beyelzu

I just thought that I would add a couple of Ingersoll quotes that I consider pertinent.


"Is it not wonderful that the creator of all worlds, infinite in power and wisdom, could not hold his own against the gods of wood and stone? Is it not strange that after he had appeared to his chosen people, delivered them from slavery, feed them by miracles, opened the sea for a path, led them by cloud and fire, and overthrown their pursuers, they still preferred a calf of their own making?" (Exod. 32:18) "...a God who gave his entire time for 40 years to the work of converting three millions of people, and succeeded in getting only two men, and not a single woman, decent enough to enter the promised land?" (Num. 14:2930)

.........."A Few Reasons for Doubting the Inspiration of the Bible"


and

"One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests."

.........."The Great Infidels", 1881 also from Speech, New York City, 1 May

after all what do those parasitic preists teach us anyway.

the best laid scheme o' mice and priests
go aft agley(or actually work out the way they want them to)
and lea'e us naught but grief and pain
for promised joy

to horribly misquote a poem.

I think that I am going to post in quotes today, someone wish me luck on using good quotes.

HelenM

Oh, I disagree (with all due respect, Sabine Grant ). I think some people are quite transparent online, revealing a lot about themselves by their words.

(Disclaimer: I am using "heart" in the same sense as Sabine Grant - to mean, essential character rather than organ that pumps blood around)

Helen

beyelzu

I take what most people say here at face value, I try to be honest and so I assume that everyone else will as well. If you do take what people say here at face value then you can learn alot about the people here. I do realize that I could believe falsehoods, but if I didnt assume that most people at ii were honest, what would be the point of posting?

Sabine Grant

Bonjour Helen! I replied to Amos mostly in relation with the fact he commented that " I am a better girl at heart than I led him to believe". Suddenly " my heart " is better because I expressed views he agrees with. But my " heart" was not in such a good shape while we disagreed..... do you see what I mean?

I agree with you that the way people express their verbal reaction can indicate some details about their character... maybe insecurity, a state of lingering anger, maturity, the need to be accepted, pride or humility, conciliatory manners etc....but in terms of establishing an entire portrait of the person, I remain careful.

In any case and IMO, if I am to show appreciation of a person because we agree on thoughts and disappreciate someone because we disagree, I am definitly overlooking their individuality and missing out on the opportunity to discover that person.

Don't we tend to like those who are similar to us and distance ourselves from those who are different?

Maybe it is a need to be reassured that our thoughts are the "right ones".

PS : same disclaimer as Helen's.

Sabine Grant

Good morning Beyelzu... There is what people say and how they say it. The how they say it IMO is more an indication of their character than their thoughts.
Someone may be expressing endearing claims about themselves and in reality react negatively. A person may come across with not so "likeable" thoughts but react in a way that makes them likeable.

Sabine Grant

Hello Rad... yet why is it that we find so much of the unforgiving, ungracious legalist and self righteous in christianity? something is missing. Can we intellectualize Paul's message and yet not be transformed by it?

I think that the absence of qualities most christians claim to have is what is so irritating to a non believer. Our words and claims do not fit our attitudes.

I wonder if christians realize that they are to inspire rather than dictate.

Of course if you face prejudicial thinking against christianity, no matter what qualities you may display here or in real life, you have little credibility. But the majority of non believers are not necessarly prejudiced against christians as a whole.

It is a fact that our claim to be loving quickly dissipates as we categorize others into " who goes to hell" and " who goes to heaven". As it were our job.....as if we even had such insight into the mind of God to pertain to know how He would evaluate the intent of each human being. As you relate to the Gospels, Christ had the ability to see thru the intent of each person he interacted with. Where his disciples fussed about the woman who washed his feet in her tears, he could see thru her intent and motivation.

In my experience I have met so many christians who are Bible literates but were incapable of being transformed by their faith. You hit a brick wall as they are challenged to display that transformation of their initial character.

HelenM

Maybe I'm naive but I do assume most people who post on boards are posting honestly. I'm sure the option of anonymity means some people are more honest online, anonymously, than they are 'in real life'.

I know there are some who enjoy presenting a persona or world-view that isn't their own - but I think they are in the minority.

take care
Helen

HelenM

When people's opinions of us depend on whether we agree with them then I agree, that shows a lack of ability in them to accurately perceive our character. (I haven't followed Amos's comments about/to you so I can't comment on what he said specifically)

But that's them rather than the 'online medium'.

I think that's wise. I hate labels and I hate when people think they know more about me than they can possibly know, and assert it to me...

I agree!

Well, I'd say the married couples I know provide evidence to the contrary

But I understand what you are saying. Personally, I'd fight against it anytime I noticed I was distancing myself from people just because they are different from me.

I'm sure you're right that such behavior often stems from insecurity.

Thanks for your response

take care
Helen

Amos

[/B][/QUOTE]

You are a better girl at heart than you express with your theological argument. This means that your theology is a hindrance to your freedom in Christ which is equal to the heart of woman (in pure form)-- wherefore your words can contradict your actions. It is for this same reason that atheists can be benevolent and loving people.

That you agree or disagree with me is not important.

Buffman

Amos

Yes, in part, but we also learn about that which always was but we never realized or understood correctly. I will admid that when we look at things objectively (with a specific purpose in mind) with the eye of our soul we can imprint images that later require explanation throught the process Plato called "recollection."

Hmmmmm? We "learn?" Do we learn from teachers? Experience? Books? How do we learn? And how do we confirm that what we have learned is accurate/true/factual? Do we accept teachings based exclusively on Faith? Do our genetic senses always report accurate knowledge/external conditions? Upon what do you base your statement that something "always was?" Dinosaurs always were for tens-of-millions of years...and then they were no more. Multiple Gods and Goddesses were around for thousands of years...and then they were no more. So what makes anyone think that they never realized or understood that which someone claims always was, is and will be?

Why must objectivity be bound to any specific purpose? Isn't that self-defeating? Isn't perfect objectivity a goal rather than a reality? (A method to let the chips fall where they may/will prior to formulating any conclusion whatsoever.) The scientific method of processing data is the closest we humans have come to an objective methodology of reasoning. What is logic if not the precursor to scientific methodology applied to the material (natural) world in order to best avoid invalid or irrational reasoning? However, when one attempts to apply logic to the supernatural world, they do so in an effort to validate irrational reasoning utilizing little more than subjective data/observations. This IS because it is done with a specific purpose/goal in mind...the justification of the supernatural.

Yes and no, sorry, humans have only one will because they are only one animal and therefore have free will. This means that humans are free to chose even if they are forced to chose (ie. they are hungry and must eat).

I hope my words did not infer that humans were more than individual (single) animals....just as trees are merely single botanical life forms. (If I did so, it was unintentional.) You have lost me here with your analogy. Why must humans, whether forced or not, eat? Simple! If they don't, they die. A diet doesn't count as total free will...unless it is the direct cause of death. Perhaps you could have used suicide as a better analogy. That would, initially, seem to be a black and white choice between life and death...a matter of the ultimate free will. But is it? Can we will ourselves to live forever? I suspect that a good many have attempted to do exactly that; but I know of no one (outside of myth) who has succeeded in accomplishing everlasting "life." So when a person elects to take their own life, before it is taken from them without any option, are they in full possession of their logical, reasoning, accurately informed, mind/ideas/soul? Do we now not know that chemical imbalances in the body can fool our minds into believing what is not objective reality. Can we not treat and help many of these individuals? However, the individual who has been given the physical sentence of a seemingly premature death may be able to postpone it, but never completely eliminate, that final harvester. Thus many individuals come to be faced with difficult alternatives. To live with never relenting or relievable physical pain or to seek a permanent, though irreversible, end. Until one has walked in that person's shoes, they simply can never truly comprehend/understand that the human body has limits to endurance that can only be modified/conditioned/stretched within very narrow parameters. (The thin cloak of life sustaining air that blankets the earth is very tenuous indeed. Only scientific technology, rather than faith, has allowed humans to reach beyond it. And even then, humans must take their food, water and air with them...or die...regardless of how much they will themselves to live.)

The classic scholar idea about "will" makes reference to what some call the "Immanent Will" and this is my "idea" (yes) that is presented to our faculty of reason and therefore we are forced to chose between the input of our conscious mind and input of our subconscious mind. In this sense are we determined because we are divided in our own mind.

I find merit in that view though question the extent and accuracy of your interpretation of the known factors involved. Personally, I simply do not have sufficient, accurate, knowledge to make the kind of assertions that you do. I have attempted to study the Genentic Senses-Brain-Mind interface achieving only a pale glimmer of comprehension of the real mechanism/process at work. Yet far too many religionists claim that they know all the answers and understand all the variables, and are thus able to claim, unequivocally, that the supernatural world exists and how it acts as the Warden of the natural world.

By "quit thinking" I only meant that "inspirations" and "ideas" are not generated by critical thinking but enter our conscious mind while it is at rest.

And your verifiable evidence for this claim is.....? Are you contending that critical thinking does not generate inspiration or ideas in the conscious mind...while the "body" is awake? Perhaps you are unaware that the human mind never sleeps/rests...until it dies. Your body may be knocked unconscious, but your mind remains functional. Why do you think that humans dream? (I think you may have provided me with an insight into why you have arrived at some of the beliefs you hold.)

It is important to recognize our own mind (my soul) and it is also important to go by reason. In the OT it was called tithing, which meant that we must spent 10 % of our time towards reflection and self evaluation while reason prevails.

I find your view on "tithing" quit interesting. May I inquire how you came to interpret the word in the manner that you do? It is very Eastern in nature.

http://www.cts.edu/FacHomePages/siem...ay/history.htm

http://www.bible-truths.com/tithing.html

http://63.107.179.122/tithing/thi005.htm

http://askelm.com/books/book006.htm

http://www.onfireforgodtim.i8.com/photo3.html

(Extract)
UNBELIEVERS AND THEIR RESOURCES

There are many unbelievers who choose to give their time, efforts and money to Christian and non-Christian organizations. Non-believers have very little (if any) interest in promoting the message of Jesus Christ. One can conclude that the majority
of non-Christian stewardship is for charitable purposes rather than evangelistic purposes. This charitable giving is to be commended and encouraged but we must be careful to point out to non-Christians that using resources to help the poor and needy is not a substitute for accepting Jesus Christ as Savior (John 6:28-29). Salvation is by grace alone and not of any works (Eph. 2:8).
(End extract)