective and will be made through the screens of religion when religion is in play. A Muslim might feel quite enlightened, but a Christian might look at the same individual as quite spiritually stupid.

So, if we look at it from a non-religious perspective, we will have an easier time deciding what is stupid and selfish and what is natural and spiritually enlightened.

Cath, be safe through Floyd! Are you in it's path or on the fringe?

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"This country was a beautiful thriving place before the Christians came."

Chris,

I don't think I'd blame the state of things on the Christians! Although I believe a lot of things that are not recognized by mainstream Christians, I think the core Christian religion as taught by Jesus is very on the mark. And true Christianity would not promote or cause any problems of any kind in the world. That's the part that people don't get....the Christian Religion, as Jesus actually taught it, is a bit different than what is actually practiced by anyone!
As in yesterday, today there are few if any people who understand the real meaning of Christianity the way that Jesus did! Plus its not any one group of people messing the world up...be they Christian, Mulsum, Native Americans etc etc etc etc....Collectively, its a bit of everyone messing it up!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know of the situation with the PBS special you
mentioned, but natural wildfires (not caused by humans) will strip an area of vegetation every so
often and it's actually good for the land. Maybe the native Americans knew what they were doing.
This country was a beautiful thriving place before the Christians came.
------------------------
Guess what? The land that was stripped by those Native Americans did not regrow its vegetation! They were not helping "Mother Earth", they were using it for their own purposes. I'm not trying to demonize them, I would just like to see people wake up and realize that the Native Americans were not what they have become in modern fables!
------------------------
Anytime population control is a course of action, abortion is its primary resource. Planned
Parenthood sees to that. Just ask China, for just one example among many.

Not "anytime" Frecs. Sometimes, yes, but not anytime. My Mom practiced population control without
ever having an abortion. Many millions in this country practice population control voluntarily without
having abortions. The population of the US is stabilizing, not becuase of abortion (although it is
admittedly a contributor), because of preventative population control. Catholicism (and other
Judeo-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religions) denounces this practice as evil. They are
saying that people should have as many kids as they want, right? They are saying that the population
should continue to grow, and that there's nothing wrong with that, right?
------------------------
Your mother was not under force by her government and military--she had a choice. Ask yourself why we have Chinese women seeking asylum here in the US because they are pregnant with their second child? Its because they would be forced to abort their child if they return to China. Ask yourself why so many little baby girls are ending up in orhanages in China. Why? Because if a couple can only have one child...it has to be a boy (its a cultural thing).

And don't fool yourself, the population of the US is stablizing due to huge part to the abortion industry. But, as much as I find that abhorrant, in this country at least it is not by force that it is happening. Again--self-determination, women in other countries should have the same freedom to decide what is appropriate and what does not conflict with their religious beliefs.

As Emperor, you can deny people the right to practice their firmly held religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean they will give them up.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here is the quote I was referring to and you could not find. Here you reference how "other animals" have no problem controlling their populations. To which I challenged you to give me one example of an animal--meaning other than homo sapiens--that did so. You gave me an example alright--Native Americans.

Sorry, I missed the point of your question. The key word I missed was "other". Thanks for clarifying.

Frecs, I'm not saying that any other animal is consciously deciding not to have babies or to kill their own babies or to abort their own babies. I'm saying that other animals babies die naturally if there is not enough food to support them.

Going back to the origin of this thread, humans have the ability to create food at will through agriculture. Wherever, and whenever we want (pretty much). There is no shortage of food on the planet right now. Starvation is a distribution and political problem if anything.

Let me ask you this...why has the population growth of the US slowed just recently? and do you think it's a good thing that it did?

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes...I totally agree with you. No matter how I try and look at it...from whatever perspective...the
bottom line is WE ARE MESSING UP what was once a very beeautiful world! And many people
don't see it that way!!!!!

I'm in Fort Lauderdale. It looks like we aren't going to get it as bad as we thought yesterday! But its
still not supposed to be a pretty sight! The sad thing is...somebody somewhere is going to get the
worse of it...I hope its a lesser populated place as this storm has the potential to cause quite a bit of
destruction if it slams into land! I hope your mother will be ok. Where is she? On the coast or more
inland? I'm 6 miles in myself. I'm not in the evacuation zone...but that's still not far from the beach!
There's no where to go anyway...airports are closed...its too far to drive to a "safe" area (not enough
time)...so its just wait and see!
---------------------
Yep, humankind has blinders on when it comes to what they are doing to the world--as if we have another world we can exploit once we use this one up!

Floyd is going to be a dosey no matter what. Heck, he's bigger than the whole state of Florida! So, like you say, where are ya gonna go anyway!

Mom is on the coast--Calabash, NC which is at the stateline between NC and SC--right near Little River Inlet where the watch ends. If it were a smaller storm we could hope that the damage could be confined to a fairly unpopulated area but I don't see how it can miss considering its size!

Hang in there, girlfriend!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As far as thinking outside the Biblical Box...sorry been there done that back in my rebellion years. Then I got smart and realized that God knows more than I do and is much Wiser than I am. Are you willing to think outside the humanist box? (or whatever you call your belief system.)

I agree Frecs, God does know more than we do! But, God did not write the Bible. Humans wrote it. I'm not sure what you mean by humanist, but I don't think I have a box. I'm learning as I go. I don't know of a word for my belief system. Maybe environmentalist, maybe eco-capitalist, maybe pagan, definitley vegan! definitely deadhead!

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So, if we look at it from a non-religious perspective, we will have an easier time deciding what is
stupid and selfish and what is natural and spiritually enlightened.
-------------------------
Considering that "religion" is a belief system, I don't see how you can help but look at this or any other argument from a "non-religious perspective". And without a "religious perspective" how are you going to define "spiritual enlightenment"?

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think I'd blame the state of things on the Christians! Although I believe a lot of things that are
not recognized by mainstream Christians, I think the core Christian religion as taught by Jesus is very
on the mark. And true Christianity would not promote or cause any problems of any kind in the
world. That's the part that people don't get....the Christian Religion, as Jesus actually taught it, is a bit
different than what is actually practiced by anyone!
As in yesterday, today there are few if any people who understand the real meaning of Christianity
the way that Jesus did! Plus its not any one group of people messing the world up...be they Christian,
Mulsum, Native Americans etc etc etc etc....Collectively, its a bit of everyone messing it up!
-------------------
Hear, Hear! Well said, Catherine!

Except....ummm...could you change that from "what is actually practiced by anyone!" to "what is actually practiced by anyone except Frecs!"? I'm sure you would agree that I, being so greatly enlightened, am on the mark! ;-)

Frecs (removing tongue from cheek now)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Sounds like an interesting book Cath. I didn't know astrology got into those areas. Sounds more like Hindu or Buddhist with the reference to reincarnation. I'd like to learn more about these religions. I admittedly know very little."

The book is "Pluto: The Evolutionary Journey of The Soul," by Jeff Green. It is very deep. Many astrologers actually study comparative religion and mythology in an attempt to understand "things" better. :)

"So, if it's an evolutionary thing, is the trend toward more of the herd being enlightened as time goes on? Say, the enlightened level becoming 5% and then 10%, etc., or is that an evolution of a person's lifetime?"

Yes, the goal is to evolve gradually (through life experience) over the course of million, maybe billions of years....until every single Soul arrives at the consciousness that was attained by Christ. He is the example. There are some who believe that Jesus reincarnated a few times before he attained Christ consciousness.
Jesus was originally Adam and committed the original sin. Only he could correct it. He reincarnated as various people in the old testament (somewhere there is a place where someone (John the Baptist???) is referring To Jesus and says "When he was (I forget who, MicheldiziacK?????)....See Edgar Cayce's "Story of the Soul." It explains this quite well.

Also, the Nag Hammadi LIbrary (Gnostic texts discovered in 1947) are similiar to the new testament but different. The story as told in those texts looks like Jesus and all the people back then accepted reincarnation as an everyday thing. I read somewhere that resuurection actually meant reincarnation. Who knows...but I'm convinced!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think I'd blame the state of things on the Christians! Although I believe a lot of things that are not recognized by mainstream Christians, I think the core Christian religion as taught by Jesus is very on the mark. And true Christianity would not promote or cause any problems of any kind in the world. That's the part that people don't get....the Christian Religion, as Jesus actually taught it, is a bit different than what is actually practiced by anyone!
As in yesterday, today there are few if any people who understand the real meaning of Christianity the way that Jesus did! Plus its not any one group of people messing the world up...be they Christian, Mulsum, Native Americans etc etc etc etc....Collectively, its a bit of everyone messing it up!


My problem with Christianity from a historical perspective is the brutal spreading and converting that went on. Worship Jesus or die! Maybe that's not what is taught, but it is what was practiced. And today Catholics are still against abortion and birth control, which is just simply an anitquated social perspective that makes no sense with today's knowledge and social and environmental awareness.

At the root, it is people that are the cause of the problems, I agree, but religion fuels the problems.

BTW, I only pick on Christians (and Catholics in particular) because I know the most about them. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists have their hangups too I'm sure.

To me spirituality is important, not religion.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Your mother was not under force by her government and military--she had a choice. "

Yes, I believe that when women have both an education and resources...they are less prone to have a lot of kids!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have to get some work done guys. This is a great debate, and I appreciate you keeping it at a "non-personal" attack level. :-)

I'll be back later...

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Frecs, I'm not saying that any other animal is consciously deciding not to have babies or to kill their
own babies or to abort their own babies. I'm saying that other animals babies die naturally if there is
not enough food to support them.

Going back to the origin of this thread, humans have the ability to create food at will through
agriculture. Wherever, and whenever we want (pretty much). There is no shortage of food on the
planet right now. Starvation is a distribution and political problem if anything.

Let me ask you this...why has the population growth of the US slowed just recently? and do you think
it's a good thing that it did?

Chris
------------------
True, when there is not enough food, animals and people die. The problem IS one of distribution and politics, not food production. Politics is a much more difficult issue, which I'm sure could be resolved if everyone just made ME Emperor! ;-)

Why has the population growth slowed? A number of reasons: 1) people waiting until later to settle down and have children thus limiting the number of children, 2) these same people and others using various birth control methods--including millions of abortions each year--to prevent having children before "their ready", 3) an aging population so there are fewer and fewer people of childbearing age, 4) Other (to include such issues as increased occurances of cervical cancers and STDs which result in sterilization, and epidemics such as AIDS).

Is it a good thing? No, I don't think so. As you've undoubtedly gathered by now, I am pro-life. That does not mean that I am for everyone having 10 kids (though they should be able to if they want to--here or in 3rd world countries). Nor for everyone having to have kids. But, murder is obhorrent for any reason especially for "convenience". But, I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate. I think we will find in years to come that the decrease in our population will have social and political effects that we are not prepared to deal with.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Mom is on the coast--Calabash, NC which is at the stateline between NC and SC--right near Little River Inlet where the watch ends. If it were a smaller storm
we could hope that the damage could be confined to a fairly unpopulated area but I don't see how it can miss considering its size!"

Well, I wish her well...all we hope for is that the eye stays in the ocean somehow, but yes...its so big that we are all in for some excitement at some point (from FLA right on up to where????).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Except....ummm...could you change that from "what is actually practiced by anyone!" to "what is actually practiced by anyone except Frecs!"? I'm sure you
would agree that I, being so greatly enlightened, am on the mark! ;-)"

Sorry Frecs, I got carried away...make that "anyone except Frecs." :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But, God did not write the Bible. Humans wrote it.
----------------------
I don't think this is the right board for this particular debate but if you want, I'm willing to debate this issue also. There is plenty of evidence (not just from the Bible but also from archeology, etc.) to prove that the Bible is, in fact, God Breathed!

Just give me the word!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"My problem with Christianity from a historical perspective is the brutal spreading and converting that went on. Worship Jesus or die! Maybe that's not what is taught, but it is what was practiced. And today Catholics are still against abortion and birth control, which is just simply an anitquated social perspective that makes no sense with today's knowledge and social and environmental awareness."


Chris,

It's that evolutionary stuff! I was raised Catholic and by the time I was in high school I had a very anti-catholic, anti-religion attitude! I went on to study comparative religion, mythology, symbolism, astrology, all kinds of things...and where did I end up????? Back to Christianity but seeing it from my own perspective. It has to do with seeing through the B.S. (ie: what history has changed in Christianity) and seeing that Christianity is simply the same natural laws that govern the universe! Like you...I still have a problem with organized Christianity...but true Christianity is something totally different (ask Frecs)!!!
Part of the problem with the world is the lack of spirituality that you mention! Actually, a large part of the problem! If you really understand true spiritual concepts and live your life according to these principle...you will do no harm to anyone...but as we know...that's not the way it is!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
.until every single Soul arrives at the consciousness that was attained by Christ. He is the
example. There are some who believe that Jesus reincarnated a few times before he attained Christ
consciousness.
Jesus was originally Adam and committed the original sin. Only he could correct it. He reincarnated
as various people in the old testament (somewhere there is a place where someone (John the
Baptist???) is referring To Jesus and says "When he was (I forget who, MicheldiziacK?????)....See
Edgar Cayce's "Story of the Soul." It explains this quite well.

Also, the Nag Hammadi LIbrary (Gnostic texts discovered in 1947) are similiar to the new testament
but different. The story as told in those texts looks like Jesus and all the people back then accepted
reincarnation as an everyday thing. I read somewhere that resuurection actually meant reincarnation.
Who knows...but I'm convinced!
---------------------
As I told Chris, I don't think this is the right board for this debate, but I would be happy to take you on regarding Who Jesus was/is/is to come!

Just give me the word,

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But, God did not write the Bible. Humans wrote it.
----------------------
I don't think this is the right board for this particular debate but if you want, I'm
willing to debate this issue also. There is plenty of evidence (not just from the
Bible but also from archeology, etc.) to prove that the Bible is, in fact, God
Breathed!"

Maybe you can hold back Frecs, but I won't! Yes the bible was written by man....but by men who were enlightened by God to write it! God provided the thoughts...the men simply wrote those thoughts down...

:)

But, Frecs, I believe over time than man has added and deleted much to the bible to slant it to specific political preferences. Have you ever read the Nag Hammadi Library? Pick up a copy..read it and you will see what has been changed and what has been left in tact! While the bible has been around over the course of time, it has been re-translated many times...and changed in the process. The texts hidden in Nag Hammadi were hiiden away for almost 2000 years...they have only been translated recently...they are mure pure (in my opinion). Check it out!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't think this is the right board for this particular debate but if you want, I'm willing to debate this issue also. There is plenty of evidence (not just from the Bible but also from archeology, etc.) to prove that the Bible is, in fact, God Breathed!

Just give me the word!

Frecs


I'm never gonna get anything done today, but I'm really enjoying this.

I'm confident that we can discuss this without hurt feelings and maybe all come away more knowledgebale and maybe even more enlightened!

I do have to go to meetings this afternoon, so I will be slow in responding.

Go for it Frecs!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060669357/o/qid=937339239/sr=8-1/002-8617757-8864020

There's a link for you, Frecs. The book and some reviews on the book.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
May I suggest a new thread for this topic. We may need it ;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"As I told Chris, I don't think this is the right board for this debate, but I would be
happy to take you on regarding Who Jesus was/is/is to come!

Just give me the word,"

Giving you the word! Who cares if the board is the right place or not...its an interesting conversation...keep it going!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey, our little old board is #12 on the top 25 list!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I do have to go to meetings this afternoon, so I will be slow in responding."

And if I disappear, it will be because of Floyd...not anything you say...as I'm very open minded & curious about everything...including whatever you are about to spill out! :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My problem with Christianity from a historical perspective is the brutal spreading and converting that
went on. Worship Jesus or die! Maybe that's not what is taught, but it is what was practiced. And
today Catholics are still against abortion and birth control, which is just simply an anitquated social
perspective that makes no sense with today's knowledge and social and environmental awareness.

At the root, it is people that are the cause of the problems, I agree, but religion fuels the problems.

BTW, I only pick on Christians (and Catholics in particular) because I know the most about them.
Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists have their hangups too I'm sure.

To me spirituality is important, not religion.

Chris
-------------------------
By no means are so called Christians the only group that has a history like you describe. In fact, I can give you current events rather than even bother with history. Today, in the Sudan, Christians are being beaten, raped, and murdered simply because they are Christian. This is being done in the name of Allah. In Rawanda, the same thing. In China, Christians are routinely inprisoned or killed for their faith--this by an "atheist" government.

Christians are blamed for a lot of stuff. It amazes me that other religions are not bashed like Christians are-oh, I forgot that would be narrow minded. Its not narrow minded to bash Christians, though. This is not to deny that people have done horrible things in the name of Christ in the past, but don't blame Christianity for it--Christ did not teach murder or genocide.

Catholics and (most) Christians oppose abortion because it is the taking of a life. The position on birth control of other forms is a debatible one. IMHO, it depends on whether it serves to prevent a pregnancy or end one.

Frecs (no, I'm not Catholic)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, I believe that when women have both an education and resources...they are less prone to have
a lot of kids!
--------------------
I know some highly educated women who would disagree with you on that!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is a great debate, and I appreciate you keeping it at a
"non-personal" attack level. :-)

I'll be back later...

Chris
-------------------
Ditto, I love a great debate as long as it doesn't get "personal" and attacking. :-)

Work? work?....
Say it ain't so, Chris!

Frecs :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Work? work?....
Say it ain't so, Chris!

Frecs :-)


Well, I'd hardly call it work today ;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...make that "anyone except Frecs." :)
-------------
aaaaa, that feels better. ;-)

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Hey, our little old board is #12 on the top 25 list!"

Just wait!!!! I have nothing better to do today but wait for a hurricane and hang out here! Imagine if other people were to join the discussion! You may have to rename the board Chris!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
But, Frecs, I believe over time than man has added and deleted much to the bible to slant it to specific
political preferences. Have you ever read the Nag Hammadi Library? Pick up a copy..read it and
you will see what has been changed and what has been left in tact! While the bible has been around
over the course of time, it has been re-translated many times...and changed in the process. The texts
hidden in Nag Hammadi were hiiden away for almost 2000 years...they have only been translated
recently...they are mure pure (in my opinion). Check it out!
-------------------
Actually, there are sufficient early copies of the autographs that it can been shown that the Scriptures have NOT been changed! In fact, there are far more early copies of Biblical manuscripts than there are of other events such as Greek and Roman conquests, etc. There is more substantiation for the Bible than for any other early historical events!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I know some highly educated women who would disagree with you on that!"

Ok, maybe I should have said educated women who are career oriented????? I don't know...It worked for me...I have a cat!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This will have to wait, I'm afraid. I have to put my sneakers on and head for the Metro. Sorry. Timing is everything when it comes to the Metro!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Actually, there are sufficient early copies of the autographs that it can been shown that the Scriptures have NOT been changed! In fact, there are far more
early copies of Biblical manuscripts than there are of other events such as Greek and Roman conquests, etc. There is more substantiation for the Bible than for
any other early historical events!"

Ok ok...but check it out anyway...I don't think it will offend you! I have to laugh...I remember back in my college days, going into a bible store and asking them for an "original bible" as I was sure all the ones out there have been changed. The lady thought I was a nut case! I just never trusted the catholics...I was sure they changed everything!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>mm, I would like you to give me one example of animals that intentionally abort their
offspring. >>

Well, rabbits will reabsorb embryos back into their systems if there is not enough food in the environment to support the mother when she is pregnant. The litter then will simply not be born.

BTW, I agree with Chris. I believe that the major religions (and here I'm going to distinguish between ORGANIZED religion and SPIRITUALITY -- in my opinion two VERY different things) DO support a worldview of man as top dog, so to speak, and all other creatures inferior and subservient to him. (I do not ascribe to this worldview myself.) I agree with you, Frecs, that man gets it wrong much of the time -- and I further believe that organized religion is one of the results of man getting it wrong. If you look at the words of Jesus, you will find that most of the time they are worlds apart from the way Christianity is practiced in most places. And you will also find that most of the hierarchy that has built up in most major religions is built around a base of power, with those in charge of the hierarchy possessing the power and those further down the ladder being denied various freedoms, choices, and privileges. Look at the Inquisition. Look at holy wars. Look at the situation in Ireland and Africa and . . . well, you get the idea.

Well, if that doesn't stir up debate on this board, I daresay nothing will! :)

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Anytime population control is a course of action, abortion is its primary resource. Planned
Parenthood sees to that.>>

Planned Parenthood advocates just that -- planned parenthood, not abortion. They offer alternatives such as birth control AND abortion to people who otherwise would simply continue to produce offspring. And while many avail themselves of abortion, it's because of POOR PLANNING on their part -- they are "not ready" to have a child, and haven't had enough foresight to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

And I would argue that it's better to have the options of birth control and abortion available than to doom all those unwanted children to lives of starvation, abuse, and worse.

mys (putting on the asbestos suit)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Catholicism (and other Judeo-Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist religions) denounces this
practice as evil. They are saying that people should have as many kids as they want, right?
They are saying that the population should continue to grow, and that there's nothing wrong
with that, right?>>

From a historical perspective, the Catholic Church supported pregnancy as a means of producing more little Catholics. They encouraged good Catholics to have as many children as possible. Why? To feed the hierarchy. In addition, for long periods of time in the Church's history, non-clergy were forbidden to read the Bible for themselves, or to think anything about their faith other than what they were "told" to think. This to me does not make for a sound philosophy. And the position of women in the Church steadily deteriorated over the centuries until they had few or no rights unless it was -- you guessed it -- through the hierarchy.

mys (Hey, this is an interesting discussion even if I am coming to it a bit late!)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>There's no where to go anyway...airports are closed...its too
far to drive to a "safe" area (not enough time)...so its just wait and see! >>

Catharine,

Hope you stay safe!

Your quote is fascinating. My sister got me interested in reincarnation and the more I learn the more I believe that it is more than a possibility, it is a probability. Sometimes man is SUCH a slow learner! :)

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Ask
yourself why we have Chinese women seeking asylum here in the US because they are pregnant
with their second child? Its because they would be forced to abort their child if they return to
China. Ask yourself why so many little baby girls are ending up in orhanages in China. Why?
Because if a couple can only have one child...it has to be a boy (its a cultural thing). >>

It is indeed a cultural thing. Female babies have been exposed (left out in the elements to die) for centuries in the Chinese culture, and even in other cultures. Now they send them to orphanages. Same reason -- they didn't want them. They didn't value them. That doesn't change just because they're limited to one child. They still don't want females.

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>I
don't know of a word for my belief system. Maybe environmentalist, maybe eco-capitalist,
maybe pagan, definitley vegan! >>

What he said!

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>> The story as told in those texts looks like Jesus and all the people
back then accepted reincarnation as an everyday thing. I read somewhere that resuurection
actually meant reincarnation.>>

Reincarnation was accepted back then. All references to it were excised from the bible around the 4th or 5th century (don't remember the dates any more) for political reasons -- a monarch feared the recriminations that would follow based on previous behavior.

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>I
don't know of a word for my belief system. Maybe environmentalist, maybe eco-capitalist,
maybe pagan, definitley vegan! >>

What he said!

mys


Hey mys! Welcome to the debate.


But, um, ya left out deadhead ;-)

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Your quote is fascinating. My sister got me interested in reincarnation and the more I learn the more I believe that it is more than a possibility, it is a probability. Sometimes man is SUCH a slow learner! :)"

Welcome to the discussion mys! I was away taking a little nap! Glad to see you joined us. To me...the reincarnation theory is the only one that makes sense. One life then heaven or hell makes no sense at all. To me, reincarnation does...you reap what you sow...it goes on and on till you get it right! Life is nothing but school for the soul! :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Reincarnation was accepted back then. All references to it were excised from the bible around the 4th or 5th century (don't remember the dates any more) for
political reasons -- a monarch feared the recriminations that would follow based on previous behavior."

Yes..that's what I meant about them changing the bible. The way one interprets something can change the whole meaning...just one word can do the job!!!!

Back to the state of the world...what do all of you think: if the majority of people accepted reincarnation and believed it happens, would they act differently. Would they spend more time considering the consequences of their actions? After all, if we reincarnate, we are the ones who will be back to live in the mess we are creating!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ok, here we...Jesus:

"Hippolytus, an early Christian writer, claims that another Jewish Christian Sect, the Elkasaites, taught that when Jesus was born of a virgin he was not making his first appearance on earth. He had been incarnated previously, the same soul being born in different bodies at different times and places." Richard Drummind, PhD, "A Life of Jesus the Christ.")

"According to the Clementine Homilies, the soul - whom the Apostle Paul calls the firstborn of all creation (Rom, 8:29; Col 1:15; Heb 2:11) was incarnated as Adam, then as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and finally as Jesus."

Edgar Cayce says Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph, Joshua, Jeshua and Jesus.

This book mentions that reincarnation was widely believed in the larger Hellenistic society at the time of Jesus. "Indeed, if one is willing to accept the literal meaning of the text in Matt 17:9-13, it appears that Jesus himself believed that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of the Old Testament prophet Elijah (compare Matt 11:11-15 and John 1:21)." (same source as above).

Another quote from this book: "The concept of reincarnation in the Edgar Cayce readings is held to apply to all human beings. It stresses the educative nature and purposes of the human experiences...'Our entrance into the earth plane at any time is for the purpose that another lesson may be gained, another opportunity for soul expression may be had."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I just never
trusted the catholics...I was sure they changed everything!
--------------------
It seems Catholics are their own worst enemies...no one seems to trust "the church". (Little "c" as opposed to The Church cap. "C" meaning The Body of Christ.)

Anyway, from what little you've told me about this person and book, I don't need to read it to know that what he is teaching is eroneous.

I'll start a new tread for our discussion of who Jesus was/is/is to come and whether he was Adam reincarnated.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0


Well, rabbits will reabsorb embryos back into their systems if there is not enough food in the
environment to support the mother when she is pregnant. The litter then will simply not be born.

BTW, I agree with Chris. I believe that the major religions (and here I'm going to distinguish between
ORGANIZED religion and SPIRITUALITY -- in my opinion two VERY different things) DO
support a worldview of man as top dog, so to speak, and all other creatures inferior and subservient
to him. (I do not ascribe to this worldview myself.) I agree with you, Frecs, that man gets it wrong
much of the time -- and I further believe that organized religion is one of the results of man getting it
wrong. If you look at the words of Jesus, you will find that most of the time they are worlds apart
from the way Christianity is practiced in most places. And you will also find that most of the
hierarchy that has built up in most major religions is built around a base of power, with those in
charge of the hierarchy possessing the power and those further down the ladder being denied various
freedoms, choices, and privileges. Look at the Inquisition. Look at holy wars. Look at the situation in
Ireland and Africa and . . . well, you get the idea.

Well, if that doesn't stir up debate on this board, I daresay nothing will! :)

mys
---------------------
Thanks for joining in the debate, mys! Glad to have you.

That's an interesting example you came up with--rabbits. I did not know about this particular biological ability. The only response that comes to mind is that the rabbit does not make a conscience decision to stop the pregnancy--her body does. So, I could--and will :-)-- say that God is a wonderful Creator!

Yes, there is definatly a difference between organized religion and spiritually. And often the heirarchy of the church is a poor example of how to live a Christian life! (Having worked for a time in a christian ministry, I can attest to that fact!) However, as Jesus stated many times, the only example we can take from the priests and pharsees is what not to do--to do better than they. Jesus taught that the religious leaders were often hypocritics. He encourages us to look to Him and not the leaders for our example. In order words, WWJD not WWPD!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Planned Parenthood advocates just that -- planned parenthood, not abortion. They offer alternatives
such as birth control AND abortion to people who otherwise would simply continue to produce
offspring. And while many avail themselves of abortion, it's because of POOR PLANNING on their
part -- they are "not ready" to have a child, and haven't had enough foresight to avoid pregnancy in
the first place.

And I would argue that it's better to have the options of birth control and abortion available than to
doom all those unwanted children to lives of starvation, abuse, and worse.

mys (putting on the asbestos suit)
---------------------
While I really would like to keep the debate away from the issue of abortion, I would like to clarify one point.

Planned Parenthood is THE LARGEST SUPPLIER OF ABORTION SERVICES AROUND THE WORLD AND THEY ARE PUSHING TO OPEN AS MANY MORE DOORS INTO OTHER COUNTRIES AS THEY CAN. To that end they lobby hard and strong for "population control". These are facts from the public record, not from some pro-life group.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
From a historical perspective, the Catholic Church supported pregnancy as a means of producing
more little Catholics. They encouraged good Catholics to have as many children as possible. Why?
To feed the hierarchy. In addition, for long periods of time in the Church's history, non-clergy were
forbidden to read the Bible for themselves, or to think anything about their faith other than what they
were "told" to think. This to me does not make for a sound philosophy. And the position of women in
the Church steadily deteriorated over the centuries until they had few or no rights unless it was -- you
guessed it -- through the hierarchy.

mys (Hey, this is an interesting discussion even if I am coming to it a bit late!)
--------------------
You certainly will not get an argument from me on this point. Again, this is why we "Protest-ants" split from the church. That is why we encourage and are encouraged to read the Bible and understand it for ourselves.

Frecs, yes it is an interesting discussion, better late than never to join in!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>I was raised Catholic and by the time I was in high school I had a
very anti-catholic, anti-religion attitude! I went on to study comparative religion, mythology,
symbolism, astrology, all kinds of things...and where did I end up????? Back to Christianity
but seeing it from my own perspective.>>

I too was raised Catholic and had many problems with how we were taught to see the world. I have not ended up back at Christianity, although I think that Christ was the ultimate example. Unfortunately, most people don't follow that example these days. And there are other role models in other faiths who also serve as ultimate examples. In fact, I would hazard a guess that if one filters out all the "interpretations" that have crept in over the years in most faiths, one would be left with the same basic tenets no matter what faith one is examining. Hence, I believe in God but not in a specific path -- and I believe that there are many paths. We are all different and all have different lessons to learn; we would not get the lessons we in particular need if we followed another path, and so must each find his/her own way.

>>Part of the problem with the world is the lack of spirituality that you mention! Actually, a
large part of the problem! If you really understand true spiritual concepts and live your life
according to these principle...you will do no harm to anyone...but as we know...that's not the
way it is! >>

I believe this sums it up nicely. When one is spiritual, one is not overly concerned with the rules that man makes; one has the rules from above and they are really pretty clear. We tend to muddy the water. And there's an awful lot of muddy water around these days!

JMHO

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is indeed a cultural thing. Female babies have been exposed (left out in the elements to die) for
centuries in the Chinese culture, and even in other cultures. Now they send them to orphanages.
Same reason -- they didn't want them. They didn't value them. That doesn't change just because
they're limited to one child. They still don't want females.

mys
---------------------
Not in the same numbers as now, mys. There are towns now in China where you see no girls under the age of whenever the sonograms arrived.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Reincarnation was accepted back then. All references to it were excised from the bible around the
4th or 5th century (don't remember the dates any more) for political reasons -- a monarch feared the
recriminations that would follow based on previous behavior.

mys
------------------------
Sorry, completely false. We have numerous copies of scripture from earlier than the 4th century. Enough to know that what we hold in our hands today is an accurate, complete version of what was originally written.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Yes, I believe that when women have both an education and resources...they are less prone to
have
a lot of kids!
--------------------
I know some highly educated women who would disagree with you on that!>>

I wish I could remember where I read just recently that according to statistics, the more education a woman has the fewer children she has. I REALLY wish I could because I find it aggravating when someone cites something like this and has no reference to back it up. . . .

mys

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Actually, there are sufficient early copies of the autographs that it can been shown that the
Scriptures have NOT been changed! In fact, there are far more early copies of Biblical
manuscripts than there are of other events such as Greek and Roman conquests, etc. There is
more substantiation for the Bible than for any other early historical events!>>

OTOH, there is plenty of proof that conquerors rewrite history to suit them, and this includes religious hierarchy. Many things were deleted and documents destroyed in order to "prove" that women had no place in the early Church, for instance, and no rights as human beings, when the opposite is true.

mys (gee, this is getting interesting!)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Indeed, if one is willing to accept the literal meaning of the text in Matt 17:9-13, it appears
that Jesus himself believed that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of the Old Testament prophet
Elijah (compare Matt 11:11-15 and John 1:21)." (same source as above).
-------------------------
When dealing with prophecy, it usually has multiple applications. It was understood that Jesus was referring to prophecies that duelly referred to Elijah and the forerunner of the Messiah, John the Baptist. Again, Jesus was not suggesting reincarnation nor did the disciples understand it as reincarnation.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I know some highly educated women who would disagree with you on that!>>

I wish I could remember where I read just recently that according to statistics, the more education a
woman has the fewer children she has. I REALLY wish I could because I find it aggravating when
someone cites something like this and has no reference to back it up. . . .

mys
-----------------
Gee, mys, would you like me to give names or would you also like addresses and phone numbers so you can verify what I said??? I was refering to personal friends of mine! Not something I read of some magazine.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
OTOH, there is plenty of proof that conquerors rewrite history to suit them, and
this includes religious hierarchy. Many things were deleted and documents
destroyed in order to "prove" that women had no place in the early Church, for
instance, and no rights as human beings, when the opposite is true.

mys (gee, this is getting interesting!)
--------------------
Again, regardless of what the Catholic church did throughout their history, there are lots of EARLY copies of Biblical manuscripts to be able to state with absolute certainty that what we have today (in the Protestant Bible) is accurate and uncensored.
(If you would like a reference, heres one for you..."Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. BTW, he started research for that book to provide that the Bible was false--he was atheist--but instead he was convinced otherwise by the perponderance of the evidence.)

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>But, um, ya left out deadhead ;-)>>

Sorry, Chris! My taste in music runs toward more soothing stuff (medieval, New Age, ecclesiastical, folk . . . oh, sorry, am I boring you?). :)

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>the reincarnation theory is the only one that makes sense. One life then heaven or hell
makes no sense at all. To me, reincarnation does...you reap what you sow...it goes on and on till
you get it right! Life is nothing but school for the soul! :) >>

I have to agree.

Interesting aside here. In high school, my history teacher suggested that I do a paper on Friedrich Nietsche (!). I read several of his books, a biography or two, and all sorts of stuff about him. There were two main things I took away from all this study (which resulted, BTW, in a 52-page paper). One, that he was right (if for the wrong reasons) when he said that if Jesus came back he would be horrified to see what his Church had turned into. Two, the idea of the Eternal Return (but I didn't understand it very well then, since in Catholic school we weren't taught reincarnation and I didn't really know what it was). As I understood it at the time, it meant we were doomed to come back and repeat our lives endlessly. And since I loathed school and was miserably unhappy there (you guessed it, private Catholic school), and the very thought of having to repeat all those years of torture made me sick to my stomach (really!), the idea literally gave me cold chills. I didn't do a whole lot of investigating in that area on my own at the time, and it wasn't till my sister broached the subject with me some time later that I thought it over again and realized that it really made sense. After all, would a truly merciful God really condemn anyone to hell, knowing that they are limited creatures and that He made them that way? I don't think so.

And my father, one of the most devout Catholics I ever knew, used to say that he remembered marching in the Roman legions (and he didn't believe in reincarnation!).

mys (Sorry for the long intermission. Just when things were getting interesting I had other stuff to do. . . .)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>if the majority of people accepted
reincarnation and believed it happens, would they act differently. Would they spend more time
considering the consequences of their actions? After all, if we reincarnate, we are the ones
who will be back to live in the mess we are creating! >>

I definitely think they would act differently. It's bad enough to think that your children or your grandchildren will have to live in a polluted world, but people always tend to think that "they'll find a solution before then" (without ever really knowing who they are). If YOU are the one coming back, you might think twice before you did something that could affect your own quality of life in the future.

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Anyway, from what little you've told me about this person and book, I don't need to read it to
know that what he is teaching is eroneous.>>

Begging your pardon, Frecs, and no offense intended, but that's one of the things I find hard to take about people who defend religion. They condemn without thoroughly investigating what they're condemning.

And not just Christians, either. The Ayatollah put out a fatwah on Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses because he said it "corrupted Islam." What it did was ridicule megalomaniacal leaders. There was no disrespect in the book toward Islam. But of course the Ayatollah didn't read it, so how would he know? . . . .

"Know thy enemy. . . ." :)

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Gee, mys, would you like me to give names or would you also like addresses and phone numbers
so you can verify what I said??? I was refering to personal friends of mine! Not something I
read of some magazine.>>

Frecs, I wasn't referring to you when I said I wished I could remember to cite references. I was referring to ME. I have no doubt that you know some educated women who want lots of children; I know there are some out there. I was referring to a statistical study (think I saw a reference to it on the Internet and it was a *fairly reliable* source) that said that the more education women had, the fewer children they produced. (It wasn't counting exceptions; it was noting an overall downward trend among the subject group.)

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
After all, would a truly merciful God really condemn anyone to hell, knowing that they are limited
creatures and that He made them that way? I don't think so.
------------------------
Yes, because that Truly Merciful God is also a Righteous God, A Perfect God, A Just God. God has provided a way for sinful man to be forgiven of his/her sins and be able to appear before Him and spend Eternity with Him--that way is Jesus Christ--The Way, The Truth, The Life. God has made Himself known through His creation and through His Word. As a Truly Just God, He gave man Free Will to chose his own path. Man can chose to follow the way that seems right to him but is not the way of God or he can follow God. Man's choice not God's.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Anyway, from what little you've told me about this person and book, I don't need to read it to know that what he is teaching is eroneous."

No, I wasn't suggesting you read this book really, just gave the source in case anyone was curious. (The Edgar Cayce book).

I do, however, suggest you take a look at the Nag Hammadi Library as that is the real thing! Its not by anyone in particular...but the same type of people who are responsible for the New Testament. (Early Christians).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I too was raised Catholic and had many problems with how we were taught to see the world. I have not ended up back at Christianity, although I think that
Christ was the ultimate example"

Let me clarify this...I ended up understanding true CHristianity. I still do not believe in organized religion. I do however believe in what Christ taught...which is look within yourself. I also believe in Buddhism, Hinduism etc etc etc...down the line. The core of each religion contain truths that are universal.
If I could sit with a bunch of Christians for a few hours and tell them all I believe, for the most part they would say that I am not a true Christian! Believe me! But from what I derive by reading the words of Jesus myself, I think I am. Understand that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Hence, I believe in God but not in a specific path -- and I believe that there are many paths. We are all different and all have different lessons to learn; we would not get the lessons we in particular need if we followed another path, and so must each find his/her own way."


I wish I read further before I commented (last post)...cause yes...this is what I mean...you stated it perfectly!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I wish I could remember where I read just recently that according to statistics, the more education a woman has the fewer children she has. I REALLY wish I
could because I find it aggravating when someone cites something like this and has no reference to back it up. . . ."

I think its buried somewhere in the Meat TAx thread on H&N.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Sorry, completely false. We have numerous copies of scripture from earlier than the 4th century. Enough to know that what we hold in our hands today is an
accurate, complete version of what was originally written."

I disagree with you...but it is not my intention to agrue with you or attempt to change you. But...if I didn't have to leave for work in a few minutes, I would look in the Bible and find that remark where Either KJesus or John the Baptist says "When he was ______"
I wish my memory was better...but sometime when I have the time, I will find it for you...so you can see what I am referring to and read it yourself!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"OTOH, there is plenty of proof that conquerors rewrite history to suit them, and this includes religious hierarchy. Many things were deleted and documents
destroyed in order to "prove" that women had no place in the early Church, for instance, and no rights as human beings, when the opposite is true."

Mys,

Check out the Nag Hammadi Library (the Gnostic Christian TExts that were didden for almost 2000 years)...they are similiar to the New Test. but different. One thing that is very different is the role of women! These texts were written before the patriarchal church banned such writings!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"When dealing with prophecy, it usually has multiple applications. It was understood that Jesus was referring to prophecies that duelly referred to Elijah
and the forerunner of the Messiah, John the Baptist. Again, Jesus was not suggesting reincarnation nor did the disciples understand it as reincarnation."

I guess I don't have to look this up as already posted it! :)

Multiple applications, hmmmmm...well, who is to say which interpretation is right???? I still think they believed in reincarnation back then. :) I read somewhere where they wrote the orinian Hebrew word out...and pointed out it was changed from reincarnation to ressurrection. A semantics type deal. But to be...resurrection can easily mean reincarnation....same idea except a different body.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Back to the state of the world...what do all of you think: if the majority of people accepted reincarnation and believed it happens, would they act differently. Would they spend more time considering the consequences of their actions? After all, if we reincarnate, we are the ones who will be back to live in the mess we are creating!

You're absolutely right. We're not getting inside anyone's altruism for their children and their children's children, that's for sure. Maybe if it was them that was going to live the result of their carelessness, we'd see a different attitude. Yet another example of selfish humanism, huh?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Begging your pardon, Frecs, and no offense intended, but that's one of the things I find hard to take
about people who defend religion. They condemn without thoroughly investigating what they're
condemning.
----------------------
How much is necessary in order to meet your standard for "knowing my enemy"? I think from what you two have stated that I have a very clear idea of this person's teachings. From that I know that what he is teaching is erroneous. Why? Because I know other facts, secular sources, that prove his is in error. Why waste my time further with what is obviously error?

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Frecs, I wasn't referring to you when I said I wished I could remember to cite references. I was
referring to ME. I have no doubt that you know some educated women who want lots of children; I
know there are some out there. I was referring to a statistical study (think I saw a reference to it on
the Internet and it was a *fairly reliable* source) that said that the more education women had, the
fewer children they produced. (It wasn't counting exceptions; it was noting an overall downward
trend among the subject group.)

mys
--------------------
Thanks for the clarification, mys. And I'm sure that the statistics do show a correlation between education and fewer children. But, what is the cause and effect? Are these women having fewer children because they are educated, because they are career oriented, because the air they breathed at college made them sterile, or......

Besides, I always hated statistics class. Just seemed to me a way to manipulate the numbers to prove the point you want to prove. :-)

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I do, however, suggest you take a look at the Nag Hammadi Library as that is the real thing! Its not
by anyone in particular...but the same type of people who are responsible for the New Testament.
(Early Christians).
-----------------------

I will do some research on this library. Have not heard of it in my studies. But, keep in mind that in order for it to be considered Canon, it must meet certain criteria. If it conflicts with other scripture that is Canon, then it does not meet that criteria. That is why a number of books in the Catholic Bible are not in the Protestant Bible...they are not Canon. And even the Catholic church admits that--thus the term Aprothia (I know I'm not spelling that right....) which means "Second Canon". Protestants do not recognize these was God-breathed because they conflict with the Canon in key areas.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Jesus claimed the be The Way, The Truth, and The Life. He claimed that there was only one way to the Father--through Him.

You must therefore believe one of three things:

1) Jesus was a liar and a fraud
2) Jesus was crazy
3) He was who he said He was

If 1 or 2 are true then he was not "a good teacher" or "or good man" or whatever.

If 3 is true then you have two choices, accept Him as your Savior. Or not. But, you can't have it both ways. If He is True, then Budda, Mohammed, etc. are false.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
disagree with you...but it is not my intention to agrue with you or attempt to change you. But...if I
didn't have to leave for work in a few minutes, I would look in the Bible and find that remark where
Either KJesus or John the Baptist says "When he was ______"
I wish my memory was better...but sometime when I have the time, I will find it for you...so you can
see what I am referring to and read it yourself!
---------------------
Let me know when you find it. I'm sure we can clear up the misinterpretation. :-)

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

Multiple applications, hmmmmm...well, who is to say which interpretation is right???? I still think they
believed in reincarnation back then. :) I read somewhere where they wrote the orinian Hebrew word
out...and pointed out it was changed from reincarnation to ressurrection. A semantics type deal. But
to be...resurrection can easily mean reincarnation....same idea except a different body.
--------------------

Reincarnation and Ressurrection are two entirely different concepts. We both know that or there would not be this discussion. Again, nothing has been change over the course of the insuing centuries because we still have 1st century copies to refer to to authnicate the scriptures.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>But, um, ya left out deadhead ;-)>>

Sorry, Chris! My taste in music runs toward more soothing stuff (medieval, New Age, ecclesiastical, folk . . . oh, sorry, am I boring you?). :)

mys


Just teasing ya mys. I like folk music a lot. The Dead have quite a heavy folk influence in a lot of their music. Some New Age is nice too. Not sure what medieval and ecclesiatical music are??

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>If I could sit with a bunch of Christians for a few hours and tell them all I believe, for the
most part they would say that I am not a true Christian! Believe me! But from what I derive by
reading the words of Jesus myself, I think I am. Understand that?>>

Yes, I do. I agree with you -- and so I don't call myself a Christian, which upsets my Christian friends no end! :) But I figure if they wouldn't I won't either.

But I don't call myself a Christian also because I think there is enlightenment to be found in other faiths, as you mentioned you also find truths there.

Heck, if this were an easy subject there wouldn't have been so many wars fought over it!

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Check out the Nag Hammadi Library (the Gnostic Christian TExts that were didden for almost
2000 years)...they are similiar to the New Test. but different. One thing that is very different
is the role of women! These texts were written before the patriarchal church banned such
writings! >>

It sounds fascinating. I will (though I don't guarantee it will be soon, since my reading list is slightly backed up. . . . :) )

Did you know that in Ireland up till about the sixth century women held positions of great authority (until Roman Christianity came along and put a stop to it, that is)?

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Why waste my time further with what is obviously error?>>

Well, for openers, you could point out specifics to us where you believe it to be wrong. Then we could check out your references and we could have another discussion about whether we're convinced or not.

It's always more enlightening to be told specifically what is wrong and where than to be told "that's wrong" with no further explanation. If I don't know what your judgment is based on, how can I logically decide whether to accept what you say?

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let me clarify this...I ended up understanding true CHristianity. I still do not believe in organized religion. I do however believe in what Christ taught...which is look within yourself. I also believe in Buddhism, Hinduism etc etc etc...down the line. The core of each religion contain truths that are universal.
If I could sit with a bunch of Christians for a few hours and tell them all I believe, for the most part they would say that I am not a true Christian! Believe me! But from what I derive by reading the words of Jesus myself, I think I am. Understand that?


Very well put Catharine!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>> But, what is the cause and effect? Are these women
having fewer children because they are educated, because they are career oriented, because
the air they breathed at college made them sterile, or...... >>

In my case, it was because I got out of Catholic school and found out I had a choice! :)

mys (whose only children have fur)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Jesus claimed the be The Way, The Truth, and The Life. He claimed that there was only one way to the Father--through Him.

You must therefore believe one of three things:

1) Jesus was a liar and a fraud
2) Jesus was crazy
3) He was who he said He was

If 1 or 2 are true then he was not "a good teacher" or "or good man" or whatever.

If 3 is true then you have two choices, accept Him as your Savior. Or not. But, you can't have it both ways. If He is True, then Budda, Mohammed, etc. are false.

Frecs


Maybe there's a 4th possibility and he was simply mistaken. He was a man after all. So maybe he was an excellent teacher and a good man, but just didn't quite have the curriculum right?

And, maybe Budda, Mohammed, etc. were also very good men and good teachers, but didn't quite have the curriculum right either?

All had the best of intentions, all taught great messages, all were very similar in many ways. All were very similar in one way in particular - they taught that humans are it, and the world is here for us and we should rule it. Sorry if you're getting tired of me saying that, but none of you have been able to show me that this is not true. I'm waiting anxiously!

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>But, keep in mind
that in order for it to be considered Canon, it must meet certain criteria. If it conflicts with
other scripture that is Canon, then it does not meet that criteria. >>

Who decides when something is Canon? I know who decides it in the Catholic church but not in Christianity in general. What are the criteria? And is it something that is accepted from denomination to denomination?

>>thus the term Aprothia (I know I'm not spelling that right....)
which means "Second Canon">>

Do you maybe mean Apocrypha? If so, Catholics don't accept Apocrypha either -- but their definition of Apocrypha is different than non-Catholic Christians' definition of Apocrypha.

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Not sure what medieval and ecclesiatical music
are??>>

Things like madrigals, motets, and Gregorian chant. (Fine choice of music for a non-Christian! :) ) If you look into groups like Anonymous 4 and the Tallis Scholars, that will give you a good idea of the first two. For the last, well, there are so many recordings of monks chanting these days that there's a pretty broad selection to choose from. Ironically, I find the music very soothing even if I find some of the premises behind it very upsetting.

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe there's a 4th possibility and he was simply mistaken. He was a man after all. So maybe he
was an excellent teacher and a good man, but just didn't quite have the curriculum right?

And, maybe Budda, Mohammed, etc. were also very good men and good teachers, but didn't quite
have the curriculum right either?

All had the best of intentions, all taught great messages, all were very similar in many ways. All were
very similar in one way in particular - they taught that humans are it, and the world is here for us and
we should rule it. Sorry if you're getting tired of me saying that, but none of you have been able to
show me that this is not true. I'm waiting anxiously!

Chris
----------------------------
Sorry, Chris, but there is no fourth option. If he "got the curriculum wrong" then he wasn't a good teacher. If he was wrong about being the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, then he was crazy or a fraud. You can't say he was a good, honest, moral teacher but say he was not who he said he was.

And, compared to Mohammed, Budda, et al., he is the only one who claimed to be God, and who is not in his grave.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Who decides when something is Canon? I know who decides it in the Catholic church but not in
Christianity in general. What are the criteria? And is it something that is accepted from denomination
to denomination?

>>thus the term Aprothia (I know I'm not spelling that right....)
which means "Second Canon">>

Do you maybe mean Apocrypha? If so, Catholics don't accept Apocrypha either -- but their definition
of Apocrypha is different than non-Catholic Christians' definition of Apocrypha.

mys
-------------------
As far as who and how the Canon was so determined, I'll have to get back to you on that, my resources are at home. Yes, I was refering to the Apocrypha, and yes, according to a Catholic Priest from whom I took a college theology course from (boy was that a fun semester! You think I'm giving you guys a hard time!) the church does accept the Apocrypha which is why those books are in the Catholic Bible. They recognize them as being at a different level of importance but they do use them as a base for doctrine. For example, from the books of Maccabees is where they got the idea of pergitory.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Why waste my time further with what is obviously error?>>

Well, for openers, you could point out specifics to us where you believe it to be wrong. Then we
could check out your references and we could have another discussion about whether we're
convinced or not.

It's always more enlightening to be told specifically what is wrong and where than to be told "that's
wrong" with no further explanation. If I don't know what your judgment is based on, how can I
logically decide whether to accept what you say?

mys
---------------------
mys, help me out here. I've lost track of who we were talking about here and I can't find the post(s). Point me in the right direction or give me a brief summary again of what he taught so I can response accurately.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sorry, Chris, but there is no fourth option. If he "got the curriculum wrong" then he wasn't a good teacher. If he was wrong about being the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, then he was crazy or a fraud. You can't say he was a good, honest, moral teacher but say he was not who he said he was.

You missed my logic here, or I mis-stated it. Someone can be a very good teacher and a very good person with the highest morals and intentions, but if what they believe in with their heart and soul is not right, then they are teaching the wrong curriculum.

You still haven't addressed my definition of right and wrong here. Once upon a time, man (1 or many?) decided to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and decided that he was superior to all other life on the planet and that he would rule over it (correct my biblical reference if I'm off here). That decision and assumption is the basis for Jesus', Mohammed's, Allah's, Budda's, and others' teachings or curricula and what Quinn calls the "Great Forgetting".

I'm saying that is not right, and that all life has equal footing and is needed equally for the planet and all it's life forms to survive and continue to evolve. With that new foundation, we must set out to relearn all we have assumed and have been taught since the the "Great Forgetting" or we will not survive.

mys, I think your timing of women's removal from history and power comes later. As man continued to learn that he was all powerful, he could even take power away from women based on religios teachings.

My analytical side really wants a time line to lay out all this stuff. There has to be a historical timeline linking major religious events and stories on the internet somewhere...

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>mys, help me out here. I've lost track of who we were talking about here and I can't find the
post(s). Point me in the right direction or give me a brief summary again of what he taught so
I can response accurately.>>

To be honest, Frecs, I forgot. It was a book I think Catharine recommended. I'll have to go back and hunt up the reference myself! :) (This thread has grown so. . . .)

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>mys, I think your timing of women's removal from history and power comes later. As man
continued to learn that he was all powerful, he could even take power away from women based
on religios teachings.>>

Chris, I'm not sure. I think it began earlier than just Christianity -- Judaism is not kind to women either, nor is Islam. (Again I'm referring to organized religion here, folks, just to keep things straight -- the rules made for worshiping in these religions, not the principles revered.) The books I've read indicate that the removal of women from history and power comes pretty early on; it was something Christianity copied from other cultures and it was already well entrenched in those cultures.

Sigh. I think it's time to go do some research and see if I can find again what I'm talking about so that I at least have a reasonably accurate idea of dates and periods of history. I think your idea of a timeline is fantastic; it would clarify so much!

mys

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The books I've read indicate that the removal of women from history and power comes pretty early on; it was something Christianity copied from other cultures and it was already well entrenched in those cultures.


Yes yes, of course! Christianity copied much of it's essense from older religions and repackaged it to be used in the interests of the male priests and bishops. They used their new packaging to spread their rule across the world, taking the concept of humans being created to rule the world to men being created to rule the world to Christian men being created to rule the world. They of course added that others could be converted to be part of this ruling class, but only as subservants to the priests and bishops.

Great perspective mys! I love how we're building here.

Frecs, is this making sense to you... separating the human historical practices from Jesus' teachings? Can you see a convergence in our views maybe in that Jesus believed that all life forms were created equal, but man (intentionally male here) could never grasp that and so created the perhaps mis-named "Christianity" that prevailed for the next 2000 years.

Chris
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"After all, would a truly merciful God really condemn anyone to hell, knowing that they are limited creatures and that He made them that way? I don't think so. "

Yes...I could never make sense of how a loving merciful God would want to just throw every sinner into hell forever and ever either. One chance and that's it!

Personally, I believe "hell" is a state of mind. And states of mind are very powerful things! :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"How much is necessary in order to meet your standard for "knowing my enemy"? I think from what you two have stated that I have a very clear idea of this person's teachings. From that I know that what he is teaching is erroneous. Why? Because I know other facts, secular sources, that prove his is in error. Why waste my time further with what is obviously error?"

Just FYI, the man we are talking about is Edgar Cayce. Cayce was a very devout Christian and a Bible School teacher. He read the Bible from cover to cover every year of his life.
Somewhere along the line he started going into trances (altered states of consciousness) and was able to heal people with the information he obtained while in a trance.
After a few years of giving medical readings, someone started asking him religious questions. All of this stuff about reincarnation, the Essenes, the Life of Jesus etc etc came out. Upon awakening and finding out what he said while in a trance, well Cayce was very upset as it went against everything he believed and read in the Bible. For awhile he wouldn't do any more readings. He was upset at himself.
But, he was encouraged to continue. It is possible that he is a God inspired prophet in the same sense that those who wrote the Bible received their message from God and merely passed it on. Cayce is often spoken of as the greatest Prophet of this century. Many of his predictions have come true.
If anyone is interested, there is a book called "There Is A River" which is about Edgar Cayce (as opposed to other CAyce books which are about what Cayce said).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Are these women having fewer children because they are educated, because they are career oriented, because the air they breathed at college made
them sterile, or...... "

Definately the air!!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I will do some research on this library. Have not heard of it in my studies. But, keep in mind that in order for it to be considered Canon, it must meet certain criteria. If it conflicts with other scripture that is Canon, then it does not meet that criteria. That is why a number of books in the Catholic Bible are not in the Protestant Bible...they are not Canon. And even the Catholic church admits that--thus the term Aprothia (I know I'm not spelling that right....) which means "Second Canon". Protestants do not recognize these was God-breathed because they conflict with the Canon in key areas."

I'd be interested in knowing if they are Canon or not. I suspect some books would be accepted that way, and others not. Some of them differ from what we are used to and some are close to what we are used to.
I found them fascinating. They just strike an inner chord. I think you will find them interesting. They suggest reading the Nag Hammadi Libray edited by James Robinson. I've read that there are already new translations which have been changed!!!!!!
I have no idea how the Church feels about these texts. With the exception of Carl Jung and Elaine Pagels...I haven't read anyones opinion about these texts. I've just read the texts themselves and found I couldn't put them down! You might want to start with The Gospel of Thomas. It is similiar to Mathew, Mark, Luke etc....similiar but different.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If 3 is true then you have two choices, accept Him as your Savior. Or not. But, you can't have it both ways. If He is True, then Budda, Mohammed, etc. are false."

Not necessarily. The Buddha was a teacher...the Buddha and Buddhist's don't claim anything other than that the Buddha was enlightened. As for Mohammed, well, isn't he said to be a prophet? Only Jesus is said to be Savior. (Though the Islamic religions claim that Jesus was only a prophet and Mohammed was the greatest prophet). But Buddhists don't make such claims...they just say he was enlightened!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
>>Personally, I believe "hell" is a state of mind. And states of mind are very powerful things! :) >>

Speaking of hell and states of mine, did anyone see Robin Williams in Bid Time Return? It was a fascinating book by Richard Matheson (who also wrote the book that the Christopher Reeve movie Somewhere in Time was based on), and it deals with just these issues. Plus the special effects were magical!

Worth a look, everyone, really. It would lead to a lot more discussion, too! :)

mys
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
><>did anyone see Robin Williams in Bid Time Return? It
was a fascinating book by Richard Matheson (who also wrote the book that the Christopher
Reeve movie Somewhere in Time was based on), and it deals with just these issues. Plus the
special effects were magical!>>

Oops, having a senior moment here. Bid Time Return was the name of the book that Somewhere in Time was based on. The Robin Williams movie was What Dreams May Come, based on the book of the same name. At least I got the author right. . . .

mys (sheesh)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Oops, having a senior moment here. Bid Time Return was the name of the book that Somewhere in Time was based on. The Robin Williams movie was What Dreams May Come, based on the book of the same name. At least I got
the author right. . . ."

I'll check this movie out next time they show it or next time I rent one!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You still haven't addressed my definition of right and wrong here. Once upon a time, man (1 or
many?) decided to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and decided that he was
superior to all other life on the planet and that he would rule over it (correct my biblical reference if
I'm off here). That decision and assumption is the basis for Jesus', Mohammed's, Allah's, Budda's,
and others' teachings or curricula and what Quinn calls the "Great Forgetting".

My analytical side really wants a time line to lay out all this stuff. There has to be a historical
timeline linking major religious events and stories on the internet somewhere...
----------------------------------

Well, it get the Biblical account correct :-), even before the apple eating event, Adam & Eve had already received their instructions from God on taking care of the garden and the animals. God gave them "dominion" but not so they could destroy or abuse but to care for it. It was after the fall, when they were cast out of the garden that man's sinful nature caused him to get a twisted view of his place in the world.

The only "great forgetting" I see was in who we are in relation to the rest of creation and in relation to God. Man seems to like to either make himself god or deny there is a God or even more odd to believe both at the same time!

I'm not sure if you will be able to get the type of "timeline" you are after. Keep in mind that there are events in the Bible that also occur in other cultures..such as the great flood and their "timeline" matches pretty well. What you will never be able to do, Chris, is dig up God. God is not something you can hold in your hand. There is an element of faith involved. Not blind faith, but faith. The way I see it, it takes less faith to believe in God, than in evolution. But, regardless of what "belief system" you adopt...its a matter of faith in that system because you will never be able to "prove it" or dig up God.

Sorry for the delayed reply, I was out of commission yesterday due to Floyd.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"After all, would a truly merciful God really condemn anyone to hell, knowing that they are limited
creatures and that He made them that way? I don't think so. "

Yes...I could never make sense of how a loving merciful God would want to just throw every sinner
into hell forever and ever either. One chance and that's it!
--------------------
God is merciful, far more merciful than we deserve. He is so merciful that He sent His Only Son to die for us. To provide us the opportunity to be cleansed of our sins so we can again stand in the presence of a Perfect, Righteous God. God can not look on sin, which is why he turned away when Jesus hung on the cross bearing all our sins.

God is also loving enough to give us the freedom to choose whether we want to live with Him or not. Free Choice--Eternal Heaven or Eternal Hell. We each get to choose. That is merciful. God is not the one who will be condemning people to eternal hell, their denial of Him is their own choose, not His.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Just FYI, the man we are talking about is Edgar Cayce. Cayce was a very devout Christian and a
Bible School teacher. He read the Bible from cover to cover every year of his life.
Somewhere along the line he started going into trances (altered states of consciousness) and was
able to heal people with the information he obtained while in a trance.
After a few years of giving medical readings, someone started asking him religious questions. All of
this stuff about reincarnation, the Essenes, the Life of Jesus etc etc came out. Upon awakening and
finding out what he said while in a trance, well Cayce was very upset as it went against everything
he believed and read in the Bible. For awhile he wouldn't do any more readings. He was upset at
himself.
But, he was encouraged to continue. It is possible that he is a God inspired prophet in the same sense
that those who wrote the Bible received their message from God and merely passed it on. Cayce is
often spoken of as the greatest Prophet of this century. Many of his predictions have come true.
If anyone is interested, there is a book called "There Is A River" which is about Edgar Cayce (as
opposed to other CAyce books which are about what Cayce said).
----------------------------
Yes, it was against everything he read in the Bible. He was a false prophet, either by his chosing or by opening himself up to evil while in the trance. Either way, what he said in the trances were fallacy.

A false prophet is one who predicts something that does not come to pass. If a "prophet" makes 10 predictions and only one does not come true, he is a false prophet. Cayce was not only a poor interpreter of scripture, but he made a number of false prophecies. For example, he prophesied that California would fall into the ocean in 1972. I double checked my maps, it appears that California is still attached to the Pacific coast, so it looks like he was wrong. Thus, by default, everything else he prophecied about or claimed to have learned in a trance is not to be trusted. He was a FALSE PROPHET.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'd be interested in knowing if they are Canon or not. I suspect some books would be accepted that
way, and others not. Some of them differ from what we are used to and some are close to what we
are used to.
I found them fascinating. They just strike an inner chord. I think you will find them interesting. They
suggest reading the Nag Hammadi Libray edited by James Robinson. I've read that there are already
new translations which have been changed!!!!!!
I have no idea how the Church feels about these texts. With the exception of Carl Jung and Elaine
Pagels...I haven't read anyones opinion about these texts. I've just read the texts themselves and
found I couldn't put them down! You might want to start with The Gospel of Thomas. It is similiar to
Mathew, Mark, Luke etc....similiar but different.
---------------------------
Still researching this, I'll get back to you on it. But, be careful about accepting something just because it "sounds good to me". Many a false teaching, in and out of the Church, has been founded on the premise "it sounds good to me."

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If 3 is true then you have two choices, accept Him as your Savior. Or not. But, you can't have it
both ways. If He is True, then Budda, Mohammed, etc. are false."

Not necessarily. The Buddha was a teacher...the Buddha and Buddhist's don't claim anything other
than that the Buddha was enlightened. As for Mohammed, well, isn't he said to be a prophet? Only
Jesus is said to be Savior. (Though the Islamic religions claim that Jesus was only a prophet and
Mohammed was the greatest prophet). But Buddhists don't make such claims...they just say he was
enlightened!
------------------------
But the Buddha contradicted Christ, one of them was wrong. If Jesus was who he claimed to be, then Mohammed and the Moslems are wrong. Again, you can't have it both ways.

Jesus left no room for people to believe Him and to believe other religions...He claimed to be The Way, The Truth, and The Life and The ONLY way to God...where does that leave the Buddists and Moslems or those who try to combine them? Certainly not in agreement with Christ.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The only "great forgetting" I see was in who we are in relation to the rest of creation and in relation to God. Man seems to like to either make himself god or
deny there is a God or even more odd to believe both at the same time!"

This is so true. Just think about science. Think about the genetic engineering we were discussing on H&N. This is all done in the name of science. Science once functioned in order to discover how things work...today the purpose of science is to improve on nature (God). And, it seems that most scientists (not all) don't believe in God...they only believe in science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"God is also loving enough to give us the freedom to choose whether we want to live with Him or not. Free Choice--Eternal Heaven or Eternal Hell. We each get
to choose. That is merciful. God is not the one who will be condemning people to eternal hell, their denial of Him is their own choose, not His."


Ok, brace yourself for this Frecs :) But think about it, and tell me if you think just maybe it might be possible:

Eternal heaven = no more reincarnating, but oneness with God.

Eternal Hell = reincarnating over and over and over again.

Somehow, I can reconcile your views with mine! :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"A false prophet is one who predicts something that does not come to pass. If a "prophet" makes 10 predictions and only one does not come true, he is a false prophet. Cayce was not only a poor interpreter of scripture, but he made a number of false prophecies. For example, he prophesied that California would fall into the ocean in 1972. I double checked my maps, it appears that California is still attached to the Pacific coast, so it looks like he was wrong. Thus, by default, everything else he prophecied about or claimed to have learned in a trance is not to be trusted. He was a FALSE PROPHET."

What I've read of Cayce (his own words, not those of people who wrote about him) was that the future is not something that can predicted with accuracy as we can change the future. Enough believers praying can influence God to change the future. So?????? I don't really know.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Still researching this, I'll get back to you on it. But, be careful about accepting something just because it "sounds good to me". Many a false teaching, in and out of the Church, has been founded on the premise "it sounds good to me.""

Oh, don't worry about that :). I only accept what intuitively feels "right" to me. I will listen to anything and everything...but only retain what I feel within in me to be true! I just hope my intuition is pretty good :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"The only "great forgetting" I see was in who we are in relation to the rest of creation and in relation
to God. Man seems to like to either make himself god or
deny there is a God or even more odd to believe both at the same time!"

This is so true. Just think about science. Think about the genetic engineering we were discussing on
H&N. This is all done in the name of science. Science once functioned in order to discover how
things work...today the purpose of science is to improve on nature (God). And, it seems that most
scientists (not all) don't believe in God...they only believe in science.
----------------------
Ahhh...something we can agree on! :-)

The early scientists were Christians who, as you said, wanted to discover how things worked. Now they seem hell bent on proving that God does not exist and to f*#% around with nature. And what do they do with scientists that question they way of "seeing"? They exorcise them from the academy! Lord forbid that there be true discussion and debate within those "hallowed" halls!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Eternal heaven = no more reincarnating, but oneness with God.

Eternal Hell = reincarnating over and over and over again.

Somehow, I can reconcile your views with mine! :)
-----------------------

But, I can not reconcile my views with yours, I'm afraid.

"It is appointed unto man ONCE TO DIE and then the judgement." Once, not multiple times, just once. You have one chance to get it right. There are no make up tests for the final exam!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Still researching this, I'll get back to you on it. But, be careful about accepting something just because it "sounds good to me". Many a false teaching, in and out of the Church, has been founded on the premise "it sounds good to me.""

After sending my last answer I realized I misread what you were saying. I thought you were saying not to accept something because you say it...I realize you were saying not to accept something because "it sounds good to me."

Well Frecs, here's a question. I often ask God to lead me and guide me...to show me what I need to know. So, if I am led to somehow discover a book like the Nag Hammadi Library (say while browsing in a section of a bookstore I never browse), I kind of think I was led by God to find that book. I trust God...so when I read that book and "it sounds good to me" I tend to believe that it is because it contains information that God feels I am ready to receive.
Now...am I or am I not to trust the God who I pray to??????
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What I've read of Cayce (his own words, not those of people who wrote about him) was that the
future is not something that can predicted with accuracy as we can change the future. Enough
believers praying can influence God to change the future. So?????? I don't really know.
---------------------------

I was quoting from his work, he predicted an exact date for California to drop into the ocean. It did not happen. He failed the test of a true prophet. His other teachings then must be viewed as false as well.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well Frecs, here's a question. I often ask God to lead me and guide me...to show me what I need
to know. So, if I am led to somehow discover a book like the Nag Hammadi Library (say while
browsing in a section of a bookstore I never browse), I kind of think I was led by God to find that
book. I trust God...so when I read that book and "it sounds good to me" I tend to believe that it is
because it contains information that God feels I am ready to receive.
Now...am I or am I not to trust the God who I pray to??????
-----------------------
We are to test everything against the Word of God. Simply because it appears to be an answer to prayer or appears to be from God, does not make it so. If it contradicts the Word of God then it can not be of God as God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Let me give you an example from what is happening today in my own denomination. There are preachers (self professed "prophets") who are teaching strange doctrine--herretical doctrine--but many are falling for it because "it tickles their ears" in other words "it sounds good to them". Just because it seems to be an answer to prayer or to "feel right to them" doesn't make it right. If they tested the spirit against the light of scripture they would see that they are being taught wrong.

We must be very careful about what we accept as truth. Satan comes as an Angel of Light. (I'll probably get flamed for using "Satan" but, oh well. :-) )

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"But the Buddha contradicted Christ, one of them was wrong. If Jesus was who he claimed to be, then Mohammed and the Moslems are wrong. Again, you
can't have it both ways."


Didn't the Buddha precede Christ? If "Jesus left no room for people to believe Him and to believe other religions...He claimed to be The Way, The Truth, and The Life and The ONLY way to God," this happened later! Jesus came after the Buddha, so to me, its that evolution thing again...the Buddha led up to Christ. During the Buddha's time man wasn't ready for what was to come...so the Buddha's enlightenment was the best there was at that time. I've also read that Buddhism wasn't originally inted to be a religion, but a way of life. Like everything else...change got a hold of it. :)

I can't argue in regard to Islamic religions. This goes back to me "feels good to me" intuition. Islamic religions don't feel right to me. I've tried reading the Koran but it makes me mad! I always end up shutting it and throwing it on a shelf. I think it is a less evolved religion, personally. Not to say that its not valid...it is valid for those at spiritual level it is intended for...but I think I'm past being able to understand it any other way.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Didn't the Buddha precede Christ? If "Jesus left no room for people to believe Him and to believe
other religions...He claimed to be The Way, The Truth, and The Life and The ONLY way to
God," this happened later! Jesus came after the Buddha, so to me, its that evolution thing
again...the Buddha led up to Christ. During the Buddha's time man wasn't ready for what was to
come...so the Buddha's enlightenment was the best there was at that time. I've also read that
Buddhism wasn't originally inted to be a religion, but a way of life. Like everything else...change got
a hold of it. :)
-------------------------
Regardless of who "came first" the fact is that Jesus made his claim. Didn't leave room for mixing and matching to suit oneself. That type of practice is what he spoke against with the priests, pharisees, and sadducees...taking scripture and adding to it.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Ahhh...something we can agree on! :-)

The early scientists were Christians who, as you said, wanted to discover how things worked. Now they seem hell bent on proving that God does not exist and
to f*#% around with nature. And what do they do with scientists that question they way of "seeing"? They exorcise them from the academy! Lord forbid that
there be true discussion and debate within those "hallowed" halls!"


Actually, we agree on a lot of things...you just don't realize it :) :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
""It is appointed unto man ONCE TO DIE and then the judgement." Once, not multiple times, just once. You have one chance to get it right. There are no make
up tests for the final exam!"

How do we know this is in reference to physical death? Maybe there is some other kind of death we are unaware of...a real death?????? Like, a death for those who are so pathetically bad that even lifetimes of reincarnation can't straighten them out...so God judge's them and destroys them totally?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Regardless of who "came first" the fact is that Jesus made his claim. Didn't leave room for mixing and matching to suit oneself. That type of practice is what he spoke against with the priests, pharisees, and sadducees...taking scripture and adding to it."

Actually, there are certain unviversal truths which seem to show up in every religion. There are elements of Buddhism that are exactly the same as in Christianity (as Jesus taught it, anyway)....the thing where the two can not be reconciled is the after death thing.

Buddhism has reincarnation. I still say you can see reincarnation in Christianity. BUT...the Goal in Buddhism is Nirvana (nothingness)...the goal in Christianity is Everlasting Life...so here, yes...they can't be reconciled. But up to this point, there are a lot of common elements (not all).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
""It is appointed unto man ONCE TO DIE and then the judgement." Once, not multiple times, just
once. You have one chance to get it right. There are no make
up tests for the final exam!"

How do we know this is in reference to physical death? Maybe there is some other kind of death
we are unaware of...a real death?????? Like, a death for those who are so pathetically bad that
even lifetimes of reincarnation can't straighten them out...so God judge's them and destroys them
totally?
-----------------------
Because Paul wrote, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". If he had been speaking spiritually, he would have said so. They understood the difference.

God does not comdemn them, they condemn themselves. They are not destroyed...they spend eternity in Hell far worse than being reincarnated multiple times, by a long shot!

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Because Paul wrote, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord". If he had been speaking spiritually, he would have said so. They
understood the difference."


I don't know...I can see this differently. I don't see anything about death in this statement. Here Paul is only talking about being absent from the body....that is not necessarily being dead. We can take our minds out of our bodies for periods of time...astral projection is an example....so, is Paul talking about death or just talking about being out of the body. We can meditate and join God...leave the body behind for a time, so to speak.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know...I can see this differently. I don't see anything about death in this statement. Here
Paul is only talking about being absent from the body....that is not necessarily being dead. We can
take our minds out of our bodies for periods of time...astral projection is an example....so, is Paul
talking about death or just talking about being out of the body. We can meditate and join
God...leave the body behind for a time, so to speak.
------------------------
First, in context, death is exactly what Paul was talking about. Second, if Paul did not mean death but an out of body experience, he would have said so as he and John both did in other writings. Paul was indeed referring to death. You see, the early Christians who were facing maryterdom were concerned about what happens to them after they die. The cultures around them held various opinions--reincarnation, sleep, or nothingness--they wanted to know from Paul what the truth was. Paul was reassuring them that there was a life after death--a life with Christ in heaven.

Frecs
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The books I've read indicate that the removal of women from history and power comes pretty early on; it was something Christianity copied from other cultures and it was already well entrenched in those cultures.


Yes yes, of course! Christianity copied much of it's essense from older religions and repackaged it to be used in the interests of the male priests and bishops. They used their new packaging to spread their rule across the world, taking the concept of humans being created to rule the world to men being created to rule the world to Christian men being created to rule the world. They of course added that others could be converted to be part of this ruling class, but only as subservants to the priests and bishops.


Ok I can't sit still any longer. I've been taking notes and reading this board from the beginning but I have to respond to this post. (#166 9-15). Read 'Beyond Power' by Marilyn French and 'The Chalice and the Blade' by Rianne Eisler. They both explain this in greta detail...especially 'Beyond Power'

Zen
I love this board. I feel like I am home.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Zen
I love this board. I feel like I am home.


Great to have you Zen!! Pull up a chair and make yourself comfortable :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Christianity copied much of it's essense from older religions and repackaged it to be used in the interests of the male priests and bishops. They used their new packaging to spread their rule across the world, taking the concept of humans being created to rule the world to men being created to rule the world to Christian men being created to rule the world. They of course added that others could be converted to be part of this ruling class, but only as subservants to the priests and bishops."
***********
huh?? Of course it came from older religions. Christ and his followers were Jewish until they took the message of the fulfilling of all the prophesies to the Gentiles because it was for ALL the people. There were no bishops then. . .You have to understand the history of BOTH Christianity and Judiasm to understand what happened exactly. It wasn't a ruling class at all, and still isn't. Subservants? I'm not sure where this comes from.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Ok I can't sit still any longer. I've been taking notes and reading this board from the beginning but I have to respond to this post. (#166 9-15). Read 'Beyond
Power' by Marilyn French and 'The Chalice and the Blade' by Rianne Eisler. They both explain this in greta detail...especially 'Beyond Power'"

Welcome Zen,

Its about time you found your way over here! Don't worry about posting comments in reply to older messages...we don't care.
I have "The Chalice and the Blade" but haven't really had time to read it yet. (story of my life lately) :) Maybe I'll put it closer to the top of the pile! :)
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement