Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 22
not necessarily for the rich and famous....enjoy!

regards,
rocker

"DON'T WAIT"

I needed this reminder...maybe you do too.

We convince ourselves that life will be better after we get married,
have a baby, then another. Then we are frustrated that the kids aren't
old enough and we'll be more content when they are. After that, we're
frustrated that we
have teenagers to deal with.

We will certainly be happy when they are out of that stage. We tell
ourselves
that our life will be complete when our spouse gets his or her act
together, when we get a nicer car, are able to go on a nice vacation, or
when we retire.

The truth is, there's no better time to be happy than right now. If not
now, when?
Your life will always be filled with challenges. It's best to admit
this to yourself and decide to be happy anyway. Happiness is the way.

So, treasure every moment that you have and treasure it more because
you shared it with someone special - special enough to spend your time
with...and
remember that time waits for no one.

So, stop waiting.... --until your car or home is paid off
--until you get a new car or home
--until your kids leave the house
--until you go back to school
--until you finish school
--until you lose 10 lbs.
--until you gain 10 lbs.
--until you get married
--until you get a divorce
--until you have kids
--until you retire
--until summer
--until spring
--until winter
--until fall
--until you die
There is no better time than right now to be happy.
Happiness is a journey, not a destination.
So-work like you don't need money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
And dance like no one's watching.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The first line item in my daily planner at work is to read the Prayer to St. Francis, the Serenity Prayer, followed by that passage.

RM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The first line item in my daily planner at work is to read the Prayer to St. Francis, the Serenity Prayer, followed by that passage.

What the hell it has to do with the statement of this thread?
I liked the statement as guiding life style which applies to every one whether he/she wants be superstitious or not.
Prayer is like a placebo, and it makes you happy so be it.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 46
The first line item in my daily planner at work is to read the Prayer to St. Francis, the Serenity Prayer, followed by that passage.
*****************************************************************
What the hell it has to do with the statement of this thread?
I liked the statement as guiding life style which applies to every one whether he/she wants be superstitious or not.
Prayer is like a placebo, and it makes you happy so be it.


What it has to do with it is that the poster recognizes and appreciates the item in the original post and has made it part of his morning mental preparations along with two other texts he mentions.
The fact that the other two items are written as prayers seems to distress you enough to attack ("what the hell", "superstitious", strong words) a harmless bit of sharing.

If prayer is a placebo and does no harm why the attitude?



Reader99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
If prayer is a placebo and does no harm why the attitude?

Because the way it was said amounted to proselytizing from the back door. The following statement was of universal appeal. It was the mixing of universal to parochial that made it so offensive. It is like the practice of padding of universal legislation with personal agenda by some congressmen.

There is no better time than right now to be happy.
Happiness is a journey, not a destination.
So-work like you don't need money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
And dance like no one's watching.


It is such a nice passage that I did not want it to be distorted by someone's controversial prejudice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 23
What the hell it has to do with the statement of this thread?
I liked the statement as guiding life style which applies to every one whether he/she wants be superstitious or not.
Prayer is like a placebo, and it makes you happy so be it.


Wow. For somebody who advocates a laissez-faire attitude towards prayer, you sure sound angry about it.

phantomdiver
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
I thank the Lord everyday that I am retired and in good health. If that is 'controversial prejudice', then so be it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
Aditya - I didn't mean to be provacative...

"What the hell it has to do with the statement of this thread?"

I'm hardly what you'd call religous. I start each morning by reading

-the Serenity P$@#$@, which simpy tells me not to spend a lot of time worrying about things I can't do much change, but to instead focus on things I might be able to do something about

-The P$@#$& to S# Francis tells me not to be self-absorbed dweeb (something I have a real propensity toward), but to instead think about how I might help others

-the Happiness bit cited by the initiator of this post suggests that I might try to enjoy ride, rather than simply endure the years until I'm able to ER.

RM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
"I thank the Lord everyday that I am retired and in good health. If that is 'controversial prejudice', then so be it. "

Not to pick nits, by why wouldn't anyone who believes in the 'magic' of prayer, pray that everyone would be in good health and be retired early? Not just themselves?

Otherwise, it seems most people are 'thankful' for their own particular circumstances, often at the expense of others (ie, for those that made money selling 'short', someone else lost money by being 'long', for everyone who survived an 'accident' or 'disaster' where others died benefitted from 'selective' 'saving', etc). Someone who made lucky investments, or someone who had the benefit of good financial upbringing, good family, etc, and retired early.


I'm always amused when a plane crashes, and a survivor 'thanks god' for saving his/her life? If something somewhere had anything to do with it, then surely they would have prevented the crash, because I'm absolutely sure that one of the folks on the plane, or one of their relatives' prayed for a safe journey. Seems absolutely absurd to me to be 'thankful' that only half the plane load died or most of the plane load died.

Hey, if it rocks your boat, fine with me...just don't expect me to subsidize it, bow down to it, or even 'sanctify' it in any way. Blue laws - they should never have existed. Can't mow your grass on Sunday morning - NOT.... Stores have to be closed Sundays....NOT....

I'm not overjoyed about being in the ONLY country in the entire world with a religious jingle on its currency. (and there are some looney countries out there with 'religious' gov'ts, like Afghanistan, Iran, Isreal, etc).

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"What the hell it has to do with the statement of this thread ?"


WOW ! Like this is the first time the subject been changed or expended upon. If you are going to make some new rules how about telling the rest of us. Thank-you very much
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 33
Saying "I read the serenity prayer" is by no means proselytizing. If I say, "I had Muenster cheese for lunch" am I advocating, promoting or otherwise pushing Muenster? No, I am stating what I personally did. Saying "And YOU SHOULD TOO" would be proselytizing. Saying "I read a chapter of the Koran" yesterday is not proselytizing; saying "If you don't read and follow the Koran you will fry" is.

The difference is mainly in the "I" statement vs "you" statements.

With the logic you are using, anyone who described any action they take is proselytizing. I brush my teeth with baking soda instead of toothpaste - do you feel pressured to do the same?




Reader99
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
WOW ! Like this is the first time the subject been changed or expended upon. If you are going to make some new rules how about telling the rest of us.

I agree with your statement but I have an equal right to make an equally personal comment when I felt offended. I am not in any position nor any desire to make rules for any one else. I feel equally happy by not praying to any non-entity by just following the otherwise very nice statment at the start of this thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Really ; you felt offended ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
JimB100: I thank the Lord everyday that I am retired and in good health. If that is 'controversial prejudice', then so be it.

And I say, good for you!

I'll do the same thing when I get there - right after I thank the Lady.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
telegraph:
I'm not overjoyed about being in the ONLY country in the entire world with a religious jingle on its currency. (and there are some looney countries out there with 'religious' gov'ts, like Afghanistan, Iran, Isreal, etc).

The governments of all these countries are dominated by people who think they are superior to the rest.

BTW, I feel happier after masturbation which is more practical than a prayer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
What the hell it has to do with the statement of this thread?
I liked the statement as guiding life style which applies to every one whether he/she wants be superstitious or not.
Prayer is like a placebo, and it makes you happy so be it.


I had a very good friend who was raised in communist Romania. He escaped through Yugoslavia and over the Italian Alps. It is an amazing story. He told me that when he was in Romania every one was looking out for themselves. Boys lied to girls constantly to get sex, everyone stole whatever they could get away with, no one had any morals at all. He was afraid to open up to anyone because they might have been part of the Romanian KGB. Little children were taught from the time they were in pre-school that religion was a placebo and there was no God.

In Russia today they are seeing the after affects of 70 years of state sponsored Atheism. Murder is rampant and people have abject crappy lives. Men are committing suicide at an alarming rate and alcoholism is epidemic. Perhaps humans and our society need to believe in God in order to have good lives. There is a scripture that says, "a house divided will not stand."

Just picture a small tribe of humans, say 100,000 years ago, a group of hunter-gatherers, trying to survive in harsh environment. Over every mountain is another one just like them waiting to swoop down and kill the men and take the women and children. If there is someone inside that tribe who is contentious, raping the women, stealing, and bigger and meaner than everyone else, how can that tribe hold together? The tribes which had a belief in something bigger than themselves held together and prospered and grew, those which did not died out. Classic Darwinian selection.

We need God. We need religion. It is the glue that holds our society together. Without religion we end up like Russia and Romania, looking out only for ourselves and human society breaks down. Whether it is true or not; studies have shown that people who have a belief in God liver longer happier and even healthier lives. I read a study just recently that showed that religious people heal quicker and have a better prognosis than people who have no beliefs.

I also read a study online recently that showed that humans have an area of the brain that seems to be most active during times of religious involvement, an area of the brain made just for God. I also read another study online that there are many scientists who now believe that there may actually be something to these life after death experiences. That they are something that is worth looking into. The jist of it was that not only had people's hearts stopped but so had all electrical activity in the brain before people were brought back yet they still had these common out of body experiences.

I'm sorry that I didn't save the links to these articles. - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Aditya says "BTW, I feel happier after masturbation which is more practical than a prayer."

Aditya, when you get to the office in the morning, do you close your door? 8^)

I believe this thread has now completely deteriorated, whaddya say we wrap it up?

See you at church,

RM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Boys lied to girls constantly to get sex,

Imagine! I never heard of such a thing! :)

In Russia today they are seeing the after affects of 70 years of state sponsored Atheism. Murder is rampant and people have abject crappy lives. Men are committing suicide at an alarming rate and alcoholism is epidemic.

I think it's ignoring the big picture to think that the way people are in Russia is simply a result of Atheism. I think it has a lot more to do with politics than religon.

Perhaps humans and our society need to believe in God in order to have good lives. There is a scripture that says, "a house divided will not stand."

Here is the US there are quite a number of religons. Sounds like a house divided to me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
Perhaps humans and our society need to believe in God in order to have good lives. There is a scripture that says, "a house divided will not stand."

Here is the US there are quite a number of religons. Sounds like a house divided to me.


All religions teach the same basic principles which can be boiled down to the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What is interesting is the phrasing of the language is almost identical in Hinduism as in Christianity. The story of Isis and Osiris (from Egypt) is almost the exact same story as Jesus and Mary. The idea of a god coming down and impregnating a human is found in many ancient religions, the most familiar being the story of Hercules, half human - half god. The story of a huge flood (post Ice Age?)is common to many religions. My point is that we are not as divided as we at first seem.

The differences of doctrine are really quite minor. It is hard for me to understand the animosity that Jews and Arabs have for each other when they share such a close common ancestry, as proven by scientific studies of the Y chromosone, and their religions are almost identical. Both are strongly monotheistic, don't eat pork, both believe they descend from Abraham, etc.

What we need to work on is the link that we all share as humans; that we are not so different. I really like the Quaker philosophy of non-violence. We all need to sit and think quietly for a time about our place in this world and perhaps even the Universe. A lot of the horrendous atrocities committed in the name of religion can be explained in the fact that the people who committed them didn't read and understand what they in fact were purporting. How can someone who reads "love your neighbor as yourself" or "judge not that you be not judged" - turn around and place that person on the rack and torture them? What were they thinking? - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
" Boys lied to girls constantly to get sex,"

Hee Hee Ho Ho.....Maybe you want to retire to a nice religious place like Iran?Iraq where they stone people for sex outside of marriage (make that females - males get away with even killing 'wayward' siblings)?

"everyone stole whatever they could get away with, ...

I suppose the million US people in jail/prison forgot to read the jingle on the US currency?

Little children were taught from the time they were in pre-school that religion was a placebo and there was no (G)od.

They got that one right, except they forgot to include the other 1500 gods that people have worshipped. Obviously, all of them were wrong, weren't they? Or didn't you learn about the Roman gods, Greek gods, Egyptian gods? Heck, they are even in the crossword puzzles all the time...Apollo, Venus, Zeus, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune...not to forget Wodin, and zillions of others.......just as real as the easter bunny, tooth fairy, etc.

In Russia today they are seeing the after affects of 70 years of state sponsored Atheism.

More like 70 years of gov't controlled regulated economy. Which failed miserably.

BTW, China has the largest population, and they don't seem to have either run around killing each other to extinction, having 'no morals', and in fact, have been around longer than any of the other two most 'popular' religions. You do realize that Big Daddy, Junior and the Spook folks are neither number 1, or number 2, but a clear #3 when it comes to converts?

" There is a scripture that says, "a house divided will not stand."

King James version verses for you -- enjoy. --

Try Isaiah 36:12: and also II Kings 18:27 quote " Hath not he sent me to the men that sit upon the walll, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

Or better yet: Leviticus 26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall yet eat"

or II Kings 6:29 "So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she had hid her son".

Real inspiration every kid should read daily. You talk about problems in Russia, but obviously don't even know, care, or are the least concerned that the very book you reference is a such a wonderful guide to life, per the above and hundreds of other delightful versus. Want more?

"The tribes which had a belief in something bigger than themselves held together and prospered and grew, those which did not died out."

Seems like the Isrealis and Palestinians are still trying to wipe each other out, after thousands of years believing in something 'bigger'. Just not the same thing. Same with the North and South Irish......or the Iranians and Iraquis. Or Pakinstanis. Or Taiwanese vs Mainland China. Or the various religious factions in Phillipines...and on and on......

Classic Darwinian selection.

Darwinian selection applies to species, not groups within a species. Total misunderstanding and misapplication of the principle.

We need God. We need religion.

Maybe you do, but please don't speak for the vast majority of rest of us. More people have died in the name of religion than any other cause. Happy about that? Jails are filled with 'religious' people. Didn't seem to help them, did it?

Most Americans are more than happy to wake up Sunday morning, read the newspaper, turn on the TV, watch some ball games, enjoy a quiet day with the family.




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
RhythmMan asked: Aditya, when you get to the office in the morning, do you close your door?

Yes, if and when I need any privacy.
What is your problem? Are you a peeping Tom who enjoys watching others rather than doing it yourself?

BTW, you will never see me in your church.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
All religions teach the same basic principles which can be boiled down to the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

First of all you do not need any religion to teach you commonsense.

Secondly most religions, and in particular those who believe in First Commandment, only teach to love people of your own religion and to hate those who do not agree with you.

Thirdly, the so called golden rule is not so golden if one of them is mentally sick and suicidal. This is particularly relevant for religions since many of the so called messiahs were hearing voices and would have been labeled as schizophrenics by today's standards.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I found the link about our brains being hardwired for religion; for those that are interested. - Art

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/01/god_part/index.html?CP=SAL&DN=110

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And I found the link about actual (real) Scientist who are saying that our consciousness survives after death. - Art


Scientist Says Mind Continues After Brain Dies

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010629/sc/life_consciousness_dc_1.html

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
With respect to common sense, wisdom and understanding I offer the following:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding" Prov 9:10

It's called the Good Book for a reason!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 31
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding"

So the only way to have wisdom is to follow the Christian god? I guess there is no hope for me. I didn't find the remark about the prayer of Saint Francis offensive, but there was a post a while back about how one could never be happy in retirement unless one had found Jesus that made me feel that I might be unwelcome here. I decided to ignore it, since it was a single post, but perhaps I was mistaken.

Maybe I'm a little oversensitive, since one of my Christian coworkers spent a few hours this week expressing her genuine concern that I was going to hell, telling me not to blame her when I ended up there, and asking me how she could help me see the light.

I don't mind remarks about one's spirituality, and some posters have made an effort to be more inclusive in their language, but people who are not Christian are made to feel like they do not belong or are second class via remarks that assume that everyone is. When this happens to you every day in real life, you become a little touchy. I try not to project my lifestyle on other people when I post. (Even though I'm straight, I try not to assume other posters have an SO of the opposite gender.) I appreciate it when others show the same consideration for me.

Amphian



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
"It's called the Good Book for a reason! "

Hee Hee Ho ho.....

Most scholars of ancient texts agree that probably 1 in 4 words in old documents have been 'mistranslated'. 25%.......

Who calls it a 'good book?'. A quarter million people were SLAUGHTERED in the name of religion in the first half of this book. Are we supposed to get excited about a book about blood and mayhem? Do we glorify death? That's what the 'good' book does. Chapter after chapter of gory battles, captured slaves, wiped out enemies.

Of course, many of the 'rituals' of today are merely reworks of the old rituals.... if your leader got killed, you would share the flesh and blood, so as to get the 'good' qualities and the wisdom from your fallen leader....turned into....communion, where millions eagerly accept the 'blood' and the 'flesh'. Just turn in into a nice ceremony, but if you listen to the words, you ARE eating substitutes (since obviously there isn't enough of the original to go around) for blood and flesh of a DEAD person. I'm always amazed when you ask why people eat blood and flesh a couple times a year. Seems most of them never thought about it that way. Yuk!.....eating 2000 year old left over body parts!

By the way, the supposed 'good book', which contains all sorts of rape scenes (justified, and never punished), calls to wipe out enemies (not make peace), and all sorts of othe inconsistencies, you gotta wonder about those who claim to have ever read it, and thought about what they read.

For example, when in Egypt, Moses god was battling the egyptian gods...they both created all sorts of mayhem...including killing all the 'cloven animals'. Which is strange since a few pages later, using killed horses, the Egyptians managed the chase the fleeing folks with chariots....pulled by dead horses?

And supposedly 3 million fled, included a couple hundred thousand 'able body men', couldn't defend themselves against horseless chariots? Gimme a break. Either you never read it, or never bothered to understand what it said. Or didn't care. All of them bad.

If half the stuff is wrong, who knows which stuff is right? or maybe you never figured out, according to the 'book', that 3 million people up and left, moved 150 miles in one day, and crossed the sea that same day? Amazing......try getting 3 million people today moved 150 miles by foot in less than 12 hours. Including all their possessions, and animals (another 10 million animals?). Plus food, water, and supplies to last 40 years! Really?

The majority of the world doesn't share this obsession with this book, so feel happy being a 'minority'. Not first rate...not second rate, but clearly a 4th place in the world.

Probably the least read book in the whole world.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I think the cited references are more conjecture than science. If an individual has a brain anomaly and if that individual has a preoccuption with religious thought, the manifestation might well be an unusual religious experience. No need to posit a religious brain cener. A principle of scientific explanation is parsimony.

I personally think the role of religion (and mythology) has been to explain the otherwise unexplained. One of the most profound unexplained phenomena is the transformation from a living sentient being to a state of death. What happens to the personality (or soul) that you might have known so well just before that transformation? It is a great comfort if you can believe it has gone to a better (or at least another) state.

Sure, the by-product of such a hypothetical construct can be a reward system that controls behavior--if you don't behave in an approved way you won't reach heaven (or where ever), but that may just be a by-product. I think the attempt to explain is the key.

db
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
db: I personally think the role of religion (and mythology) has been to explain the otherwise unexplained.

Most of the gods in history were created to explain naturally occuring phenomena that the scientifically ignorant did not understand - Pele, volcano goddess of the Hawaiis........Odin pounding with his hammer to explain lightning....Neptune - god of the sea - creator of storms, shipwrecks, uncharted reefs. If one didn't exist, someone came up with one, or copied it. As Napeleon said, religion is good stuff for keeping the masses quiet. Rulers aren't responsible for unexplainable (in their time) things.

As man understood his environment, knew about volcanoes, hurricanes, seas, weather, seismology, astronomy, there was no longer any reason to use childish explanations (ie, an invisible force) to explain things. We still do that with children (easter bunny, santa claus, tooth fairy), the stork, but expect them to learn their environment and have no need for make believe reasons for happenings. Or do we believe the stork brings babies, and the easter bunny hides colored eggs?

Sure, the by-product of such a hypothetical construct can be a reward system that controls behavior--if you don't behave in an approved way you won't reach heaven (or where ever), but that may just be a by-product.

In many cases, it was the primary product. Smart rulers used religion and ceremonies to their advantage. Nearly all rulers were 'god ordained' or of 'royal blood' descended from the gods. Egyptian pharoahs, Mayan rulers, Aztecs, kings of europe, and on and on.

The sad part is many people devote 10% of their life, and 10% of their money, to something that have absolutely no say about (ever hear of the church taking a popular vote?), are expected to follow like sheep (something about shepherds comes to mind), be fleeced like sheep, and follow rules dreamed up 1000-2000-3000 years ago when people were animal tenders, fishmen, or farmers for the most part, living in small clans, fighting each other. There was a time when 'religion ruled the world' - it was called the Dark Ages, and lasted 600 years.

For those that want a challenge (that will really boggle the mind), if you believe in 'heaven' then answer the following simple questions:

If you believe it heaven,

1) will you have a body, and what age will it be? Please keep in mind the interesting problems of if everyone is 21, then your children, parents, grandparents, great grandkids, etc, will be all 21, including your wife, ex wife, second wife, etc. Please also keep in mind that half of the world's population died before age 5 over time, many in the first year. Will they be educated and how? Will they even be potty trained? Will they be even able to speak? Or will 'heaven' be filled with screaming, non-potty trained infants, and stink to 'high heaven'? Or are you going to be the one to change diapers?

2) What will you do 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? If you don't have a body, then will be be able to 'see', watch TV( and who is going to put on programs?) , watch movies?, play golf? Ears to listen with? How do all these people who died early/old get bodies? If you have a 'body' , who is going to cut your hair? Sell you skin care products? Shopping malls?



Or are you going to sit around all day, a non-being, bored out of your mind, listening to the holy choir singing the same two dozen hymns for all of eternity?

Without arms to play golf? without ears to hear music (and nothing new likely since who is going to create and play and distribute it?) In what languages (all 10,000 plus of them?). Who is going to build all the golf courses? you going to live in tents like the shepherders? or caves? if not, where are the dwellings coming from? oh, no body....no need to sleep, dream, relax, swim, exercise, diet, ....eat....have sex....

Will you eat? Who will bake the bread, catch the fish, farm the fields, harvest the food, distribute the food? Were talking big time operation here with billions of people to feed? or is it the same old manna day after day after day after day.....washed down with water? (wine takes grapes, and they take people).

3) Seeing that many could go to a 'heaven', are your enemies, the Japanese and US and Russian and German soldiers from WW1 and WW2 and every other of the thousands of wars all going to be there? And be happy? or eternally be after you? or the bully from high school? Your ex-girlfriend/boyfriend?

It's amazing that so many people would 'invest' so many hours of their time, in 'study' and weekly therapy sessions, and allegedly contribute 10% of their incomes, year after year after year, without having a clue as to what they are investing in. a big 'trust me' -- just run around spouting memorized verses, totally out of context - rather than thinking about anything.

Of course, there is at least once reference to what you do in the afterlife in the bible. Most people don't bother to quote it. (sitting on benches!)

Just think what you enjoy doing in everyday life, from eating to sleeping to watching TV/movies, to playing/watching sports, and then imagine you don't have them. None of them. Forever....for eternity.....

just what are you going to be doing for eternity? Strange, that in 2000 plus years, no one has even come up with a premise.........as to what you will be doing......
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Strange, that in 2000 plus years, no one has even come up with a premise.........as to what you will be doing......

Actually, there are volumes written on this subject. But for a good one, even if you don't care for Chritian theology is The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. It's cheap too :)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060652950/qid=995244597/sr=2-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_1/002-5657804-2920011
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
foolish tomtom: "Actually, there are volumes written on this subject"

Great, then everyone on the board would sure enjoy a capsule summary of the age question, the baby question, food queston, golf? and what you are going to be doing, with whom, in what language, with what, in this supposed place! living accommodations? with whom? in a "kingdom" or democracy?

Good...then why don't you give us your simple answers to the couple of simple questions posed in the post? Enlighten us. Don't make us all read bags of books if the answer is so simple! Just what will you be doing? A typical week would be nice.

I've asked that question dozens of times, and no one seems to want to provide their answer for their individual case.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

foolishtomtom: Actually, there are volumes written on this subject. But for a good one, even if you don't care for Chritian theology is The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis



Oh, it's always nice to be referenced to a FICTION book on the subject.....a "Divine Comedy" according to the Amazon review. and from the Amazon page you provided a link for:

"From the Back Cover
C. S. Lewis takes us on a profound journey through both heaven and hell in this engaging allegorical tale. "

now, did you really answer the questions? or just provide a fictional tale of what one person thought it might be? really a bus ride to here and there, return trip included!....... made me laugh!...

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I've always enjoyed a similar, more concise version of this sentiment:


"For a long time it had seemed to me that life was about to begin
-- real life. But there was always some obstacle in the way.
Something to be got through first, some unfinished business, time
still to be served, a debt to be paid. Then life would begin. At
last it dawned on me that these obstacles were my life."

- Alfred D'Souza


Sorry to see this thread turn into bickering over prayer and religion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
I've asked that question dozens of times, and no one seems to want to provide their answer for their individual case.

I can remember shortly after becoming a Christian at about age 13 that I was an avid hockey fan. I used to watch it on TV, listen to the local team (Oakland Seals - oops that dates me!), play it on roller skates with my friends. I would always wonder if there would be hockey in heaven, and if not, I wasn't sure I was "ready to go" yet. (This is the honest truth!)

But now being a little older, a little wiser, my understanding of heaven has changed a bit. The truth is, aside from a few folk in the Bible, no one has ever been there and then come back to tell us about it. (I could tell you who they were, but I'm sure their accounts will not be very satisfying to your exact questions.) So the way I look at it is like this: I've come to know our Father as exactly that: my Father. In fact, I am His adopted son. I regard this journey through life as exatly that: a journey - a journey to a fantastic place.

Now imagine that you are a little kid and your dad is taking the family on a vacation. You, being a little kid, are exited and trust your dad and ask what the place will be like when you get there. Your father tries to explain, but knows that you don't have enough life experience to really understand, and though he may be very factual with his description, you as a little kid just plain don't get it. So, you enjoy the journey (perhaps constantly pestering him with, "When will we get there??"), and sure enough, you arrive at a fantastic place - just as your father said you would.

So, will you golf there? Maybe, but maybe there will be something else you've never imagined before which would be much better.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And supposedly 3 million fled
I believe most translations say 600 thousand. Moreover, I read that the word traditionally translated as "thousand" could also mean "family". 600 families is way more likely - since the two nurses could server all the pregnant women.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So-work like you don't need money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
And dance like no one's watching.
____________________________________________________



Rocker,

Do you know where this comes from? I have seen it attributed to Satchmo Page, but have been unable to verify this or find any info on this person.

Matt
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
bamboo7431: "I believe most translations say 600 thousand. Moreover, I read that the word traditionally translated as "thousand" could also mean "family". 600 families is way more likely - since the two nurses could server all the pregnant women. "

great post, bamboo7431

still wondering , though, about the horseless chariots.

......so now we are wondering if it is 600,000, 3 million, or only 600 families? orders of magnitude? Heck, if the translators couldn't even get that simple detail right, why the heck should we trust any other detail or translation of phrases? If you 'think' it is only 600 families, maybe they only wandered for 40 hours instead of 40 days? or had 13 commandments instead of 10, or maybe 1000? and did they even cross the sea? if you can't agree on a simple translation for this story, why is there any reason to believe that any other verse or parts were translated to where they made sense or weren't totally corrupted?

You singlehandedly destroyed any argument that there is any validity in the book - thanks......

I'm sure none would give much credence to a book on 'planning' or 'history' that was off by orders of magnitude (safe withdrawal rate maybe 0.4%...or maybe 40% or 400%? or maybe 4% of the amount of money in your walltet? or 44.44%? ). In 1492, or was it 142, or 14900, that Columbus sailed the ocean blue.....with 30 ships or 0.3 ships or 3 dozen ships? hee hee hoo hoo....another good laugh









Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
foolishtomtom: Now imagine that you are a little kid and your dad is taking the family on a vacation. You, being a little kid, are exited and trust your dad and ask what the place will be like when you get there. Your father tries to explain, but knows that you don't have enough life experience to really understand, and though he may be very factual with his description, you as a little kid just plain don't get it.

Amazing....still no response as to what you will be doing for eternity, other than 'trust me'. "big daddy" will take care of me, I am responsible for nothing, it matters not as long as I don't get him P.O.ed, and , oh, yes, it his old age, he wants 10% of my earthly income to help him out.....

I really like the joke about two collectors of the weekly 10% feel good money/sin tax (tithes), out behind the church. One was drawing a big circle, with a little circle, and threw up all the money into the air. He explained to his companion that he threw all the money up, and what landed in the smaller circle was 'big daddy's money', and what fell outside was money to run the local social club(aka church). The other, when it was his turn to divide his clubs take, just threw the money up in the air and let it land. He explained to his friend that 'big daddy' would take all he needed when the money was in the air, the rest would be to support his church......

I am not a little kid anymore, as everyone else likely reading the FI/RE board. Now a days, when someone comes to me, and says 'trust me', I say you have to do more than say 'it's a great investment, the results will be fantastic, give me money and time'........

My dad didn't have any trouble explaining where we were going, what we were going to do, and what we were going to see. You must have had an interesting dad if he never knew where he was going or what he was going to do!

Little kids are guillable, but even they know a con these days. They are a lot smarter (just like people).

Studies show that as people become educated, their dependency upon 'make believe' to explain natural phemenema falls dramatically. Surveys of school grads (from high school, to BS degree, to MS degree, to PhD/Dsc) show direct declining correlation.

If you're willing to cough up 10%, 10-20% of your free time, for an entire life, for a 'trust me' investment, that has a less than 1 in 1500 chance of being anywhere near right, and maybe a more than 1499/1500 chance of being wrong, be my guest.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8

Author: telegraph Date: 7/15/01 5:19 PM Number: 45479
For example, when in Egypt, Moses god was battling the egyptian gods...they both created all sorts of mayhem...including killing all the 'cloven animals'. Which is strange since a few pages later, using killed horses, the Egyptians managed the chase the fleeing folks with chariots....pulled by dead horses?

And supposedly 3 million fled, included a couple hundred thousand 'able body men', couldn't defend themselves against horseless chariots? Gimme a break. Either you never read it, or never bothered to understand what it said. Or didn't care. All of them bad.
........
Author: telegraph Date: 7/16/01 9:16 AM Number: 45507
still wondering , though, about the horseless chariots.
--------


I thought it was because horses and camels don't have cloven hooves. Deer and cattle/oxen do.

justacog
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Amazing....still no response as to what you will be doing for eternity, other than 'trust me'. "big daddy" will take care of me.....


I happen to know for a fact that telegraph will for all eternity be posting on religious message boards saying, "I know what it's like in heaven, but I'm *not* going to tell you!" ;-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
aja91: I happen to know for a fact that telegraph will for all eternity be posting on religious message boards saying, "I know what it's like in heaven, but I'm *not* going to tell you!" ;-)

Then being on those message boards would be my definition of hell. <grin>

InParadise,
Who is continuously amazed at how Telegraph refuses to let go of a bone.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I happen to know for a fact that telegraph will for all eternity be posting on religious message boards saying, "I know what it's like in heaven, but I'm *not* going to tell you!" ;-)

I know for a fact that everyone in heaven drives a red SUV. <g>

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
aja91:"I happen to know for a fact that telegraph will for all eternity be posting on religious message boards saying, "I know what it's like in heaven, but I'm *not* going to tell you!" ;-) "

Gosh, I better load up on "eternal Microsoft"...they're going to sell a lot of licensed copies up there if we get to spend a few hours on line each day.....but I'm not sure what we will be talking about since there won't be any retirement planning, any professional sports teams, any TV, or 'work' to get away from. ....then again, just who is going to be sweating away making all the computers, tv monitors, communication systems, routers/servers, and bugs in the software? I haven't got a clue as to who is going to grow the coffee, roast it, transport it, pick it, bottle/bag it, sell it, or haul away the grounds afterwards? I am sure going to miss the morning coffee.....then again, it's all make believe anyway, so I'll just enjoy my imaginary coffee with imaginary cream, and imaginary sugar, in an imaginary coffe cup, made by an imaginary female concubine, who takes care of my needs, as I sit at my imaginary computer, on the HBB, discussing what imaginary things I was going to do that day with my imaginary friends. Then, I'll read a few imaginary magazines that the imaginary postman brought, the imaginary newspaper that the imaginary newspaper boy brought, and go for a walk among the imaginary 10 million babies pooping all over the place, along with 100 million imaginary 'pets' of my imaginary neighbors. That's not to include the couple hundred million imaginary sheep from my imaginary sheepherders and couple hundred imaginary buffalo that the imaginary indian tribe down the way maintain in their happy hunting ground. The poop from them gets ripe at times. I put in for a better imaginary living area, but it seems all the previous comers got all the good imaginary spots. Then off to lunch with my imaginary investing friends, whose imaginary portofolios of imaginary stocks keeps rising 10.8%/yr. Which doesn't make much sense since we don't need the imaginary money anyway to buy the imaginary food. and on and on.....oh, time to wake up......


Let's see.....a new revision of Windows every two years....times eternity...at $100/copy, price inflated over a million years....at an average of 10.8% compound return.....gosh, that's got to be a good investment. If we can teach the billions of people up there first to speak english, then to be educated enough to read.....and then even care.....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
tngirl said:I know for a fact that everyone in heaven drives a red SUV. <g>

So...

Heaven is a Dodge dealership?

Chuck
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"
I know for a fact that everyone in heaven drives a red SUV. <g>"

And that the people who drove them on earth are the ones sweating away building them so everyone can have one? a just reward? <g>

But who sells the gas? drills oil wells? pilots the oil tankers? repairs the red SUVs....or when cars die, do they go to car heaven? to be driven another billion miles?

Why would you even need an imaginary SUV when all you had to do is imagine it?

Gosh, must be hard to tell your red one from the other billion red ones. imagine, a parking lot at the imaginary mall, filled with imaginary red SUVs, shopping for imaginary things that imaginary people don't need anyway...staffed by imaginary sales clerks.....on imaginary roads built by imaginary road workers with imaginary traffic jams to imaginary places. wonderful!......

And just think of those 5 or 10 billion people who never had a driving lesson, understand what a road is, read english, or have gone faster than walking or horseback in their life, suddenly given an imaginary car to go to imaginary places in!...wow....exciting, for sure.....imaginary car wrecks, imaginary ambulances..imaginary doctors....

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 40
Re:
<begin clip>
"First of all you do not need any religion to teach you commonsense.

Secondly most religions, and in particular those who believe in First Commandment, only teach to love people of your own religion and to hate those who do not agree with you.

Thirdly, the so called golden rule is not so golden if one of them is mentally sick and suicidal. This is particularly relevant for religions since many of the so called messiahs were hearing voices and would have been labeled as schizophrenics by today's standards."
<end clip>

As everyone can see by this post, aditya is angry at religion. Aditya is convinced he/she does not need it, and is therefore offended and angry at anyone else who chooses to believe and live otherwise. I think many people are confused by the level of hostility he/she expresses toward people of faith. I am not. People with this level of hostility have probably been hurt by someone or something connected with religion.

I consider faith to be analogous to really good home-made ice cream. I can enjoy it by myself, but I really enjoy sharing it with others. If someone does not like my ice cream I understand it's a personal choice, so no problem. However if you chose to show your dislike of my ice cream by kicking dirt in the container, then that is wrong. For in doing so you moved from chosing for yourself to trying to deprive others of the enjoyment of their ice cream.

Faith is also like eating ice cream, in that you make the choice every day. Open the container or leave it in the freezer, the the choice is yours. I am pleased for anyone who finds happiness in their life without depriving someone else of their happiness. Aditya says he/she is just as happy without a "non-entity" (what others might call a deity) in his/her life, so I wish him/her well. However he/she should refrain from disparaging the faith of others. Just because it's not your favorite flavor, does not mean that it's not good to someone else. This is why the "free and open practice of religion" is guaranteed in the US Constitution. Which is another inspiring passage I would recommend.

So, Aditya you may not need "religion to teach you commonsense", but you obviously need something to teach you common courtesy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I know for a fact that everyone in heaven drives a red SUV. <g>


...with remote Internet access built in...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 50
mcmck999: "I consider faith to be analogous to really good home-made ice cream. I can enjoy it by myself, but I really enjoy sharing it with others. If someone does not like my ice cream I understand it's a personal choice, so no problem. However if you chose to show your dislike of my ice cream by kicking dirt in the container, then that is wrong. For in doing so you moved from chosing for yourself to trying to deprive others of the enjoyment of their ice cream."

Interesting analogy.

However, if you want me to subsidize your ice cream (by giving you tax free ice cream parlors, tax free industries to make your ice cream, special tax deductions for giving to the ice cream factory, etc), and not complain about it, I'm sorry, isn't going to happen. If you keep it at home, OK.

If you think I'm not going to call fiction fiction, guess again. If you are allowed to 'spread' your message, so am I. I don't care if you don't like criticism of your 'claims'.

You have the right to your ice cream, just don't expect me to subsidize it one penny, or close my business/recreation on a particular day so you and your friends can go off and enjoy your ice cream that day, or have my leaders pitching your brand of ice cream, or having youth organizations using public facilties at public expense while excluding those who don't like ice cream. Don't expect me not to laugh at ludicrous examples of contradiction, and return appropriate phrases taken out of context.

The rest of us pay 20% more in taxes because the ice cream eaters get all sorts of subsidies! You better believe (more than fictionally) that not only are we going to complain, but do everything we can to keep things separate.

There is a often repeated phrase about working to much - ie, when someone dies, they usually don't say' gosh, I wish I had spent more time at work'. I don't think there are too many people who, when dying, say 'gosh, I wish I had spent a few more hours on my knees grovelling to the 'king' in his 'kingdom' each week, begging for special treatment, and given more of my money each year to the church'.......

More cultures around the world worked fine before the ice cream lovers decided to spread their affliction everywhere...spreading the 'guilt trip' worldwide.

Hey, but if that 'ice cream' floats your boat, great. Just don't ask me to 'respect', hold 'holey', 'sanctify', or even acknowledge anything about any religion other than all of the 1500 religions/gods,dieties, not including thousands of other 'angels, cherubims, devils, assistants, sub assistants, etc, and thousands upon thousands of subsets seem equally messed up. Don't expect me to be happy about carrying a religious jingle (added in the 1950s) on my money (I often cross it out). Don't expect me to be happy with the religious pandering of elected officials. Do expect me to point out the absurdities.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Thanks telegraph for good reply but religion is not an innocuous afflictions and is more like cocaine and other addictive drugs. It deserves to be banned since more people have died and are everyday dying in the name of religion than by all other drugs combined.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Telegraph: Don't expect me to be happy about carrying a religious jingle (added in the 1950s) on my money (I often cross it out).

Dang! I was wondering where the Grinch went to! <grin>

InParadise,
who respectfully suggests that everyone lighten up and get off their collective high horses.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
So, Aditya you may not need "religion to teach you commonsense", but you obviously need something to teach you common courtesy.


Ame..., er, well said!




Reader99
Fully prepared to leave other's beliefs alone
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
but you obviously need something to teach you common courtesy.
Which is the last thing that religion teaches.


Fully prepared to leave other's beliefs alone
As long as those in power would not impose theirs on the rest of us.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3


>> Perhaps humans and our society need to believe in God in order to have good lives. There is a scripture that says, "a house divided will not stand."

Here is the US there are quite a number of religons. Sounds like a house divided to me.<<

All religions teach the same basic principles which can be boiled down to the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Sometimes the moral principles that these religions support are similar. But the moral principle are the "basic principles" (which have to do with doctrine and dogma).

The story of Isis and Osiris (from Egypt) is almost the exact same story as Jesus and Mary.

Not quite. Horus was the offspring of Isis and Osiris.

The differences of doctrine are really quite minor.

Nope. Quite major. People go to war about this stuff.






Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The truth is, aside from a few folk in the Bible, no one has ever been there and then come back to tell us about it.

Absolutely true--except for the part set off by commas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
Well Telegraph is slightly more courteous but no less angry than Atidya.

The source of your resentment appears to be that charitable contributions including those to churches are deductable from your taxable income. Meaning income given to charities is, in some cases, not taxed. In such you propagate a serious misconception that things which are not taxed are some how subsidized by the government. This is insane. Is breathing subsidized by the government because it it not taxed, how about standing in the sun, or flying a kite. None of these are taxed are you subsidizing them? There are several types of income that are not subject to federal taxes, and several uses of income that are also exempt. I would give up all such deductions in a second for a flat tax.

What about United Way, Red Cross and other charities that are primarily non-religious. Do you also complian about having to "subsidize" those? Or how about contributions to religious organizations that are used to feed an educate disadvantaged children around the world? Do those also put a bee in your bonnet?

Do you refuse treatment at a Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic Hospital, because those were often built (as a service to the community) with the contributions of the faithful? Or should they refuse to serve you because you are non-religious? Perhaps you would like to spend more tax money building neighborhood voting centers instead of using the gym of a local church that gives the use of that facility for our government elections.

All of life is not evaluated by what you percieve as your personal cost, nor does the world revolve around your personal space in this narrow orbit which you perceive.

You attribute wars and death to religion, when in reality it's simple bigotry and hatred like yours that leads to these wars. And of course you ignore the millions of acts of kindness carried out every year by people who learned to love their fellow man at church. Why are all the orphanages, food pantries, and homeless shelters I see run by churches or the Salvation Army and not Athiest International? If you think a nation built by non-religious people would be great then go build one, because the one your in now was founded by, and the freedoms you enjoy were secured by the blood of faithful men.

Now if you will excuse me my ice cream is melting :-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
In such you propagate a serious misconception that things which are not taxed are some how subsidized by the government.

I think it's more correct to say that things that are normally taxed, but are not due to a deduction or exemption, are in effect subsidized by the government.

This is not limited to churches either. Anyone who buys a house and writes off their mortgage interest is getting subsidized by the government. Likewise, anyone who has children and take a deduction for it are getting subsidized.

Churches don't pay income tax or property tax. They are subsidized.

And of course you ignore the millions of acts of kindness carried out every year by people who learned to love their fellow man at church.

And you ignore the millions of acts of kindness carried out every year by people who learned to love their fellow man without church.

Now if you will excuse me my ice cream is melting :-)

Mmmmm, Ice Cream!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
post 1"The truth is, aside from a few folk in the Bible, no one has ever been there and then come back to tell us about it.

post 2 "Absolutely true--except for the part set off by commas. "

After we just showed that just about every part of that book is so corrupt you don't know if it 600, 600,000 or 6,000,000, and after we saw the Egypian priests 'perform' as many tricks as the xtian god, one has to wonder if any of the tales in the book are more than 'tales'. or didn't you read that part where the egyptians managed as many 'tricks'? poof..... off to the magic show where the magician will turn a 'stick' into a 'snake' and then back again into a 'stick'. oh wow.....probably impressed a lot of uneducated sheepherders, but you can buy most of the tricks down at your local magic store for a few bucks now.

so, even the part between the commas is likely to be a tall tale as well.....maybe they just went off to the golf retreat too have a few brews over yon hill, and had to make up a story so their wives (mutliple) wouldn't get mad.....

And seems all they could report back on was that 'people sat on benches'. oh, wow, really something to look forward to.....unpadded benches for eternity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
"The source of your resentment appears to be that charitable contributions including those to churches are deductable from your taxable income.

That is one part...the second part is that church property, often very valuable, is tax exempt. 20% of all the real estate in Manhattan is church property, and is not taxed a penny. Yet they require streets, police and fire protection, building services/code dept, inspections, water and sewerage, snow plowing of streets in front, stree maintence, etc. Freeloading...... just who do you think makes up that missing 20%?????>yes, the remaining 80% who have to pay 25% more!

Or how about contributions to religious organizations that are used to feed an educate disadvantaged children around the world? Do those also put a bee in your bonnet?

and half of these distribute bi-bulls with the money because they are 'spiritual nurishment'. A real joke....ever try to eat one of them? Of all the charities, these are often among the worst for benefits provided vs money taken in. Look at the gov't statistics.

Perhaps you would like to spend more tax money building neighborhood voting centers instead of using the gym of a local church that gives the use of that facility for our government elections.

This is been ruled ILLEGAL in many jurisdictions, and should be immediately stopped nationwide. Really.....going to vote on private issues, and having to view religious idols in the hall way with dead /dying body statue hanging on the wall, bleeding....with a bunch of church attendees likely hanging around.....?????? highly prejudicial, and I'm really surprised you would even bring it up. There have been many prominent court cases, all soundly rejecting this practice!....there are usually dozens of schools, firestations, libraries, and other public buildings available.

You attribute wars and death to religion, when in reality it's simple bigotry and hatred like yours that leads to these wars.

Try telling that to the Israelis and Palestinians and Iraquis....try telling that to the north and south Irish.....try telling that to the ayatollahs.....or the Jihad folks who like to blow up US embassies, US airplanes, US skyscrapers, a few other airplanes here and there.....I'm sure you are proud to tell your kids about the Crusades, where the Europeans looted the cities of the MidEast, killed and raped the women, terrorized the innocent population, all in the name of 'reclaiming' these cities for xtians? a real good bedtime story or two, I'm sure.... armed men, beating the dickens out of unarmed, simple peasant folks...stealing whatever they had, looting businesses, temples, museums, etc......makes you real proud, doesn't it? Or maybe tell them about the quarter million killed in the glorious name of religion.....David, slayer of tens of thousands!......oh, wow, what a great example for your kids to envy and follow!..... kill a few more not-like-us-religion people today for the glory of our god!.....be just like the heroes of the bi-bull!.....

or maybe you never read and understood what was written in the first few chapters?????

If you think a nation built by non-religious people would be great then go build one, because the one your in now was founded by, and the freedoms you enjoy were secured by the blood of faithful men.

Gosh, you sure got that one wrong....

Try China to start with......a billion people, and no god(s) to kowtow to.... Confusius says....... been around a lot longer than our gov't too.....

No, you certainly got that wrong. This nation was founded by men of all an no faith.......atheists, believers, non- believers, Jews, here well before 1750s, Unitarians (one or fewer gods), Indians, freed slaves, slave slaves...... and, the founding fathers specifically rejected a 'state religion', or any particular religion, or any religion at all. They specifically wrote in the US Constition, and every single state constitution, that there shall BE NO RELIGIOUS test for office!

For most people, 'religous' exercises come about 3 times in their life...when they're hatched, when they're matched, and when they're dispatched. <g> And nowadays, the first is truly optional, the second is optional since we have civil marriages, and of course, you don't need a god-invoking send off.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Good...then why don't you give us your simple answers to the couple of simple questions posed in the post? Enlighten us. Don't make us all read bags of books if the answer is so simple! Just what will you be doing? A typical week would be nice.

I plan on being a spiritual being not having to eat to live. I may suck up neutrinos of energy for food though - LOL! I may fly to distant galaxies and check them out and see how other creatures in other parts of the universe live, or perhaps even spend some time in other universes.

Jesus said, "In my fathers house are many mansions". I will leave it to God to give me something to do. I am under the impression that the purpose of life is to learn to rely on God. So I am just going to rely on Him to provide my purpose of existence.

If there is no God or Life after Death then our lives are rather meaningless anyway? If one day the earth will lose it's orbit and the lack thereof will make the eart uninhabitable, if one day the Sun goes supernova and incinerates the earth, if our only purpose of existence is to be a slave to our DNA then what harm to maintain the hope of Heaven?

The Buddhist have a saying, "all life is suffering" so why should I increase that suffering by maintaining the belief that my my life is meaningless and I am nothing more than a fluke of the Universe, nothing more than a cosmic joke? Why should I be as miserable and unhappy as most of the Atheists that I know? Why not let me walk around with my stupid Heavenly grin?

I would rather be a member of a Church, have my Christian brethern, eat delicious Church dinners with Smoke on the Mountain, and million dollar Blueberry surprise, have fellowship with Christian, people who don't have miserable lives, are happily married, and have happy families, than hang out with a bunch of unhappy cynical atheists.

By the way did you read what happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare and some of her relatives? Those Atheists are a great bunch of people aren't they? Seems like Satan cashed in her chips for her making a pack with the devil. If you don't think that there are great Christian people with good happy families just email me and I will let you in on some of the most incredible people in the world.
Your friend, Art

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
I would rather be a member of a Church, have my Christian brethern, eat delicious Church dinners with Smoke on the Mountain, and million dollar Blueberry surprise, have fellowship with Christian, people who don't have miserable lives, are happily married, and have happy families, than hang out with a bunch of unhappy cynical atheists.

By the way did you read what happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare and some of her relatives? Those Atheists are a great bunch of people aren't they? Seems like Satan cashed in her chips for her making a pack with the devil. If you don't think that there are great Christian people with good happy families just email me and I will let you in on some of the most incredible people in the world.


I know some "great Christian people with good happy families". I find it disturbing that you seem to view non-Christians as people who "have miserable lives". If you are going to blame all Atheists for a murder committed by one of them, are you going to answer for all murders committed by Christians?

Amphian
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
I normally don't get involved in these things, but I don't like seeing my own philosophy (note: I said philosophy, not religion) being used to make an argument like this.

"If there is no God or Life after Death then our lives are rather meaningless anyway?"

I don't agree. I do believe in an afterlife and a god of sorts, but I'm not very attached to the idea. My life, as a journey, still has purpose regardless of destination. If the journey ends, never ends, or never existed, so be it. I'm enjoying the show.

"The Buddhist have a saying, "all life is suffering" so why should I increase that suffering by maintaining the belief that my my life is meaningless . . . "

Life is only suffering if you are attached. In other words, "all attachment is suffering." Life itself is not necessarily suffering. One can increase their suffering by becoming too attached to a belief, any belief, be it atheism, christianity, or even buddhism. So please don't misinterpret us buddhists to make an argument for your beliefs.

"Why should I be as miserable and unhappy as most of the Atheists that I know?"

This is an ad hominem attack. Also, may I ask how you know those atheists are truly miserable and unhappy? Have you seen into their hearts? Appearances (and perceptions of appearances) can be quite deceptive.

"Why not let me walk around with my stupid Heavenly grin?"

By all means do. Or don't. Who isn't letting you grin?

"than hang out with a bunch of unhappy cynical atheists"

Have you met every atheist that exists, has existed, or will exist?

"By the way did you read what happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare and some of her relatives? Those Atheists are a great bunch of people aren't they?"

I'm not sure this hasty generalization is the best way to witness Christ.

Although I am (mostly) Buddhist, I nonetheless respect Christ as a philosopher, and I don't like to see his followers behave in this manner.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Do you refuse treatment at a Baptist, Methodist, or Catholic Hospital, because those were often built (as a service to the community) with the contributions of the faithful?

That is a misstatement since these are built primarily as a front to their proselytizing agenda and only in order to justify their tax exempt status. Sine all of them depend on the tax free contributions therefore source of their money does not come from the faithful alone. They are like wolves in sheep's clothing.

60 minutes and other news programs have shown how these hospitals refuse service to needy people when it does not meet their theology.

These hospitals are in the forefront of the forces that have prevented universal health care in this country.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I consider faith to be analogous to really good home-made ice cream. I can enjoy it by myself, but I really enjoy sharing it with others. If someone does not like my ice cream I understand it's a personal choice, so no problem. However if you chose to show your dislike of my ice cream by kicking dirt in the container, then that is wrong. For in doing so you moved from chosing for yourself to trying to deprive others of the enjoyment of their ice cream.
________________________________________________________________________


Mcmck999,

This is not meant to attack you or your beliefs, and should not be construed to be addressing you personally. Rather it is provided for the purpose of provoking thought on the subject at hand. Statements made are made to society in general, and not you in particular. I think the concept described below can be applied to many different topics, and not just religion. I just thought that your analogy provided a good springboard to discuss the topic in an objective manner. Please comment with any counter arguments.

Would you object if someone tried to tell you that you should pasteurize the milk before you made the ice cream?

Unfortunately, most religion (or politics for that matter) is not "home-made" ice cream. It is ice cream that you buy at the store. Unless you invent your own religion, completely from scratch, you are at the very least following somebody else's recipe, or altering an existing recipe to fit your taste.

I'm sure everyone knows the story of the woman that went to a NYC restaurant and liked the chocolate chip cookies so much that she inquired about buying the recipe. She was told she could buy it for four ninety nine. When she got the credit card bill she discovered she had paid $499.00 instead of $4.99. She didn't know what was in the cookies until she had already paid more than she bargained for. Had she read the receipt before she signed her name she would have known what she was getting herself into.

While the constitution, which was referenced, guarantees free religious practice, it also guarantees free speech. Just as you have the right to offer your "home-made" ice cream to others, people also have constitutionally guaranteed right to tell you (and others) not to eat ice cream at all. You have the right to disregard these people if you so choose. Why should you have the right to share your beliefs but not allow others to share theirs (or their lack of belief)?

If you truly believe your faith is a good thing, someone else cannot ruin that by "kicking dirt in the container," unless your beliefs are based upon what others think, in which case you have already conceded control over your beliefs to others. In such a case you can choose to eat the dirt or quit allowing others to make your ice cream. All that person can do is say that you don't have good ice cream. They can even say that there is in fact dirt in the container. Saying it does not necessarily make it so.

If you argue that the person who says that there is dirt in the container is unfairly dissuading people from eating your ice cream, that may very well be true. But consider this for a moment: if people will not eat your ice cream because someone says there is dirt in the container, what does that say about those that won't eat it? Have they looked to see if there is dirt in the container? Have they investigated the matter sufficiently to know what is in your ice cream?

If they don't really know what is in there, and are willing to make a decision on whether to eat it or not without knowing what is in it, then the decision (whether they decide to eat it or not) is in no way based upon whether or not you have good ice cream. It is arbitrarily based upon popular opinion and rhetoric from both sides.

It is with this public opinion and rhetoric that people are controlled. People that investigate things and make their own decision will make a decision based upon the merits of the issue in question. Everyone else makes their decision based upon power plays (it is their choice to make a decision without factual basis, no matter which side they choose, if they are uninformed they could go either way depending upon the power plays involved, and if their trust is misplaced, then that is their own folly).

If someone is seeking to silence the arguments of the other side, they are part of these power plays. If you believe truth is on your side, you shouldn't need power plays to get people to agree with you. If there is no dirt in your ice cream, intelligent and thoughtful people will see that. If there is, people will see that too. If they listen to the rhetoric and public opinion, they are being controlled by their own consent (they willingly give over their consent by failing to investigate, which they have the free right and ability to do).

So each of us has to decide. Do you want to give your ice cream to people that really enjoy it, or will you reduce your ice cream to snake oil, selling it to anyone dumb enough to buy it, whether they even need/like ice cream or not?

If you feel you have the right to use your rhetoric to control those that make their decisions based upon rhetoric and public opinion and not facts, then why don't others possess the same right to use their rhetoric for their own ends? Or do you even believe you have the right to control those who make their decisions based upon facts, whether they agree with you or not?

Matt

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Hey there Mr. Telegraph... I'll try and answer your question about what we will be doing in heaven. I think the answer is that the question is irrelevant. This is because we live in a physical world where it makes sense to be doing something because doing something implies a chronological sequence, and also physical sequences (like moving muscles, etc.). But heaven is part of the spiritual world where the laws of this physical world don't apply. For example, imagine you were a 2-dimensional being, and I as a 3 dimensional being tried to explain to you that there was an "up" and a "down". Well it would be completely meaningless to you...you would not be able to understand it. Such is the spiritual "dimension" and this is why I think your question is irrelevant.

Now I know you are not going to be satisfied with this answer. But I suspect that you would not be satisfied with any answer. All your objections about the Bible and the actions of evil men done in the name of Religion are valid points and deserve answers (and there are intellectually satisfying answers to all these objections). But, no one comes to Jesus by just having their intellect satisified. This truth is that we are all selfish jerks and in need of a savior. When someone realizes this, that's when they can find Jesus, becaues that's the whole reason He came to earth, and the whole reason the Bible even exists.

So my challenge to you is this: After you've stopped laughing at my post, and have fired off a blistering reply ridiculing this point of view, and turned off your computer - try praying to this God you don't believe in. If He exists, I guarentee you will be answered; if not, what have you lost?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
If there is no God or Life after Death then our lives are rather meaningless anyway?

It is due to this insecurity that God was invented.

Does there really have to be more for us to be able to live with ourselves now? Maybe for some, but not for all. Many of us are quite capable of being happy, honest, and loving without some silly promise of going to heaven.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Matt, I'm not sure I follow most of your discussion points, in the context of this thread. We were not dealing with trying to convince anyone toward one belief or another.

What we were dealing with is the hostility some express toward religion or people of faith. Faith is something that cannot be proven other than by the actions that flow from your faith. Things like hope, love and compassion. We never debated any particular religious point of view, and I did not encourage anyone to adopt my faith. In fact that may be part of the problem, in that some of the more angry posts perhaps resulted from people feeling that any reference to prayer or scripture is an attempt to convert them.

What I questionioned was the instant hostility expressed toward anything religious. I saw nothing in the thread to diserve this reaction so I opposed it. I find it interesting in these days of political correctness, when you can't mention race, gender, height, weight, sexual orientation, education, or economic class, that it's still "ok" to bash people of faith, just because they believe. I don't mind opposing points of view at all. In fact, I kind of enjoy the intellectual excercise. Even rhetoric can be useful if it raises valid points or questions. Other rhetoric that has none of these qualities is designed to hurt, or express anger, often at people who have done nothing to diserve it. I believe it's called "misplaced agression". I saw a lot of that in this thread. What I advocate here and before is common courtesy for all people who voice an opinion. Challenge the idea if you believe you have a valid point. But stay away from the personal attacks and unfounded generalizations (which you managed to do very well). Thanks for your comments, which were well expressed. We should have most posts like yours.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Just as you have the right to offer your "home-made" ice cream to others, people also have constitutionally guaranteed right to tell you (and others) not to eat ice cream at all. You have the right to disregard these people if you so choose. Why should you have the right to share your beliefs but not allow others to share theirs (or their lack of belief)?

Sure, everyone has their rights. Unfortunately they don't all posess the wisdom needed to use their rights wisely. Go exercise your rights on a religion or atheist board.

InParadise,
who thought nothing was worse than political threads, but is now getting awfully close to using her right to the P-box.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
I have no intent on changing your mind, telegraph, but I can't abide letting inaccurate comments go without rebuttal. To wit, you ranted:

<<... if you want me to subsidize your ice cream (by giving you tax free ice cream parlors, tax free industries to make your ice cream, special tax deductions for giving to the ice cream factory, etc), and not complain about it, I'm sorry, isn't going to happen. If you keep it at home, OK.>>

The basis for not taxing religious property stems from the first amendment to the Constitution, which, in part, states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The power of the state to levy taxes being what it is, it is theoretically possible for the state to abuse such power and tax a religion out of business, hence religious property has been exempt from government taxation.

<<You have the right to your ice cream, just don't expect me to subsidize it one penny.>>

Per the above, you do not subsidize anything, telegraph, that you don't yourself enjoy, namely your freedom to practice or rail against any religion you wish, without interference from the state. I believe liberals mistakenly refer to this as the great wall that "separates church and state," which in actuality doesn't exist, and never has. Nevertheless, the so-called wall that incorrectly prevents prayer in public schools also correctly prevents the government from taxing religious institutions.

<<...or have my leaders pitching your brand of ice cream, or having youth organizations using public facilities at public expense while excluding those who don't like ice cream.>>

You reference the Constitutional right to free association, something everyone in this country enjoys, except maybe the boy scouts. Public leaders are allowed to publicly profess any faith they wish. When George Washington took office, the first thing he did was kneel down before his audience and pray to a Christian God. Public facilities are open to anyone wishing to use them, including religious and youth organizations. Atheists may use these facilities, too.

<<The rest of us pay 20% more in taxes because the ice cream eaters get all sorts of subsidies!>>

This is simply not true, and per the above, if you allow the government to tax religious organizations, logic will dictate the allowance of government to hold religious organizations to discrimination laws, fair housing laws, OSHA regulations, day care regulations, etc, etc, ad nauseam, until all religions reflect the regulatory will of the state. Of course, this is still unconstitutional, at least for now, for what I hope are obvious reasons......

<<Don't expect me to be happy about carrying a religious jingle (added in the 1950s) on my money>>

I gather you refer to "In God We Trust," which is not a jingle but a motto. It has appeared on a variety of US coinage since 1866, and to my knowledge, first appeared in 1864 on the two cent piece. It's appearance stems from the national anxiety over the Civil War, but the origin of such a motto actually goes back to the founding of the republic when the founding fathers prayed for divine guidance during the nation's formation. You can find multiple references to it in the Federalist Papers.

As much as this may pain you, this nation was founded on judeo-Christian principles, and those principles have been the basis for our society for the duration of our history. Only recently have they come under attack.

As stated fairly eloquently in a previous post, your freedom, telegraph, comes directly from the religious faith of our founding fathers, who recognized that freedom is a God-given right. That is why the preamble to the Declaration of Independence states the we are "endowed by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. They recognized those rights are not conferred by man, but by God, a much higher authority. Most atheists throughout history were communists or dictators who recognized neither a god nor any individual rights.

In fact, a large percentage of the signers of the both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were ministers or lay ministers. They openly professed their faith throughout all public deliberations. Even today, just for example, I notice Jesse Jackson openly professes his faith without any criticism whatsoever.....

Religion has certainly caused a lot of war, death and destruction. But try to consider the alternative: a world with no religion would have no guidelines or rules for civilization---sort of what liberals are pushing for these days. Imagine what it might be like if everyone was free to do what they thought was right and proper without regard to others. I don't know how things would operate in such a world, but I can assure you there would be no civilization as we've come conventionally to understand it. Only chaos. The closest the world has come to chaos was the Dark Ages. You may want to do a little reading to find out what life was like then.....

Debating religion is fine, but please bring a little intellectual rigor to the debate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
ariechert:"By the way did you read what happened to Madeline Murray O'Hare and some of her relatives"

Yes, she and her son and her daughter were kidnapped, tortured, and killed, their bodies buried on a remote ranch.

The perpetrators were a former employee and associate. They were kidnapped and stole the Murray's 'nest egg'.

They were caught, and off to jail.

It was a civil crime, committed by criminal people. Each year, tens of thousands of people are murdered (one a day in Dallas, one a day in NYC, etc).

So, I suppose you *smile* knowing that someone got killed ?????????

BTW, I personally knew all three, and they were interested, educated people, capable of having fantastically intereting conversations and discussions. When you asked them a question, it was 'oh, I'm going to let 'big daddy' provide all the answers'. Real down to earth people.

Lives snuffed out by ordinary (and believe it or not, CHRISTIAN CRIMINALS!)

I'm sure, in their minds, on 'judgement day', they are going to have a hard time explaining why they didn't follow both the golden rule (they were too busy trying to steal the gold!),and why they committed murder. (if they ever get out of prison)

Why is it that believers tend to get great glee out of others unfortunate deaths? (something they all seem to avoid as much as possible!)

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
<<The basis for not taxing religious property stems from the first amendment to the Constitution, which, in part, states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The power of the state to levy taxes being what it is, it is theoretically possible for the state to abuse such power and tax a religion out of business, hence religious property has been exempt from government taxation.>>

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Does this mean that newspapers and other media (the press) should also be tax exempt?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
foolishtomtom
"try praying to this God you don't believe in. If He exists, I guarentee you will be answered; if not, what have you lost? "

telegraph's prayer:

OK...here goes....dear diety(ies) wherever your are, omnipotent and omnipowerful, please answer me and foolishtomtom by posting, in a univerally understood language, readable by every tongue worldwide, a simple message on this board, within thenext 24 hours, saying that supernataural beings, angels, devils, cherubims, etc, all exist.


then, those of us who speak multiple languages, and copies sent world wide, will simply confirm, once and for all, that you have some power and just aren't unaware of what is happening world wide......

We await your response. (along with the rest of this board and the world!).

after all, foolishtom tom has 'guaranteed it'.

oh, I love that post, foolishtomtom.

And of course, I expect you and others to counter that the gawds operate in mysetious ways, and we can't understand them. They've been amazing silent ever since there were so busy back around 2-3-4 centuries ago, quoted all over the place!

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The basis for not taxing religious property stems from the first amendment to the Constitution, which, in part, states that congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The power of the state to levy taxes being what it is, it is theoretically possible for the state to abuse such power and tax a religion out of business, hence religious property has been exempt from government taxation.

To tax churches would not prohibit the free exercise of religon. The reason they don't tax churches is that they are nonprofit, which has nothing to do with religon. This is the governments way of subsidizing an orginization without actually giving it any money.

I have no objection to providing tax exempt status to orginizations that provide community services like those commonly provided by churches, but lets at least be honest enought to call it what it is, a subsidy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"But try to consider the alternative: a world with no religion would have no guidelines "

Try the Beatles tune, "Imagine"......excellent reason why it would be nice to have a world without religion. (and telling the toll of what religion has wreaked).

BTW, the founding fathers were primarily "Diests".....basically belived that the 'creator' set the world in motion, and then went off on permanent vacation....and there was no need to grovel to it.

Another great Beatle tune was "Stairway to Heaven".......

It seems the billion people in china do well without your idea of religion. 25% of the world population. And they have guidelines out the yang-yang. And a very well regulated society with very good social order.

So your alternative already exists.

And consider the Beatle's true comment: more poeple have heard of the Beatles (at least in the 1980s) than of "Junior". And those people seem to have found 'guidelines' quite well, thank you.




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Another great Beatle tune was "Stairway to Heaven".......

Wasn't that by Led Zepplin?

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Unfortunately, most religion (or politics for that matter) is not "home-made" ice cream. It is ice cream that you buy at the store.

And speaking of ice cream, have you tried Mayfield's Turtle Tracks Ice Cream? Man, that is some good stuff....... - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
tngirl74 writes (re "Stairway to Heaven"):

Wasn't that by Led Zepplin?

Indeed it was. And "Imagine" was recorded by John Lennon after the Beatles split up.

And "diest" is spelt "deist".

I can't believe I'm still reading this thread.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Another great Beatle tune was "Stairway to Heaven".......

Wasn't that by Led Zepplin?


So, Who do you think is right?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
KenKittell wrote:

<<Does this mean that newspapers and other media (the press) should also be tax exempt?>>

Perhaps God was more influential than Randolph Hearst....

Clever riposte, but it doesn't hold water. The founding fathers didn't tax the press. That dubious honor goes to congress in 1913.

The argument for exempting religious property was put forward then, so your argument is with Congress, not an altogether logical place....

I side with the founding fathers. The 16th amendment will probably go down in history as the beginning of our undoing.....

Today the press, as a profit-oriented concern, is subject to tax law no differently than other for-profit concerns. The time for conern is if the press's tax rate changes simply because it's the press...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

Author: telegraph Date: 7/15/01 10:28 AM Number: 45451
<snip>
King James version verses for you -- enjoy. --

Try Isaiah 36:12: and also II Kings 18:27 quote " Hath not he sent me to the men that sit upon the walll, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

Or better yet: Leviticus 26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall yet eat"

or II Kings 6:29 "So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she had hid her son".

Real inspiration every kid should read daily. You talk about problems in Russia, but obviously don't even know, care, or are the least concerned that the very book you reference is a such a wonderful guide to life, per the above and hundreds of other delightful versus.
<snip>


In case any of you were spooked by telegraph's out of context verse references, I've provided the following exposition to help prevent Christians and Jews being shot on sight. One of the greatest mistakes made by Christians and others alike is to go spinning off track by taking verses not only out of topical context, but out of historical context as well. The other great mistake is to assign blame to particular religions for heinous acts rather than the inherently sinful persons who committed the acts, and who probably didn't even have much of a clue as to the religion they committed those acts in the name of anyway. I make no illusions to having all the answers, but it bugs me a bit when scripture is abused in this manner, apparently intentionally given the venomous nature of the posts.

(New King James Version used for easier readability.) NOTE: If you've already shot your quota of Christians and Jews, or are tired and just want to get on to something else, just go ahead and skip it.

Special thanks to the Bible study tools at www.crosswalk.com
http://bible.crosswalk.com/

------------------------------------------------
Isaiah 36:12 and II Kings 18:27
But the Rabshakeh said to them, "Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words, and not to the men who sit on the wall, who will eat and drink their own waste with you?"

From: Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
12. Is it to thy master and thee that I am sent? Nay, it is to the men on the wall, to let them know (so far am I from wishing them not to hear, as you would wish), that unless they surrender, they shall be reduced to the direst extremities of famine in the siege (2 Chronicles 32:11, explains the word here), namely, to eat their own excrements: or, connecting, "that they may eat," &c., with "sit upon the wall"; who, as they hold the wall, are knowingly exposing themselves to the direst extremities [MAURER]. Isaiah, as a faithful historian, records the filthy and blasphemous language of the Assyrians to mark aright the true character of the attack on Jerusalem.
….
Rabshakeh was the messenger of the King of Assyria who was sent to Jerusalem to suggest that it was going to be sacked in a most bad way by the Assyrian army. The verse is in reference to the starvation of Jerusalem under siege such that such intense famine would result in the consumption of their own waste for food. If you keep on reading in 2Kings, their faith in God as their savior resulted in their triumph over army of Assyria as foretold by the prophet Isaiah. By taking the verse out of context, telegraph apparently attempts to hold up the consumption of waste referenced in the verse as referring to some sick Christian (and Jewish as this is Old Testament) lifestyle choice.

NKJV 2Kings18:17-20
17 Then the king of Assyria sent the Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh from Lachish, with a great army against Jerusalem, to King Hezekiah. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. When they had come up, they went and stood by the aqueduct from the upper pool, which was on the highway to the Fuller's Field. 18 And when they had called to the king, Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder, came out to them. 19 Then the Rabshakeh said to them, "Say now to Hezekiah, 'Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria: "What confidence is this in which you trust? 20 You speak of having plans and power for war; but they are mere words. And in whom do you trust, that you rebel against me?

NKJV 2Kings19:35-37.
35 And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses--all dead. 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and went away, returned home, and remained at Nineveh. 37 Now it came to pass, as he was worshiping in the temple of Nisroch his god, that his sons Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him down with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Then Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place.

------------------------------------------------
Leviticus 26:29 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall yet eat"

Here again telegraph attempts to pervert the scripture by alleging that cannibalism is a tenet of the horrid Christian religion (and Jewish as well due to it being an Old Testament verse.) A brief perusal of the actual scripture in context shows that this will happen as a result of turning away from faith in God, and also illuminates the consequences that will come from such debased and immoral horror. It should be clarified here that the whole point of the Leviticus legislation was to set the tribe of Israel apart from all the other idol worshipping clans, and also from whacked-out pagans around them who didn't have any such compunctions against human sacrifice to pagan gods or other such stuff anyway.

NKJV Leviticus 26:27-35:
27 'And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me, 28 then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. 29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you. 31 I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your sweet aromas. 32 I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it. 33 I will scatter you among the nations and draw out a sword after you; your land shall be desolate and your cities waste. 34 Then the land shall enjoy its sabbaths as long as it lies desolate and you are in your enemies' land; then the land shall rest and enjoy its sabbaths. 35 As long as it lies desolate it shall rest-- for the time it did not rest on your sabbaths when you dwelt in it.

------------------------------------------------
II Kings 6:29 "So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she had hid her son".

Here again telegraph seems to think that just because this happened in the Bible, all Jews and Christians must obviously be cannibals. When in reality, these are examples of what not to do. Here again this was also a result of famine due to the city of Samaria being under siege from the Assyrians and this cannibalism was as such as referenced in the previous commentary on Leviticus. As the commentary shows, this was a prophesy.

NKJV 2Kings6:24-30
24 And it happened after this that Ben-Hadad king of Syria gathered all his army, and went up and besieged Samaria. 25 And there was a great famine in Samaria; and indeed they besieged it until a donkey's head was sold for eighty shekels of silver, and one-fourth of a kab of dove droppings [NOTE: dove droppings in this case are a type of vegetable] for five shekels of silver. 26 Then, as the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, a woman cried out to him, saying, "Help, my lord, O king!" 27 And he said, "If the Lord does not help you, where can I find help for you? From the threshing floor or from the winepress?" 28 Then the king said to her, "What is troubling you?" And she answered, "This woman said to me, 'Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.' 29 So we boiled my son, and ate him. And I said to her on the next day, 'Give your son, that we may eat him'; but she has hidden her son." 30 Now it happened, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his clothes; and as he passed by on the wall, the people looked, and there underneath he had sackcloth on his body.

From: Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible
(v. 28): "What ails thee? Is there anything singular in thy case, or dost thou fare worse than thy neighbours?' Truly yes; she and one of her neighbours had made a barbarous agreement, that, all provisions failing, they should boil and eat her son first and then her neighbour's; hers was eaten (who can think of it without horror?) and now her neighbour hid hers, v. 28, 29. See an instance of the dominion which the flesh has got above the spirit, when the most natural affections of the mind may be thus overpowered by the natural appetites of the body. See the word of God fulfilled; among the threatenings of God's judgments upon Israel for their sins this was one (Deu. 28:53–57), that they should eat the flesh of their own children, which one would think incredible, yet it came to pass.

Thanks for your time,
justacog

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wow, enough is enough. I'm behind on posts but enough of the pro religion and the anti-religion posts.

I don't spew facts like some and I'm not as intelligent as others, but it seems many wars have been fought over "religious" ideas. Now, us potential and current RE's are arguing over "religion".

Enough is enough. I'm can have my beliefs just like you can have yours. I mention many things in some of my posts. I recently made a comment about beer. Some people love beer and drink it to excess. Some people hate beer and never touch the stuff.

I like to have 1 or 2 on an occasional basis. Now, should I preach to the world that everyone should drink beer. NO. On the flip side, should I be preached to about the evils of drinking beer. NO. As long as I don't drink and drive, drink and abuse my friends or family or drink and get into the many problems that plague society, leave me alone.

Followers of various religions take it quite seriously, like they should. However, please try to refrain from spouting your strong opinions on religions be it for or against it.

I don't expect to be preached to about how I "must" save 30% of my income in order to be able to RE. I expect to read some stories of success of others and a bit of OT posts.

Let's move on please. However, there is freedom of speech, so do as you please on the boards as long as you follow the posting guidelines of TMF.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Another great Beatle tune was "Stairway to Heaven".......

I believe this was sung by Led Zeppelin.

Mark
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Try the Beatles tune, "Imagine"......excellent reason why it would be nice to have a world without religion. (and telling the toll of what religion has wreaked).

Pweeeet!! Time out. Actually, this was a post-Beatles John Lennon tune. Pweeeeet!!

1HF

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Serenity now!

Serentiy now!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Pweeeet!! Time out. Actually, this was a post-Beatles John Lennon tune. Pweeeeet!!

You were a day late and a dollar short on this one. <G>

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3

Author: telegraph Date: 7/15/01 5:19 PM Number: 45479

If half the stuff is wrong, who knows which stuff is right? or maybe you never figured out, according to the 'book', that 3 million people up and left, moved 150 miles in one day, and crossed the sea that same day? Amazing......try getting 3 million people today moved 150 miles by foot in less than 12 hours. Including all their possessions, and animals (another 10 million animals?). Plus food, water, and supplies to last 40 years! Really?


I don't know where you get 12 hours. Watched the movie 'The Ten Commandments' one too many times maybe?

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/exodus.html

The terror-stricken Egyptians now urged the instant departure of the Hebrews. In the midst of the Passover feast, before the dawn of the 15th day of the month Abib (our April nearly), which was to be to them henceforth the beginning of the year, as it was the commencement of a new epoch in their history, every family, with all that appertained to it, was ready for the march, which instantly began under the leadership of the heads of tribes with their various sub-divisions. They moved onward, increasing as they went forward from all the districts of Goshen, over the whole of which they were scattered, to the common center. Three or four days perhaps elapsed before the whole body of the people were assembled at Rameses, and ready to set out under their leader Moses (Ex. 12:37; Num. 33:3). This city was at that time the residence of the Egyptian court, and here the interviews between Moses and Pharaoh had taken place.

From Rameses they journeyed to Succoth (Ex. 12:37), identified with Tel-el-Maskhuta, about 12 miles west of Ismailia. (See PITHOM.) Their third station was Etham (q.v.), 13:20, "in the edge of the wilderness," and was probably a little to the west of the modern town of Ismailia, on the Suez Canal. Here they were commanded "to turn and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea", i.e., to change their route from east to due south. The Lord now assumed the direction of their march in the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. They were then led along the west shore of the Red Sea till they came to an extensive camping-ground "before Pi-hahiroth," about 40 miles from Etham. This distance from Etham may have taken three days to traverse, for the number of camping-places by no means indicates the number of days spent on the journey: e.g., it took fully a month to travel from Rameses to the wilderness of Sin (Ex. 16:1), yet reference is made to only six camping-places during all that time. The exact spot of their encampment before they crossed the Red Sea cannot be determined. It was probably somewhere near the present site of Suez.

Under the direction of God the children of Israel went "forward" from the camp "before Pi-hahiroth," and the sea opened a pathway for them, so that they crossed to the farther shore in safety. The Egyptian host pursued after them, and, attempting to follow through the sea, were overwhelmed in its returning waters, and thus the whole military force of the Egyptians perished. They "sank as lead in the mighty waters" (Ex. 15:1-9; compare Ps. 77:16-19).


justacog - Who should have shook the dust from his sandals a long time ago.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
justacog - Who should have shook the dust from his sandals a long time ago.

You seem to know a lot about this. When was it that they got lost, and Moses, being a man, wouldn't stop and ask for directions?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The 16th amendment doesn't seem to mention religion - so I guess Congress is to blame. Is this also why churches are exempt from property taxes when the press is subject to them?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
telegraph,

I personally concur with eveything you wrote, but I try to be a little less dogmatic and certain in my statements.

I suppose as a scientist, I would have to claim to be an agnostic rather than an athiest, just because of the difficulty of proving a negative. And as we all know, a theory is good only until the advent of counter evidence it doesn't explain.

Do I believe there is a heaven? No. But I can understand the mystery in the transformation from living to dead. We recently lost our golden retriever, a close and loving companion, to cancer. I was struck by that transition--one moment the dog we knew and loved, the next a warm but seemingly dead body. Unfortunately, the ability to explain with neurophysiology is limited--we're not even completely sure how sound is transdued from hair-cell deformation to an electrical discharge, although the explantions look pretty convincing.

Religion holds an interest for me only in the fact that various versions are so widely adopted even in the face of modern science. That is, it is a curious phenomenon of mans' behavior.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
"
I don't know where you get 12 hours. Watched the movie 'The Ten Commandments' one too many times maybe?"

Nope, King James version of bible. ...... 'and that same day they exited the land of Egypt'........which, according to the maps, was over 100 miles on foot....along with all the cattle, women, children, sick ones, pregnant ones......heck, I'd have a hard time walking 20 miles in a day, not even carrying anything, but they carried everything they owned, plus all the loot they collected from the Pharoah... not a few days, but that 'same day'.

oh, BTW, if you check up on the 'fifth plague' you will find all the Egyptian horses and cattle were killed.......all......which magically reappeared a few chapters later.

then, in the 14th chapter, it seems all the Egyptian chariots and horsemem, who rode very dead horses, were killed supposedly when the sea closed in on them (as in the movie). oh, they forgot about that one in the movie, didn't they - but horeseless chariots before internal combustion engines just didn't fit historically, tee hee.

well, you can't have it both ways, can you?

It's nice you gave me a sanitized version acceptable for little kiddies to read, but it is now two or three 'generations' even further from the original texts. Even more corrupt.....

try the originals


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Matt says:

If someone is seeking to silence the arguments of the other side, they are part of these power plays. If you believe truth is on your side, you shouldn't need power plays to get people to agree with you. If there is no dirt in your ice cream, intelligent and thoughtful people will see that.

Inparadise says:

Sure, everyone has their rights. Unfortunately they don't all posess the wisdom needed to use their rights wisely. Go exercise your rights on a religion or atheist board.

InParadise,
who thought nothing was worse than political threads, but is now getting awfully close to using her right to the P-box. ________________________________________________________________________


I think what you really mean is that you can't stand it when someone who disagrees with you has a voice. The whole point of my post was to encourage people to think for themselves. Why does this offend you? I don't see how this is an unwise use of my rights to free speech. Thank you for proving the point I was trying to make.

It always amazes me how those who complain about the political threads can't stay away from them. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you don't like a thread then don't read it, and if you don't like a particular poster, then by all means use the ignore button. If you choose to read them and then grandstand with high emotion and little substance, expect to be called on it.


Matt - who eats ice cream but reads the label first




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
matthewgoss said, in replying to InParadise,

I think what you really mean is that you can't stand it when someone who disagrees with you has a voice.

I'm sure InParadise doesn't need me to defend her against people who make obnoxious accusations and can't let things go.

Speaking for myself, let me say that I don't think you get the point. No one disputes your right to think anything you want. Some of us, however, don't care to keep reading this stuff when it has absolutely nothing to do with the main purpose of this board.

It's easy to say "If you don't like a thread then don't read it, and if you don't like a particular poster, then by all means use the ignore button."

But it's not that simple. Long rambling interchanges clog up the message board mechanism, so it's annoying to keep jockeying around to read the posts you want to see and try to ignore the ones you don't. It's also not practical to use the "ignore" mechanism unless you know that you will NEVER want to read a message from a particular individual. Even some of our most "far-out-there" posters have an occasional nugget that I would not want to miss, so I'm very reluctant to put someone in the penalty box.

Finally, we have a number of new people who start reading this board and have valuable ideas to contribute, or have questions where we can help them. I hope that this board will continue to provide a welcomng environment for these people, and I'm concerned that extended threads such as the "lifestyle" thread will drive them away. We have a reputation for being one of the most courteous boards on the internet, and there have been any number of posts in this thread, and not just by you, that IMO jeopardize that reputation.

Informed discussion between people who don't agree is fine - insulting accusations are not - and IMO you've gone over the line. Seems like it's time to move on to another topic.

bill2975, who normally does not participate in threads such as these, and has re-read this response three times before deciding to go ahead and send it anyway
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
It's easy to say "If you don't like a thread then don't read it, and if you don't like a particular poster, then by all means use the ignore button."

But it's not that simple. Long rambling interchanges clog up the message board mechanism, so it's annoying to keep jockeying around to read the posts you want to see and try to ignore the ones you don't. It's also not practical to use the "ignore" mechanism unless you know that you will NEVER want to read a message from a particular individual. Even some of our most "far-out-there" posters have an occasional nugget that I would not want to miss, so I'm very reluctant to put someone in the penalty box.

________________________________________________________________________


Everyone living in the "Information Age" is bombared with information all day long--by their own consent. While you may find it annoying (and I do too) to have to sift thru mountains of information to get to what you are looking for, it is a consequence of having so many choices. Each person must decide how they spend their time, and how they filter out the noise. If you decide not to filter, you must come to expect that you will encounter noise--and each person has their own definition of what noise is. If you feel that you must read every message on the REHP so as not to miss out on a nugget here or a nugget there, then that is your choice.

I think that's what it really boils down to, really. It is really easy to determine which threads are political, religious, idle chatter, or whatever. When a new thread title catches my eye, I read the first couple of posts, and move on if the discussion doesn't interest me. Some threads I skip without ever reading a single post. I skipped a good many posts in the "lifestyle" thread because I was just not interested in hearing a debate about the meaning of Bible verses. It takes only a second or two to scan a list of 25 messages for the threads I am interested in, then hitting next to go to the next page when I'm done reading the messages I choose.

I think that the people who say they don't like political threads genuinely don't like them. But they are afraid that if they don't read and respond to them, then their beliefs won't be represented. That is the dilemma. They don't want to HAVE to read and respond. But they feel compelled to by a strong belief. They want people to stop posting political messages because they know that they can't resist reading and responding. If you don't want to spend your time debating political issues, then just let it go. What really bothers me is that rather than close the issue by not reading or responding or citing facts and trying to find common ground, they would rather just tell people to shut up. Often those who claim to be disguisted by low brow political discussions sling their own mud to try to stop the discussion.

That is what I see happening anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. If somebody else has other insights into the situation I'd like to hear them.

Matt
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

Author: telegraph Date: 7/17/01 6:33 PM Number: 45695
http://www.lineone.net/express/00/09/22/news/n3140-d.html

I thought Moses was an Egyptian prince before he found out he was Hebrew.? Anyway, I'm sure the Egyptian pharaohs would want detailed historical accounts of how the silly One God of their Hebrew slaves put a smack-down on them. I'm not holding my breath for Clinton's humble apologetic auto-biography either.

Author: telegraph Date: 7/17/01 6:51 PM Number: 45696

Nope, King James version of bible. ...... 'and that same day they exited the land of Egypt'........which, according to the maps, was over 100 miles on foot....along with all the cattle, women, children, sick ones, pregnant ones......heck, I'd have a hard time walking 20 miles in a day, not even carrying anything, but they carried everything they owned, plus all the loot they collected from the Pharoah... not a few days, but that 'same day'.


I'm having trouble finding the verses you allude to referencing 'and that same day they exited the land of Egypt.' I'm not a priest so I have to look this stuff up. Especially when it comes to satisfying out of context minutia like this. Just guessing, it could be same day of the last encampment at the shores of the Red Sea.


oh, BTW, if you check up on the 'fifth plague' you will find all the Egyptian horses and cattle were killed.......all......which magically reappeared a few chapters later.

then, in the 14th chapter, it seems all the Egyptian chariots and horsemem, who rode very dead horses, were killed supposedly when the sea closed in on them (as in the movie). oh, they forgot about that one in the movie, didn't they - but horeseless chariots before internal combustion engines just didn't fit historically, tee hee.


I checked up on that 5th plague like you asked. Here are the verses:
KJV Ex 9:1-7
1 Then the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh, and tell him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me. 2 For if thou refuse to let them go, and wilt hold them still, 3 Behold, the hand of the LORD is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain. 4 And the LORD shall sever between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel. 5 And the LORD appointed a set time, saying, To morrow the LORD shall do this thing in the land. 6 And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one. 7 And Pharaoh sent, and, behold, there was not one of the cattle of the Israelites dead. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, and he did not let the people go.
(emphasis mine)

So although the hand of God was upon the cattle, horses, donkeys, camels, oxen, and sheep, the only reference to annihilation was the cattle only. Also, now that I've looked this up, I can't even find any reference to the killing all the 'cloven animals' you alluded to earlier. Perhaps if you provide a more specific reference to it, I can assist with that issue as well.

justacog
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4


Me: Sure, everyone has their rights. Unfortunately they don't all posess the wisdom needed to use their rights wisely. Go exercise your rights on a religion or atheist board.

Matt: I think what you really mean is that you can't stand it when someone who disagrees with you has a voice. The whole point of my post was to encourage people to think for themselves. Why does this offend you? I don't see how this is an unwise use of my rights to free speech.


I think what I really meant is that I couldn't give a rat's a@@ about this topic and wished that everyone connected with it would just go away. To an appropriate board where someone might actually want to hear it and not feel so freakingly imposed upon.

It is not always time efficient to go into thread mode and skip a topic.

InParadise,
tired of having religion, pro or con, shoved down her throat since 1902.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
try the following link, and hundreds like it. the 'horses' were killed...along with cattle, camels, and everything else on 4 legs...

but that raises an interesting question......if ALL the cattle were killed, and sheep, and everything else with 4 legs, then how did the people who left egypt suddenly themselves have them? minor details.....zillions of stupid minor details....

of course, for 2000 years, no one dared 'question' things like that..... most weren't smart enough to reason with logic, or, for most of the 2000 years, couldn't even read, and even then they were preached to in Latin!......

of course, now we have excellent references, have decoded most of egyptian history records, and , guess what? there is nothing there!

And 600 'horseless' carriages chases the Isrealis????


and 600,000 able body men (were so chicken?) as to not be able to defend against 600 chariots? they outnumbered the egyptians, who were without horses, 1000 to 1, and yet fleed in panic? ho ho ho.....

http://www.uwm.edu/~corre/arab/plagues.html

just about every translation includes 'horses' in the plagues......

As to your contention, THERE IS NO RECORD, anywhere , of 'put downs'...that is all the xtian fairy tale....

enough on this thread

Buy yourself a copy of Asimov's guide to the bi-bull...couple thousand pages of well referenced notes to the tales.....excellent commentary....

of course, if you can 'believe' in this stuff with all the inconsistencies, conflicts, etc....have fun.......if that's what floats your boat, enjoy your ice cream.........(oh, an 'ice cream' float!)....

telegraph
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think what I really meant is that I couldn't give a rat's a@@ about this topic and wished that everyone connected with it would just go away.

Does this mean you wish you would go away, since you posted to the thread? :-)

It is not always time efficient to go into thread mode and skip a topic.

I wish we had the ability to ignore a thread. I would like to be able to skip a bunch of the political threads and the current "places in NC/TN" and beer threads. (I have nothing against beer drinkers or people in NC/TN. I just don't have any interest.) Until we get that ability, I just hit "Next" the second I realize I'm in a thread that doesn't interest me.

Amphian
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Does this mean you wish you would go away, since you posted to the thread? :-)

Ya know, I knew someone was going to post that! It is good to know that life can be predictable at times. <grin>

I wish we had the ability to ignore a thread.

Absolutely! One of the prices of paradise for me is increadibly slow hookups for my computer. Hitting next can take an age. I don't mind the OTs that last for 8 or 10 posts and remain polite. It should be a lot easier for me starting next month when I'll only get online every few days, if I'm lucky, and can skip entire threads. IMO, when you read the board every day, it's not worth going into threaded mode. At points when I have only read the board periodically, there have been political threads that have been 2 pages long, 100 posts per page. Easy to get past.

Finally implemented the P-box too. That lowered the noise considerably.

InParadise
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Another great Beatle tune was "Stairway to Heaven".......

Either I'm mistaken, and too young to know better... or Telegraph is mistaken, but I've never heard "Stairway to Heaven" by anyone but LZ.

Golfwaymore,
(9)38 [And there were no religious disputes on the course]

Print the post Back To Top